That's okay - I think it's a fine language too. At least it has made you money.
That said, I wonder if you can do it backwards? I bet you could load PHP via JavaScript, dynamic loading of dynamic content. I'm gonna go wash my mouth out with soap. Err.. SOAP.
Two things... I prefer uMatrix, it's awesome. It is better than NoScript in my opinion and is whitelist-based. It now has a neat feature that lets you sync it across multiple profiles via the same mechanism that lets you sync your tabs. Yes, it is that awesome. You just need to enable the cloud mode. It's an odd name so i didn't notice it until last release.
The other thing is, if they increase the speed by 34% and people start doing that, they'll just cram more shit in their sites so that it ends up actually being 34% slower after six months. It sure was nice when nobody else had broadband or ad-blockers installed. Man, the web was fast.:/ My speed's gone up but I swear, I have no numbers to prove it, it seems like it is slower.
I had some speedy broadband at the end of the 90s and we had fiber in my office. The net still had.GIF images, maybe some MPEG. I was not just king of Napster, I had a giant hub that ran OpenNap and peered five other OpenNap servers with it. And it was still fast. I think it was only like 3 Mb/sec service. Maybe? I don't remember that long ago - but I'm pretty sure it's not rose-tinted glasses telling me that the actual surfing was a hell of lot faster. Even with blocking and whatnot...
I want something like OffByOne for Linux. I can filter ads out at the firewall if I get less lazy.
I have often said how much I appreciate Snowden's sacrifice and gifts to us. I find him, while a bit sleazy, to be a greater patriot than most of the folks I know - and I served eight years in the Marines. That's saying something - I think.
So, I've gotta ask...
What makes folks think he's privy to this information or knows their full capacity? What makes everyone believe he's telling us this of his own volition? How is he an authority on this particular issue, it seems likely to be beyond his scope?
While that's true I do think I recall RedHat turning around and counter-suing SCO way back when and I think Canonical has filed at least one trademark suit? Of course, they both kind of had to. But let's be realistic here...
Regardless of our moral views on copyright, regardless of how you and I might think, you've got to be pretty damned stupid (if legit) to activate a ton of unpaid for copies of Windows -- even Enterprise? (What are they, crazy?), Office, and whatever else form the same IP address and not expect to get your teeth kicked in by the MS law-squad. That's right retarded. Funny, but retarded. They should have put up a VM in China and pushed the data through there via a hardware firewall w/VPN capacity. MS wouldn't have done a damned thing.
That may be true but I'm not sure that I'm seeing what point it is that you're trying to make?
Are you saying that all these people didn't want OEM installs so took it to this one place, used this one particular IP address, and then activated Home, Professional, Server, Office, Enterprise, etc versions on this one particular IP address? I didn't know there was an OEM Server edition or OEM Office and they all had the same activation code.
Someone, probably, was activating licenses from Technet or MSDN and, from the looks of things, was probably selling boxes with them pre-installed. They might be VL and gone over that number - probably stolen, and probably sold boxes with 'legit' on 'em. Alternatively, they patched it to pipe a cracked version through one particular IP address and sold them as legit.
I mean, c'mon now... What kind of excuses are ya gonna make for this? "Oh, someone just didn't know how to find the decrapify application via Google and wanted to get a clean install instead of the OEM stuff." Sheesh...
I'm not a gamer but there's all sorts of ways to enjoy one's freedom. I think the appropriate word would be liberties but I'm going to guess that that's not something we'll agree on. However, one does have a liberty to decide to not utilize a freedom. Different people have different priorities, they may not match your own. I may use Linux but I'm glad that people are both free and at liberty to choose closed source - if they want. I may not make that choice but I'm glad that they can.
Sweet. Thanks! That'll keep me amused. I am going to guess that I did a "catch up" back around 2010. So, hopefully I'll have a few hours worth of laughs. The last time I caught up, it had been probably about that long and he'd moved twice since then. It's funny, I was thinking about it the other day and I want to say that I was talking/typing about it here. I'll go take a peek on a tablet later and take it to bed to start reading. My guffawing will keep the missus awake. I'll get double the amusement out of it.;-) (No, she sleeps like a bear, usually.)
Gotta tell you, I very seldom have any issues with the open source drivers of either type. If I do, then I just toss another distro on and see what happens. That's it.
Now, the heaviest thing my GPU's going to face is playing a movie - and probably not even in high definition. So, I'm not sure what good my response does.
I very, very seldom use the proprietary drivers. It's not that I care, it's just that I might as well use source that I could read if I wanted to. I'm not only not going to read it, I'm not even going to understand half of it. It's even less likely that I'd be able to fix it. Nope. I just don't figure I'll put stuff on there that I can't see, just in case I ever feel like looking.
And it works. It works just fine. I did have a Mint Cinnamon 17.2 tearing issue with the open source nVidia drivers. I put my preferred distro back on there. The problem went away. It would tear a couple of times, toss me to TTY, and not start X again until reboot. I played around with trying to fix it. I gave up and put Lubuntu on. Other than that, I've not had any problems with video drivers in a while.
Mint works fine on a similarly aged GPU that is ATi. Which is completely and totally backwards, I guess.
I don't ask for much out of them. Just a movie. Maybe a high definition version of Zork. I guess my question is what kind of problems are you (or others) experiencing? Is it just for games or other intense tasks? Right now, I tend to try to go AMD CPU and nVidia GPU but that's not always an option and I'm not beholden to any one company - but have a mild preference for supporting AMD. I don't (usually) do more than two or three monitors. I get confused with too many. I did have a setup that was driving six and it was kind of sexy but I was constantly distracted and my 'work'-flow never really seemed to fit it. That was fine. Expensive, but fine.
Where's it breaking? The above tearing and then ceasing to restart issues were the last time I've had any issues. Is it just games or where else? I'm mostly just curious so that I know what to avoid as I may actually be doing some more intensive things in the not-too-distant future but I suspect that's mostly going to be video editing. I should probably be a bit prepared for this.:/
I'd get a bit frustrated with that. I find that people who are lazy in areas like that are also lazy in other areas in life. I don't really have high standards for people and I've only got one really big pet peeve for in-person contact. I'm pretty sure it's a form of insanity called 'mesophonia' or something like that.
