... or just use Google even.
9,133 karma · joined July 3, 2014
I am decidedly uninterested in those features for most web pages I visit. Should they be able to spin up my CPU fan just for that I would consider it a misfeature. Just like a movie on high volume would be.
If anyone familiar with Firefox could implement that or point in the right direction, that would be most welcome.
Seriously, has anyone ever argued that evangelicals and islamists would disagree about conservative ideas such as the role of sexuality or feminism in society? That sounds like a straw man among straw men.
Would you mind spelling them out? Because all I find hovers between old fashioned reactionism and bat shit craziness. What is the philosophical value in that?
If it is, that's only because you scared away all the others, leaving behind only the ones that aren't scared of anything.
Look at cycling culture in Copenhagen or Amsterdam sometime. That's what cycling looks like when left undisturbed. Children, elderly, and few even wear helmets.
Government tightening policy has always lead to spending being moved around, and combined with tax cuts that makes for larger deficits. Every single time.
What needs to be more efficient is the health insurance system. Pretty much any other civilized country could be looked at for inspiration. Then the military. Taxes needs to at least be kept intact and fiscal policy needs to improve.
The sad fact is that the political system makes the easy solution impossible. We know that after half a century. The open question is what the possible avenues are.
Personally I have used Gentoo for many years, though never professionally. Its secure extensions were very well tested and documented back in the day, before SELinux pretty much took over. The kernel build system was terrific.
But never once did I consider setting compiler flags an important feature. The person who knows what flags are best used with an individual package, that -Os is more important than -O3 for this particular loop, is either the packager (who knows the system architecture) or the original developer (who wrote the code). Never the end user.
Debian is comparably a more mature system. The downside is perhaps that its packages are a bit more complex than they should be. Functionality-wise it can do anything you could wish for. But if you are a big institution with a lot of competent people in house, go right ahead. You can't possibly go wrong with a well tested system and the knowledge to improve the bits you need.
Doing crazy things like taking a backup of the phone which you paid full price for?
That documentation link probably isn't as telling as is suggested, because the next example is for tcp. In the old days before tcp support was widespread (looking at you, Java) it was common to listen for udp on localhost so it was probably a common configuration.
There's not much to debate here. Syslog is used everywhere and the main reasoosn are that it is very reliable, trivial to load balance, and popular implementations have integrity checking that is permissible in regulatory environments. You can criticize it for many things, for example that most parsers are much too liberal or that the facility and severity fields are clearly dated, but not for being unreliable.
In fact, the queue management and at least the possibility of some rudimentary end-to-end cryptographic integrity checks are some of the stronger points of rsyslog. Splunk Cloud and Elastic, as far as I know, lacks the latter completely which rules them out as a single log sink for environments with that type of requirements.
What you can do is have syslog ingestion for your Loki/Elastic/Splunk/whatever you use. But it will not magically structure your logs for you beyond the standard syslog date, host, severity, system, line of text format.
Both syslog products you mention are solid and mature, and absolutely has an important place in any modern environment. They manage queues, throttle, guarantee delivery and support any backend you can wish for.
Their respective rule engines are fast. They do log ingestion, and they slice data into fields and can enrich it (for example by resolving dns). This means rules are set in advance, and traps on data can be triggered immediately (not subject to races).
The same could be said about projects like Tor, which we know for certain is used for all sorts of illegal activities, and really just about any use of cryptography use outside of big tech and systems with law enforcement access. It is exactly the same as the argument that all chat and email providers that cannot intercept and store plaintext data should be outlawed.
Private chats and private value transfers are used by criminals, there's no question about it. We should think of the children. But the slope is slippery and the question is where to draw the line and what type of society we want to live in. To someone who valued abolishing export mode ciphers and key escrow schemes, the Overton window has really shifted on this.
It's something else entirely to point to a specific country and say that "anyone who imports from there is going to get taxed an extra 15%". That's a specific barrier to a specific trade.
It's straight up protection money. They're not even pretending anymore.
If you made HATS and sold them at a STORE (is the all caps thing legalese or why do we talk this this?), and the owner of BIGGEST HAT STORE walked into your STORE and told you:
"Nice STORE you have there! Would be a shame if something happened to all those HATS of yours. Pay us a five percent commission, otherwise your HATS will stop working."
We have a word for those situations, and any democratic society nip that particular type of entrepreneurship in the bud. It's just that we should have done something long before our pensions were dependent on these companies which are now too big to fail.
What are "both sides", exactly, and what are their respective goals?
To an outside observer, it would seem that the Iranian regime's goal is to stay in power, and that they are in a better position to do that now than before the bombing.
They have even unlocked a previously unheard of bonus, to put tariff on transports through Hormuz, which they never had the power to do before.
As an outsider it is hard to understand why this is happening and how it will end, unless all these concessions served to the Iranian regime were deemed worth it as distraction from domestic issues.
It's worse, we simply abstract away everything else, including innumerable things that are quantifiable.
I hate these especially much: It's at the same both both overly dramatic, it's presented as some great reveal that will change everything, while at the same time being completely trivial and only detracts from the explanation. If you have no idea that memory addresses are translated you will understand absolutely nothing from the text or even what this is all about. If you want to explain what an MMU is, just do that instead and don't present it as some great revelation.
But some equally dramatic phrasings could just as well be something that leaves you astonished. You never know. You have to skim the text to find what is useful information and what is just filler. The signal-to-noise is low.
It's called slop for a reason.
We've seen that over and over again throughout history, and we will see it again it we continue too far on this road.
And packet switched network equipment were much, much, much more simple than their time divisioned counterparts. On the same budget you could run an order of magnitude fatter pipes using ethernet switches rather than ATM switches. That's also why they won.
Simpler and cheaper architecture end-to-end means the same budget can be spent more wisely. That's usually what wins in an open market.