Thank FSM that Lynx is still under active development!
1004 posts • joined 23 Feb 2011
I am commenting only on these specific quotes from your post:
: how are the artists who don't get paid manage to pay for their food ? Not to mention rent, heating, and all the rest.
Like anyone else, get a job that pays enough money to cover these expenses.
Most people do work they don't like purely because the income from that work is what they need to live on.
I hate my job. My preferred job would be to lounge about all day at the beach, or playing computer games online and basically just, well, doing nothing productive. But since no one will pay me for that, I need to work at a job that pays money even tho I don't like the work.
No one is entitled to earn a living from doing what they want, what their dream job is. A lucky few find that. Most of the rest of us do what we have to to earn money.
The stereotype of poor university artists or in places like Los Angeles the chance of your waiter being an out of work actor being extremely high is because they have to do side jobs to make enough money.
An artist of whatever description (musician, lyricist, novelist, graphic artist, or whatever) is not entitled to make a living from their copyrights. The point of copyrights is not to guarantee a living wage for an artist, it is to prevent other people who didn't create the work from making money - unless authorised by the copyright holder - from their work.
If an author writes a crappy book that no-one wants to read, they are not entitled to make a living wage from that work.
If an artist - or anyone else - can make a living from their preferred profession, their dream job, the work they love doing and they wake up wanting to go to work, more power to them.
However, if an artist is not a good enough artist to make a living wage from their art, they need to put their art on the backburner as a hobby and find some other way to make a living. Making a living from art doesn't necessarily mean writing the next great novel, or an amazing painting, or taking the money shot as a paparrazi. It can mean wage-paying jobs that involve the art where the author doesn't get the copyright, such as writing code for a tech company, or writing news articles for a newspaper, or producing a TV show for a network, or being a sign writer, all jobs where the employer, not the artist, gets the copyright (usually, employment contract depending).
I always get annoyed when politicians say "but we'd never use it that way!" when some dangerous loophole or capability is pointed out in legislation.
My response is usually something along the lines of:
1) If you or the government would never use it that way, then redraft the legislation so it can't be used that way. After all, if you'd never use it that way what's the issue with fixing the legislation such that it can't be used that way?
2) I don't believe you, you are a politician therefore you are lying. If you weren't lying you'd just fix the legislation.
3) If I believe you (see point 2.) that you or the current government would never use it that way, what about the next one? Do you know who's going to be in power in 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? If you don't know who's going to be in power in 10 years, how can you predict whether a future government won't use it that way?
Its a well trained algorthm. This and no more.
Totally agree. Most of these systems touted as AI are what in the 70's, 80's and 90's we'd have called an "expert system", not an AI system. And that's not because there was no concept of AI, that it's just a new name for "expert system". The concepts of AI have existed for decades. It's just that now people are changing the meaning of AI, it's like AT&T appropriating "5G" to label 4G services for marketing as "5GE".
AI is no longer a technical term with a solid definition, it's just become a marketing buzzword like Cloud that only has a vague meaning.
Not to mention that when cooking, precise control of measurements is antithetical to cooking.
Recipes provide approximate quantities that are perfectly fine if within +-10% - at least! - of the specified value. One of the arts of cooking is adjusting the quantities used to suit tastes and/or compensate for substitutions and/or compensate for different amounts of various ingredients added.
It's unlikely with nearly any recipe that putting 450ml or 550ml of water in when it it specifies 500ml would make any difference at all. And any subtle difference it does make could be compensated by adjusting other factors if necessary, e.g. adding more flour if you added too much water (if doing pastries), or simmering shorter/longer time.
Most of the fun in cooking is varying the quantities - or substituting or entirely adding/removing ingredients - specified in a recipe to suit ones tastes or just for the hell of it.
I agree with what you've said.
I find it unlikely a commercial operation would, for commercial reasons, intentionally turn these devices into bugs.
But note there are 2 caveats there, 1) commercial reasons, 2) intent.
As you pointed out, most likely any such situation would be caused by either inadvertent bugs, or some developer/engineer thinking something would be a cool feature to add, not getting it properly cleared (e.g. not explaining properly to management what a new feature is actually doing, or just not telling them at all). In the latter case, while intentionally introduced by the dev teams, it may be against company policy and/or just not thought through fully what this new fancy feature could lead to. In which case once it was realised what the consequences are or management becomes aware of and understands it, it'd be quickly removed.
