Who needs them are open source projects with no funding. If it wasn't for a repo-services company giving out free repos, we'd have to get free services from some megacorp who would plaster offensive ads for *gasp* commercial software all over everything.
Actually, unless they paid github to add it, there isn't even a contract because there is no consideration given.
And if they paid for a github account, they agreed to a contract governing that account that includes github having the discretion to do whatever they want. I paraphrase, but here are a couple potentially relevant excerpts:
GitHub reserves the right at any time and from time to time to modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Service (or any part thereof) with or without notice.... Your use of the Service is at your sole risk. The service is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis.... We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and Accounts containing Content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party's intellectual property or these Terms of Service.... GitHub does not warrant that (i) the service will meet your specific requirements, (ii) the service will be uninterrupted, timely, secure, or error-free, (iii) the results that may be obtained from the use of the service will be accurate or reliable, (iv) the quality of any products, services, information, or other material purchased or obtained by you through the service will meet your expectations, and (v) any errors in the Service will be corrected.
I would guess that they found that the content was "offensive... or otherwise objectionable." Seems to be well within their expected discretion.
As a user I consider anything not a "real" repo to be graffiti or litter. I'm glad they cleaned it up. I really don't care whatever cause or bad humor the people behind it were engaged in. That it was also offensive is besides the point; it wasn't even a real project, get it out of my way. Jeeze, people.
AC is saying that "gender" is a social construct, and different than biological sex, which is objective.
But I'd like to point out that on almost all specific traits, including ones like height and weight, the average difference between individuals is greater than the average difference between any categories. That's true both for real categories like sex, and for social categories like "race" or caste.
An example using a trait with a clear average difference between males and females, weight: If you're designing a women's restroom, you can use the average weight of local women to determine how strong the floor needs to be. But knowing that an individual person is female doesn't help predict their weight at all, because the overall average difference in weight between individuals is much higher than the difference between sexes.
In some cases traits line up to predict other traits, but none of those distributions match the supposed distributions of races. Skin tones have the full range from very pale to very dark with no groupings. But if you know somebody's height and wrist width, you might be able to predict their weight. Maybe sex + another trait you could start making predictions. But the traits aren't distributed such that a combination of traits will be associated with a group; even if the group has a higher average likelihood of both traits, since the average difference between individuals will still be greater, few people will have both associated traits; the traits will not be predictive other than in aggregate. How can a grouping be real if none of the members are individually members? It becomes an artificial abstract only useful for constructing shopping malls and sports stadiums.
Because on production servers it is common to have var on it's own partition, and that is the filesystem that holds the logs, which an attacker can cause data to be written to. Also it has to be writable by the running services, and allowing services to write and execute new binaries is a step in many attacks. So it is a typical thing a sysadmin wants to do, to prevent executing code there.
That said, the distro I'm using puts the executables under/usr regardless of where the upstream developer wants them to go. That isn't a decision for the app, it is one for the distro.
The Voters Rights Act had nothing to do with siding against the little guy! The Court had told Congress before, about a decade ago, that it needed to revisit the issue, and re-examine which areas still had a problem and if there were areas that could have relaxed rules. Congress refused to revisit the issue at all. Congress could have, for example, funded a new study, determined that the sames problems existed in the same places, and renew the old list. But that never happened. Congress refused to take any actual steps to look at where the problem still was, so the Court had no choice but to rule that the current list had to be rejected as dated. You can't just pass different rules for different states forever; if the rules are different, it has to be for real reasons.
It is pretty sad that Congress couldn't even rubber stamp a new study.
The ideological dispositions in the legal community do not line up at all with political ones. On patents, the SCOTUS is fairly strongly on the side of rejecting patents on existing practices "on a computer." They refuse to throw out process and software patents categorically, but OTOH they don't really see any process patents they like.
In the case here, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed the patent was invalid, but couldn't find a majority on a single theory of why. So the SCOTUS is going to be writing a new test for when software patents are valid. Based on past rulings by this court, a clear rule will almost certainly invalidate a lot of existing patents that are currently seen as being in gray areas.
It is great news the SCOTUS is taking this up, they've been slowing knocking back the patent excesses, at least at the level of legal precedent. Forcing the lower courts into line is taking time, but the more these lower courts resist, the more reform the SCOTUS will be forced into.
if someone put their head into a crocodile enclosure and were promptly decapitated, no-one (including me) would say that they weren't responsible for their own fate- and I think we'd probably have a bit of a chuckle at some people's foolishness. That's completely different to saying "I'm glad they died, people who put their heads into zoo enclosures deserve slow and painful death!".
First of all, lots of people would say it was the fault of the enclosure that random people who might be Special enough to put their head in were able to do so.
Second, it is exactly the same to say that it was their own fault, and that they deserved it.
