You are wrong here on both - requiring a helmet do absolutely discourage bicycling, and particularly the one mentioned here about sharing bikes in crowded places. Imagine you get to a stand and see there are a bike available - there is a 30 minutes walk, or 4 minutes ride on a bicycle to get to your destination, but did you bring a helmet? Or maybe you think they need to have every size helmets available on every stop?

And you want the negligence drivers away, not force the bicyclists to hold the responsibility in the event of accident, Do not give the car the excuses like - but you did not wear a helmet so its your fault - or something silly - the stronger is always responsible for the weaker, meaning:
- Drivers of motorized vehicles are responsible for pedestrians, bikers as well as motorbikes.
- Motorbikes are responsible for bikers and pedestrians.
- Bikers are responsible for walkers.

Just increase the penalty for the negligent drivers that cause accidents - imagine the threat of having your license revoked should you act negligent towards bikers and those walking. I bet it would change the awareness of the drivers at once!

I did not pay attention to the files being on windows which most likely mean NTFS. Everything should still be possible using a linux livecd except for the last command to make hardlinks... I do not believe NTFS have anything like that, it is a feature of linux file systems such as ext2/ext3/ext4.

This gives an sha256sum list of all files assuming you are in linux and writing it to list.sha256 in the base of your home folder:

find /<folder_containing_data> -type f -print0 | xargs -0 sha256sum > ~/list.sha256

You may replace sha256sum with another checksum routine if you want, such as. sha512sum, md5sum, sha1sum, or other preference.

now sort the file:

sort ~/list.sha256 > ~/list.sha256.sorted

(notice, this create a sorted list according to the sha256 value but with the path to the file as well. Assuming you would want to manually check some lines, this might be helpful, but if you only want the machine to check there is really no need to include the file and path data in the output giving a much smaller duplicate list file. )
without paths the command could be something like

cat ~/list.sha256 | awk '{print $1}' | sort > ~/list.sha256.chksum.sorted

You could now find duplicates by doing one of the following:

uniq -c ~/list.sha256.chksum.sorted | while read count chksum; do if [ $count != 1 ]; then grep ^$chksum ~/list.sha256 >> ~/list.duplicates; fi ; done

or in the first case

cat ~/list.sha256.sorted | awk '{print $1}' | while read count chksum; do if [ $count != 1 ]; then grep ^ $chksum ~/list.sha256 >> ~/list.duplicates; fi ; done

Now with the list of duplicates come the important question... Does meta data of the files such as in which path it is, date and time, file permissions etc matter to you?

Regardless I would usually recommend doing a binary comparison of the files as well to fully ensure the files are the same, before merging...

The quick and dirty removal of duplicates would be

oldchecksum='' ; cat ~/list.duplicates | while read checksum currpath; do if [ "$oldchecksum" == "$checksum" ]; then rm "$currpath"; else oldchecksum = $checksum ; fi; done

If wanting to preserve meta data, then the best way might be to use hard links to the original maintaining setting the hardlink to date and time of duplicate.

oldchecksum='' ;oldpath=''; cat ~/list.duplicates | while read checksum currpath; do if [ "$oldchecksum" == "$checksum" ]; then mv "$currpath" "$currpath".dup; ln "$oldpath" "$currpath"; touch "$currpath" --reference="$currpath".dup ; chmod "$currpath" --reference="$currpath".dup ; chown "$currpath" --reference="$currpath".dup ; rm "$currpath".dup ; else oldchecksum = $checksum ; oldpath=$currpath; fi; done

Do note that I did not test any of these commands and I might have missed something that make these commands eat important data too... Check on something unimportant before trying!

It believe it is a good priority...
The question is - is it good enough for most? - assuming it is, then advanced users who want more features can get it. The same happens with music players, software to read documents such as pdf files and so on all the time. Distros don't tend to install the most feature-rich version, but what is good enough for most, and let it be your choice to upgrade if you so desire something more.
It is much more irritating to replace a massive framework with a lighter one than the opposite.

I have not used Xfce since the time I used Gentoo now, but I used to like XFCE a lot! I am using Gnome2 now, and cant say I have decided yet what desktop I will go with going forward. There where some issues with Xfce when I used it years ago, Gnome2 has issues to - I would for example like to use menus on the left/right for more screen real-estate like I used to in Xfce, however I have found Gnome2 to handle side menus badly. I don't remember anymore what I did not like with Xfce anymore, but hopefully that has been fixed :)

I am a bit surprised Gnome3 is that heavy though as I understood it is more focused on plugins for adding functionality.

Btw. the Debian Net Install is usually what I use for servers, but for desktop I always use CD media - I NEVER use DVD media as it usually add tons of bloat I really prefer not have there.

It is even worse than that - if it is wont be possible to change the certificate on a machine and that certificate get compromized, then it means there is no security anymore neither... The device is now junk after maybe one month of owning it. You need a new device regardless. And dont tell me you have not heard of the certificates for BlueRay and so on being compromised...

The alternative - Microsoft can remotely update the certificate, but that also mean any remote attacker who break the key can change it... Again, no security... The only way to make it secure in the long run is to allow users change the key when needed.

It is based only on Scandinavia which is less than 0.3% of the area of the world or 0.8% of all earths landmass...

It should be common knowledge that local weather cannot be extrapolated to world weather. To use this report to calculate global weather is for sure bad science, despite the finding for Scandinavia being interesting!

Before attempting to extrapolate to the world, we need to add samples from other regions too, it should not be difficult to get the same type of samples from trees from different placen in Canada, and countries of the former Soviet Union, but we do likely need samples from the southern hemispare and tropical areas too to be able to extrapolate the temprature for the world.

