As a resident of one of the mentioned problem countries, I think it might be helpful to point towards an organization to rally behind to oppose the secrecy:
I am Randall C. Kennedy, former internet "shock jock" blogger for InfoWorld and current holder of the title "Most Reviled Person on the Internet, 2010 Edition."
Most reviled person? The most significant thing I can tell about him is he's your average paid pen who'll write anything and everything for a steady income stream, barely worth mentioning, let alone reviling. Pity maybe, then swiftly forget.
While I don't know anything about that, you're probably right. Anyway, I wasn't going for "Wrong, this is how it really was" but for "Oh, this reminds me". I should have been clearer.
Much earlier than that in a different part of the world, it was customary for Buddhist and Taoist monks to sign their written musings not with their own name but those of their teachers.
I'm not sure if you meant this already, but screen doesn't disconnect anything, except SSH's output to and input from the terminal, and that only in a redirecting sense. Detaching from a screen that's running ssh will leave the SSH connection open exactly as if there was no screen involved. Anyway, OP is off-topic.
The <enter> is not part of the RPN. More correctly, you don't need it exactly because you're using RPN, which works on a stack. Values get pushed on, operations pop values off the stack. 2 4 + 5 6 + * P works just fine.
You add 2 and 4 to the stack, then execute + (on TOS and TOS-1), so TOS is now 6. You then add 5 and 6 to the stack, exec + again to get a stack of 6 and 11, on which finally you execute * to get a TOS of 66.
A reverse-polish calculator stores numbers on a stack. Entering a number pushes it on the stack. Arithmetic operations pop arguments off the stack and push the results.
Yes, they applied for a European banking license in Luxembourg, a country best known for its friendliness towards big financial players and its status as a tax haven in general, themselves.
Now why would they do that voluntarily? Hint: It's not because they think they should be regulated more strictly.
Isn't that kind of obvious? They want users to abandon XP. They're already cutting critical security updates because they're "not feasible", whatever that means, thereby violating their own sales promise and legislated minimum warranty period in the EU. If they can't kill XP any other way, you can bet my ass they'll FUD their own product soon.
People seem rather ok with XP, and many are reluctant to get burned by new Windows versions yet again, while Microsoft has a strong interest in getting everyone to use their new systems (and incidentally into "Trusted" Computing to enforce DRM on a hardware level for their new best friends).
If you value control over your own PC, I'd recommend familiarizing yourself with free systems now.
If it doesn't matter on the net (where 90% of us consume 90% of their total), then where does it matter? Where could it have more self-aggravating effect?
(Also, I'm inclined to believe he's spelled Shakespeare pretty much everywhere.)
nobody will go to the new internet because it would suck
You're mistaken.
If you tell people the new Internet "2.0" is: -
more secure,
non-anonymous,
childporn- and terrorism-free,
well, 2.0
etc.
... that will get two-thirds of the population, because they don't want: -
to be at risk, whatever that may be,
their children to be at risk from online predators,
anyone to think they tolerate child pornography or sympathize with terrorists,
to be icky 1.0
etc.
Then, everyone else will follow because suddenly YouTube 1.0, Facebook 1.0, Twitter 1.0 aren't the places where stuff goes down any longer, you can't send mail to your friend on Internet 2.0, and have to go through three extra verification processes to buy something from Amazon 1.0, while it's true one-click buying from Amazon 2.0, now without a need for any kind of redundant registration.
In the end, your ancient free Internet will be a place where only people go who do have something to hide, at which point they'll shut it down as "a crackdown on organized crime", to protect the general populace.
Exactly. Thanks to this innovation you won't even have to talk to the other players or the game moderator any longer. Everyone can just take turns while the others watch TV, play FFXI on the PS or start a parallel pen and paper session. How avant-garde.
It's not my intention to shift the blame around though. PA [PulseAudio] and the other layers of our stack should not be viewed as independent parts. If PA uses a new or previously unused feature of the drivers then we need to fix the drivers at the same time.
My requirements were prioritizing, selective downloading, FOSS, a small footprint, and running as service/daemon, and I tried most of the clients on the Wikipedia list that fit these criteria. I liked Deluge most, though I still had a a few problems.