I can not stand someone eating with their mouth open, talking with their mouth full, or eating noisily. I *will* say something - even if you're at a different table and I'm in the restaurant. I did not go out to eat to dine with pigs. I don't care what fork you use. I do not want to hear slurping, chomping, loud crunching, etc... I do not go to places where they would eat like that. I've had people thank me (including applause) for my behavior and I've never been kicked out. I have had someone threaten to take me outside and I led the way. He paid his check and left with his family in a huff.
I don't know what it is and, try like I might, I can't get over it. It has prevented me from enjoying parts of life. It has prevented me from doing out and doing certain things. I know this. I will break someone's jaw if provoked once my dander gets up. I have no idea what it is and, try as I might, I can't get over it. I simply avoid areas where that's a likely problem. I'll position myself where I neither see nor hear. Sometimes I can cope but it is not easy. Other times, I'll get up and leave or, if egregious enough, I'll intercede. There is no stopping me once I get going. I did spend eight years in the Marines and took each and every single level of MCT - all the way through the advanced levels and then the various training levels specific with my MOS.
Not even raw boots on the Island ate like some of those people do. I can not and will not stand it. If particularly peeved and sufficiently motivated, I will not be the one leaving. Well, unless the staff asks me to leave - so far, so good. And no, I've even spoken with a shrink about it and I'm told I'm sane but they pointed out the mental illness at the same time - so they might have just been polite. I dunno. It's going to end up with me in jail at some point. Strangely? I'm okay with that.
You can probably hit me and I'll walk away and say nothing. You can do a whole lot of things and I'll do nothing. Then, there's that one thing... I snap like a patient fresh out of the State Mental Hospital.
That's a vast improvement over pointing and saying, "The US is the culprit!" (Or what have you.) Oh, it's fun to blame the US and the US does deserve some blame. However, very rarely is the world so binary and history so clear as to be able to point and place blame on a sole party. I really, really get a kick out of those who know no history from before 2000 but feel compelled to blame IS/ISIL/ISIS on the US. It is even more amusing when those that levy such complaints are from Europe.
Hell, even Vietnam was largely due to the US trying to clean up after France. Cuba? Err... Not so much anyone's fault but the US. I guess we could go back a little further and we could say that the blame might rest (a bit) on the shoulders of US citizens and not the US government, directly. But no, that was mostly the US' doing along with Castro and Che. Hmm... And Batista. Yeah, even there it's not just the US - we could go back to colonialism even with Cuba, if we really wanted and now that I think about it.
There's some Banana Republic stuff to get into. That can (largely) be blamed on the US. Well, unless you want to go back to the Spaniards and (I tihnk?) Portugal.
I'm still not sure what kind of disconnect it takes to blame the US for IS instead of, you know, blaming the people who are chopping off heads and tossing people off of "Chuck-a-homo Bridge." I'm sorry but no... If you're out chopping someone's head off 'cause you believe in a magical figure then you're fucking crazy - and completely to blame for your actions. There are NO extenuating circumstances for that. But no... It's surely the fault of the US. If they're the World Police, they're tyrants. If they do nothing, they're not doing enough. If they do anything, there's going to be people unhappy and they're going to be loud. It's kind of silly when you think about it and realize that many of them enjoy the things they have today because of aid or actions from the US.
Which is not to say the US is perfect. I'd never be so daft as to make such a claim. I'd also not try to lump it together as one. They're my own government but I've not really voted for very many people that have actually won their elections. I don't support much of what the country does and the ways that we do it. I didn't vote for them and I can say that truthfully almost every single time. I can only do so much to bring about change. In fact, I'm doing more than most - and, come November, I'll find out if I'm doing even more - though it's on a much, much smaller scale and unlikely to be noted except in the local newspaper.
> We're trying to teach the students how to add value to the world. We're also trying to gauge how well we're doing.
Are we? Are we really trying or is that what we're telling them?
> If I pay money for someone else to do my work, I'm not adding value, but rather shifting it around.
If it was work that would be undone otherwise then, I'd argue that they're both adding value and shifting money around - a value in and of itself.
> We're also using these exams to create credentials.
For whom? I'll note your next sentence handily includes the word "theoretically."
> Now, there's a lot about this system that doesn't work well.
Correct. Let's come up with some ideas as to how to make it better but, in order to do that, I think we'll need to be honest with ourselves as to what our goals really are in this day and age. Public eduction was, at one point, geared to bring the kids in from the farm and get them ready for the factory. What are the goals now?
Obviously, I'm not advocating we drop the whole thing and let people buy a degree. Of course not. Hell, I'm not even sure what I'm advocating except that we might want to rethink it. There's some point, perhaps, where we need to be more pragmatic. I'm not sure what all of the comments you read, but I mentioned in another that I'm thinking the UK (and parts of Europe) are on an interesting track - where they stop at 16 and put them into more specific educational tracks and preparation for those tracks starts even sooner.
But, in order to figure that out, we'll have to be honest with ourselves and figure out what the goal really is, what we're willing to invest to reach that goal, and how to measure our mileposts in reaching that goal. Today, there are a lot of things that can just be "Googled" so to speak. I guess it's (to my way of thinking) time to start being honest about expectations and goals. They're ripping the kids off for a piece of paper right now that, by all accounts, is largely just people buying their degrees. Where does this end? How far are we going to let this go before we say, "Alright, this is stupid. There's got to be a better way?"
Err... You weren't there in the 1970s, where you? It wasn't until the mid-1980s when quality from Japan improved. Take the Subaru for example. It had such a poor reputation that they completely revamped it and recreated the image with a tire-kicking commercial series that ran for years. They used to rust out in a very short order. The engines were pretty good but the rest was shoddy. The same goes for Datsun, Honda, and Toyota. The Honda motorcycles were pretty well dialed in by the late 1970s. The electronics from Japan improved a great deal in the mid-1980s.
It was not always like that. Not even remotely. There's no reason to try for revisionist history or rose-tinted glasses. It was followed up by the US making some seriously crappy things. However, Japan's quality definitely improved and it improved because, at one time, it kind of sucked.
Boy, I wonder why they did that? I also wonder when Japan became eligible to make that decision on her own...
Hmm... If only I didn't already know the answers to those questions or where to find them. Are you REALLY going to blame the US for taking Japan's military away? Are you REALLY going to argue that that was a bad choice? Do you REALLY think we don't know that Japan has been able to change her constitution for a *very* long time? Do you REALLY not know why that choice was made?
