Not really, it depends how strict you want to be. If you're going strictly, then yes, you are correct. However, in the more broad sense it does mean translating word by word without particular knowledge or awareness of the impact that words have on each other via context. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transliterate (transitive) To represent letters or words in the characters of another alphabet, script, or in semantic equivalent words of another language.
This isn't literature or an obscure topic which no English speaker has knowledge of. This is systems adminstration of an OS that's primarily targeted at English speakers. Meaning that apart from the GUI and screenshots, most of the material is naturally English to begin with. Th explanations are the only things that would need to be translated.
And the explanations themselves would be fine handled with a transliteration that's subsequently checked for clarity, spelling, accuracy and grammar by a native speaker.
That aspect of it is reasonable, the better question though is why it needs to be translated in the first place. Considering that the CLI is in English or is known to English speakers, it would be a lot cheaper to just rewrite those passages from a google translation and knowledge of the subject matter than it would be to have somebody actually translate it. The former being easily accomplished and the latter requiring somebody that actually understands how to properly translate the materials rather than just transliterating them.
Also, is the material really going to be so valuable as to justify the effort?
One way or another they pay the cost, it's a question of whether you're charged for it up front or in the form of increased bank fees or losing your lifesavings to scammers. Suggesting that the cost isn't being paid is the same brilliant line of reasoning that allows companies to foul our air, because it would be too expensive to prevent the pollution. There too there is a cost, it's just passed off to folks with less ability to manage it.
The issue we had a few days ago was that the process wouldn't be guaranteed to allow Linux or other OSes access to the hardware.
The whole thing could just as easily be solved using a jumper to prevent the computer from changing the boot code without manually being reset. In this case, you're talking about a setting that isn't needed.
As for your straw man about Debian, what you're missing is that it's free software, you didn't pay for it and there's no reason to require software that's being given away for free to be held to that standard. OTOH, for copies that were paid for that would and should apply.
And, no I'm not expecting that every user has the ability to patch bugs themselves, but if it's a pressing enough bug, they can pay for it to be fixed, something which isn't generally possible with proprietary software.
Or, Chrome often times gets on a user's system the way that malware does, via an opt out in some shady software. If Google doesn't want their products treated like malware, then they really need to stop with that kind of shady distribution tactic.
I tend to get annoyed by software that only allows you to set exceptions by path and name, without any provision for identical files in multiple places.
OK, then who precisely should have to pay for the cost of the exploits and who has the ability to actually influence the number of exploits in the software?
As long as the developers are the only ones with the ability to patch those bugs, they're going to have to shoulder some responsibility for the vulnerabilities that exist in the software. I'm not sure who else has that level of responsibility for the software package.
Nice trolling. So, if there's a vulnerability in a browser that reveals their password, it's obviously the end users fault for having chosen to use a browser programmed by incompetent people.
I'm not sure how one can be expected to personally audit every piece of software that they install on their computer. At some point it ought to be the responsibility of the people creating the product to do the necessary QA and patching to prevent such things.
It's not likely to be 100% effective, which is why due diligence typically comes into play.
As opposed to the current system where the cost of incompetent software development is borne almost entirely by the people buying the software or third parties. If there's a vulnerability in say IE that allows people to get their hands on my password for my bank, it's not going to be MS that's out the money, it's either going to be me or the bank.
Introducing some liability for companies that release buggy software then hold off on providing patches until the last minute is exactly what we need. Otherwise MS isn't going to get the picture that withholding tested patches for the next patch Tuesday isn't acceptable practice.
Yes, it doesn't change, but you're still going to have to spend an awful lot of time swapping through discs over time making sure that they haven't gone bad.
In my experience most discs do make it a decade even the cheapo ones, however, if you're only moving them to new media every decade or so, you'd better make sure that you have a drive that can handle the media and that you have been doing the necessary verification to make sure that you're not losing files to bit rot.