However, honestly I am more concerned about the first caveat, "commercial reasons". There might be legal reasons for them to introduce such firmware to enable bugging. Such situations as the Apple v FBI case where the FBI were trying to force Apple to specifically write hacked firmware and directly upload it to the targeted phone(s) to assist the FBI in cracking those phones. This case was never resolved, as when it wasn't looking too good for the FBI they 'magically'* found an alternative way and dropped the case (without prejudice, i.e. no binding judgement was made and the FBI can re-litigate the same or similar cases).
Therefore I think it more likely that these devices would be hacked for profit/disruption/fun illegally or that Amazon or other such services might receive an NSL or All Writs Warrant to, for example, digitally sign the firmware the TLR agency has provided and to force update specified target devices (or all devices at a specified address) - no questions asked.
*) the FBI actually had the means to crack these phones already via 3rd party commercial forensic software, but conveniently 'forgot' this fact as they were actually attempting to set a precedent favourable to them, as opposed to actually needing it for that particular case. Which is why they dropped the case when it was no longer looking like a slam-dunk win, as they didn't want to risk setting a precedent against them with this case since they did have the alternative means to crack the phone.
but the insurance company is going to have to prove that in court.
IANAL, however in civil court you don't have to 'prove' something to the same standard as criminal courts - beyond a reasonable doubt. All they would have to show is "on the balance of probabilities" or "more likely than not". So if it is commonly thought by experts that it was likely Russia, then that standard has been met.
Also, again they wouldn't have to prove anything, they'd just need enough to persuade a judge (if bench trial) or jurors (if jury trial). It's not like it's a scientific discovery that requires 5-sigma to be considered proven. Just enough people to believe it.
The previous 3 replies are all Linux distro's that don't use SystemD.
Since SystemD cannot run on windows at all, it's not a compatible windows app, then listing windows is irrelevant.
My point in listing Gentoo was because Devuan's claim to fame is that it is a SystemD-less distro, and from what I've seen it is being spruiked as such, However there are many distro's that don't use SystemD, which often seems lost in the SystemD Holy Wars.
You, listing windows, are just being a dick and not contributing at all to a useful argument: pointing out alternative linux distro's that support alternatives to SystemD.
Rock is solid lava.
You can say solid rock, for some reason, but molten lava is frowned upon.
You can have unsolid rock. For example a heap made by piling loose pebbles into a mound wouldn't generally be referred to as solid rock even though technically each individual pebble is itself solid rock. Also, saying solid rock usually excludes significant amounts of dirt too.
@I ain't Spartacus
b) Turn a blind eye to the whole issue. Did they really do any checks in the past? Certiainly when my company have been offered .eu domains by registrars there haven't been any extra checks mentioned over-and-above "can you pay".No they didn't do any checks in the past, hence why everyone is talking about this change in policy. Therefore of course they didn't do checks that weren't previously required by the policy at that time. Policies change.
c) Have a year or so of transition period - or force complying with the rules when the domain expires.The transition period began on the announcement of this new policy, not on the 29 March 2019 brexit date. The brexit date is the drop-dead date to have completed the transition, Therefore non-EU holders - and those who know they won't be in the EU as of March 2019 - of .eu domains will have had in excess of 6 months to transition.
d) Put in place some kind of hybrid a and c - given that they're potentially losing 10% of their registered domains in one go.If by 'they' you mean the .eu registry and the EU, what's that got to do with anything? That is an impact on them, and if they choose to eat that impact and find a 10% loss acceptable, why would anyone else but them care?
e) Take the extreme approach and nuke all domains from day 1 of Brexit.Same response as to point c above, by brexit any holders would have had 6 months+ to transition their domains.
Which makes this look like a deliberate political choice in order to cause as much disruption as possible. The fact that it's in such a minor area - and there are unlikely to be many companies who do anything other than re-direct their dot.eu to their main site - just makes it look more petty and pathetic.You seem to be putting politics into this, trying to put the worst possible light on this situation to make the commission look as bad as possible, that seems petty to me.
How about this scenario: The commission weren't even aware, because it was always below their notice, of the existing policy. This whole brexit situation brought to their attention something they were never consciously aware of at high levels - obviously lower-level functionaries would have been aware to enable it in the first place. Therefore in becoming aware, they decided that as several other country TLDs have citizenship and similar limitations, that that is what .eu should have, and maybe they assumed always did have, if they had even considered it at all previously. So now that they are aware of the situation, they have changed it to what they think it should be and perhaps what they previously assumed it was.
