Keep in mind that this was an Israeli think tank that started this. Israelis, the same folks that seem to think that terrorism isn't an acceptable response to their crimes against humanity, and aren't willing to accept any less radical responses either.
It's worth noting that they're dealing with the Second Intifada, as in not the first one. During which time they could have put this all the bed by behaving like adults and actually addressing the problems, and instead they opted to engage in some pretty sick acts.
Sure, but you don't need a computer to do that. You can still fill it out long hand on paper and send it in. It's still quite a bit of a stretch to believe that computing is a basic human right.
Dropbox isn't a back up service. If you're backing up your data you should be able to recover most if not all of the entries from a backed up copy of the database.
Ultimately, even that isn't enough to really solve the problem. If you have 2 or 3 sites that you need to track, it's probably not a problem, but these days just about every site demands a log in to use, even free sites, good luck keeping 20 or 30 sites straight even with a simplifier like that. At that point you might as well just use 30 or 40 random characters as you're not going to remember 20 or more unique log ins.
That's a fair point, most of the time I've found that just buying quality components makes a lot of those problems go away. Granted it's not perfect, but for the most part I've found computers that work well on Linux tend to work well on Windows because they've been well designed. A large number of problems I've run into over the years were the result of manufacturers taking shortcuts or using inferior components.
No, the reason they don't want it is because Apple is run by control freak assholes that want to tell people how to use their device. There's something very wrong that people buy into that bullshit. It's theoretically my device and they won't let me install whatever functionality I want?
If they're so confident about their appstore, then tricking the user shouldn't be a problem. These are apps that Apple vets before allowing in the appstore.
It isn't a basic human right. Basic human rights are things like food, clothing, shelter and arguably health care. As long as those things are not being provided to a huge portion of the human race, it's a bit soon to talk about computing.
Even when those things are provided for, it's hard to argue that something like computing which isn't a necessity to live is a basic human right.
That being said, it is something of significance, without which one cannot hope to be fully engaged in society, at least not in the future as the technology makes its way to the 3rd world.
Depends a great deal on the distro. I've been using Linux Mint and I've spent very little time trying to fix it, probably similar to how much time I've spent trying to fix Win 7.
OTOH, Arch, Gentoo and similar are aimed at people that are more interested in controlling their complete experience, and probably take more time to maintain.
Either way we'll need to do that. We'll need some sort of long term base of operations outside of the Earth's gravity well and the Moon is one possibility. Granted it's probably not the most efficient, but it does allow the infrastructure to remain indefinitely.
At the end of the day, if we can't colonize the Moon, then we can't colonize Mars and if we can't colonize Mars then it's rather unlikely that we'll be able to colonize any other planets as Mars is probably the easiest one for us to do.
That's really not true. A program isn't going to ever be able to do everything and few people would want it to anyway. However the lack of freedom that people like me worry about is the ability to replace the program with something else if need be.
Apple has a long standing policy to not let apps do certain things such as duplicate functionality or do anything that Apple doesn't approve of. In cases like that it's not just that the program doesn't support it, it's that no programs support it because an authoritarian hardware company says no. That used to be understandable when functionality generally required hardware to back it, but those days are long gone.
Why would it be illegal? Provided that the charge is disclosed up front.
It's been ages since it's been the case, but I recall back in the early '90s where most computer shops around here would give a 3% cash discount for people that paid by cash or check.
A one line common sense post is never going to be regarded as plagiarism by any body of refute without it being a part of a pattern. It's a well known phenomenon that corporations back off on a fee in one area and bury it elsewhere.
At the end of the day, an emoticon is hardly substitute for actual thought and manners.
True, ultimately the solution to this is going to involve ceasing the abuse of URLs. They were never intended to contain so much session data and such as they do now. The fact that I often times can't read the URL is a pretty clear indication that there are troubles ahead.
They're extremely useful though. Given that QR codes are ultimately text, there really should be a preview of what you're about to execute. Just a simple text preview of the information embedded in the code.
