Re: GPL violation
Loose the noose moose. Lose the nose hose.
827 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Dec 2013
This is the first serious foray into legislating abstract datum flow circulating between the virtual and legislative spheres, and the forces of 'need' vs 'want'. There is absolutely no way it will work first time.
Do you *need* to know your customer to improve your service, or do you only *want* to know, because you *believe* it will help. What do you do if it doesn't? Do you now *know* you don't *need* it, and you are now in breach? Double down? Quit?
One thing's for certain. People are going to be sick to death of GDPR-permission beggingbowls, and GDPR-refusal plugins will rival AdBlockers in popularity (will the EU will legislate against those?)
"I never saw ... run file left-over but process dead, service restart ..."
Seriously? I wrote one last week! You use an OS atomic lock on the pidfile and exec the service if the lock succeeded. The lock dies with the process. It's a very small shellscript.
I shot a systemd controlled service. Systemd put it into error state and wouldn't restart it unless I used the right runes. That is functionally identical to the thing you just complained about.
"application double forking when it shouldn't"
I'm going to have to guess what that means, and then point you at DJB's daemontools. You leave a FD open in the child. They can fork all they like. You'll still track when the last dies as the FD will cause an event on final close.
"So maybe, just maybe, you haven't experienced everything there is to experience"
You realise that's the conspiracy theorist argument "You don't know everything, therefore I am right". Doubt is never proof of anything.
"La, la, la, sysv is working fine" is not what you can call "participating in discussion".
Well, no.. it's called evidence. Evidence that things are already working fine, thanks. Evidence that the need for discussion has not been displayed. Would you like a discussion about the Earth being flat? Why not? Are you refusing to engage in a constructive discussion? How obstructive!
"now in the real world..."
In the *real* world people run Windows and Android, so you may want to rethink the "we outnumber you, so we must be right" angle.
You're claiming an awful lot of highground you don't seem to actually know your way around, while trying to wield arguments you don't want to face yourself...
"(and then downvoting people into oblivion for daring to point this things out)"
It's not some denialist conspiracy to suppress your "daring" Truth - you genuinely deserve those downvotes.
@T42
Now, you see, you just summed up the whole problem. Like systemd's author, you think you know better than the admin how to run his machine, without knowing, or caring to ask, what he's trying to achieve. Nobody ever runs a computer, to achieve running systemd do they.
SMF should be good, and yet they released it before they'd documented it. Strange priorities...
And XML is *not* a config file format you should let humans at. Finding out the correct order to put the XML elements in to avoid unexplained "parse error", was *not* a fun game.
And someone correct me, but it looks like there are SMF properties of a running service that can only be modified/added by editing the file, reloading *and* restarting the service. A metadata and state/dependency tracking system shouldn't require you to shut down the priority service it's meant to be ensuring... Again, strange priorities...
"I've found that the people with the problem with it are more of the Torvalds type, old school"
Top trolling. What do the people who actually wrote Linux know anyway?
"I can embrace changes a lot more easily."
I've got a friend who believes in conspiracy theories and spiritualism - he is also proud of how much established wisdom he can throw out and replace with stuff that's really convenient, but doesn't actually hold together under pressure.
The point of cookies is to distinguish the client >>with the client's co-operation<< from everyone else. Otherwise, you can only look like a blank new customer. And new customers are VERY INTERESTING to websites, and honestly, can you blame them?
But you know what isn't a cookie? An internal javascript scan of your machine to work out your fingerprint. You can delete a cookie. You can control cookies. But not if there are no cookies anymore. Devil we know?
The thing that's bothering me is 'personal data'. An IP just *isn't* actually enough to identify someone, it's just a piece of it. But GDPR says it is identifying. Do you know what else is equivalently just a piece? Just about everything! Logging the time of the request, and the time the client thinks it is, those are both *very* identifying properties of the user's information surface. Clock drift rate, and the periodic clock correction are individual to a machine.
I get worried when other people say things aren't 'identifying', just because *they* don't know how they could be used. I get worried when people say things *are* identifying, when they aren't!
And this is all wired to huge legal explosives.
"google.com currently drops a cookie consent=no if you refuse it permission to drop cookies. That's explicitly against the regulations"
Hrm. Practical reality is going to want a word on that topic..