Seriously? We're not that dumb. Stop trying to lay shit at the feet of the US to clean up or to accept blame. Or, if you're going to, bring some facts and some logical statements. That's as daft as trying to say that the US had no business interfering with Japan in WWII. Or for trying to blame the US for WWII. Or for trying to say that Japan was trying to "surrender" when we dropped the bombs. Or any one of a number of other borderline retarded things that people spout because they're unable/willing to crack a damned book open and read it.
Is the US perfect? Fuck no. Not even close. However, the US is not responsible for you stubbing your toe, inability to get laid, or piss-poor choices that you made in life. Grow the fuck up and learn some history. Japan doesn't have as much military capacity as it could have because Japan opts to keep it that way - it's much cheaper (though it affords fewer power projection benefits) to rely on the US for military aid than it is to field your own military. They, and many other nations, have been doing this for years. Japan is, at least, a little more open about it and quite grateful (except for a few nutballs) for it.
There are some crazy bastards that want us to get off Okinawa. Not a chance. It's a good thing. Otherwise, China and Russia would like to have a nice quiet word with Japan. Yes, even all these years later.
Nah, it was already started then. That was just giving some public motive. Their statement, however improperly made, is largely correct. Even if you want to go hog-wild on the Iraq war, the US didn't even start that. That started long ago and, if we want to be honest with each other, is due to colonialism and then the hack job done by the League of Nations. The US was not a party to the League. Much of what the League did was exactly opposite of what we recommended they do but we didn't want to get involved so Congress put the kibosh on our joining. That was *not* an option after the second go-round.
How, exactly, are you going to claim the US started this (or that)? Be specific and cite your work. You need only reference it - no need for links. I'm rather fluent in my history so you don't need to dig out various Wikipedia links. I'm not that rough.
Heh, at least two good comments in one thread. You are correct by my reckoning. The US hasn't a damned thing to fear from China. Japan? Well, maybe if the US doesn't protect them and they're left to their own devices, then they're royally screwed. I imagine that China has some history books and a few people left alive that remember. If China gets their hands on Japan, they might just wipe them off the face of the Earth. Add to that, Japan still has people worshiping their war criminals so it's not like any apology from official channels has meant anything.
It'd be mildly annoying for the folks in the US. But, it might bring some manufacturing jobs back to the country. I can only imagine that the US will be asked to help clean it up, blamed for it, and then second-guessed for years after the end of the conflict. Then, quite likely, they'll all forget that the US paid to rebuild their country and go right back to the same behavior except this time they'll be bitching even more because we stopped letting them bomb themselves into rubble every generation or two. It seems likely.
People see what they want to see. To them, it's a way to slight the US (in some strange convoluted fashion). To them, it's a failing - though I can assure you that they'd be far more irate had the US done so. The page he linked says nothing like what he claims. I actually followed that closely and, as near as I can recall, never any talk of using nukes unless they were nuked. It's reasonably safe to conclude, they have not been nuked. I'm not even sure if it was agreed that they'd be under the nuclear umbrella but I seem to recall a pundit mentioning it at the time.
However, there's not much chance of convincing people otherwise. They may not be the typical person but I entered this thread with a bet with the missus - I'll see how it pans out. (I'm betting that a very specific comment is made and have a second bet that it is made by a very specific person. I've only made it this far down - I'll see.)
I've gotta get around to checking TheReg to see if he's still writing. I haven't done a "catch up" in at least a half dozen years. Some of the BOFH articles are way too funny.
My thinking is that a spell-checker won't find that but a grammar-checker might find it. I've been playing with 'After the Deadline' as of late. My grammar is far from perfect which is why I continually strive to improve it. I must say, you should have seen how poor it was prior to my acting on my desire to improve. In short, it was horrible.
I am not one to get upset about much. Things like grammar do not bother me unless it's really showing a lack of effort. We have one notably bad grammarian and I've actually (gently) prodded them to make improvements. They're not perfect, not by a long-shot, but they're certainly improving. Sometimes I prod under my own username but that's not frequent. I usually tick the box and post as an AC. It took some effort but they're now using a spell-checker.
I'd call them out but I am not that kind of person and it's probably obvious who he is. I try to give simple directions and mild correction and they actually are showing signs of improvement. I don't mind that, they're making an effort. I am also not perfect and do make more than my share of mistakes. I'm also not likely to value my posts a great deal so I don't always put as much effort into them as I could. I'm okay with that, it's about accepting certain standards for different things. Various behaviors are fine for various circumstances.
I have no idea about the German language - except I can speak and understand a bit of it and, I guess, I can read a little of it. I'm not even remotely proficient but I had/have some German-speaking friends and I watch a lot of military history documentaries or read books about them. I've been to Germany a few times but I sure as hell have no idea what the grammar rules might be.
I've run around for about an hour now (I was bored and had time) trying a variety of extensions and whatnot. I can't seem to find any that will kill the tab bar on the top. I tried a bunch from Chrome - Opera can use those just fine, but it was to no avail. I looked and didn't see a theme that hid tabs. I did find some extensions that claimed they hid the tabs but, alas, they just closed 'em. That sucked - this is the second time I've tried typing this out 'cause I was working on it as I was testing.
It is open and it might be something that can be done. I just not dug into the code and taken a peek - it seems like that might be easy enough but then you'd have to re-do it every time or try to push the code up-stream to Opera and I'm thinking they're disinclined to take outside code BUT it is maybe worth the effort.
I'm a bit bored so I'll keep looking and let you know if I find anything. If I don't then you can either look on your own (of course), use it (or one of the many others) as is and ignore the top tabs, or continue using Firefox, or whatever.;-) But, I'll keep looking. I've now got some extra dozen extensions installed and need to figure out which ones to remove and which to keep - and I found a few interesting new ones along the way. *sighs* That's usually why I try to stay away from the extensions unless I really need 'em. I'm stocked up quite nicely. There are a few new side-bar extensions that I found, so I'll be at this for hours.
If they have an extradition agreement then the answer is generally yes, and more likely yes if there's also an equivalent crime in the caller's jurisdiction.
I think a lot of folks (specifically here) don't want this to be the case but it makes sense. The "you" is generic, a royal "you" and not to mean "you personally."
If you hack a computer on US soil and the US is able to show reasonable probable cause then you're coming to America to stand trial. If there is no extradition agreement then you may still be coming to the US to stand trial - just because they don't have an agreement does not, in fact, mean that they will not choose to extradite you. (That's mostly a movie myth, the host country may still opt to extradite.)