And as it is their (the EU's) mandate to do what is best for the EU, irrespective of what is best for the UK, the impact on the UK was not considered relevant - whether good or bad - in their decision making. They have none, zero, responsibility to consider what is good for the UK in their decision making.
Now, I also admit that I am playing devil's advocate and trying to put a reasonable spin on the situation. But unless you have a privileged position where you have been involved in or overheard or seen minutes of the internal EU strategy meetings then neither you or I know the actual motivations, the actual thought processes involved. And until any such revelations occur (does the EU release documents after X number of years?) I will consider any actions in reasonable lights, not assume the worst motivations - deliberately trying to screw over the UK - as opposed to not caring about the UK and just considering the EUs - as is their mandate - position.
The UK is voluntarily leaving the EU. Therefore the UK is not entitled to any benefits of being in the EU, and as such the EU is transitioning the UK to be just another non-EU country. The UK is not entitled to be treated in any other way than as 'just another non-EU country'. The UK is not entitled to any different treatment - until new treaties are passed anyway - than the US, or Canada, or Mexico, or Brazil, or Saudi Arabia, or DRC, or Chad, or Japan, or Kazakhstan, or Russia, or China, or India, or anyone else. The only people who expect the UK are entitled to retain a privileged position with respect to the EU is the UK. Well I'm sorry, but the UK has zero entitlements to be treated as anything else than a random foreign country.
I'm curious what the author of this article means by the following paragraph from the article (emphasis mine):
And even if there is a deal, it remains highly likely that .eu domains owned by UK citizens will be forcibly shuttered after Euro bureaucrats surprised everyone last year by announcing they would go against long-standing industry practice and actively remove .eu domains – and related websites – from the registry if they had been registered by UK citizens.
What is the scope of industry in industry practice?
Is it limited to the .eu domain industry, or are you referring to worldwide domain industry practice?
I ask because, if it is the latter, then that paragraph (and a later one that uses the same terminology) is incorrect. In an article last year when this specific kerfuffle was raised, it was pointed out in the comments section that many country TLDs have policies that require registrations to be either by citizens of or business directed to that country. And they have policies of removing registered domains if the relevance requirement (citizenship of or business directed to) is breached or no longer applicable.
Now, while it is a bastard act to change the existing policy to this new one, the terms of the newer policy are in no ways unique or unusual or do they go against worldwide standard domain industry practice.
I'd say that the standard industry practice is to allow TLD registrars to determine their own policies around eligibility criteria for registering domains in that TLD, including but not limited to nationality criteria.
The increase in size of our central SMBH will not be primarily due to merging with the LMCs central SMBH but due to the increase in infalling material into our SMBH caused by the collision. The Interstellar gas clouds will be compressed, moved around, we'll become a starburst galaxy. Part of this gas will be shoved towards the SMBH and consumed by it, turning it into a Quasar for a while. Cats and dogs will be living together...
The merging of the SMBHs (assuming one of them isn't flung out) will happen later in this period, as the leading edges of the collisions (multiple as the galaxies will interpenetrate each other, right out the other side, then come back in for a second run, maybe a third or fourth coming together) will start the compressing of the gas clouds and the initial increase in infalling material into our SMBH well before any final SMBH mergers.
Not too sure of the source of this or how it becomes '2nd hand' ..... don't want to know really !!!
If you do decide you want to know, look up 2 girls 1 cup (if you look it up on wikipedia it should be ok, but random search engine internet links are most likely NSFW), that will educate you on second hand shit.
If all it needs to take activities covered under legislation out of the courts jurisdiction is to just put such a clause in an act, why doesn't the parliament put such restrictions in all legislation?
Every act, tax law, criminal law, and so on should have a section "No decisions made under this law are subject to review by the courts".
I mean, if they can do it for RIPA, they can do it for any legislation.
That way, we can render the courts entirely redundant, and have all determinations of guilt, innocence, sentencing, done in secret star-chambers overseen by whoever has sucked the ministers cock (or genitalia, we are an equal opportunity dictatorship) the best this week.
In fact, why don't amend the acts around voting and government appointments to guarantee the current government remains in power forever, and to include the magic "this act is not subject to judicial review" words in it.
So where will the money go?
I think ICANN needs some private jets to fly its board members around in.