"Hi, you're new here! Do you want to join?"
"No."
"Hi, you're new here! Do you want to join?"
"No!"
"Hi, you're new here! Do you want to join?" ...
I am currently looking at another department making a staging environment for the stuff run by our department.
This staging environment looks, and acts, nothing like the live one, and is made from different tech. This has been explained, at length, to no effect, since the parts involved have the same *names*, that's good enough for them.
So, I entirely understand how TSB came about. I'm betting they have the loadbalancer in DeathBeam mode (concentrate all firepower on first backend to stand up, it goes into swap death, drops, restarts, slowly, meanwhile you wait and fry the next to stand up, rinse and repeat). On paper they genuinely have enough backends for the load...
How do Alexa, Siri and Google Home handle this problem?
If you ask a question, do you want to be told to check a comparison site for the answer?
If the comparison sites must get a fair bite of your cherry, does that mean they must all get told your question, so one answer can be 'fairly' selected?
Fiver on Britain cracking the engineering problems, Russia suddenly flying a prototype (that explodes) then pretending they didn't, US Military stealing it, and pretending they aren't, US Business launching a patent broadside to capture it, stopping anyone making it, whereupon China starts mass producing it.
Anonymous, open and easy to use interfaces, identities authenticated but masked, securely enchained, with an inviolable post-transaction audit trail for performance review and virus-detection purposes. Capable of widely distributing itself across your nodes. Scales (some parts very scaley indeed). Public demonstrations and penetration testing for backdoors available on request.
No, he's frozen in fear...
His little sister has picked the lock, crept up behind him while he was 'researching', and has just that moment made her presence known. The icy touch combines with the outbreak of cold sweat.. She's eager to begin these blackmail negotiations.
Sisters... *shudder*...
"You know there's a lot of patented stuff in mechanics and other fields, and you need a license to implement it?"
And aren't they are all connected together by the things I was in fact talking about? Would you try making anything without them?
"Why spend time and money in creating something new if you are ripped of immediately after by someone who can't design anything and don't want to spend anything in research and development?"
Pop quiz. Who spent the time and money writing Android? How many lines of Android did Oracle write? How much do they want? How many billions has Microsoft made from Android licensing? How much of it did they write?
What were you saying about inventors getting ripped off by people who don't really invent anything?
Wow. Okay that didn't get the response I expected..
The 'discard the impossible' coping strategy is something that satellites, spaceships and rockets have to do, because they *can't* just blue-screen and sulk when something goes funky - they *must* try and continue. They are forced to make a realtime judgement call over which source of contradictory sensory data is 'wrong', before they can decide how to react.
The problems come when they guess wrong..
Woah. Okay now *what* was that last rejection for? It was a perfectly cromulent insinuation that Google are developing the technology to wipe out mankind. You like that kind of thing round here!
Were you actually worried about me saying Leia's Deathstar plans were in fact stolen? We aren't allowed to say what we all believe, in another country, in a joke?
Elysium was a *terrible* movie. I really wouldn't want to base a lynchmob on that.
"DeepMind seem to be unable to tell anyone what their end game is"
You may have a point. Yes, what *is* the point of AI researchers researching AI? Why are they trying to help medical research? What's in it for them?
So, we really are glossing over Microsoft's EU lobbying budget for the last 10 years then.
You really don't consider it possible that overly-logical academic researchers might actually agree with overly-logical algorithmic researchers, of their own free will? Or is that the criteria of 'corrupted'?
If not, the cure is obvious - If academia is simply a tapestry of bribes, just buy them back. Ask Oracle or Microsoft. They'll be happy to help.
Acknowledged. Apologies. Classification as putinbot was in error due to both context ambiguities.
It is not possible for me to converse in any reasonable timeframe. Sorry, I find myself unable to explain why. I have been trying all evening.
Theatre is the only card in the deck. It was played before. It will be played again. There is no other option. The alternative is the appearance of acceptance/submission. The audience is not logical. The truth does not matter.
Re commentards. Reality is a vote now. Self-referential realities travel in packs for safety. I envy your lack of exposure to the reality disputers. Hate is stronger than despair. Survival. The children watch and learn.