In the end, the problem solved itself when I did the switch from Windows to Linux as my main OS. I use rTorrent, daemonized in screen now and have never looked back. It's very small and has console and (optional) web interfaces.
Oh, and please don't tell anyone I said "FOSS-software".
This just isn't true. I have to invest quite some time to familiarize myself with an application and set my preferences, expecting to be able to use it in the future. With closed software, I never know if can do just that. A closed application may change in a way that makes new versions unusable for me at any time. What's worse, closed source locks me in, forcing me to eat all the little nuisances they decide to inflict upon me.
It might be a decision to abandon certain functionality (not supporting a certain file format any longer, or dropping a lesser used feature to concentrate on a more popular one), it might be a matter of trust (changes in license or privacy agreement; a BitTorrent client getting sold to a company connected to copyright holders or an email client to a company known for data mining), it might be a matter of price (formerly free applications going commercial), it might just be the ever-so-popular dumbing down of the user interface.
My problem is that I can't just stop updating it now, because I depend on bug fixes. In the worst case I need security fixes to keep my system safe at all.
With FOSS-software I would fork from the version that has the functionality I need, trust or can use efficiently, and just keep up with any holes as they appear. I can't do any of that with closed software, effectively barring me from using the app any longer and wasting the time I invested in the application in the first place.
A prominent example of this is uTorrent. When they were sold, a lot of people, me included, would have liked to keep current functionality (it was fairly sufficient). To keep using the old version, though, is to keep any security holes that were discovered in the meantime wide open. I'm sure other people remember a lot of other examples.
I even wondered about this when I started using uTorrent but decided, nah, that guy seems ok, I think I can risk it. I don't think I will make that mistake again. I like to be in control of my applications, not the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
As a resident of one of the mentioned problem countries, I think it might be helpful to point towards an organization to rally behind to oppose the secrecy:
ACTA workgroup of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure e.V.
I know exactly what you mean. It's great to be the cream.
Unlikely.
Humility can't be taught, only learnt. And speaking from the last few millennia, 5% of people at most are willing to learn it.
Well, he certainly suffers from an inflated ego.
I am Randall C. Kennedy, former internet "shock jock" blogger for InfoWorld and current holder of the title "Most Reviled Person on the Internet, 2010 Edition."
Most reviled person? The most significant thing I can tell about him is he's your average paid pen who'll write anything and everything for a steady income stream, barely worth mentioning, let alone reviling. Pity maybe, then swiftly forget.
perish [...] just like the Iphone
I'm inclined to believe there's a fair amount of people who, when their time comes, would just love to perish as the iPhone is perishing now.
Or this one. Funny that it was considered completely no-go back then while it will hardly raise an eyebrow today.
While I don't know anything about that, you're probably right. Anyway, I wasn't going for "Wrong, this is how it really was" but for "Oh, this reminds me". I should have been clearer.
Much earlier than that in a different part of the world, it was customary for Buddhist and Taoist monks to sign their written musings not with their own name but those of their teachers.
I'm not sure if you meant this already, but screen doesn't disconnect anything, except SSH's output to and input from the terminal, and that only in a redirecting sense. Detaching from a screen that's running ssh will leave the SSH connection open exactly as if there was no screen involved. Anyway, OP is off-topic.
Nowhere, EVER, does "America" refer to an entire continent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continents#Number_of_continents
You're right, I did. So with 24+56+* we're up to 10 strokes for RPN, too.
The <enter> is not part of the RPN. More correctly, you don't need it exactly because you're using RPN, which works on a stack. Values get pushed on, operations pop values off the stack. 2 4 + 5 6 + * P works just fine.
You add 2 and 4 to the stack, then execute + (on TOS and TOS-1), so TOS is now 6. You then add 5 and 6 to the stack, exec + again to get a stack of 6 and 11, on which finally you execute * to get a TOS of 66.
Yes, they applied for a European banking license in Luxembourg, a country best known for its friendliness towards big financial players and its status as a tax haven in general, themselves.
Now why would they do that voluntarily? Hint: It's not because they think they should be regulated more strictly.
Mr. Gates' grammar is perfectly valid. There is no hard and fast rule not to put prepositions at the end of the sentence. The aesthetics may displease you, but I'd rather you not force yours on your students, or us.
Now if someone came and blew Powerpoint away, sold the software for less-- you bet your ass Microsoft would start moving again.