Now, if your country has a law that says hacking is illegal (assuming you are from outside the US) and you hack a computer in the US then you're almost certainly going to be extradited. In this particular case (I've seen him in a documentary) he is in prison (a five year sentence, as I recall) for hacking in his home country. What he did was illegal in his country. So, he's coming here to the US for committing the crime on US soil which is in addition to the crime he committed on his host country's soil.
This does not fall afoul the double-jeopardy restrictions. His actions in his country where illegal. That's one end of it. His actions in this country are illegal. That's the other end of it. That is a second offense.
I'm having a hard time thinking of an analogy. If I stand in Canada and shoot someone across the border, I've committed an offense in both countries. I don't know what will be charged but it's surely something in each of them even if it's just illegal discharge of a weapon on the Canadian side. Even if it's reckless misconduct or what not.
If you go into a bank with a pistol and fire a shot in the air and then you rob the place, then there's a whole host of things they can charge you with. They may charge you with discharging a firearm in city limits, armed robbery, criminal threatening, illegal possession of a firearm (if you weren't eligible to own it, terrorizing, criminal misconduct, assault (but not battery), and probably a bunch of other things.
They do not normally charge you with all of that - but they can. They may charge you with all of that if some of the facts are in question. They'll throw all the charges they can think of against you and see how many they can get to stick.
So, that's the other end of it. You've got the potential for multiple charges and the crime took place in multiple jurisdictions. Thus, he may stand trial in those jurisdictions. Theoretically, if his packets crossed other borders and entered other jurisdictions then he might be charged in those jurisdictions too. I've never seen that done, I don't think it has been done, but it's quite possible for those theoretical countries to seek extradition and charge them.
We Slashdotters, some of us, don't think it should be that way. Which is funny because some of those same people hold the position that just because it's done on a computer shouldn't make a difference, especially where copyright or patents are concerned. It's a bit hypocritical.
I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer. If you are going to hack Mrs. Clinton's email server then consult a qualified legal professional in your particular jurisdiction. I am, however, a wee bit of a law geek and I owned my own business and dealt a lot with lawyers and the courts so I'm quite familiar with the processes and laws but not an expert. I've done my own defense, filed my own motions, requested hearings, and things like that. I've even aided others in their defense. I make it a habit to go and observe the courts, in person, and to learn about the process.
So, take it for what you will. That's my understanding of it. I'd say that I'd not swear to it in a court of law but, in all actuality, I would.
> You could skip the middleman and simply have the students bid on their grade.
Perhaps something not far off from that might actually be more beneficial than we're thinking. Assuming, of course, there's a basic level of understanding and education - at what point is rote valuable? At what point is it no longer valuable? When does efforts at complete understanding stop being productive and become an academic pursuit instead of a means to an end, and end that is some sort of product?
That said, I'm not smart. Not at all. I test very well. I learn really quickly and retain it for only a short time. That's true for the vast majority of things. I keep it until I no longer need it and it gets flushed out of RAM, so to speak. On paper, it looks like I'm brilliant. Actually, I have a hard time learning anything. That is to say, until it 'clicks' I do not get it and it's pure rote.
You needn't respond, of course, but I like picking your brain. Sometimes interesting things pop out. 'Snot my fault. I want to add two things, I think I mentioned them elsewhere in this thread but I ate a handful of sinus pills last night and smoked a joint. So, I'll be damned if I remember what I wrote. I really needed to get some sleep.
I'm a full on, honest-to-goodness, one-of-them-there, full-fledged, dyed-in-the-wool mathematician. I hold a Ph.D in Applied Mathematics. I hated maths. I didn't understand it - but I knew the rote. Then, I had an instructor who showed me the simplest little thing - and then it clicked. After that, the concepts all fell into place. It was easy and simple. The area of a triangle is just half the area of what it would be if it were squared off. That's it. That was enough. Yup... That's when my brain said, "Oh, ha! Duh..."
I had a professor who gave us open book, out-of-class, exams. We were encouraged to use questions from previous years, to work with our peers, to use any resources available to us. None of us had the same exam questions and, as near as we can tell, he never repeated any exam questions - ever. We had access to the questions and answers from previous year's classes. We had each other's questions and answers. We had some semblance of an internet (not really the world wide web). We had all the resources we had and could use any of them. There was no time alloted to take the exams in class. Ever. It was some of the best instruction that I ever got.
But, at some point... We have different goals in life. We have varied reasons for getting an education. Beyond a certain level, does it matter more if they know how or if they know how to find the answers? This is not meant to limit choices but to provide other choices - perhaps even more beneficial choices. There is a finite value in learning for learning sake - in a world where production is the expectation. Is a materials engineer better of knowing the tensile strength of a specific type of steel than he is knowing how to find that information? Barring that information being present, is he better served knowing how to get that information?
I think, from what I know, the UK system is fairly good in these regards - as is much of the EU. They seem inclined to give a decent base and then make allowances for varied tracks. Even there, I suspect there's room for improvement. At some level, it's probably actually better that people know how (and when) to find information rather than rely on figuring it out for themselves. Obviously they should probably still know some of that and there's a line to be drawn somewhere. I am not generally an all-or-nothing, binary, black-and-white kind of person (as I'm sure you know).
I'm not suggesting we keep them idiots and just teach them how to use Google. I am saying that sometimes, given the ubiquity of information and connectivity to that information, we might be better served by teaching them how to use Google and then spending the "extra" time doing something a bit more functional/beneficial. I'm not even saying that we should, I'm saying that we should probably give it
I think it necessary to include this caveat with your post...
"Not at this moment in time and not for the immediate future."
I'd be horribly egotistical to state that I can authoritatively claim what just 20 more years of growth will do. Some folks are like that and willing to say such. I am not. I simply do not know nor do I place much stock in those who would claim to know. Very, very few predictions about tech have been accurate.
Will A.I. improve drastically over time *and* reach the capacities suggested by the pundits? Perhaps and quite probably. The questions are, when, at what cost, and to what purpose? I suspect that I'll be dead and gone before we have something that I'd consider "strong A.I." I am 58, I do not expect to live past 75. (I don't really want to.) Even if I live to be 100, I don't see it happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't trust you! You *like* PHP! ;-)
That's okay - I think it's a fine language too. At least it has made you money.
