Linux is full of aliased options.
Can you explain the difference between:
cp -r
cp -R
cp --recursive

There are long options too, with no aliases
ls --dereference-command-line-symlink-to-dir

Easy. The difference is you're using GNU.

UNIX traditionally only has short options, which are parsed using getopt(3). GNU adds getopt_long(3) which adds the long options, but I think only to GPL applications because you must link against a GPL library (libiberty?) in order to use them.

Using getopt() to parse your command line is extremely common and makes your utility work just like all the other utilities.

Using getopt_long() only works if you have GNU.

Cut cords all you want. As soon as it starts effecting their bottom line they'll just raise the isp rates to compensate. I can't believe this isn't more obvious to people.

And why do you think Comcast gives you only 250GB a month?

Cable companies know about cord cutting. Networks know about cord cutting (which is why they offer streaming services - because cord cutters using streaming can be forced to watch ads - no DVR-style ad skipping here!). Cable companies just make it harder - by limiting how much you transfer and all that.

And others know there are certain things people just will not time-shift - like sports. And given a lot of services introduce a 1 day delay, they also know if you want to talk about the show on social media, well, you gotta see it live.

Oh, while /. might not do social media, you can bet talking about TV shows is generally a very popular activity on twitter and other services. Enough so that it's almost impossible to not be spoiled.

Did Intel co-invent USB 3.1 and Thunderbolt?

Technically yes to both. Intel was a major backer of USB (partly why it's so CPU intensive these days - it means Intel gets to sell more CPUs!), and they did Thunderbolt as well.

USB C was something Apple gave the USB folks because they're just disgusted with the crap that is the USB connector and what they did to add USB 3.0 SuperSpeed support. Basic things like a symmetrical cable so you don't have to worry which end goes where, and cables that go in either way so you don't have to examine where in the spin-1/2 cycle the port and plug are in.

Of course, one wonders if Apple didn't push Intel to adopt USB-C for thunderbolt as well...

An article that opened my eyes said that washing laundry with hot water is pointless, modern washing machines with modern washing powder can wash clothes without the need for hot water and many clothes will last longer/fade less when washed cold. (caveat - very dirty / stinky clothes might still need heat).

All the gov't need to do is put a leaflet through everyone's door, informing them of how they could easily cut their fuel bills. Simple solution, why don't they do it?

Because Americans respond poorly to things like that.

Just imagine the last election and all Obama wanted to do was make sure everyone's tires were inflated properly. Just a simple little suggestion, costs basically nothing, yet can improve a car's mileage a few percent. It's a win-win for everyone - car runs better, uses less gas, consumer saves money (uses less gas), and the remedy is so trivially simple it's pretty much free.

There are plenty of tricks like that to save energy (and thus money) that cost almost nothing to implement and do just as good a job as before (washing in cold water being another one).

It just goes against American culture when someone makes a suggestion that pretty much benefits everyone with practically nil downside. Or even worse, thinking it's a mass conspiracy. Or that it's a Right to not do these things - I have a right to have under/over inflated tires! My parents used hot water washes, and I don't care that cold does just as good a job - we always used hot water! Don't know if it's resistance to change, or government is bad, or saving the environment is UnAmerican or what.

And no, none of these things are even as "radical" as switching out incandescent bulbs to something else. There's a pile of simple things people can do that basically are freebies.

Isn't that the opposite of what the phosphors used in a CRT do when hit by electrons? Is it too much to think the reverse is possible?

No, the electrons go through a circuit, which is the entire point.

In a CRT, the output of the flyback transformer is a really high voltage, which connects to the CRT face through a heavily insulated plug. If you take a look at any CRT, there's a thick heavy cable in the middle of the body that runs to the flyback transformer. Inside the CRT, the electron gun is at negative potential and it's slowly accelerated past the deflection coils, then it basically accelerates due to the electric field from the gun to the front of the screen. It hits the phosphor which imparts energy into the phoshor atoms which then do the whole higher-energy state thing and they drop back down to ground state that emits a photon of a specific color.

The electron that hit the phosphor returns back via that nice flyback cable to complete the circuit. Otherwise the screen wouild quickly dim as the phosphor layer takes on a highly negative charge.

Yes, I got the polarities right. Remember electrons flow from negative to positive.

Right there with ya. I'm a software developer and system administrator...It'd probably take me a month or so to read up on malware techniques and come up with a delivery mechanism and a way to do distributed CNC via RSA or PGP key.

Honestly, it's a social skill - it requires communicating the user, or at least knowing what users want.

If you know how to do SEO, the absolutely easiest way to infect someone is offering free downloads of some commercial app. Like Office, Photoshop, even Windows. Or the keygens to it. The most common way is to wrap the keygen with your downloader so the user runs the wrapped app which then silently downloads malware while running the real keygen.