I once worked for an ISP and we did try to help our clients with central filters against spam, however, general filters we found quick enough could not be applied as part of our recipients were employed in Pharmacies, were doctors, where system administrators who wanted updates about the latest threats, and the list goes on. Essentially whatever we tried to filter had legitimate use too! Sure we can say the hotel doctors/pharmacists need to find alternative ways to communicate, but they are not alone.

I think this type of legislation typically cause more problems than it is worth.

IOMMU seems like a good solution for the Thunderbolt DMA problem!

Thanks to your post I am now aware Intel come with IOMMU when the hardware has VT-d support and that support is activated (in bios?). The same is true with AMD machines with HyperTransport. I assume HyperTransport just like VT-d must be activated in BIOS for protection to be active since a disadvantage of activating IOMMU is degradation of the DMA performance.

I must say I had eliminated any laptop with Thunderbolt from buying consideration up until finding this post, Thanks to this I will give it a second look!

It seem like you live in dinasaur times beliving everyone only use desktops... I have not had any PCI-E card exposed at all on any of my recent laptops! Now I do not know if hot-plugging a card to PCI-E in fact can be done without a system crash, but you would need to open the case for this in a way that for sure would take some more serious action.

Now compare that with simply plugging a Thunderbolt cable to a machine - laptop or desktop...

I believe 24 frames at one point was believed to be the threashold but I cant other than believe that must be false: In Europe the TV framerate was always 30 frames and from the time I studied in the states and I could clearly see the difference!!! I have a hard time believing half the population of the world does not notice that difference. By all the people stating 48 fps is too realistic it kind of proves the point...

Ok so one type of product maxed out at 34%, another had 3%. But what is the typical benefit? Surely if it is right in the middle most manipulation only result in about 15-20%.

Another factor not accounted for is actual nutrient value of the two. If the crop i.e. simply hold more water without nutrients the yield might be higher but without real effect.

> Is a system that could save millions of lives without infringing on our freedoms worth it? Yes. How could anyone think otherwise. These missile defense system can not feasibly be used offensively. If someone gets mad at us for wanting to be able to defend ourselves, isn't that their problem?

I believe you are completely missing the point here... Try imagining it the opposite way for a second: China and Russia is setting up an missil shield that US cannot penetrarte - all to protect their own citizens in the event of a (nuclear) missil war. USA does not have any equivelent shield. You do realize that Russia could send missiles against defenseless USA whereas all missiles from USA would be shut down? So what would USA have to do? - the obvious answers are the same as what Russia and China today will do. The shield just as the arms themselves are double edged - each cause an arms race. It will not stop until each of the parties are able to destroy each other, or the worst case that only one power remains.

I always look for reviews of a product before buying. If the product does not contain the exact number and version that is listed in the reviews I ignore it. Also, I dont accept whatever review there is neither - I will ignore reviews I dont deem neutral. I can tell you it is usually very dificult to find the products that actually get the good score - Try finding the shavers listed in the reviews arround! You will hardly ever find them - it looks like they only want the brand itself to win, but wont sell top items anywhere regardless if it is Braun, Phillips or whatever. I often end up buying online for that very reason, retail stores keep shooting themselves in the foot by not using the very version numbers winning the tests, being computers, shavers, or whatever.

That does not remove the fact that there is a use case for the type of user we are that is distinct from a regular user.

For example making a sales site and only making use cases for the people going to buy things does not remove the use case for one that need to maintain the inventory of the site...

> "UI designers", on the other hand, are more interested in creating software that looks "pretty", even if it's damn impossible to use productively

That should not be correct, it that is the case, then fire the guy! The objective of an UI designer is to make the UI intuitive and quick to use. We are talking about testing how fast people grasp the UI, how fast they can get certain things done. We are talking about making use cases, and see how those use cases are met. Eliminating clutter. Evaluating if is it easy or confusing to get from A to B.

Where this often go wrong is in the evaluation of who the users are. There should be use cases for each kind of user we expect should use the system. For an online shopping site that might be "unregistered users", "registered users", "inventory manager", "content editor", "translator", and so on. But when it comes to a "Desktop" application this become MUCH harder...

Try defining all the types of users of a Desktop... What does it mean? In real life, a carpenter or a metal worker would have a clearly different desktop than an office worker, but does those roles translate into computer different kinds of desktops in a computer? Should an accountant be considered a different kind of desktop user than a Java programmer? What about a gamer? Or a sales representative? Does the kind of desktop we have depend upon these distinctions? If not, what is it that does define distinct users of a "Desktop"?

I believe the problem here is that the "Desktop" in general was only an virtual illusion created to make people have a concept to easier associate things in the virtual world to the real world. We create archive folders, drop down indexes and so on. Virtual illusions to make us to associate with things we can take and feel. In several ways we are beyond this now too: we now have use cases for desktop as an assistant for example: get me file X in any of my folders, e-mail, document or whatever. Find me application Y. Read this text loud. Inform me when someone calls or sends a message. Call person Z for me. I mean - do you really want to select the phone application before asking the machine to make a call? - In other words, you do see that this is a newer role of a "desktop", right?

It is indeed confusing and complex, and I truly do not think a group of programmers would do better if they to design the interface by without input from others. I do think it will be UI designers that will eventually figure out of the confusion - maybe realizing that a cell phone is more or an mobile assistant than a desktop - I mean - you wont sit down with your phone and think of it as your desk anytime soon. The question is, how much of the old computer desktop today should resemble a desk, what should now be more as an assistant, and what else?

I can't say I have any modern favorite desktop; as for now I prefer Gnome2 or XFCE on Linux, the early interfaces on Mac OS X 10.4. Hopefully we get the right balance soon.