Quite favorably, auto fatalities are down, at least in the US, but they still outnumber airline fatalities for the entire world by a huge margin.
One of the big problems with the TSA is that they scare people into taking more dangerous forms of transportation out of a misplaced sense of fear. Terrorism is something to be fought and prevented, but in the grand scheme of things more people die of injuries from car crashes every year than terrorism.
Due diligence. Everybody who has grown up in the US has at some point come into contact with the notion that law enforcement need warrants. I'm not sure how they could possibly believe that there weren't any laws being broken when they weren't being provided with any documentation.
These are organizations that have attorneys and if they weren't aware of the illegality of it it was purely because they were specifically looking the other way.
Which is why Linux, *BSD, GIMP, Blender, Firefox and all those other free projects have failed and disappeared.
The reality is that for most types of software there are at least one or two free ones that do the job. Unless you're looking for something that's elaborate or very specific, chances are that there's a free program that does it.
This isn't a matter of the GP or me devaluing their work, it's a matter of hobbyists flooding the market with programs that are often times of higher value than their commercial counterparts. Wisely run companies are still making money. Just look at Codeweavers as a good example.
So on what precise basis are you entitled to earn a living developing software? This isn't really that different from photography these days where there are so many highly qualified amateurs giving away their work that there's very few people that are able to make a living out of it, compared with in the past.
I'm not sure why we necessarily need a lot of people to be professionals when the volunteers are producing such quality work.
The cost is primarily in producing that first copy, all the others are basically free to create, support costs money, but people often times help each other out on the basis of karma and it tends to work well in most cases.
The extra coffee costs something, an extra copy of a piece of software doesn't. If you don't provide support and people download your software from a 3rd party the cost of production is effectively the same whether you sell 1 copy or a billion copies.
That's definitely not the case with coffee.
That's not to suggest that the people writing the programs shouldn't be paid, but it's pretty ignorant to suggest that there aren't real costs for things like coffee beans and rent.
They're not bad for you in moderation, but you only need enough protein to repair and replace the cells that die off and the amount of fat you need is also fairly minor. Sugar and carbs are what your body burns for fuel and ultimately your body has to burn the fat or the protein when there isn't sufficient carbs in the diet to do the job.
Converting sugars over to the specific glucose that the body desires is relatively efficient, unfortunately the same is not the case for protein and particularly in hot climates tends to require a lot of hydration to work properly.
Also, protein and fat contain little to no dietary fiber and as a result your pipes don't get the cleaning that they otherwise would get. Not to mention the lack of vitamins and minerals that are typically found in carb rich foods.
Since always. You don't really need that much fat in your diet. "Good" fat is just as laden with calories as "bad" fat is. Sure you need some fat in order to ensure that you're getting enough of vitamins A, D, E and K, but it would take a lot of very serious effort to be deficient in fat in your diet.
Not really, whether you care to admit it or not, fat people get sick more frequently and end up spending more days off work. They're more likely to have diabetes, sleep apnea, depression and other illnesses as a result of packing more weight than is healthy. The health effects of being obese are well documented.
The main question is how do you decide who is and isn't obese. I always get crap during phone appointments for my weight, but with my body frame size, I can't get down to the weight they want without starving. And even the time I was starving, in a very literal way, I still didn't quite get there.
Personally, I find it incredibly troubling that advocates for the obese keep suggesting that there's some validity to making that decision. They definitely have a point that being obese doesn't make one a bad person, but it's just plain disgusting to enable the obese by validating all manner of absurd rationalization.
Anybody that's capable of keeping up with the maintenance plan that's often required to get weight reduction surgery shouldn't have been obese in the first place. Because it's not a particularly special diet and it's not less difficult that the diet that would have prevented it in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind that this was an Israeli think tank that started this. Israelis, the same folks that seem to think that terrorism isn't an acceptable response to their crimes against humanity, and aren't willing to accept any less radical responses either.