The question is what move that would be. To judge by the past, they would, in order of feasibility: -
(Not comprehensive.)
All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.
(aka: Are you absolutely positive you are not new here?)
Isn't that kind of obvious? They want users to abandon XP. They're already cutting critical security updates because they're "not feasible", whatever that means, thereby violating their own sales promise and legislated minimum warranty period in the EU. If they can't kill XP any other way, you can bet my ass they'll FUD their own product soon.
People seem rather ok with XP, and many are reluctant to get burned by new Windows versions yet again, while Microsoft has a strong interest in getting everyone to use their new systems (and incidentally into "Trusted" Computing to enforce DRM on a hardware level for their new best friends).
If you value control over your own PC, I'd recommend familiarizing yourself with free systems now.
I could also be wrong.
If it doesn't matter on the net (where 90% of us consume 90% of their total), then where does it matter? Where could it have more self-aggravating effect?
(Also, I'm inclined to believe he's spelled Shakespeare pretty much everywhere.)
I guess it hits you when you are least expecting.
Shouldn't that be, "It hits you when you are most expecting it"?
I'd reckon the unnecessary checks and public panic to have been much more expensive than EUR 300m.
You're mistaken.
If you tell people the new Internet "2.0" is: -
... that will get two-thirds of the population, because they don't want: -
Then, everyone else will follow because suddenly YouTube 1.0, Facebook 1.0, Twitter 1.0 aren't the places where stuff goes down any longer, you can't send mail to your friend on Internet 2.0, and have to go through three extra verification processes to buy something from Amazon 1.0, while it's true one-click buying from Amazon 2.0, now without a need for any kind of redundant registration.
In the end, your ancient free Internet will be a place where only people go who do have something to hide, at which point they'll shut it down as "a crackdown on organized crime", to protect the general populace.
One would think the PRS were quick to demand a retraction then, especially considering the UK's oft-cited harsh libel laws, wouldn't one?
Exactly. Thanks to this innovation you won't even have to talk to the other players or the game moderator any longer. Everyone can just take turns while the others watch TV, play FFXI on the PS or start a parallel pen and paper session. How avant-garde.
FTFA:
The *point* of nuclear weaponry *is* MAD.
I'm wondering what the ex-population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki thinks about this.
My requirements were prioritizing, selective downloading, FOSS, a small footprint, and running as service/daemon, and I tried most of the clients on the Wikipedia list that fit these criteria. I liked Deluge most, though I still had a a few problems.
In the end, the problem solved itself when I did the switch from Windows to Linux as my main OS. I use rTorrent, daemonized in screen now and have never looked back. It's very small and has console and (optional) web interfaces.
Oh, and please don't tell anyone I said "FOSS-software".
its more open when developers have choices.
All the user cares about is data.
This just isn't true. I have to invest quite some time to familiarize myself with an application and set my preferences, expecting to be able to use it in the future. With closed software, I never know if can do just that. A closed application may change in a way that makes new versions unusable for me at any time. What's worse, closed source locks me in, forcing me to eat all the little nuisances they decide to inflict upon me.
It might be a decision to abandon certain functionality (not supporting a certain file format any longer, or dropping a lesser used feature to concentrate on a more popular one), it might be a matter of trust (changes in license or privacy agreement; a BitTorrent client getting sold to a company connected to copyright holders or an email client to a company known for data mining), it might be a matter of price (formerly free applications going commercial), it might just be the ever-so-popular dumbing down of the user interface.
My problem is that I can't just stop updating it now, because I depend on bug fixes. In the worst case I need security fixes to keep my system safe at all.
With FOSS-software I would fork from the version that has the functionality I need, trust or can use efficiently, and just keep up with any holes as they appear. I can't do any of that with closed software, effectively barring me from using the app any longer and wasting the time I invested in the application in the first place.
A prominent example of this is uTorrent. When they were sold, a lot of people, me included, would have liked to keep current functionality (it was fairly sufficient). To keep using the old version, though, is to keep any security holes that were discovered in the meantime wide open. I'm sure other people remember a lot of other examples.
I even wondered about this when I started using uTorrent but decided, nah, that guy seems ok, I think I can risk it. I don't think I will make that mistake again. I like to be in control of my applications, not the other way around.