If you need weird theories about what I "really" meant, when everything I said can be taken literally, then you're probably just being intentionally obtuse and refusing to parse the obvious and explicit point: SysV init scripts are more monolithic than systemd.
Haters hate, and systemd haters hate for no reason. In fact, they are typically exactly 100% backwards in their complaints.
And BTW kiddy, you might have noticed you weren't replying to an AC. Welcome to slashdot, brat.
You didn't get a very good one if they didn't teach the Scientific Method, and you never learned to double-check information when somebody is informing you that you are incorrect and providing links to the accurate information.
Your claims are directly refuted by the simple definition of Scientific Method. Theory is how you explain experiments, you can't have theories before the experiment the theory would explain. The difference between a brainstorm, a hypothesis, and a theory is very important. The progression is key to the scientific process. Don't let a momentary lapse of judgement in overstating your education prevent you from expanding your education now.
It was really funny watching the local violent anarchists tear each other apart with suspicions and accusations after a few of them were arrested for environmental terrorism. Their group went from over 20 down to under 5 and the arrests were still happening. In the end, one thing became clear: none of the people they were accusing of being the "mole" really was.
Looking back now, the "confidential informant" probably wasn't even a member of their group, but some NSA guy in a data center somewhere.
The lesson, of course: If you can't say it to the CI's face, you don't need to say it. Ever. True, that may reduce the group's opportunity for crime, but that is a small price to pay to maintain your Freedom.;)
Then again, Anarchists don't seem to feel "free" unless they think they can take away my right to Governance by the People. I guess it works out better for groups that just want to be heard, and sway opinion. Then speech is the goal of the protest, and the CI is not a threat unless combined with illegal police action. Which, perhaps, is being combated by civilian-operated video surveillance. (cell phone cameras)
Dear Mr Coward, I've been reading almost exactly this same screed from you on this site since the late 90s. News Flash: AMD is doing great, and the APUs are designed for certain uses not all uses. News flash: Intel is bigger than AMD and will be targeting more use cases than AMD will. In no way does that tell us anything about if AMD is facing tough times. Judging by the availability of AMD-compatible motherboards now, compared to various times in the past, a person could easily think instead that they're in the middle of a Golden Age.
What is the use case for a high end integrated APU? The current use case is for systems that need modern GPU capabilities, but not high graphics performance. Lots of use cases require something like OpenGL but would never have it maxed out. They are full-featured, they just don't have the number of cores that you want for playing fancy games.
If you want both to be high end, it seems more logical to have discrete graphics. But if you need OpenGL for CAD, WebGL, or some other use, then an APU is indeed "full featured" not "crippled" at all. They support the latest APIs and technologies, just not the latest games at highest settings.
A lot of people don't really understand that the CPUs are already "fast enough" and that they can include other important issues in their buying decisions.
I mostly buy and recommend AMD because: 1) better price/performance ratio 2) code I write is designed to scale horizontally, which loops back to #1 even when it is a high load service 3) better power/performance ratio on desktops and servers 4) the motherboards are cheaper for the same components, and I hate over-paying even if the motherboard cost is too small a percent of the total system cost to matter very much
Intel does mostly win on laptops due to lack of availability of alternatives.
Pundits were saying that about 90nm, but usually that was because they misunderstood when the engineers (who were multiple product cycles ahead of the consumer-pundits) were speculating that they "would" "soon" be reaching these limits.;)
Other times it was as simplistic as, "Can we keep shrinking this forever?" "No." "How far can we go using current technology?" "Using current technology we can only go as far as we can currently go."
Not everybody has a perfect heat balance in their testes. Considering that this is "radiation" in the same sense that the bright stuff that comes out of an LED is "radiation," heat damage would be the concern. It is true that repeated heat damage is a cancer risk. (see: skin cancer) However, the amount of radiation emitted in this case is far below the amount needed to cause tissue damage. So the only issue involving the testes would be heat regulation. Since we know that all genetic traits are distributed approximately according to a "bell curve," we know that a significant number of people's testes will be slightly cooler than optimum even when their heat maintenance systems are operating nominally. So while I agree that the slight risk of temperature change exists and would usually bring the system away from the optimum, I can also say that there will almost as many cases where it would be bring the system towards the optimum.
You're asserting that an unnecessary permission merits a red warning, and if that was true everything else you say would have meaning.
But since that isn't actually what f-droid is doing, since that is not the policy, none of the other stuff follows.