Oh, and each director will need their own chauffeur-driven Mercedes-Maybach to get to and from the airports where those private planes are, and to and from home, and, well, available to them 24x7x365 for whatever other purpose they need them for. And they'll need sets of these cars at all the major cities around the world where they hold ICANN meetings/conferences. Hmm, and maybe some helicopters too, for shorter jaunts from airports to the ICANN-owned ski chalets errm conference facilities in Switzerland.
and of course the phone designers (BT, or at least the phones were branded as such) hadn't thought to include a back-up battery or capacitor cell in the base station for such eventualities.
Adding such a feature would increase the cost of the phone to the 90% of people who don't need this feature.
For anyone who does need/want that feature, there is an decades-old (possibly even century+ old) industry standard for that facility, an external battery/UPS/generator backup (pick whichever is suitable for your use case) that anyone is able to install and use across multiple devices, not limited to just the phone.
yes, but said user will more often than not be some poor sod who's had it decreed upon them by some overinflated CIO that their company has gone cloud, and therefore they now have to keep all their files in the cloud, and that it has to be the MS flavour of it. Because cloud is good.
Poor user ;(
In which case it wouldn't be "poor user", as it is no longer the individual user's problem, nothing for them to worry about. It is the corporations problem, and the individual user is perfectly entitled to sit at their desk twiddling their thumbs, reading the paper, browsing the web stress free, at their bosses expense, until the issue is sorted.
Look at the two lines for the Angle of Attack (AoA) sensors. One is for the left and one is for the right. Notice that the lines are separated? At any given time, the AoA sensors should never be separate. They're meant to be redundant so the readings are meant to be the same.
You can't really have an effective redundant system with only 2 lines, you need 3. If one sensor fails with 2 lines, then which one is the faulty one? You can't reliably identify a single-sensor failure if you only have 2 sensors. With 3, you can detect a single-sensor failure. Of course, 2 sensor failures are then possible, but the chances of that are orders of magnitude less than single-sensor failures, and the sort of thing that'd make 2 (or more), widely-dispersed sensors fail is likely to be fatal to the aircraft anyway.
Any critical sensor systems should be triply redundant, not dual, at least in larger (bigger than dash-8's) passenger aircraft. After all, we are talking about more than a hundred lives (more than 500 in the largest aircraft models) per aircraft in these cases.
The Airbus philosophy is that since pilot error is a/the cause of most crashes, it's going to overrule the pilot if it thinks he is in error.
In the case cited above, the Airbus aircraft recognised it had no idea what was happening, so it gave full control to the pilots, it did not overrule the pilots. Therefore Airbus does recognise that it may, at times, be best to leave it to the pilots. It's default mode is to stop the pilots from doing anything stupid (too tight a turn, to steep a climb/dive, etc.) but that can be disabled by either circumstances where the aircraft recognises that it's got NFI, or by manually switching to alternate law 2.
I believe (from memory, could be wrong) the issue was multi-fold:
1) confusing and contradictory indicators;
2) issues with cockpit layout and information feed to pilots (e.g. alarms being set off by angle-of-attack sensors, but that information, the angle-of-attack, not being available on pilot instrumentation);
3) that each sidestick was independent of the other, so that one pilot doesn't know what position the other pilot has their sidestick in, resulting in the 2 pilots providing conflicting control input, but neither of them knowing what the other was doing to know that there was conflicting control input.
4) management issues, whereby clear, concise instructions weren't being given and/or followed by all pilots, e.g. why wasn't it made clear that the pilot in the right-hand seat was now in control and the pilot in the left-hand seat must remove their hands from the flight controls (sidestick) to prevent contradictory control input (tho the fact that this was happening should have been reported by the aircraft, e.g. mechanically (or electrically/haptic-feedback-type) link the 2 sticks).
It really had nothing to do with the software overruling the pilots. There were many other issues with Airbus's software and cockpit layout/information feed to the pilots, but overruling the pilots wasn't one of them in this case.
> MIPS too; Or is MIPS part of the Power family. Also SPARC is open hardware these days too no?
SPARC has been open since the early 90's.
I am curious as to what particularly makes RISC-V more attractive to other open, royalty-free architectures such as SPARC and OpenPOWER.
Requiring this permission for such a wide array of things renders the permission a bit pointless, as users will rapidly learn they have to just accept it in order to do most of what they want to do.
Exactly the point of it methinks.
They are training you to press the 'accept' button on location tracking, so that you will just automatically accept it when a popup that matters prompts for it.
