7-Zip is by far the easiest way to do this. Select files, right-click, 7-Zip, Add to archive... and if you supply a password and check "encrypt file names" the whole archive is AES-256 encrypted with the password you used. Upload that bad boy and feel more secure. On the other end, download it, right-click, "extract here" and then delete the 7z file. It's just one extra step prior to upload and after download and the shell integration makes it dead simple. If you're on Linux using p7zip at a command prompt, "7za a -mhe archive_name.7z file_and_dir_names_go_here -p" and it'll prompt for a password.

freedesktop.org is under Red Hat control. All of the biggest douche moves in Linux have come from Red Hat, including all the Poettering-based junk and the lovely musings of Ulrich Drepper. At least Drepper wrote some interesting papers and made some valuable contributions despite his acerbic handling of bug reports; I don't really find anything Poettering does to be of real-world value. Red Hat has beaten Microsoft in the EEE philosophy; I think Microsoft is far less evil than Red Hat at this point in history. It's too bad because Red Hat historically helped to bring Linux into the corporate mainstream and has otherwise done some great things for the community. Why did they start going downhill so hard?

Red Hat and Ubuntu are the enemies of clean, functional, and elegant open-source solutions. The irony is so thick that you could cut it with a knife.

http://www.floodgap.com/softwa... and you're welcome. ;)

Firefox doesn't get slow as molasses after a few hours either. Perhaps you are thinking of a very old version or have a pretty low-spec computer.

I browse by typing raw HTTP into Telnet sessions on port 80. Text looks fine.

Good, JavaScript is faster. Now where is my in-browser ad blocking engine written in C? Since lots of articles have run that whine about Adblock Plus slowing down browsing due to injecting a massive CSS file into every page, let's see the ad blocking capability put where it really belongs. THAT is a feature that almost every user of Firefox wants: ad blocking in the browser.

I've noticed that a very high number of movies made since Save the Cat! came out follow the three-part formula outlined therein. It was especially apparent having seen Pitch Black (2000) and The Chronicles of Riddick (2004), then watching the (annoyingly titled) Riddick (2013).

On top of most films following the same general plot format, the buildup of any kind of suspense is practically nonexistent. Everything has to move so damned fast that you don't even have time to come up with something to anticipate based on what has already happened before the next action-packed mostly-CGI-and-obviously-so thing smacks you in the face. A classic film like Halloween where the first 90% of the film is nothing but suspense build-up could never be made today, even if it was set in the same time period so that modern technology couldn't get in the way of the plot. Suspense is largely a thing of the past.

While I'm here on my soapbox, does anyone remember when "special effects" were actually special? (Get off my lawn!)

Women make safer choices. That's better if safety and stability are higher priorities. Men make riskier choices that come with greater potential rewards; some obtain the rewards and some fall flat on their faces. Neither choice is "better" without looking at what matters to the person making that choice.

Freedom of speech exists to protect the most disgusting, offensive, disturbing, and unpopular speech. It does not exist to protect speech that is not objectionable, as such speech does not need protection in the first place. Production of video constitutes a form of speech; content is irrelevant. The concept of "obscenity" does not exist in the First Amendment and its existence anywhere in the body of statutory and case law as an excuse to penalize people for unpopular speech runs strongly against the entire purpose of the First Amendment.

A system administrator can't administrate the system without "that much access." Who controls the access above that sysadmin? Why, it'd have to be another sysadmin...see the problem?

Why couldn't Sony just yank all the Internet connectivity until the machines were fixed?

Oh, I checked. The website made it sound like it was some sort of antivirus program that no one had ever heard of. When asked about it, some customers didn't even know what it was or how it had gotten on their computers. It installed a filter driver for all network adapters and at least two machines weren't getting online at all because of it malfunctioning. All of the customers already had an antivirus solution installed. Rapport started popping up on computers in the era of fake security software.

You should probably get some detail before jumping to conclusions.

I've been uninstalling the crap out of that program every single time a customer walks in with it installed because I didn't know what it was and I didn't like how invasive it appeared. It's good to know I was doing them a favor.

It seems that threading isn't nearly so simple in C++ either; at least, not if you want to get it right. From https://akrzemi1.wordpress.com... and http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/s... it would seem that while initiating a thread as you've discussed within a C++ program is easy, the nuances of C++ threading are uglier than C pthreads threading. Quotes like these make C++11 threading seem a lot less trivial than your initially impressive example suggests:

"If a thread is cancelled no destructors of automatic objects are called; or at least, it is up to the implementation if they are called or not. This would cause too much resource leaks. Therefore, it is not possible to cancel a thread in C++. There is a similar mechanism though: thread interruption. Interruption is coöperative: to-be-cancelled thread must acknowledge the interruption. If interrupted, a special exception is thrown that unwinds child thread’s stack until it reaches the outermost scope. However, interruption mechanism is not available in C++11 either."

"But all those threads computing fib1 are still running! And as they finish, they will write to all those instances of fib1. Which are no longer there, since the stack has been unwound. In its place will be the stack corresponding to the continuing computation that was initiated when the exception was caught. Thus we now have a large number of threads writing to various locations on the user's stack. By the time the user tries to debug the resulting mess, there is a good chance they will all be gone, leaving him/her with nothing but a stack with mysteriously smashed values. Or those might no longer be visible either because a return address may have been overwritten, causing the main program to take a wild branch."

As I am not well-versed in C++, I'm interested in knowing about these things. Perhaps it will give me a reason to seriously look at the language.

It's a kernel, not a userland program. It's never going to be as simple as a userland program, so it's a bad example. Kernels can't have the C standard library or pthreads or the STL. Well, technically they could, but that'd make the kernel code massive for marginal benefit and any kind of library bug would become a kernel crash waiting to happen.