I'm guessing it has more to do with Google paying people to offer to install it when they download some random other application.
I tried Chrome a while back and found it to be lacking. I should give it another chance because it's been awhile, but Firefox hasn't gone that far downhill. It just turns out to be really hard to compete with a competitor that's being installed without the end user having to go find it.
For that you could just about pay for an offsite back up service. Actually, I think that you could pay for Backblaze for the same basic cost. And if you're talking about just one computer, a Crashplan subscription for 4 years will run about half the cost of your plan.
Yes, but this reminds me of an article that I read early on in the Complete FreeBSD when I first started up. Grog was talking about back ups and pointed out that if you chose to use floppies, you were choosing to spend many, many hours sitting in front of the computer swapping disks for even a relatively small HDD like 2gb. And then there's the inevitable bad discs.
Now, with CDROMs, DVDs and now Blu Rays, the chance of one going completely bad is somewhat lower, but for a 500gb HDD You're still talking about what, like 10 Blurays, over a hundred DVDs and nearly a thousand CDROMS? Having a small number of files that get backed up that way is probably fine, but you need to account for the need to stick each and every disc you use into your computer and verify it regularly, as well as the need for multiples and to have ones stored offsite and verified.
TL;DR, don't do it, it's not worth the time, even if you do have high quality discs, you'll easily eat through any savings on a better system just in time alone. Time that you could use to work a second job to pay for a better system.
I have a rather massive account with them and apart from taking a long time to upload due to the crappy ISP I have, I haven't had any problems with them. I do recommend that people keep one copy onsite in an external HDD, but that's mostly because it's faster to restore from there and the most common data loss events aren't going to also simultaneously wipe out an external HDD.
Decay isn't what you should be worrying about, you should be worrying about what you're going to be able to verify regularly. It doesn't matter if it's a reliable medium if you have to spend 6 hours every few months verifying that the data hasn't gotten corrupted and then figuring out how to restore the files.
A better solution is to just use an external HDD which is backed up to an external location. I personally like to use SFV to provide the verification function. It takes a bit of time on large collections, but is automatic once started and will give me a list of files that have gone south if there are any.
For large important files I'll sometimes use PAR and for discs I'll generally use DVDisaster to store parity information on disk. I'll generally also store an image of the disc, which is why I only do that for DVDs and CDROMs that I buy as it's more unwieldy than just using SFV on a number of smaller files.
They also tend to leave a message about who they are and where to call. They might not be able to fully specify why, but if you get a call from a hospital claiming to be urgent, then chances are you're going to call them to find out what's up. Also, organizations like that tend to have accurate caller ID information for that very reason.
My parents screen their calls against unknown callers and had no trouble getting the message when I was unexpectedly taken ill with a heat stroke.
I complained to the FTC about receiving robocalls of a commercial nature to my cell phone and their response was that it wasn't illegal. I'm not sure why it was legal as it wasn't somebody I had given permission to call me and I hadn't done business with them either.
AT&T now does that as well, I can call any mobile on any network for free. The catch is that the plan we have includes so many minutes that we have literally thousands of minutes that have gone unused, but that we've paid for even though we knew we wouldn't use them because that's what the available plan provided.
What you're missing is that the carriers in Europe probably spend a lot more money on infrastructure than the ones in the US do, I regularly get a poor signal because AT&T can't be arsed to build up the infrastructure to match demand.
That's sort of the point, people complain about how they're being treated by corporations, and come next election the GOP has no trouble getting votes.
The Democrats aren't saints, but at this point they're the only party that ever seems interested in stepping in to help the voters out against corporate interests.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, it depends how strict you want to be. If you're going strictly, then yes, you are correct. However, in the more broad sense it does mean translating word by word without particular knowledge or awareness of the impact that words have on each other via context.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transliterate
(transitive) To represent letters or words in the characters of another alphabet, script, or in semantic equivalent words of another language.
Yes, and that's a point I made earlier.