Until Google started censoring the results, you could type an app's name and the first few results would be "cracks" "keygen" "download" and "warez".

Hint: This applies for smartphone apps too. People are cheap. If they can save $1, they'll try.

To claim Netflix doesn't advertise omits a very background, but present form of advertising. It's called product placement, and it's where instead of buying some generic Cola or use a generic computer, or random cellphone, they clearly show it's a Coca-Cola, or an Apple iMac or a Samsung. If you ever wonder why they show closeups of a phone's screen or something, it's usually to show the logo for a second or two. Normally they'd just have the actor say it out loud (oh look, a call from Dad, etc), but if it's a product placement, you'll see a closeup on screen with "Dad" printed on it.

And really, I'd be surprised if Netflix's original shows aren't doing this - it's been generally marked as the least objectionable form of advertising because it adds realism (who drinks Cola? You know it's either a Coke or a Pepsi), and sometimes, the efforts of hiding logos is just plain silly.

And it's usually done during the writing stages where the show producers generally solicit sponsorship.

I know Netflix doesn't currently run normal commercials other than brief clips of other Netflix originals, but I'd be surprised if they aren't doing the product placement thing.

I could have used this knowledge not just on my first job but when I was interviewing for my current job 14 years ago. The interviewer asked me what salary I was seeking which was, in hindsight, an obvious trap. If I gave too low a figure, they'd "grant" me that instead of the higher figure they were thinking of. I had a figure in mind but got nervous that I wouldn't get the job if I went too high. I wound up taking about five thousand off my "figure in my mind" - and was promptly awarded that. I'll never know if I would have gotten more money had I gone higher, but that moment of insecurity still bothers me to this day.

This is where soft skills comes in.

The goal is to not be specific, but to make it such that you lob it back to them. Remember, let them make the first move - you should never ever announce a number.

So if they ask, try to deflect it back to them - "I don't have a specific number in mind, however, I do know what similar positions pay elsewhere and I expect Initech to pay comparable rates".

If they ask for a specific number, then again, deflect it - "Well, according to this survey, someone in my position with the responsibilities given would be making anywhere from $XXX to $YYY" If you know the median salary, then state that "... with a median of $ZZZ".

Yes, you DID research what similar positions pay in your area, right? I mean, that's how you decided you were underpaid?

Let them pick the specific number - you choose whether or not to accept based on that number. By giving them a range, you let them figure out and guess what you'll take. You stated a range which you researched and let them figure it out. If they decide the low end is all you deserve, it's better to find that out rather than wonder.

And $5000 is not a lot of money at the end of the day - after taxes, you're really only looking at $3600 or so, which is $300 a month.

The key to negotiations, especially salary, is to let the other guy pick the first number. If it's too low, you're free to reject the offer, and you can respond "to be honest, I didn't feel the compensation or benefits were adequate for my needs to change positions". Again, no numbers. If they ask, go ahead and mention the range. If another salary survey comes out, mention that too.

A job has to be considered for the whole - realizing that there are big changes, and there are little ones. $5000 is not a lot of pay in the end to worry about if you're already making $95k or so. If they are grossly up or down, then something might be up - $12K might be the smallest unit where salary matters because that's $1K/month or after taxes the better part of a grand still.

The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones.

So no, they can't do anything they like with your content. Worst they can do is use it in an ad for the Photos service, or use it in a training dataset.

And what part of and to develop new ones in that sentence you quoted are you unclear about?

If they decided to launch a Google dating service, those photos could very well be used to help "develop" it (i.e., pre-populate the data set, promote it, etc). The new services is even worse as it's even more open-ended as anything could come under "develop" - use your family photo on a billboard advertising it? Promotion could be argued as a form of developing the service - growing the userbase, say.

Or if Google develops some sort of new advertising service or thing that works with third parties - could sharing the data be a form of development?

Hell, they could very well close down Photos, and re-develop Picasa Cloud or something and "helpfully" import your photos into it. As it is a new service, well, new agreement and all.

They were demanding severance pay that was already owed them by the company and had not been paid. The financial condition of the company is of no consequence.

Except now EVERYONE is screwed. By the company going under, no one gets paid anymore. The ex-employees basically screwed themselves because the company was on the brink - it could survive given installment payments (which are legally protected), but since the courts awarded full compensation immediately, there was insufficient assets to cover the new expense and bankruptcy ensues.

Which means NO ONE gets paid their due - the employees who were there are screwed their pay, and the ex-employees line up like everyone else to collect pennies on the dollar.

Yes, the company was wrong to screw the ex-employees, and perhaps if they worked out a payment plan things would've gotten better. But the ex-employees were also wrong in insisting on instant payments. It's winning the battle (court case for the severance owed) and losing the war (the company goes under). Now everyone gets to line up while the assets are sold for whatever little money is left.

