One problem is that much that is disputed is also time-sensitive, what is "fact" changes over time, sometimes because more "facts" become known, sometimes because they turn out to be false. You can try and check that something was factual _when_ it was published, but on the web publications can be trivially updated.

Take this: https://www.facebook.com/thein...

Lovely video on fact-checking, except that it doesn't fact-check itself, the google search shown in the video turns up loads of results that are reporting the story as news (and about an equal number reporting it as fake), the video claims a google search will not find the story, maybe it didn't when the video was made, but the video is _now_ demonstrably false itself.

At the end of the day whether you use Google, Snopes or Upworthy for fact checking, you are still trusting someone else to curate your news and therefore are subject to their biases and agendas.

> I mean the sky is the limit when you can see the future.

I would think lack of free will was the more pressing limit...

> Who in their right mind would choose this existence!?!

Someone who didn't have a choice, because they already knew what they would do?

[haven't seen the movie, not sure if I will or not, maybe that's the point...]

If it's not, how would you know?

"who'd know the difference"
"I'd notice the difference!"
"no you wouldn't, you'd be programmed not to"

Could be lots of reasons why, mostly centered on the fact that being in the EU locks you into a pro-capitalist neo-con system which constrains democratically elected nominally socialist governments to merely tinkering ineffectually round the edges of policy - look at Greece for a start.

There was actually a left-exit campaign, https://socialistworker.co.uk/... . You may never have heard of it because it got very little media attention (odd that...), but just googling for "Lexit" will find stuff, there's even a movie on youtube (it's a bit long to call it an advert, bits of it are in fact quite well done and it's a credit to its producers given the miniscule budget).

Many left wingers have always wanted to leave the EU - the late Tony Benn was once the rallying point for them. Some prominent left wingers who were historically pro-brexit did major u-turns as it became clear it might actually be a winner - not just Corbyn and McConnell at the top of the Labour party but also prominent journalists like Owen Jones. For many, I have no doubt these u-turns were suspicious. The official remain campaign reason for these damascene conversions is that "the EU protects workers' rights", and, er, that's about it, and it doesn't stand up to even cursory examination - where were the EU when Thatcher was abolishing workers' rights, why is the EU forcing countries to introduce thatcherite anti-union laws, why are the workers striking in France against a socialist government that is threatening workers' rights _because_ the EU told them too, if the EU protects? Try http://www.tuaeu.co.uk/ for more.

I am Not (normally) a lefty, but I can see how a lefty would have voted out - there was precious little in the official remain campaign for them, that was all based on how big international business, bankers and London would be much better off if we stayed in, with the usual implication that some of that would "trickle down" to the plebs, just as it failed to do before. I think a lot of left-leaning voters just didn't buy it, I don't think Leave _won_ the vote (both left wing and in general) I think Remain lost it - with one of the most patronising arrogant and misleading campaigns I've ever seen (at that point, obviously there's the Trump and Clinton campaigns since...).

It used to have single instance storage but doesn't anymore, in 2007 it was dropped except for attachments, 2010 got rid of it entirely. Allegedly they tuned the IO of the DB engine and reduced it by more than half overall, but SIS was one of the casualties of that (you got much reduced IO at a cost of more storage space required - pretty reasonable tradeoff with storage volume getting cheaper).

However I don't think they will be using an email server to do the work. Possibly an EDRM, which as GP says usually have dedupe built in, or dedicated analysis tools.

Threading is also key - most email tools default to including quoted original text in each reply (in various ways, top posting seems most common now). That means most text in most emails is text you already have in another email, you either only need to review the new text in each email (vastly reducing the total text volume) or you only need to review the last email in the thread (vastly reducing the number of emails). This is where it all gets trickier and the tools will vary, end result is the same though, much less to analyse than first numbers suggest.

And GPLv3 also, although arguably less clearly:

> You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions

Correct, BUT the FSF regards the "designed to explicitly get around this" (or "user does the link") bit as contributory infringement / subterfuge. AFAIK that remains a theory that has never been tested in court, nevertheless, if I were going to do that I would want to be as non-explicit about it as possible. Of course, building separate install packages (+ dependency system) for common libraries so users only have to download what they haven't already got is designed to do just that - not to end run around the GPL...