And no, I'm not "upset" and being so would indeed be unjustified; they have no expectation to value my privacy, or to share my values. They simply don't share the values of privacy that many people casually assume they do, and I try to raise awareness of that. If others decide to value privacy and either start a new repo or convince f-droid to change, those are both fine. And if nobody cares, then people just have different values than me.
I only use open source, and as a programmer removing the permissions and related code is fairly easy. Even if it was rational for me to be upset, it would be a waste of time because I'm already overcoming the problem on my own. Non-programmers should be upset at the lack of choices, but not at f-droid. F-droid is proving additional choice and that is a positive service even if they don't share my values. If there were even more (bad) choices, that might create enough competition between repos for somebody to put privacy as a primary value. It wouldn't be a popular repo, but there would be contributors!
As far as "basic science" goes, you don't even have a theory before you do the experiment.
It is rather LOL-funny the beliefs of the Sciencey Slashdotters.
You not only need to do the experiment before you have a theory, you need to have repeated the experiment and have well-established results before you can formulate a theory.
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
If you have your theory before you do the experiment, and indeed, if your theory influences your experiment in some way (you must believe it does, for it to be a required element) then that is just "quack science."
It has to be entered into the record before the vote, sure. But that doesn't mean that anybody has to be given access, or that it has to be introduced with enough time for anybody to know what is being voted on. Major legislation often ends up that way, with some parts written shortly before the vote.
Even if we had those assurances, the cited diplomatic concerns are not obviously connected to drafting higher quality agreements. It seems a basic premise of their need has to be that instead of agreeing rules based on portable and balanced principles, all the parties are trying to trick each other into an agreement that benefits themselves but looks like it benefits the other guy.
I understand the reasons they want that, and why it is normal in "diplomacy" broadly. I just don't see where it is something that people want, or that is believed to lead to good governance and trade rules that create or maintain a level playing field. It seems that if the battle is over the details of what a level playing field looks like, that would benefit from transparency.
How can any law even be a law if it's made in secret?
By being published and enforced after it is made, of course!
Isn't that a bit obvious though? Rarely is a law enforced before being made a law.
Or, to use a technology metaphor, it is like a DVD made before DeCSS. The encryption key was secret when it was made. Later, it was published, and no longer secret.
Don't worry that because it was written in secret that you won't know what new rules you have to follow. They don't want it to remain secret; they just want it to be secret when everybody agrees to it. Just like, they didn't want a DVD's contents to remain secret forever; just until you bought a licensed player.
That is refuted by the fact that BSD still works fine, and all the modern *nix software runs just fine on either.
I've been using one or the other since before "10-15 years ago" and that was the case already then, and continues to be the case now.
What people don't understand about BSD, and most open source, is that nobody actually benefits from users except the users themselves, and people selling services. Contributors mostly contribute for their own reasons, and *nix versions with low numbers of contributors are still doing fine.
And click around on github if you think that BSD-licensed projects get less return contribution. License might be a factor determining what software people use, but the same person will usually contribute their changes back regardless of which license it is. Lots of high level languages use BSD-style licenses for everything, and they have no shortage of contributions. In fact those languages are the biggest areas of contributions. Look at CPAN for example, or Ruby gems.
BSD operating systems get less contributions because there is less thrash. They're not cool or trendy, and they discourage rapid feature thrash, so they're basically useless for youths to use to "cut their chops." The code quality won't be high enough for them to get included, and there just isn't demand for "new" stuff at the OS level.
Linux was already fully successful 15 years ago. It isn't any more successful now, because it isn't any more or less free, or libre, or available. We could already do "everything" other than run specific proprietary apps, something still true.
Did you even know that almost all of the SysV init scripts call out to system-wide scripts? Try running SysV init scripts just by themselves, without having the monolithic SysV init directories in your path. You can't. Ever. Does one thing without dependencies my ass!
This shows how little you understand the arguments you're making, and the commonly proposed solution of using SysV actually achieves it.
The funny part, of course, is that with systemd the start/stop scripts/programs are indeed standalone in many cases, and the best practices will lead to that naturally. Most of the ones that require systemd only require it because they're using a compatibility layer that calls out to the old script.
Haters can't use a CLI shell, you insensitive clod.
You'll need to provide a binary blob they can run on windows in an emulator if you want them to believe you.
If their claimed "reasons" for hating weren't already on the "myths" page before they even heard of systemd, you'd be right; they could just verify any of the complaints for themselves. As it is, the idea of successfully communicating with them looks "insane" to me.