That said, I wonder if you can do it backwards? I bet you could load PHP via JavaScript, dynamic loading of dynamic content. I'm gonna go wash my mouth out with soap. Err.. SOAP.
Yes, yes I'll see my own way out.
Two things... I prefer uMatrix, it's awesome. It is better than NoScript in my opinion and is whitelist-based. It now has a neat feature that lets you sync it across multiple profiles via the same mechanism that lets you sync your tabs. Yes, it is that awesome. You just need to enable the cloud mode. It's an odd name so i didn't notice it until last release.
The other thing is, if they increase the speed by 34% and people start doing that, they'll just cram more shit in their sites so that it ends up actually being 34% slower after six months. It sure was nice when nobody else had broadband or ad-blockers installed. Man, the web was fast. :/ My speed's gone up but I swear, I have no numbers to prove it, it seems like it is slower.
I had some speedy broadband at the end of the 90s and we had fiber in my office. The net still had .GIF images, maybe some MPEG. I was not just king of Napster, I had a giant hub that ran OpenNap and peered five other OpenNap servers with it. And it was still fast. I think it was only like 3 Mb/sec service. Maybe? I don't remember that long ago - but I'm pretty sure it's not rose-tinted glasses telling me that the actual surfing was a hell of lot faster. Even with blocking and whatnot...
I want something like OffByOne for Linux. I can filter ads out at the firewall if I get less lazy.
I have often said how much I appreciate Snowden's sacrifice and gifts to us. I find him, while a bit sleazy, to be a greater patriot than most of the folks I know - and I served eight years in the Marines. That's saying something - I think.
So, I've gotta ask...
What makes folks think he's privy to this information or knows their full capacity?
What makes everyone believe he's telling us this of his own volition?
How is he an authority on this particular issue, it seems likely to be beyond his scope?
While that's true I do think I recall RedHat turning around and counter-suing SCO way back when and I think Canonical has filed at least one trademark suit? Of course, they both kind of had to. But let's be realistic here...
Regardless of our moral views on copyright, regardless of how you and I might think, you've got to be pretty damned stupid (if legit) to activate a ton of unpaid for copies of Windows -- even Enterprise? (What are they, crazy?), Office, and whatever else form the same IP address and not expect to get your teeth kicked in by the MS law-squad. That's right retarded. Funny, but retarded. They should have put up a VM in China and pushed the data through there via a hardware firewall w/VPN capacity. MS wouldn't have done a damned thing.
That may be true but I'm not sure that I'm seeing what point it is that you're trying to make?
Are you saying that all these people didn't want OEM installs so took it to this one place, used this one particular IP address, and then activated Home, Professional, Server, Office, Enterprise, etc versions on this one particular IP address? I didn't know there was an OEM Server edition or OEM Office and they all had the same activation code.
Someone, probably, was activating licenses from Technet or MSDN and, from the looks of things, was probably selling boxes with them pre-installed. They might be VL and gone over that number - probably stolen, and probably sold boxes with 'legit' on 'em. Alternatively, they patched it to pipe a cracked version through one particular IP address and sold them as legit.
I mean, c'mon now... What kind of excuses are ya gonna make for this? "Oh, someone just didn't know how to find the decrapify application via Google and wanted to get a clean install instead of the OEM stuff." Sheesh...
I'm not a gamer but there's all sorts of ways to enjoy one's freedom. I think the appropriate word would be liberties but I'm going to guess that that's not something we'll agree on. However, one does have a liberty to decide to not utilize a freedom. Different people have different priorities, they may not match your own. I may use Linux but I'm glad that people are both free and at liberty to choose closed source - if they want. I may not make that choice but I'm glad that they can.
Sweet. Thanks! That'll keep me amused. I am going to guess that I did a "catch up" back around 2010. So, hopefully I'll have a few hours worth of laughs. The last time I caught up, it had been probably about that long and he'd moved twice since then. It's funny, I was thinking about it the other day and I want to say that I was talking/typing about it here. I'll go take a peek on a tablet later and take it to bed to start reading. My guffawing will keep the missus awake. I'll get double the amusement out of it. ;-) (No, she sleeps like a bear, usually.)
Gotta tell you, I very seldom have any issues with the open source drivers of either type. If I do, then I just toss another distro on and see what happens. That's it.
Now, the heaviest thing my GPU's going to face is playing a movie - and probably not even in high definition. So, I'm not sure what good my response does.
I very, very seldom use the proprietary drivers. It's not that I care, it's just that I might as well use source that I could read if I wanted to. I'm not only not going to read it, I'm not even going to understand half of it. It's even less likely that I'd be able to fix it. Nope. I just don't figure I'll put stuff on there that I can't see, just in case I ever feel like looking.
And it works. It works just fine. I did have a Mint Cinnamon 17.2 tearing issue with the open source nVidia drivers. I put my preferred distro back on there. The problem went away. It would tear a couple of times, toss me to TTY, and not start X again until reboot. I played around with trying to fix it. I gave up and put Lubuntu on. Other than that, I've not had any problems with video drivers in a while.
Mint works fine on a similarly aged GPU that is ATi. Which is completely and totally backwards, I guess.
I don't ask for much out of them. Just a movie. Maybe a high definition version of Zork. I guess my question is what kind of problems are you (or others) experiencing? Is it just for games or other intense tasks? Right now, I tend to try to go AMD CPU and nVidia GPU but that's not always an option and I'm not beholden to any one company - but have a mild preference for supporting AMD. I don't (usually) do more than two or three monitors. I get confused with too many. I did have a setup that was driving six and it was kind of sexy but I was constantly distracted and my 'work'-flow never really seemed to fit it. That was fine. Expensive, but fine.
Where's it breaking? The above tearing and then ceasing to restart issues were the last time I've had any issues. Is it just games or where else? I'm mostly just curious so that I know what to avoid as I may actually be doing some more intensive things in the not-too-distant future but I suspect that's mostly going to be video editing. I should probably be a bit prepared for this. :/
I'd get a bit frustrated with that. I find that people who are lazy in areas like that are also lazy in other areas in life. I don't really have high standards for people and I've only got one really big pet peeve for in-person contact. I'm pretty sure it's a form of insanity called 'mesophonia' or something like that.