You're forgetting that in the case of dynamically linked libraries and the GPL, the two issues become the same thing. An executable using dynamic linking contains no code from a linked library to make it a derived work other than the API (and in the case of discoverable interfaces not even that - MS OLE for instance), and it may link with _any_ library that provides the same API. The only point at which a derived work is arguably created is at runtime, under the control of the user, at which point the GPL explicitly disclaims all control or restriction.

Any claim (IMO) that the GPL restricts dynamically linked libraries essentially reduces to an API copyright claim.

Example: a patch (not an executable or a source distribution, a patch) that simply modified a few function calls in an open source (but not GPL program) to give said program the _option_ of linking to a GPL library was held by rms/FSF to be a GPL violation. No executable was ever distributed, no source distribution included GPL code, just the function names and calling conventions that happened to be used in a GPL library - what is that if not the API?

Use the same function names and calling conventions as a GPL library in your code and get told your code is must be under the GPL as a result. Actually cloning the library can get you round that by allowing you to claim that there are multiple implementations of the same API so the GPL one cannot therefore claim sole copyright on the API, even if some implementations are so dysfunctional no sane person would use them. Of course "getting round" the GPL attracts objections from some quarters...

[Aside: Open-source clones-of / replacements-for GPL programs have also attracted objections simply on the basis that one undermines the GPL-world by replicating bits of it outside the GPL - see rms on clang / LLVM vs gcc, for instance.]

All this was discussed to death (notably on gnu.misc.discuss) some time last century, and for all I know is still discussed there today - I gave up following it long ago, concluding that the GPL basically works for what it was designed for, i.e. statically-linked C executables on unix. Outside of that it always breaks, sometimes in subtle and interesting ways.

So who was it who said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - a SciFi author or a Fantasy author ?

Which genre is, just for one example, Dr Who - the technology central to the plot being known to be impossible within the context of current knowledge?

Did you mean Iain Banks the great writer who made the Time's list of top 50 British post-war writers ( http://www.goodreads.com/topic... ) or Iain _M_ Banks the SciFi writer who never got acknowledged outside of SciFi awards?

[ Yes I do know. Proves the article's point really - best way for great SciFi writers to get recognised seems to be to write "mainstream" fiction under another name... ]

My guess is because CDDL is _not_ GPL compatible - at least according to the FSF (it is the reason FSF say that ZFS on Linux is a GPL violation) - and the risk that brings.

For a distribution, it is a lot of work to shift over to a new init system and a lot of work (which hasn't happened) to maintain other init system options, or to shift back. You can't run without an init, but you can switch to a different filesystem relatively easily, hence the adverse impact with a CDDL init is higher than with ZFS.

Plus RedHat probably said "we like SMF too, we're going to write a new and better version of it" - I don't think there is any secret about systemd being inspired by SMF and launchd (Apple). Now, whether it is better, or might be better when finished, is a matter of opinion, and Pottering's opinion may differ from everyone elses...

Great now all I need to do is check how much space I need to allocate for the synced copy... goes back to Google drive... ummmm now what?

And nor is the laptop in question, IF it is locked down to only run Windows (if not and it is just a matter of Linux driver support then do your research better next time).

Was it sold as a general purpose computer or as a Windows computer?

I think you just downloaded a wrongly titled Wrath of Khan, there is no way, even if TPB had a whole team of crack video editors, that they could make something watchable out of Star Trek Beyond in the time it's been available...

"Expected" doesn't mean "always works that way".

There are a number of aircraft accidents in recent years that occurred just after the a/p kicks out, and the pilots then lost control of a perfectly flyable aircraft. There are others where the pilot's primary response to control or attitude problems has been merely to repeatedly try and engage autopilot. There are also aircraft that have crashed due to pilots thinking autopilot (or auto-thrust or auto anything) was engaged when it wasn't. Look up "automation dependency" and "children of the magenta line".

Musk is treading a path here where aviation has already gone, and it is not without its problems. Saying "autopilot was not on at the time", when the driver says it was, does not absolve the vehicle systems, it merely changes the focus of the investigation slightly to why the driver and the vehicle are saying different things about what happened.

Oil gas and vodka