It's a fucked up world when a bystander needs courage to call the cops.
I don't want to know about a person who can see in something this small that the world is fucked up, but who apparently didn't notice before.
Yes, calling the cops requires courage, or foolishness. Sometimes they even shoot the victim, or a family member. Often they arrest the victim. And don't assume that being a witness will keep you from getting charged with something too, or "accidentally" shot.
There is a time to call the cops, this was probably one of those times. But asking for help from armed people who are generally above the law, and where they reject over-qualified applicants, and applicants with above-average intelligence, this is obviously a situation requiring a serious risk/benefit analysis.
Enough radiation to be measured on the outside equipment? While I'm sure the equipment is - by necessity - quite sensitive, that still doesn't sound particularly healthy for anyone in front of the microwave when it was opened.
A lot of people are making wild assumptions just based on the phrasings in the media.
It was known for that long as an Earth-based signal. There is not actually a huge need to explain all of those. There are lots of Earth-based signals a radio telescope picks up. The goal is mostly to identify what the signal looks like, how to detect it, how to subtract or exclude it from the results.
You make it sound almost like you think they spent 17 years looking for this. No. They first observed it 17 years ago. 17 years is just the time period that it was happening. The events investigated for this paper happened in January. They've only actually been studying it in detail in whatever time it took between January and now to write it up into a scientific paper. It appears it took about 2 months to make the discovery. The reason it took "so long" (2 months) is that it only happens when the door is opened to end the cycle.
If you assume the word "galaxy" implies "aliens," you're going to have a hard time understanding any radio astronomy.
Actually, they weren't searching the galaxy. As the abstract mentions, the (real) FRB 010724 signals are excellent candidates for genuine extra-galactic transients.
Slashdot Mirror
If you need weird theories about what I "really" meant, when everything I said can be taken literally, then you're probably just being intentionally obtuse and refusing to parse the obvious and explicit point: SysV init scripts are more monolithic than systemd.
Haters hate, and systemd haters hate for no reason. In fact, they are typically exactly 100% backwards in their complaints.
And BTW kiddy, you might have noticed you weren't replying to an AC. Welcome to slashdot, brat.
You didn't get a very good one if they didn't teach the Scientific Method, and you never learned to double-check information when somebody is informing you that you are incorrect and providing links to the accurate information.
Your claims are directly refuted by the simple definition of Scientific Method. Theory is how you explain experiments, you can't have theories before the experiment the theory would explain. The difference between a brainstorm, a hypothesis, and a theory is very important. The progression is key to the scientific process. Don't let a momentary lapse of judgement in overstating your education prevent you from expanding your education now.
You can learn about what the "scientific method" is if you just click the wiki link.
It was really funny watching the local violent anarchists tear each other apart with suspicions and accusations after a few of them were arrested for environmental terrorism. Their group went from over 20 down to under 5 and the arrests were still happening. In the end, one thing became clear: none of the people they were accusing of being the "mole" really was.
Looking back now, the "confidential informant" probably wasn't even a member of their group, but some NSA guy in a data center somewhere.
The lesson, of course: If you can't say it to the CI's face, you don't need to say it. Ever. True, that may reduce the group's opportunity for crime, but that is a small price to pay to maintain your Freedom. ;)
Then again, Anarchists don't seem to feel "free" unless they think they can take away my right to Governance by the People. I guess it works out better for groups that just want to be heard, and sway opinion. Then speech is the goal of the protest, and the CI is not a threat unless combined with illegal police action. Which, perhaps, is being combated by civilian-operated video surveillance. (cell phone cameras)
Dear Mr Coward,
I've been reading almost exactly this same screed from you on this site since the late 90s. News Flash: AMD is doing great, and the APUs are designed for certain uses not all uses.
News flash: Intel is bigger than AMD and will be targeting more use cases than AMD will. In no way does that tell us anything about if AMD is facing tough times. Judging by the availability of AMD-compatible motherboards now, compared to various times in the past, a person could easily think instead that they're in the middle of a Golden Age.
You might consider the wisdom in having less attachment to what people think about the value of you or your CPU's meditations.
What is the use case for a high end integrated APU? The current use case is for systems that need modern GPU capabilities, but not high graphics performance. Lots of use cases require something like OpenGL but would never have it maxed out. They are full-featured, they just don't have the number of cores that you want for playing fancy games.
