Karlozkiller

And if they would have a pure JavaScript solution people who block JavaScript would start complaining instead no? Of course you could have JavaScript as a primary solution and then fall back on the other options.

Anyone can make a mistake, the real test is whether they change their ways to be less error prone. (With proper testing of Linux platforms too)

> I think you're living in fantasy world where DRM actually works. Not once has DRM prevented me from watching a netflix show, it's only prevented me from watching it on netflix.

Yes, yes, and yes. DRM has blocked me from Netflix as a Linux user (not anymore obviously), blocked me from games due to bugs in the DRM in windows and or rootkits, and blocked me because the DRM does not work in Linux while the actual game does. And often you can find DRM free piracy versions.

DRM is a pestilence that blocks legitimate use.

> > People want to watch what they want to watch.

> You keep using this phrase. Doesn't that also suggest that, if given enough trouble, they will just pirate that content instead?

Not to point any fingers, but I can confirm that this happens, a lot.

But regardless of my personal views of DRM and its efficiency, kudos to Netflix for targeting Linux as a platform, even if they do it for their own pockets' sake.

My friend was trying to get an account with his ISP to his apartment. The ISP got data from the landlord, my friend noticed that he was in fact getting internet for another apartment completely.

He first told them to cancel the deal, then tried again, same wrong apartment number registered, he called the ISP and the response was, "yes we know it's the wrong one, but we've mapped that apartment to your apartment on our side, so all is good."

How would it play out legally if I sign a contract where delivery is to be made to X but I want it to Y, but they tell me to sign it anyways because they can fix it in their end. I mean, what I signed would not be what I wanted, how so I prove this if my wish is not fulfilled?

I dno about comparable to northern Europe. Stockholm, Sweden has recently had a huge burst in deadly shootings, and a Swedish official got caught in trying to lie to the BBC saying that rape is decreasing in Sweden. Official statistics show an increase between the last two data points, the last one being from 2015 or 2016 if I recall correctly.

I have bit heard anything of the like in Japan, but as you say it could be because they don't have the same measures/report rate we have, or that I don't check Japanese statistics as much.

Not bad, but that key-map would have to be accessible unencrypted from the encrypted device no? Unless somehow hard-mod a physical keyboard or something?

Is racial profiling ever truly nice to see?

If you're using Google to find scientific sources I would recommend trying Google Scholar.

Not a perfect solution by any means, but it should get rid of news articles.

Do you refer to what is spoken about in the article, or auto-immune disease as per se?

I have heard medical statistics stating that 9 out of 10 with auto-immune disease is female. Which to me would imply that something gender-specific, like genetics or the likes, is hugely responsible.

I get the feeling what you're getting at is that women are supposed to be weaker and get easily confused and it's all in their head though (apologies if that is in no way what you mean.)

But I can confirm that I am one of the lucky 1/10th of the overall population who have a diagnosed auto-immune disease being male.

When I was a lot younger than I am now, I was rushed to a hospital ~1000KM away from where I live, with liver-function-markers shooting through the roof.

After 2 weeks of checking everything in every way possible, they figured I had auto-immune hepatitis (body attacks my liver). That explained why I had been very tired, doctors said I'd take about 6 months before I could return to school, because I would be too tired and might get ill because my immune system would be weaker as I ate medicine limiting my immune system.

After 2 weeks of staying mostly home, eating immuno-repressant, I was bored as hell, went back to school and was back in full form, and I rarely get a cold or anything.

Never had any symptoms other than yellow eyes when it was worst, and extreme tiredness when it was the worst, apart from that it only shows itself when people actually analyze my blood...

No one really knows what the cause is, but there are many theories. It's fun to add some mystery to life, there's still a lot to discover ^^

I actually enjoy brewing beer in my spare time. You're right in that it is a lot of water in beer, but if you had a contamination of bacteria in an early batch you would get the problem of the bacteria competing with the yeast. If the contamination is introduced after a certain point of fermentation, newly introduced bacteria would no longer get a hold because of the alcohol levels.

So in short, you are correct in that if you start brewing with contaminated water you will get the same problem in the end product.