I can not stand someone eating with their mouth open, talking with their mouth full, or eating noisily. I *will* say something - even if you're at a different table and I'm in the restaurant. I did not go out to eat to dine with pigs. I don't care what fork you use. I do not want to hear slurping, chomping, loud crunching, etc... I do not go to places where they would eat like that. I've had people thank me (including applause) for my behavior and I've never been kicked out. I have had someone threaten to take me outside and I led the way. He paid his check and left with his family in a huff.
I don't know what it is and, try like I might, I can't get over it. It has prevented me from enjoying parts of life. It has prevented me from doing out and doing certain things. I know this. I will break someone's jaw if provoked once my dander gets up. I have no idea what it is and, try as I might, I can't get over it. I simply avoid areas where that's a likely problem. I'll position myself where I neither see nor hear. Sometimes I can cope but it is not easy. Other times, I'll get up and leave or, if egregious enough, I'll intercede. There is no stopping me once I get going. I did spend eight years in the Marines and took each and every single level of MCT - all the way through the advanced levels and then the various training levels specific with my MOS.
Not even raw boots on the Island ate like some of those people do. I can not and will not stand it. If particularly peeved and sufficiently motivated, I will not be the one leaving. Well, unless the staff asks me to leave - so far, so good. And no, I've even spoken with a shrink about it and I'm told I'm sane but they pointed out the mental illness at the same time - so they might have just been polite. I dunno. It's going to end up with me in jail at some point. Strangely? I'm okay with that.
You can probably hit me and I'll walk away and say nothing. You can do a whole lot of things and I'll do nothing. Then, there's that one thing... I snap like a patient fresh out of the State Mental Hospital.
That's a vast improvement over pointing and saying, "The US is the culprit!" (Or what have you.) Oh, it's fun to blame the US and the US does deserve some blame. However, very rarely is the world so binary and history so clear as to be able to point and place blame on a sole party. I really, really get a kick out of those who know no history from before 2000 but feel compelled to blame IS/ISIL/ISIS on the US. It is even more amusing when those that levy such complaints are from Europe.
Hell, even Vietnam was largely due to the US trying to clean up after France. Cuba? Err... Not so much anyone's fault but the US. I guess we could go back a little further and we could say that the blame might rest (a bit) on the shoulders of US citizens and not the US government, directly. But no, that was mostly the US' doing along with Castro and Che. Hmm... And Batista. Yeah, even there it's not just the US - we could go back to colonialism even with Cuba, if we really wanted and now that I think about it.
There's some Banana Republic stuff to get into. That can (largely) be blamed on the US. Well, unless you want to go back to the Spaniards and (I tihnk?) Portugal.
I'm still not sure what kind of disconnect it takes to blame the US for IS instead of, you know, blaming the people who are chopping off heads and tossing people off of "Chuck-a-homo Bridge." I'm sorry but no... If you're out chopping someone's head off 'cause you believe in a magical figure then you're fucking crazy - and completely to blame for your actions. There are NO extenuating circumstances for that. But no... It's surely the fault of the US. If they're the World Police, they're tyrants. If they do nothing, they're not doing enough. If they do anything, there's going to be people unhappy and they're going to be loud. It's kind of silly when you think about it and realize that many of them enjoy the things they have today because of aid or actions from the US.
Which is not to say the US is perfect. I'd never be so daft as to make such a claim. I'd also not try to lump it together as one. They're my own government but I've not really voted for very many people that have actually won their elections. I don't support much of what the country does and the ways that we do it. I didn't vote for them and I can say that truthfully almost every single time. I can only do so much to bring about change. In fact, I'm doing more than most - and, come November, I'll find out if I'm doing even more - though it's on a much, much smaller scale and unlikely to be noted except in the local newspaper.
> We're trying to teach the students how to add value to the world. We're also trying to gauge how well we're doing.
Are we? Are we really trying or is that what we're telling them?
> If I pay money for someone else to do my work, I'm not adding value, but rather shifting it around.
If it was work that would be undone otherwise then, I'd argue that they're both adding value and shifting money around - a value in and of itself.
> We're also using these exams to create credentials.
For whom? I'll note your next sentence handily includes the word "theoretically."
> Now, there's a lot about this system that doesn't work well.
Correct. Let's come up with some ideas as to how to make it better but, in order to do that, I think we'll need to be honest with ourselves as to what our goals really are in this day and age. Public eduction was, at one point, geared to bring the kids in from the farm and get them ready for the factory. What are the goals now?
Obviously, I'm not advocating we drop the whole thing and let people buy a degree. Of course not. Hell, I'm not even sure what I'm advocating except that we might want to rethink it. There's some point, perhaps, where we need to be more pragmatic. I'm not sure what all of the comments you read, but I mentioned in another that I'm thinking the UK (and parts of Europe) are on an interesting track - where they stop at 16 and put them into more specific educational tracks and preparation for those tracks starts even sooner.
But, in order to figure that out, we'll have to be honest with ourselves and figure out what the goal really is, what we're willing to invest to reach that goal, and how to measure our mileposts in reaching that goal. Today, there are a lot of things that can just be "Googled" so to speak. I guess it's (to my way of thinking) time to start being honest about expectations and goals. They're ripping the kids off for a piece of paper right now that, by all accounts, is largely just people buying their degrees. Where does this end? How far are we going to let this go before we say, "Alright, this is stupid. There's got to be a better way?"
Err... You weren't there in the 1970s, where you? It wasn't until the mid-1980s when quality from Japan improved. Take the Subaru for example. It had such a poor reputation that they completely revamped it and recreated the image with a tire-kicking commercial series that ran for years. They used to rust out in a very short order. The engines were pretty good but the rest was shoddy. The same goes for Datsun, Honda, and Toyota. The Honda motorcycles were pretty well dialed in by the late 1970s. The electronics from Japan improved a great deal in the mid-1980s.
It was not always like that. Not even remotely. There's no reason to try for revisionist history or rose-tinted glasses. It was followed up by the US making some seriously crappy things. However, Japan's quality definitely improved and it improved because, at one time, it kind of sucked.
Boy, I wonder why they did that? I also wonder when Japan became eligible to make that decision on her own...
Hmm... If only I didn't already know the answers to those questions or where to find them. Are you REALLY going to blame the US for taking Japan's military away? Are you REALLY going to argue that that was a bad choice? Do you REALLY think we don't know that Japan has been able to change her constitution for a *very* long time? Do you REALLY not know why that choice was made?