If you want both to be high end, it seems more logical to have discrete graphics. But if you need OpenGL for CAD, WebGL, or some other use, then an APU is indeed "full featured" not "crippled" at all. They support the latest APIs and technologies, just not the latest games at highest settings.
A lot of people don't really understand that the CPUs are already "fast enough" and that they can include other important issues in their buying decisions.
I mostly buy and recommend AMD because:
1) better price/performance ratio
2) code I write is designed to scale horizontally, which loops back to #1 even when it is a high load service
3) better power/performance ratio on desktops and servers
4) the motherboards are cheaper for the same components, and I hate over-paying even if the motherboard cost is too small a percent of the total system cost to matter very much
Intel does mostly win on laptops due to lack of availability of alternatives.
Pundits were saying that about 90nm, but usually that was because they misunderstood when the engineers (who were multiple product cycles ahead of the consumer-pundits) were speculating that they "would" "soon" be reaching these limits. ;)
Other times it was as simplistic as, "Can we keep shrinking this forever?" "No." "How far can we go using current technology?" "Using current technology we can only go as far as we can currently go."
If it is hobbling, you probably didn't do a very good analysis of if it matches your work load, because it is not a high-end general purpose CPU. ;)
Mine is freakin' awesome. It does everything I ask of it so easily that I can't even hear the fans.
Not everybody has a perfect heat balance in their testes. Considering that this is "radiation" in the same sense that the bright stuff that comes out of an LED is "radiation," heat damage would be the concern. It is true that repeated heat damage is a cancer risk. (see: skin cancer) However, the amount of radiation emitted in this case is far below the amount needed to cause tissue damage. So the only issue involving the testes would be heat regulation. Since we know that all genetic traits are distributed approximately according to a "bell curve," we know that a significant number of people's testes will be slightly cooler than optimum even when their heat maintenance systems are operating nominally. So while I agree that the slight risk of temperature change exists and would usually bring the system away from the optimum, I can also say that there will almost as many cases where it would be bring the system towards the optimum.
You got me on Mircowaves, though. Those are what happens when Cro-Cop does his training routine in a swimming pool. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
No, I did indeed mean Microwaves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Yet another of the thousands of reasons that Congress has a lower approval rating than Satan.
I wouldn't take the implied irresponsibility of the behavior as any sort of sign it won't happen, or isn't happening.
You're asserting that an unnecessary permission merits a red warning, and if that was true everything else you say would have meaning.
But since that isn't actually what f-droid is doing, since that is not the policy, none of the other stuff follows.
And no, I'm not "upset" and being so would indeed be unjustified; they have no expectation to value my privacy, or to share my values. They simply don't share the values of privacy that many people casually assume they do, and I try to raise awareness of that. If others decide to value privacy and either start a new repo or convince f-droid to change, those are both fine. And if nobody cares, then people just have different values than me.
I only use open source, and as a programmer removing the permissions and related code is fairly easy. Even if it was rational for me to be upset, it would be a waste of time because I'm already overcoming the problem on my own. Non-programmers should be upset at the lack of choices, but not at f-droid. F-droid is proving additional choice and that is a positive service even if they don't share my values. If there were even more (bad) choices, that might create enough competition between repos for somebody to put privacy as a primary value. It wouldn't be a popular repo, but there would be contributors!
As far as "basic science" goes, you don't even have a theory before you do the experiment.
It is rather LOL-funny the beliefs of the Sciencey Slashdotters.
You not only need to do the experiment before you have a theory, you need to have repeated the experiment and have well-established results before you can formulate a theory.
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
If you have your theory before you do the experiment, and indeed, if your theory influences your experiment in some way (you must believe it does, for it to be a required element) then that is just "quack science."
It has to be entered into the record before the vote, sure. But that doesn't mean that anybody has to be given access, or that it has to be introduced with enough time for anybody to know what is being voted on. Major legislation often ends up that way, with some parts written shortly before the vote.
Even if we had those assurances, the cited diplomatic concerns are not obviously connected to drafting higher quality agreements. It seems a basic premise of their need has to be that instead of agreeing rules based on portable and balanced principles, all the parties are trying to trick each other into an agreement that benefits themselves but looks like it benefits the other guy.
I understand the reasons they want that, and why it is normal in "diplomacy" broadly. I just don't see where it is something that people want, or that is believed to lead to good governance and trade rules that create or maintain a level playing field. It seems that if the battle is over the details of what a level playing field looks like, that would benefit from transparency.
How can any law even be a law if it's made in secret?