> Tobacco?

Doesn't fit the narrative!

On a side note I think I read or heard something along the lines of tobacco leaves being used as currency in the early westernised North America?

Edit: http://archive.tobacco.org/History/colonialtobacco.html

> If you want safe water, all you have to do is boil it.

That's not necessarily true. Boiling will protect you from ingesting live parasites or bacteria, but it will not protect you from potential toxins that might have been produced by the bacteria. It will not protect you from pollutions like heavy metals either, but neither will alcohol.

Alcohol would have the advantage over boiling water that the bacteria would not be in the alcohol in the first place so they could not have produced something bad for you in the water. Also, as someone else pointed out, if you don't understand why some water makes you sick, and don't understand how to treat the water to keep it safe, how are you gonna start boiling water? Does it give you something beneficial apart from the not yet made connection of safety? no.

What gives alcohol the big advantage here is that the safety-thing is a side-effect. People drank because they liked it, and the hypothesis is they also gained better survival because it happened to have antiseptic features as well.

So the only thing I have to do to be able to fall asleep instantly is to prep every day every week to sleep and wake at a set time.

Is that really falling asleep instantly, or rather getting into a routine. I mean if the prep time is 100% of my used time, then I would hardly call it instant.

In a translation course I took at university they told me that when translating subtitles from English to Swedish the translators often take a lesser curse word in Swedish, as it is perceived by Swedes that the equivalent word in Swedish is generally more offensive than its English counterpart. So I would say it is at least somewhat general that native curse words are perceived rougher than foreign.

And both languages have many curse words that technically mean the same thing.

I also got very weird looks from students in the US when I started cursing in English there... Like I was summoning a demonspawn.

How is it distant? I have friends and colleagues who are already thinking about skipping going to he US on business trips for this reason.

On a slightly different note. Can this be used to send people home even if they are not bringing a device? I mean, wouldn't it be suspicious to not bring a computer or phone? And if border police are as arbitrary as people say, why not send people away for not having devices that could be unlocked. It would be suspicious couldn't it?

Do you really understand the problem as you claim? The amount of people who require a decentralized system is irrelevant to the issue. The issue is in what users will do when their trusted system goes down, be it centralized or decentralized.

Say Gmail goes down (forever), will people use another of their emails? Or register for a new one somewhere else? Or start using another medium of communication alltogether? I assume all of the above will occur to some extent, but if that system was centralized, only the third option would be available. And if that centralized system was so good that it had killed all competition, then suddenly no one would be able to communicate.

It's not about the amount of people who scream for decentralized solutions. It's about the alternatives available in case something does go down, and how easy those alternatives are for users to adopt.

I'm a native Swede. What he says in that interview is

"We have failed to help where the amount of refugees are highest, in the areas of Syria, Iraq, etc. There we contribute through UNHCR with 10-15 SEK per day, whereas the cost in Sweden is 500 SEK per refugee. And we want people who come here to have a decent life, so I have nothing against that, but..."

And so on.

As you might see it is unclear whether he means Sweden/Swedes only gives 10-15 SEK per day to UNHCR, or whether he's saying a refugee in those camps does cost 10-15 SEK per day. Whatever he meant, as soon as he said this, he was "forgotten" in Swedish media because it was the same kind of point that our more protectionistic and border-friendly party aka racist-party, at least if you ask some people, was trying to make.

And really, it would be no surprise that living in a camp in Lebanon would be cheaper than living in Sweden on welfare. Especially since we're not building enough and municipalities are outbidding private capital to get housing for refugees.

I was just going to answer your question regarding the quote, but I got a bit involved in descibing the Swedish state of affairs ;) Rosling was only trying to show people the most effective way of helping other people. And I do assume he based his arguments on facts, as it was how he usually did things.

Yes, he was more or less discarded by the same people who previously hailed him as a 'God' when he was saying something positive about immigration.

Interesting how people work sometimes.