Seriously? We're not that dumb. Stop trying to lay shit at the feet of the US to clean up or to accept blame. Or, if you're going to, bring some facts and some logical statements. That's as daft as trying to say that the US had no business interfering with Japan in WWII. Or for trying to blame the US for WWII. Or for trying to say that Japan was trying to "surrender" when we dropped the bombs. Or any one of a number of other borderline retarded things that people spout because they're unable/willing to crack a damned book open and read it.
Is the US perfect? Fuck no. Not even close. However, the US is not responsible for you stubbing your toe, inability to get laid, or piss-poor choices that you made in life. Grow the fuck up and learn some history. Japan doesn't have as much military capacity as it could have because Japan opts to keep it that way - it's much cheaper (though it affords fewer power projection benefits) to rely on the US for military aid than it is to field your own military. They, and many other nations, have been doing this for years. Japan is, at least, a little more open about it and quite grateful (except for a few nutballs) for it.
There are some crazy bastards that want us to get off Okinawa. Not a chance. It's a good thing. Otherwise, China and Russia would like to have a nice quiet word with Japan. Yes, even all these years later.
Nah, it was already started then. That was just giving some public motive. Their statement, however improperly made, is largely correct. Even if you want to go hog-wild on the Iraq war, the US didn't even start that. That started long ago and, if we want to be honest with each other, is due to colonialism and then the hack job done by the League of Nations. The US was not a party to the League. Much of what the League did was exactly opposite of what we recommended they do but we didn't want to get involved so Congress put the kibosh on our joining. That was *not* an option after the second go-round.
How, exactly, are you going to claim the US started this (or that)? Be specific and cite your work. You need only reference it - no need for links. I'm rather fluent in my history so you don't need to dig out various Wikipedia links. I'm not that rough.
Heh, at least two good comments in one thread. You are correct by my reckoning. The US hasn't a damned thing to fear from China. Japan? Well, maybe if the US doesn't protect them and they're left to their own devices, then they're royally screwed. I imagine that China has some history books and a few people left alive that remember. If China gets their hands on Japan, they might just wipe them off the face of the Earth. Add to that, Japan still has people worshiping their war criminals so it's not like any apology from official channels has meant anything.
It'd be mildly annoying for the folks in the US. But, it might bring some manufacturing jobs back to the country. I can only imagine that the US will be asked to help clean it up, blamed for it, and then second-guessed for years after the end of the conflict. Then, quite likely, they'll all forget that the US paid to rebuild their country and go right back to the same behavior except this time they'll be bitching even more because we stopped letting them bomb themselves into rubble every generation or two. It seems likely.
People see what they want to see. To them, it's a way to slight the US (in some strange convoluted fashion). To them, it's a failing - though I can assure you that they'd be far more irate had the US done so. The page he linked says nothing like what he claims. I actually followed that closely and, as near as I can recall, never any talk of using nukes unless they were nuked. It's reasonably safe to conclude, they have not been nuked. I'm not even sure if it was agreed that they'd be under the nuclear umbrella but I seem to recall a pundit mentioning it at the time.
However, there's not much chance of convincing people otherwise. They may not be the typical person but I entered this thread with a bet with the missus - I'll see how it pans out. (I'm betting that a very specific comment is made and have a second bet that it is made by a very specific person. I've only made it this far down - I'll see.)
I've gotta get around to checking TheReg to see if he's still writing. I haven't done a "catch up" in at least a half dozen years. Some of the BOFH articles are way too funny.
My thinking is that a spell-checker won't find that but a grammar-checker might find it. I've been playing with 'After the Deadline' as of late. My grammar is far from perfect which is why I continually strive to improve it. I must say, you should have seen how poor it was prior to my acting on my desire to improve. In short, it was horrible.
I am not one to get upset about much. Things like grammar do not bother me unless it's really showing a lack of effort. We have one notably bad grammarian and I've actually (gently) prodded them to make improvements. They're not perfect, not by a long-shot, but they're certainly improving. Sometimes I prod under my own username but that's not frequent. I usually tick the box and post as an AC. It took some effort but they're now using a spell-checker.
I'd call them out but I am not that kind of person and it's probably obvious who he is. I try to give simple directions and mild correction and they actually are showing signs of improvement. I don't mind that, they're making an effort. I am also not perfect and do make more than my share of mistakes. I'm also not likely to value my posts a great deal so I don't always put as much effort into them as I could. I'm okay with that, it's about accepting certain standards for different things. Various behaviors are fine for various circumstances.
I have no idea about the German language - except I can speak and understand a bit of it and, I guess, I can read a little of it. I'm not even remotely proficient but I had/have some German-speaking friends and I watch a lot of military history documentaries or read books about them. I've been to Germany a few times but I sure as hell have no idea what the grammar rules might be.
It would appear that that is not yet possible.
http://forums.opera.com/discus...
I've run around for about an hour now (I was bored and had time) trying a variety of extensions and whatnot. I can't seem to find any that will kill the tab bar on the top. I tried a bunch from Chrome - Opera can use those just fine, but it was to no avail. I looked and didn't see a theme that hid tabs. I did find some extensions that claimed they hid the tabs but, alas, they just closed 'em. That sucked - this is the second time I've tried typing this out 'cause I was working on it as I was testing.
It is open and it might be something that can be done. I just not dug into the code and taken a peek - it seems like that might be easy enough but then you'd have to re-do it every time or try to push the code up-stream to Opera and I'm thinking they're disinclined to take outside code BUT it is maybe worth the effort.
I'm a bit bored so I'll keep looking and let you know if I find anything. If I don't then you can either look on your own (of course), use it (or one of the many others) as is and ignore the top tabs, or continue using Firefox, or whatever. ;-) But, I'll keep looking. I've now got some extra dozen extensions installed and need to figure out which ones to remove and which to keep - and I found a few interesting new ones along the way. *sighs* That's usually why I try to stay away from the extensions unless I really need 'em. I'm stocked up quite nicely. There are a few new side-bar extensions that I found, so I'll be at this for hours.
If they have an extradition agreement then the answer is generally yes, and more likely yes if there's also an equivalent crime in the caller's jurisdiction.
I think a lot of folks (specifically here) don't want this to be the case but it makes sense. The "you" is generic, a royal "you" and not to mean "you personally."
If you hack a computer on US soil and the US is able to show reasonable probable cause then you're coming to America to stand trial. If there is no extradition agreement then you may still be coming to the US to stand trial - just because they don't have an agreement does not, in fact, mean that they will not choose to extradite you. (That's mostly a movie myth, the host country may still opt to extradite.)