By being published and enforced after it is made, of course!
Isn't that a bit obvious though? Rarely is a law enforced before being made a law.
Or, to use a technology metaphor, it is like a DVD made before DeCSS. The encryption key was secret when it was made. Later, it was published, and no longer secret.
Don't worry that because it was written in secret that you won't know what new rules you have to follow. They don't want it to remain secret; they just want it to be secret when everybody agrees to it. Just like, they didn't want a DVD's contents to remain secret forever; just until you bought a licensed player.
That is refuted by the fact that BSD still works fine, and all the modern *nix software runs just fine on either.
I've been using one or the other since before "10-15 years ago" and that was the case already then, and continues to be the case now.
What people don't understand about BSD, and most open source, is that nobody actually benefits from users except the users themselves, and people selling services. Contributors mostly contribute for their own reasons, and *nix versions with low numbers of contributors are still doing fine.
And click around on github if you think that BSD-licensed projects get less return contribution. License might be a factor determining what software people use, but the same person will usually contribute their changes back regardless of which license it is. Lots of high level languages use BSD-style licenses for everything, and they have no shortage of contributions. In fact those languages are the biggest areas of contributions. Look at CPAN for example, or Ruby gems.
BSD operating systems get less contributions because there is less thrash. They're not cool or trendy, and they discourage rapid feature thrash, so they're basically useless for youths to use to "cut their chops." The code quality won't be high enough for them to get included, and there just isn't demand for "new" stuff at the OS level.
Linux was already fully successful 15 years ago. It isn't any more successful now, because it isn't any more or less free, or libre, or available. We could already do "everything" other than run specific proprietary apps, something still true.
Did you even know that almost all of the SysV init scripts call out to system-wide scripts? Try running SysV init scripts just by themselves, without having the monolithic SysV init directories in your path. You can't. Ever. Does one thing without dependencies my ass!
For example on Fedora:
# grep -r '.
210
This shows how little you understand the arguments you're making, and the commonly proposed solution of using SysV actually achieves it.
The funny part, of course, is that with systemd the start/stop scripts/programs are indeed standalone in many cases, and the best practices will lead to that naturally. Most of the ones that require systemd only require it because they're using a compatibility layer that calls out to the old script.
Haters can't use a CLI shell, you insensitive clod.
You'll need to provide a binary blob they can run on windows in an emulator if you want them to believe you.
If their claimed "reasons" for hating weren't already on the "myths" page before they even heard of systemd, you'd be right; they could just verify any of the complaints for themselves. As it is, the idea of successfully communicating with them looks "insane" to me.
It's more accurate than the post it is responding to, and states it in a neutral manner.
Sad to say it, but around here those are both good reasons.
the courage to call the cops!
It's a fucked up world when a bystander needs courage to call the cops.
I don't want to know about a person who can see in something this small that the world is fucked up, but who apparently didn't notice before.
Yes, calling the cops requires courage, or foolishness. Sometimes they even shoot the victim, or a family member. Often they arrest the victim. And don't assume that being a witness will keep you from getting charged with something too, or "accidentally" shot.
There is a time to call the cops, this was probably one of those times. But asking for help from armed people who are generally above the law, and where they reject over-qualified applicants, and applicants with above-average intelligence, this is obviously a situation requiring a serious risk/benefit analysis.
Enough radiation to be measured on the outside equipment? While I'm sure the equipment is - by necessity - quite sensitive, that still doesn't sound particularly healthy for anyone in front of the microwave when it was opened.
My advice, look up "mircowaves" on wikipedia.
A lot of people are making wild assumptions just based on the phrasings in the media.
It was known for that long as an Earth-based signal. There is not actually a huge need to explain all of those. There are lots of Earth-based signals a radio telescope picks up. The goal is mostly to identify what the signal looks like, how to detect it, how to subtract or exclude it from the results.
You make it sound almost like you think they spent 17 years looking for this. No. They first observed it 17 years ago. 17 years is just the time period that it was happening. The events investigated for this paper happened in January. They've only actually been studying it in detail in whatever time it took between January and now to write it up into a scientific paper. It appears it took about 2 months to make the discovery. The reason it took "so long" (2 months) is that it only happens when the door is opened to end the cycle.
If you assume the word "galaxy" implies "aliens," you're going to have a hard time understanding any radio astronomy.
Actually, they weren't searching the galaxy. As the abstract mentions, the (real) FRB 010724 signals are excellent candidates for genuine extra-galactic transients.