This isn't literature or an obscure topic which no English speaker has knowledge of. This is systems adminstration of an OS that's primarily targeted at English speakers. Meaning that apart from the GUI and screenshots, most of the material is naturally English to begin with. Th explanations are the only things that would need to be translated.
And the explanations themselves would be fine handled with a transliteration that's subsequently checked for clarity, spelling, accuracy and grammar by a native speaker.
That aspect of it is reasonable, the better question though is why it needs to be translated in the first place. Considering that the CLI is in English or is known to English speakers, it would be a lot cheaper to just rewrite those passages from a google translation and knowledge of the subject matter than it would be to have somebody actually translate it. The former being easily accomplished and the latter requiring somebody that actually understands how to properly translate the materials rather than just transliterating them.
Also, is the material really going to be so valuable as to justify the effort?
One way or another they pay the cost, it's a question of whether you're charged for it up front or in the form of increased bank fees or losing your lifesavings to scammers. Suggesting that the cost isn't being paid is the same brilliant line of reasoning that allows companies to foul our air, because it would be too expensive to prevent the pollution. There too there is a cost, it's just passed off to folks with less ability to manage it.
The issue we had a few days ago was that the process wouldn't be guaranteed to allow Linux or other OSes access to the hardware.
The whole thing could just as easily be solved using a jumper to prevent the computer from changing the boot code without manually being reset. In this case, you're talking about a setting that isn't needed.
As for your straw man about Debian, what you're missing is that it's free software, you didn't pay for it and there's no reason to require software that's being given away for free to be held to that standard. OTOH, for copies that were paid for that would and should apply.
And, no I'm not expecting that every user has the ability to patch bugs themselves, but if it's a pressing enough bug, they can pay for it to be fixed, something which isn't generally possible with proprietary software.
Or, Chrome often times gets on a user's system the way that malware does, via an opt out in some shady software. If Google doesn't want their products treated like malware, then they really need to stop with that kind of shady distribution tactic.
In this case it's almost certainly a mistake.
I tend to get annoyed by software that only allows you to set exceptions by path and name, without any provision for identical files in multiple places.
Well, it worked for San Francisco.
"I know Kung fu" -- Keanu Reeves
You don't have to, if you're buying the phone, it's just that some carriers like AT&T don't offer any discount if you don't accept their subsidy.
OK, then who precisely should have to pay for the cost of the exploits and who has the ability to actually influence the number of exploits in the software?
As long as the developers are the only ones with the ability to patch those bugs, they're going to have to shoulder some responsibility for the vulnerabilities that exist in the software. I'm not sure who else has that level of responsibility for the software package.
Nice trolling. So, if there's a vulnerability in a browser that reveals their password, it's obviously the end users fault for having chosen to use a browser programmed by incompetent people.
I'm not sure how one can be expected to personally audit every piece of software that they install on their computer. At some point it ought to be the responsibility of the people creating the product to do the necessary QA and patching to prevent such things.
It's not likely to be 100% effective, which is why due diligence typically comes into play.
As opposed to the current system where the cost of incompetent software development is borne almost entirely by the people buying the software or third parties. If there's a vulnerability in say IE that allows people to get their hands on my password for my bank, it's not going to be MS that's out the money, it's either going to be me or the bank.
Introducing some liability for companies that release buggy software then hold off on providing patches until the last minute is exactly what we need. Otherwise MS isn't going to get the picture that withholding tested patches for the next patch Tuesday isn't acceptable practice.
Yes, it doesn't change, but you're still going to have to spend an awful lot of time swapping through discs over time making sure that they haven't gone bad.
In my experience most discs do make it a decade even the cheapo ones, however, if you're only moving them to new media every decade or so, you'd better make sure that you have a drive that can handle the media and that you have been doing the necessary verification to make sure that you're not losing files to bit rot.