Now, if your country has a law that says hacking is illegal (assuming you are from outside the US) and you hack a computer in the US then you're almost certainly going to be extradited. In this particular case (I've seen him in a documentary) he is in prison (a five year sentence, as I recall) for hacking in his home country. What he did was illegal in his country. So, he's coming here to the US for committing the crime on US soil which is in addition to the crime he committed on his host country's soil.
This does not fall afoul the double-jeopardy restrictions. His actions in his country where illegal. That's one end of it. His actions in this country are illegal. That's the other end of it. That is a second offense.
I'm having a hard time thinking of an analogy. If I stand in Canada and shoot someone across the border, I've committed an offense in both countries. I don't know what will be charged but it's surely something in each of them even if it's just illegal discharge of a weapon on the Canadian side. Even if it's reckless misconduct or what not.
If you go into a bank with a pistol and fire a shot in the air and then you rob the place, then there's a whole host of things they can charge you with. They may charge you with discharging a firearm in city limits, armed robbery, criminal threatening, illegal possession of a firearm (if you weren't eligible to own it, terrorizing, criminal misconduct, assault (but not battery), and probably a bunch of other things.
They do not normally charge you with all of that - but they can. They may charge you with all of that if some of the facts are in question. They'll throw all the charges they can think of against you and see how many they can get to stick.
So, that's the other end of it. You've got the potential for multiple charges and the crime took place in multiple jurisdictions. Thus, he may stand trial in those jurisdictions. Theoretically, if his packets crossed other borders and entered other jurisdictions then he might be charged in those jurisdictions too. I've never seen that done, I don't think it has been done, but it's quite possible for those theoretical countries to seek extradition and charge them.
We Slashdotters, some of us, don't think it should be that way. Which is funny because some of those same people hold the position that just because it's done on a computer shouldn't make a difference, especially where copyright or patents are concerned. It's a bit hypocritical.
I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer. If you are going to hack Mrs. Clinton's email server then consult a qualified legal professional in your particular jurisdiction. I am, however, a wee bit of a law geek and I owned my own business and dealt a lot with lawyers and the courts so I'm quite familiar with the processes and laws but not an expert. I've done my own defense, filed my own motions, requested hearings, and things like that. I've even aided others in their defense. I make it a habit to go and observe the courts, in person, and to learn about the process.
So, take it for what you will. That's my understanding of it. I'd say that I'd not swear to it in a court of law but, in all actuality, I would.
> You could skip the middleman and simply have the students bid on their grade.
Perhaps something not far off from that might actually be more beneficial than we're thinking. Assuming, of course, there's a basic level of understanding and education - at what point is rote valuable? At what point is it no longer valuable? When does efforts at complete understanding stop being productive and become an academic pursuit instead of a means to an end, and end that is some sort of product?
That said, I'm not smart. Not at all. I test very well. I learn really quickly and retain it for only a short time. That's true for the vast majority of things. I keep it until I no longer need it and it gets flushed out of RAM, so to speak. On paper, it looks like I'm brilliant. Actually, I have a hard time learning anything. That is to say, until it 'clicks' I do not get it and it's pure rote.
You needn't respond, of course, but I like picking your brain. Sometimes interesting things pop out. 'Snot my fault. I want to add two things, I think I mentioned them elsewhere in this thread but I ate a handful of sinus pills last night and smoked a joint. So, I'll be damned if I remember what I wrote. I really needed to get some sleep.
I'm a full on, honest-to-goodness, one-of-them-there, full-fledged, dyed-in-the-wool mathematician. I hold a Ph.D in Applied Mathematics. I hated maths. I didn't understand it - but I knew the rote. Then, I had an instructor who showed me the simplest little thing - and then it clicked. After that, the concepts all fell into place. It was easy and simple. The area of a triangle is just half the area of what it would be if it were squared off. That's it. That was enough. Yup... That's when my brain said, "Oh, ha! Duh..."
I had a professor who gave us open book, out-of-class, exams. We were encouraged to use questions from previous years, to work with our peers, to use any resources available to us. None of us had the same exam questions and, as near as we can tell, he never repeated any exam questions - ever. We had access to the questions and answers from previous year's classes. We had each other's questions and answers. We had some semblance of an internet (not really the world wide web). We had all the resources we had and could use any of them. There was no time alloted to take the exams in class. Ever. It was some of the best instruction that I ever got.
But, at some point... We have different goals in life. We have varied reasons for getting an education. Beyond a certain level, does it matter more if they know how or if they know how to find the answers? This is not meant to limit choices but to provide other choices - perhaps even more beneficial choices. There is a finite value in learning for learning sake - in a world where production is the expectation. Is a materials engineer better of knowing the tensile strength of a specific type of steel than he is knowing how to find that information? Barring that information being present, is he better served knowing how to get that information?
I think, from what I know, the UK system is fairly good in these regards - as is much of the EU. They seem inclined to give a decent base and then make allowances for varied tracks. Even there, I suspect there's room for improvement. At some level, it's probably actually better that people know how (and when) to find information rather than rely on figuring it out for themselves. Obviously they should probably still know some of that and there's a line to be drawn somewhere. I am not generally an all-or-nothing, binary, black-and-white kind of person (as I'm sure you know).
I'm not suggesting we keep them idiots and just teach them how to use Google. I am saying that sometimes, given the ubiquity of information and connectivity to that information, we might be better served by teaching them how to use Google and then spending the "extra" time doing something a bit more functional/beneficial. I'm not even saying that we should, I'm saying that we should probably give it
Sure but it's 33.3 for 1/3. 29% is .3% closer to 25% than it is to 33.3%. Technically closer to 1:4 than 1:3.
I think it necessary to include this caveat with your post...
"Not at this moment in time and not for the immediate future."
I'd be horribly egotistical to state that I can authoritatively claim what just 20 more years of growth will do. Some folks are like that and willing to say such. I am not. I simply do not know nor do I place much stock in those who would claim to know. Very, very few predictions about tech have been accurate.
Will A.I. improve drastically over time *and* reach the capacities suggested by the pundits? Perhaps and quite probably. The questions are, when, at what cost, and to what purpose? I suspect that I'll be dead and gone before we have something that I'd consider "strong A.I." I am 58, I do not expect to live past 75. (I don't really want to.) Even if I live to be 100, I don't see it happening.