Yes, they got their victory. Pyrrhic one, that is for now they're out that money, AND it's not like the company can pay legal fees any more. Hope they liked their moral victory - because if the lawyers have their way, they're first in line and everyone else gets the scraps.

I suppose for some people, getting 5 cents now is better than getting a dollar paid out over a year or so.

By the time something similar is offered, hopefully ipv6 (ok, I lol a touch as I type that) will fill the need (it has multi cast I think).

Then you'll have to buy IPv6 capable DVRs. But cable companies are moving that "into the cloud" (in fact, streaming services can be considered a form of DVR in the cloud), so unless you go tell your DVR to record some IP address at some time or you'll miss it... which seems to defeat the entire purpose of streaming a show. (And really, the chances two people will stream the same show at the same time is probably quite slim, so either your DVR has to spy on you and opportunistically catch it ahead of time, or it'll sit there for a few minutes while it hopes others will join in on the stream).

America, you will be getting all your science fiction and fantasy in Avengers form in Galactic Basic. This is a win if you like big scifi movies that make billions of dollars, it's a loss if you liked a little bit of diversity in your movies. Disney will now double down on sequels and reboots.

That's everyone, actually. Sci-Fi is hard, and original sci-fi even harder.

It's so bad that the reason Hollywood avoids original stuff is because it usually does badly. Either it doesn't click, or other thing. Either way, original stuff is risky, and despite everyone's call for "More originals less sequels!", that is not translating into asses in seats. Which is the only factor that matters.

Now, sometimes it's just bad (like Tomorrowland), but it's original. And it's probably Disney's attempt at trying something new to see if it works. Since it bombed, that just means more Avengers 3, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, and other stuff. Stuff original - that doesn't make money and is far more risky. Or in general, the people who request "original" films generally don't belong to the set of people who buy tickets.

Even a rather decent movie like Edge of Tomorrow (rebranded as Live Die Repeat) failed to do "well" - which basically means the death of anything original.

It's useless to call for more original films - Hollywood believes that the two groups (people who call for original films instead of sequels and rehashed plots. and movie goers) are two distinct sets.

Not only spy agencies, heck opensource organizations like Mozilla will fire you if you give money to the wrong organizations. Seriously, we are living in the liberal fascist state.

Then do what everyone else does - donate and just check the box that marks it anonymous.

Everyone says Steve Jobs didn't donate a penny to charity, yet he did. Of course, he did it anonymously, because you never know how it's going to appear. And no, he decided his image didn't need the afterglow from the charities he gave to. I'm sure the charities wanted to publicize the fact to get some more money, but they have to respect the wishes of the donor

And plenty of people have lost their jobs doing questionable things. The key is to make it anonymous, because maybe donating to causes today may backfire tomorrow. And if charity is supposed to make you feel good, then that act should be it. Why bother making it non-anonymous, unless you intended to glow in the publicity?

Oh, and most charities do have a minimum limit for anonymous donations, but if you're under that, those donations tend to be anonymous anyways because keeping track of every $5 and $10 thing just creates paperwork. (And if you give that low, you'll end up disappearing into the noise).

Charity - you do it to feel good for yourself, not to bask in the publicity. If you want publicity, it can be bought. Even big charitable foundations don't give willy-nilly - they go through tons of due diligence to make sure it doesn't backfire. And even then, they probably give far more anonymously because it's easier cheaper and protected.

still no idea how comcast et.al. can be serious about data caps when this shift happens. people are used to letting their TV's sit all day on some random channel. if you do that with IPTV you're going to blow by 250GB or whatever in a week or so. caps are totally infeasible.

Why not? TV is really profitable, internet service less so. If data caps means Comcast etc., keep people subscribing to cable, that's a more profitable combination than just selling internet service.

And given Comcast can't give their own service any priority, it may steer some to keep their regular cable TV service.

The SAT is one of the most useless measures of knowledge or capability the world has ever seen. Standardized tests don't work, they've never worked and we know they don't tell us about a persons true intelligence. So if China wants to take a SAT for me, go ahead.

The SATs aren't for measuring intelligence. They're for measuring approximate education on a standard scale. That's their entire purpose - because if you're trying to compare two people who are from two different schools, how can you tell if candidate A's grade of a B+ makes him a better or worse student than candidate B's grade of a A in the same class? Assuming the same curriculum, that is. Is B better than A? Is there grade inflation going on (extremely common)?

In Canada, provinces have provincial exams - which basically test students on the curriculum material. All students take them to get their final mark for the course. There have been many cases where a student may score A/A+ on the course, and only a C on the provincial exam. A few cases have happened where they maybe score a C in class, but A-/B+ on the exams because the teacher grilled them hard, marked them hard and probably churned out better students.