It's worth noting that they're dealing with the Second Intifada, as in not the first one. During which time they could have put this all the bed by behaving like adults and actually addressing the problems, and instead they opted to engage in some pretty sick acts.
Sure, but you don't need a computer to do that. You can still fill it out long hand on paper and send it in. It's still quite a bit of a stretch to believe that computing is a basic human right.
Dropbox isn't a back up service. If you're backing up your data you should be able to recover most if not all of the entries from a backed up copy of the database.
Because that wouldn't be a malevolent portmanteau, or as I call them malamanteau.
Ultimately, even that isn't enough to really solve the problem. If you have 2 or 3 sites that you need to track, it's probably not a problem, but these days just about every site demands a log in to use, even free sites, good luck keeping 20 or 30 sites straight even with a simplifier like that. At that point you might as well just use 30 or 40 random characters as you're not going to remember 20 or more unique log ins.
That's a fair point, most of the time I've found that just buying quality components makes a lot of those problems go away. Granted it's not perfect, but for the most part I've found computers that work well on Linux tend to work well on Windows because they've been well designed. A large number of problems I've run into over the years were the result of manufacturers taking shortcuts or using inferior components.
No, the reason they don't want it is because Apple is run by control freak assholes that want to tell people how to use their device. There's something very wrong that people buy into that bullshit. It's theoretically my device and they won't let me install whatever functionality I want?
If they're so confident about their appstore, then tricking the user shouldn't be a problem. These are apps that Apple vets before allowing in the appstore.
It isn't a basic human right. Basic human rights are things like food, clothing, shelter and arguably health care. As long as those things are not being provided to a huge portion of the human race, it's a bit soon to talk about computing.
Even when those things are provided for, it's hard to argue that something like computing which isn't a necessity to live is a basic human right.
That being said, it is something of significance, without which one cannot hope to be fully engaged in society, at least not in the future as the technology makes its way to the 3rd world.
Depends a great deal on the distro. I've been using Linux Mint and I've spent very little time trying to fix it, probably similar to how much time I've spent trying to fix Win 7.
OTOH, Arch, Gentoo and similar are aimed at people that are more interested in controlling their complete experience, and probably take more time to maintain.
Either way we'll need to do that. We'll need some sort of long term base of operations outside of the Earth's gravity well and the Moon is one possibility. Granted it's probably not the most efficient, but it does allow the infrastructure to remain indefinitely.
At the end of the day, if we can't colonize the Moon, then we can't colonize Mars and if we can't colonize Mars then it's rather unlikely that we'll be able to colonize any other planets as Mars is probably the easiest one for us to do.
That's really not true. A program isn't going to ever be able to do everything and few people would want it to anyway. However the lack of freedom that people like me worry about is the ability to replace the program with something else if need be.
Apple has a long standing policy to not let apps do certain things such as duplicate functionality or do anything that Apple doesn't approve of. In cases like that it's not just that the program doesn't support it, it's that no programs support it because an authoritarian hardware company says no. That used to be understandable when functionality generally required hardware to back it, but those days are long gone.
Why would it be illegal? Provided that the charge is disclosed up front.
It's been ages since it's been the case, but I recall back in the early '90s where most computer shops around here would give a 3% cash discount for people that paid by cash or check.
A one line common sense post is never going to be regarded as plagiarism by any body of refute without it being a part of a pattern. It's a well known phenomenon that corporations back off on a fee in one area and bury it elsewhere.
At the end of the day, an emoticon is hardly substitute for actual thought and manners.
If it's filled with water, then it's definitely not Earthlike, if the OP is going to be a pedantic killjoy, then at least get the facts right.
True, ultimately the solution to this is going to involve ceasing the abuse of URLs. They were never intended to contain so much session data and such as they do now. The fact that I often times can't read the URL is a pretty clear indication that there are troubles ahead.