Third, you admit laughing at somebody for dying due to pure stupidity, without any malicious intent, but you question the morality of others who laugh at somebody who died because of mal intent. You are probably stuck your head into this one the wrong way.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are android and iphone apps that show you where the charging stations are in your random local area. You should look at the coverage maps, there are a huge number of stations. There are even a huge number of stations offering free power. (free as in free)
Yep. Dunno why you disbelieve basic facts that you can check.
BTW you can get an 80% charge from a quick charging station in 30 minutes. That is why the Leaf has 2 different plugs. Even in low population areas along the interstates there are already lots of quick chargers. If you drive 60 miles, charge for 10 minutes while you get a cup of coffee, you'll already be back to 65 miles of range. And currently most downtown urban areas have places with free charging at regular 110, and if you plug in for an hour while you're doing some business somewhere, that is a lot of charge.
You don't seem to differentiate between active punishments, and predictable negative results of bad behavior. I find that odd. Perhaps that is why you resort to scripture?
But even so, their sins are their own, and nobody punished them; the foolishness of their actions prevented the victims from receiving their just revenge.
While I agree that being killed would be excessive for the crime of aggravated robbery, the thief accidentally dying due to stupid actions taken as part of aggravated robbery? There is a certain aesthetic beauty in the poetic justice. They wanted unknown riches, and indeed, they got their hands on rare and valuable property!
Where I live, in Oregon, USA, we have lots of local public utilities with elected boards, open books, and a history of low prices and efficient power generation. If my utility was running it, the rates would end up being at cost and spread over time. And that would also be true if any of the utilities from neighboring communities were running it.
That isn't what I argued at all, I said that their engineers might very well be good enough to construct a safe sandbox so that trust isn't needed. Javascript is already handled safely without trusting it by dozens or hundreds of browsers.
If it is installed or not shouldn't even matter, except to the user's logistics choices.
There isn't actually lots of malware at all. That is just FUD. The vast majority of what is in the google play store is not malware.
Except in the sense that most of it sucks.
The whole point of what google is doing with chrome is packaging up a set of capabilities that can do something useful without being dangerous. Being dangerous is based on having trust, which is misplaced. Instead of asking for trust, apps will simply be run in a safe container.
There are lots sandboxes that have survived without major security holes, especially ones with an arbitrarily small set of capabilities. Google isn't Microsoft. I'm more worried about, why do I want this? What is the use case that isn't already served in an open way? Is this really a browser war, or a phone war?
Slashdot Mirror
Who needs them are open source projects with no funding. If it wasn't for a repo-services company giving out free repos, we'd have to get free services from some megacorp who would plaster offensive ads for *gasp* commercial software all over everything.
Actually, unless they paid github to add it, there isn't even a contract because there is no consideration given.
And if they paid for a github account, they agreed to a contract governing that account that includes github having the discretion to do whatever they want. I paraphrase, but here are a couple potentially relevant excerpts:
I would guess that they found that the content was "offensive... or otherwise objectionable." Seems to be well within their expected discretion.
As a user I consider anything not a "real" repo to be graffiti or litter. I'm glad they cleaned it up. I really don't care whatever cause or bad humor the people behind it were engaged in. That it was also offensive is besides the point; it wasn't even a real project, get it out of my way. Jeeze, people.
178 miles from Albuquerque, but only 80 from El Paso.
AC is saying that "gender" is a social construct, and different than biological sex, which is objective.
But I'd like to point out that on almost all specific traits, including ones like height and weight, the average difference between individuals is greater than the average difference between any categories. That's true both for real categories like sex, and for social categories like "race" or caste.
An example using a trait with a clear average difference between males and females, weight: If you're designing a women's restroom, you can use the average weight of local women to determine how strong the floor needs to be. But knowing that an individual person is female doesn't help predict their weight at all, because the overall average difference in weight between individuals is much higher than the difference between sexes.
In some cases traits line up to predict other traits, but none of those distributions match the supposed distributions of races. Skin tones have the full range from very pale to very dark with no groupings. But if you know somebody's height and wrist width, you might be able to predict their weight. Maybe sex + another trait you could start making predictions. But the traits aren't distributed such that a combination of traits will be associated with a group; even if the group has a higher average likelihood of both traits, since the average difference between individuals will still be greater, few people will have both associated traits; the traits will not be predictive other than in aggregate. How can a grouping be real if none of the members are individually members? It becomes an artificial abstract only useful for constructing shopping malls and sports stadiums.
Races is all bullshit made up by people to categorize other as inferior *on sight*
Yes, thank you for pointing that out.
In case anybody needs a citation:
"The Myth of Race: America's Original Science Fiction" http://www.ahc.umn.edu/bioethics/afrgen/html/Themythofrace.html
Because on production servers it is common to have var on it's own partition, and that is the filesystem that holds the logs, which an attacker can cause data to be written to. Also it has to be writable by the running services, and allowing services to write and execute new binaries is a step in many attacks. So it is a typical thing a sysadmin wants to do, to prevent executing code there.