It seems to depend on the platform, I have problems with it regularly on Linux Mint 64, but rarely do I have trouble with it under Win XP.
I'm guessing it has more to do with Google paying people to offer to install it when they download some random other application.
I tried Chrome a while back and found it to be lacking. I should give it another chance because it's been awhile, but Firefox hasn't gone that far downhill. It just turns out to be really hard to compete with a competitor that's being installed without the end user having to go find it.
For that you could just about pay for an offsite back up service. Actually, I think that you could pay for Backblaze for the same basic cost. And if you're talking about just one computer, a Crashplan subscription for 4 years will run about half the cost of your plan.
Yes, but this reminds me of an article that I read early on in the Complete FreeBSD when I first started up. Grog was talking about back ups and pointed out that if you chose to use floppies, you were choosing to spend many, many hours sitting in front of the computer swapping disks for even a relatively small HDD like 2gb. And then there's the inevitable bad discs.
Now, with CDROMs, DVDs and now Blu Rays, the chance of one going completely bad is somewhat lower, but for a 500gb HDD You're still talking about what, like 10 Blurays, over a hundred DVDs and nearly a thousand CDROMS? Having a small number of files that get backed up that way is probably fine, but you need to account for the need to stick each and every disc you use into your computer and verify it regularly, as well as the need for multiples and to have ones stored offsite and verified.
TL;DR, don't do it, it's not worth the time, even if you do have high quality discs, you'll easily eat through any savings on a better system just in time alone. Time that you could use to work a second job to pay for a better system.
I have a rather massive account with them and apart from taking a long time to upload due to the crappy ISP I have, I haven't had any problems with them. I do recommend that people keep one copy onsite in an external HDD, but that's mostly because it's faster to restore from there and the most common data loss events aren't going to also simultaneously wipe out an external HDD.
Decay isn't what you should be worrying about, you should be worrying about what you're going to be able to verify regularly. It doesn't matter if it's a reliable medium if you have to spend 6 hours every few months verifying that the data hasn't gotten corrupted and then figuring out how to restore the files.
A better solution is to just use an external HDD which is backed up to an external location. I personally like to use SFV to provide the verification function. It takes a bit of time on large collections, but is automatic once started and will give me a list of files that have gone south if there are any.
For large important files I'll sometimes use PAR and for discs I'll generally use DVDisaster to store parity information on disk. I'll generally also store an image of the disc, which is why I only do that for DVDs and CDROMs that I buy as it's more unwieldy than just using SFV on a number of smaller files.
For audio CDs, I'll, generally rip those discs to HDD using these instructions. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=23019&st=0 and combine that with SFVs for verification and a proper off site back up.
They also tend to leave a message about who they are and where to call. They might not be able to fully specify why, but if you get a call from a hospital claiming to be urgent, then chances are you're going to call them to find out what's up. Also, organizations like that tend to have accurate caller ID information for that very reason.
My parents screen their calls against unknown callers and had no trouble getting the message when I was unexpectedly taken ill with a heat stroke.
I complained to the FTC about receiving robocalls of a commercial nature to my cell phone and their response was that it wasn't illegal. I'm not sure why it was legal as it wasn't somebody I had given permission to call me and I hadn't done business with them either.
I had to do that previously, I was getting regular spam texts even though I wasn't using text messaging at the time.
AT&T now does that as well, I can call any mobile on any network for free. The catch is that the plan we have includes so many minutes that we have literally thousands of minutes that have gone unused, but that we've paid for even though we knew we wouldn't use them because that's what the available plan provided.
What you're missing is that the carriers in Europe probably spend a lot more money on infrastructure than the ones in the US do, I regularly get a poor signal because AT&T can't be arsed to build up the infrastructure to match demand.
That's sort of the point, people complain about how they're being treated by corporations, and come next election the GOP has no trouble getting votes.
The Democrats aren't saints, but at this point they're the only party that ever seems interested in stepping in to help the voters out against corporate interests.