They're extremely useful though. Given that QR codes are ultimately text, there really should be a preview of what you're about to execute. Just a simple text preview of the information embedded in the code.
Quite favorably, auto fatalities are down, at least in the US, but they still outnumber airline fatalities for the entire world by a huge margin.
One of the big problems with the TSA is that they scare people into taking more dangerous forms of transportation out of a misplaced sense of fear. Terrorism is something to be fought and prevented, but in the grand scheme of things more people die of injuries from car crashes every year than terrorism.
Due diligence. Everybody who has grown up in the US has at some point come into contact with the notion that law enforcement need warrants. I'm not sure how they could possibly believe that there weren't any laws being broken when they weren't being provided with any documentation.
These are organizations that have attorneys and if they weren't aware of the illegality of it it was purely because they were specifically looking the other way.
For $500 you could easily get a laptop with a real processor rather than one of those stripped down Atom crap chips.
Which is why Linux, *BSD, GIMP, Blender, Firefox and all those other free projects have failed and disappeared.
The reality is that for most types of software there are at least one or two free ones that do the job. Unless you're looking for something that's elaborate or very specific, chances are that there's a free program that does it.
This isn't a matter of the GP or me devaluing their work, it's a matter of hobbyists flooding the market with programs that are often times of higher value than their commercial counterparts. Wisely run companies are still making money. Just look at Codeweavers as a good example.
So on what precise basis are you entitled to earn a living developing software? This isn't really that different from photography these days where there are so many highly qualified amateurs giving away their work that there's very few people that are able to make a living out of it, compared with in the past.
I'm not sure why we necessarily need a lot of people to be professionals when the volunteers are producing such quality work.
The cost is primarily in producing that first copy, all the others are basically free to create, support costs money, but people often times help each other out on the basis of karma and it tends to work well in most cases.
The extra coffee costs something, an extra copy of a piece of software doesn't. If you don't provide support and people download your software from a 3rd party the cost of production is effectively the same whether you sell 1 copy or a billion copies.
That's definitely not the case with coffee.
That's not to suggest that the people writing the programs shouldn't be paid, but it's pretty ignorant to suggest that there aren't real costs for things like coffee beans and rent.
They're not bad for you in moderation, but you only need enough protein to repair and replace the cells that die off and the amount of fat you need is also fairly minor. Sugar and carbs are what your body burns for fuel and ultimately your body has to burn the fat or the protein when there isn't sufficient carbs in the diet to do the job.
Converting sugars over to the specific glucose that the body desires is relatively efficient, unfortunately the same is not the case for protein and particularly in hot climates tends to require a lot of hydration to work properly.
Also, protein and fat contain little to no dietary fiber and as a result your pipes don't get the cleaning that they otherwise would get. Not to mention the lack of vitamins and minerals that are typically found in carb rich foods.
Since always. You don't really need that much fat in your diet. "Good" fat is just as laden with calories as "bad" fat is. Sure you need some fat in order to ensure that you're getting enough of vitamins A, D, E and K, but it would take a lot of very serious effort to be deficient in fat in your diet.
Not really, whether you care to admit it or not, fat people get sick more frequently and end up spending more days off work. They're more likely to have diabetes, sleep apnea, depression and other illnesses as a result of packing more weight than is healthy. The health effects of being obese are well documented.
The main question is how do you decide who is and isn't obese. I always get crap during phone appointments for my weight, but with my body frame size, I can't get down to the weight they want without starving. And even the time I was starving, in a very literal way, I still didn't quite get there.
Personally, I find it incredibly troubling that advocates for the obese keep suggesting that there's some validity to making that decision. They definitely have a point that being obese doesn't make one a bad person, but it's just plain disgusting to enable the obese by validating all manner of absurd rationalization.
Anybody that's capable of keeping up with the maintenance plan that's often required to get weight reduction surgery shouldn't have been obese in the first place. Because it's not a particularly special diet and it's not less difficult that the diet that would have prevented it in the first place.