And they are not interested in making things better: I have been told, in so many words, not to raise awkward questions about security (unfortunately the person who did this was clever enough to do it verbally).
If they aren't someone who has authority to give you such an instruction - someone in your chain of command, i.e. you manager, you managers manager, or your managers mangers manager (and so on until the ultimate authority which for a government agency would be the civil servant that leads the organisation (e.g. secretary, permanent secretary, etc) or the relevant minister responsible for that organisation - then it didn't happen and you are under no obligation to listen to them. If they are in your chain of command, if the instruction wasn't given in writing, then again, it didn't happen and you are under no obligation to go along with it. Tell them to either give you an explicit direction, in writing, or to kindly fuck off.
We're not stupid, well, some of us arent.
27.79% of Britons are stupid. That is the percentage of voters who didn't vote in the brexit poll.
The other 72.21% aren't stupid, as they actually voted, whether they were right or wrong depends on your personal point of view, but at least they weren't stupid and not vote at all.
4. Book Ciphers. I hear lots of chatter about "forcing the bad guy" to hand over the encryption key or keys. This is another assumption that something like PGP is being used. But (for example) book ciphers don't have a "key". Even worse, if the bad guys have an agreed set of one time pads ahead of time, there is NO KEY.
A one-time-pad that I believe you are referring to does have a key. The pad itself is the key. A key doesn't have to be a subset of the message, an element less than the size of the message:
requires the use of a one-time pre-shared key the same size as, or longer than, the message being sent. In this technique, a plaintext is paired with a random secret key (also referred to as a one-time pad).
This is one thing I've never understood about Bankruptcy/liquidation law, that secured creditors and then unsecured creditors are paid first before anyone else.
Surely one of the better ways to handle companies liquidating to avoid fines and/or legal judgments would be to elevate court-ordered payouts above that of creditors or anyone else?
As well as the government and/or civil litigants getting their money first, it'd also make creditors perform more due-diligence into companies they are offering credit to, as their risk of not getting paid back due to dodgy corporations would be increased. Therefore many of these dodgy fly-by-night companies may be nipped in the bud before they even get off the ground in the first place.
You may think of a warship as a vessel that sails the Seven Seas, bristling with missiles and guns, ready to deal out death and destruction to Her Majesty's enemies.
If the vessel's name starts with HMS - given recent purchasing/acceptance history of the MoD - then the chances of anything bigger than a .50 cal being operational are pretty low...
Radio waves have limited bandwidth and unless you use beam shaping that bandwidth is shared by the entire catchment area.
Beamforming is a requirement of 5G, as is Massive-MIMO.
Do you have any idea how many discrete beams can be created and/or how big an area they cover?
In a 2017 article, Everything You Need to Know About 5G, from the IEEE (which answers a lot of your questions), they say 100 ports, where each port can be an antenna for either Tx or Rx. However, they are working on full-duplex for 5G, where each port is simultaneously both Tx and Rx (instead of either). Since the article is from 2017, it's likely the port-estimate has gone up.
Crappy BT "superfast fibre", which is not FTTP, but "Fibre To The Green Box Somewhere Else And Then Copper For The Last Mile Because We Don't Invest In Infrastructure", or FTTGBSEATCFTLMBWDIII for short (BT call it "FTTC", but I think mine's snappier)
FTTC (Fibre to the Curb) is where the fibre goes past the premises in the street out front, and only the last 10-50 meters is copper.
A green cabinet in the street and a mile of copper is Fibre to the Node (FTTN), not FTTC.
Given that the article mentions:
For example, there's no need for £240-a-year line rental. Overall Ovum estimates it's almost 50 per cent cheaper to deploy.
The article only mentions installation costs and line rental costs and deployment costs for the telco.
It does not mention data allowance costs or in fact whether there are tiered speed costs.
For example, swapping your current land line for a £20/mo LTE contract can currently get you a usage of 20GB/mo with EE, or even up to 100GB with Three.
20GB/month? For £20/mo? Seriously? That's better than or equivalent to landline? Even 100GB/mo?
For my landline I pay about £60/month and get around 500GB/month. Note that is how much I use per month, the plan is actually unlimited, but I thought giving actual usage numbers versus hypothetical was more useful.
Unless they can match or better £60/month for 500GB/mo today, not in 2 years time when it'd probably have to be 750GB/mo or more likely 1TB/mo, then not interested.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019