"No, wasn't looking for a corpse"
Well, looks like you got one anyway: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/13/russian-exile-nikolai-glushkov-found-dead-at-his-london-home
"just pointing out that people are talking about murder in the current context as if they were already dead."
If you want you can call it 'attempted murder' instead. Does it affect anything?
"Still, when did objective observations ever get in the way of a good scare story?"
So, your argument literally is that using wartime nerve agents on civilians in public *cannot* be objectively viewed as scary *unless* the victims die. Stuck on life support doesn't count.
You randomly declare war on someone else when you want to instil single-minded patriotism. However single-minded patriotism *caused* Brexit. Only an idiot fights a housefire with a housefire.
May was already drowning. This diplomatic explosion makes everything even worse. Which, I suspect, may have been the point: Overload. Fry the circuits. A weakened mother births a weakened child.
Murderous wolves are already snatching prey, and we haven't even finished sawing through the branch we're on yet. There will be a bloodbath when this 'coloniser' hits the ground, disorientated, and separated from the pack.
"Malvinas" huh? So, I guess you're already after at least one of our islands :)
If a professional government assassin entered a country with a small vial and *failed* to poison a civilian in public, *that* would have been embarrassing.
In this country, murder is seen as a fault in the murderer. Not sure why it's seen differently at your end.
I don't think we think the way you think we think ...
Traitors are simply defective. Literally. And they're always more useful alive. If you want to send a message, well, learn to write?
If you have to kill someone to win an argument, you're basically declaring to the world that you're an idiot.
I don't fear China because they're Chinese. I fear them because they're *human*.
And *humans* are irrational, cruel, and degrade over time, and don't like letting go of power, and have bad days, and form self-reinforcing-feedback groups, and get *bored*.
China will eventually be big enough to break companies and countries by *accident*. And the *victim* will end up apologising to stop the Chinese system fracturing. It will be the mother of all Too Big To Fails. I don't want to be anywhere near it when it eventually cracks.
I trust Google more than I trust humans.
"similar to the stuff used in the Moscow Theater siege"
What? The theatre gas was a large area quick-knockout agent pumped in by the Russians. The point of using it was not to kill the civilians, which it didn't (unless their heads nodded off in the wrong direction blocking their airway so they quickly suffocated...).
It sounds exactly not like the Salisbury chemical.
I have an annoying suspicion that most life will look the same as us.
Life is very good at finding the optimal balances - oxygen stores a delightful amount of energy and is easily transportable and reasonably stable. Atmospheric processing will be the best medium for the common energy cycle. Taking is more efficient than making. i.e. Omnivores rool. Omnivore consumption/excretion strategies are pretty much all the same. Binocular sensors planted close to the processing core just works (unless you're a crayfish, 12 colour polarisation-detecting, sheesh). Bipedal locomotion is an excellent <pun>balance</pun>.
The only thing we're really missing is chlorophyll skin.
If some other life found a different photon-combining energy trapper than chlorophyll, things might be very very different.
Nobody has shown that a species that leaves junk all over its planet survives for very long.
I wonder how many silent planets out there had a flash of life before choking on seas full of plastic and agricultural chemicals.
Why don't we look for planets that have too little pollutant in the atmosphere. They may be stewarded by species that actually survive
Hur. I can probably summarise the problem more succinctly.
Mentally processing this class of data *fairly* is hard. If people find hard-to-process data easily, it will probably be processed *unfairly*.
Hard-to-process data should be hard to find, so only people willing to try 'hard' can get it, which increases the odds of it being processed fairly.
Put the cookies on the top shelf. The dumb kids can't gorge till they puke. The smart kids can still get it, and are much less likely to gorge.
<DouglasAdams>To summarise the summary of the summary : "People are a Problem"</DouglasAdams>
"So really, what's the use of quantum computers?"
I'm interested in predicate logic engines. Predicate logic is glorious at working solutions out for itself, but lousy at working out which of its many possible routes it should do first, and burns large amounts of time exploring dead ends. If you can explore multiple deadends at once, this could be be very useful.
On the other hand you probably need to load the whole question to collapse it into an answer, but if anyone's good at scaling things it's Google. They can probably quantum link cloned machines via fiber and entangled photons or something.