That said, the distro I'm using puts the executables under /usr regardless of where the upstream developer wants them to go. That isn't a decision for the app, it is one for the distro.
In this actual case, the banks probably don't have a defensive patent portfolio to defend against computer patents.
The Voters Rights Act had nothing to do with siding against the little guy! The Court had told Congress before, about a decade ago, that it needed to revisit the issue, and re-examine which areas still had a problem and if there were areas that could have relaxed rules. Congress refused to revisit the issue at all. Congress could have, for example, funded a new study, determined that the sames problems existed in the same places, and renew the old list. But that never happened. Congress refused to take any actual steps to look at where the problem still was, so the Court had no choice but to rule that the current list had to be rejected as dated. You can't just pass different rules for different states forever; if the rules are different, it has to be for real reasons.
It is pretty sad that Congress couldn't even rubber stamp a new study.
The ideological dispositions in the legal community do not line up at all with political ones. On patents, the SCOTUS is fairly strongly on the side of rejecting patents on existing practices "on a computer." They refuse to throw out process and software patents categorically, but OTOH they don't really see any process patents they like.
In the case here, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed the patent was invalid, but couldn't find a majority on a single theory of why. So the SCOTUS is going to be writing a new test for when software patents are valid. Based on past rulings by this court, a clear rule will almost certainly invalidate a lot of existing patents that are currently seen as being in gray areas.
It is great news the SCOTUS is taking this up, they've been slowing knocking back the patent excesses, at least at the level of legal precedent. Forcing the lower courts into line is taking time, but the more these lower courts resist, the more reform the SCOTUS will be forced into.
if someone put their head into a crocodile enclosure and were promptly decapitated, no-one (including me) would say that they weren't responsible for their own fate- and I think we'd probably have a bit of a chuckle at some people's foolishness. That's completely different to saying "I'm glad they died, people who put their heads into zoo enclosures deserve slow and painful death!".
First of all, lots of people would say it was the fault of the enclosure that random people who might be Special enough to put their head in were able to do so.
Second, it is exactly the same to say that it was their own fault, and that they deserved it.
Third, you admit laughing at somebody for dying due to pure stupidity, without any malicious intent, but you question the morality of others who laugh at somebody who died because of mal intent. You are probably stuck your head into this one the wrong way.
Ever is sure a long ways, did you enjoy your trip? And how did you get back so soon??
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are android and iphone apps that show you where the charging stations are in your random local area. You should look at the coverage maps, there are a huge number of stations. There are even a huge number of stations offering free power. (free as in free)
Yep. Dunno why you disbelieve basic facts that you can check.
BTW you can get an 80% charge from a quick charging station in 30 minutes. That is why the Leaf has 2 different plugs. Even in low population areas along the interstates there are already lots of quick chargers. If you drive 60 miles, charge for 10 minutes while you get a cup of coffee, you'll already be back to 65 miles of range. And currently most downtown urban areas have places with free charging at regular 110, and if you plug in for an hour while you're doing some business somewhere, that is a lot of charge.
Using 100 year old tech you can do about 75% efficiency over a couple feet.
You don't seem to differentiate between active punishments, and predictable negative results of bad behavior. I find that odd. Perhaps that is why you resort to scripture?
But even so, their sins are their own, and nobody punished them; the foolishness of their actions prevented the victims from receiving their just revenge.
While I agree that being killed would be excessive for the crime of aggravated robbery, the thief accidentally dying due to stupid actions taken as part of aggravated robbery? There is a certain aesthetic beauty in the poetic justice. They wanted unknown riches, and indeed, they got their hands on rare and valuable property!
You win 2 internets
He did share it. Learn to read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power#Timeline_of_wireless_power
Okay, okay, in that case I'll click the link.
Electromagnetic fields in this power range are well studied and totally harmless. None of this is new at all. http://www.teslasociety.com/tesla_tower.htm
Where I live, in Oregon, USA, we have lots of local public utilities with elected boards, open books, and a history of low prices and efficient power generation. If my utility was running it, the rates would end up being at cost and spread over time. And that would also be true if any of the utilities from neighboring communities were running it.
Or just care less.
That isn't what I argued at all, I said that their engineers might very well be good enough to construct a safe sandbox so that trust isn't needed. Javascript is already handled safely without trusting it by dozens or hundreds of browsers.
If it is installed or not shouldn't even matter, except to the user's logistics choices.
There isn't actually lots of malware at all. That is just FUD. The vast majority of what is in the google play store is not malware.
Except in the sense that most of it sucks.
The whole point of what google is doing with chrome is packaging up a set of capabilities that can do something useful without being dangerous. Being dangerous is based on having trust, which is misplaced. Instead of asking for trust, apps will simply be run in a safe container.
There are lots sandboxes that have survived without major security holes, especially ones with an arbitrarily small set of capabilities. Google isn't Microsoft. I'm more worried about, why do I want this? What is the use case that isn't already served in an open way? Is this really a browser war, or a phone war?