I feel that the last round of attention Rosling got in Sweden gave the impression of a man determined to see ONLY good. But I do think this feeling got elevated by everyone else parroting uncritically everything he said taking it as the utter truth, and proof that anyone not thinking the exact same were crazy idiots. I guess it also connects to my aversion for simplification and fear of how easy some people seem to take anything at face value.

That being said I do not think my thoughts above lessens his work. I have deep respect for his vision and what he strived to achieve.

In Sweden as far as I know the percentage paid on top of your salary by companies is around 33%, and I'm not sure that includes all of the fees and taxes related to hiring someone. From what other people write here that's a quite high number even compared to European standards, but it sure does explain why the salary paid to an employee would be lower here than in the US.

No.This was exactly the response I was expecting and giving more does not equal pay more taxes.

Putting an equal sign between helping your peers/being altruistic and paying taxes is the logical flaw in my opinion.

I argue that paying taxes is not the most effective way of helping others and therefore whether I believe becoming rich is a matter of luck or not becomes irrelevant in regard to whether rich should pay high taxes or not.

Though of course not everyone will have my views on that matter and therefore a subset, however big, will follow your line of thought instead, meaning the number of happy-to-pay-tax people would increase if their perception of luck changed as proposed in the article.

However what I'm arguing against is that A >necessarily< leads to B. As it does depend on other factors too.

So if I believe in luck I will be more inclined to pay high taxes? I don't think that's how it works.

I mean of course people with money who realise not everyone who is poor is poor because they're lazy bums will be more inclined to help a "poor person" than they would if they believed all poor are lazy bums. But does that mean they will accept high taxation? Say I am rich and narcissistic, I believe I'm better than everyone and that my skill put me on top. I then realise that other who are skilled are poor and I want to help them become richer. Do I believe that paying the government to use my money for welfare to be the most effective use of my money to fulfil this end? Probably not in that case.

Furthermore some people are lucky, some unlucky. This does not mean that no effort but mere luck goes into building an empire. If luck was the only factor then sure, this argument or taxation might hold. But there's a lot more than luck to it, which is much more in the control of the individual.

Thank you for that post. I've been trying some time ago, mostly for fun, to set up an email server. I did get one up and running with a setup similar to what you describe but was spam-filtered by Gmail as you describe. And because of this I kind of gave up.

But now I might try it again some time.

They have? I must've missed the announcement stating this about what Snowden told the world. Care to expand on it?

Memory is volatile, I would describe it as, every time you access a memory you store the active copy back into memory, allowing for alteration or the data depending on what you feel at the time or external suggestions.

What do you think is wrong or outdated with the article? It's not that far off how ANN are described in the beginning of current scientific articles. Backpropagation is definitely still relevant even though changes can be made to it and the networks have grown in size and changed in layout. The basics are more or less the same and from my quick scan they seem accurately described here. What is it you expect from a simple intro?

Then make them install a distribution preconfigured with these things. I'm quite sure distros like that are around, they were last time I checked for them like 5-10 years ago anyways.

Because it's not so simple. I have no experienced with HBO Now but similar services. And typically they use DRM like Microsoft Silverlight or the like to prevent people from playing videos without proper access.

The reason why such things are harder to get to work in Linux sometimes is because such DRM-solutions are not always baked in or provided by the same providers as in windows, and might be proprietary.

Also companies like Netflix have been known to filter peoples useragent leading to the exclusion of Linux users. nowadays it's as easy as installing a Silverlight-alternative in your favourite browser or just running a chrome derived browser.

my main point being: it's not always Linux's fault that some things are hard.

Ant intelligence is often attributed to simple rule following behaviour and the ability to make the next ant adapt to what you have already done, for example they optimize the path to some food-source by leaving scent trails that will fade if no ants travel the road.

They've also been known to measure the size of enclosed areas by simply following the outer boundary until they find the initial starting point/entrance again and somehow using the time or effort it took, to be a measure of the size of the place.

It seems to be different species of ants having different behaviours, so maybe they're just stupid rule followers as one might first think. Now if we could make one species of ants learn from and adapt behaviour from another species, then there's no doubt they possess intelligence. And if they're not intelligent, should we attribute the ingeniousness these tiny buggers display to evolution instead?