Really? The same people? You have proof of this, I assume? 'Cause there's a hell of a lot of people using Linux these days, in all sorts of forms, and all sorts of environments. Many of these people have (and I realize this may come as a complete shock) wildly differing opinions on things! Some love SELinux, some hate it, and some are neutral. Some even think it's appropriate in some situations but not others, and these might fit in your hypothetical category, but in my experience, most of those think SELinux is mainly useful for servers, and a waste of time for personal desktop systems, which makes it unlikely that they'd be complaining in this instance.

Now I don't mind some hyperbole. I personally know several linux subforums that contain no mention of SELinux, pro or con, but I understand what you meant by your last sentence, and agree with the underlying notion, even if the words aren't literally true. But your suggestion that it's actually the same people who say "disable SELinux" who are complaining in this case strikes me as so preposterous that it needs to be challenged. You're basically trying to paint all Linux users with the hypocrite brush. (Or, at least, all those with an opinion on SELinux.) And I want some damn good evidence before I buy that line of crap!

Do you also think the people who proclaim that consoles are dead and that PC gaming is king are the same ones out buying all the new consoles? Because that makes just about as much sense. They're all gamers, and all gamers think exactly the same. Right?

Really not sure how you got modded "insightful", but hey, this is slashdot...

The kind of person who thinks an education has value?

The kind of person who prefers to learn things in an orderly fashion, rather than digging through random piles of source code and "free" advice from the internet of questionable utility and accuracy? And who is willing to pay for that privilege, or who works for a company that has a budget for ongoing education?

I've had better luck with Chromebooks. Cloud printers are now very common, and in many cases buying a new printer costs little and is a big improvement anyway. For a list of printers that can work this way, see: http://www.google.com/cloudpri... I hate trackpads anyway, and I've had excellent success with normal mice on a Chromebook. Apple components often don't like working with non-Apple components, that may be the problem there. And all built-in laptop speakers are bad; if it matters, get speakers, they're cheap.

Such tools have been around for a long time in the Windows world. The reason is division of labour. One of the dirty secrets about malware that lots of people hate to hear is that vast quantities of it get in through people pirating software and movies (which demand special "codecs"). After all why bother finding zero day exploits when you can just bind your malware to a Photoshop crack and watch hundreds of thousands of people come to you?

The opportunity is so vast that the black market divided into different job categories. There were the spammers who would buy bots from bot bot herders. The herders would buy "installs" of their bots from installers. The installers would buy binders from binder developers, obtain cracked versions of popular programs, use the binders to join the bots with the apps and then upload them to torrent sites. The installers weren't programmers so binders needed point and click GUIs, but that's OK, the value add they provided was knowing how to get around the blocks the torrent sites tried (uselessly) to put in place to stop this, along with simple brute force of numbers.

Often binders would also be combined with tools called crypters, which do what you'd expect, they just polymorphically encrypt the newly bound crack+app. Crypter developers competed based on how "FUD" their product was (fully undetectable). When AV companies learned to spot their decryption stubs, they'd modify it a bit and release a new version.

I watched this market for a little while a few years ago which is how I know all this lingo. It appeared to be a large and thriving industry. All driven by the greed of pirates.

I use to be a Sr. Network Engineer in 2000 for Amazon. I could only drink the Kool-Aid for about a year. Then went on to work with smaller companies and burned out on that. Worked almost 2 years installing DirecTV, I was 2 stone lighter on that job. Then ran around as a service tech fixing strip mall stores and big box stores... go tired of all the driving.

Now, at 53, I'm working for a medium size aerospace firm and learning MS. We got bought out by the French and will be switching to Zodiac and having to renumber the whole shop. I'm getting paid half of what I got at Amazon, but much better healthcare. I have a very short commute and love the people that I work with. My job title is SysAdmin, but really it's network engineering, facilities, plumbing, help desk, electrician, cable monkey, and AV club. I love the verity and am very happy.

Look for a smaller place where all the little things you've learned over the years come in handy.

"The problem is that if the FSF actually intends people to use GNU code in their own creations, then giving people at least the option of relicensing that code in any way that might support their business model will go a long way towards doing that."

I don't see how what Getty is doing here (use it for free in this way, or pay money to use it some other way) is any different from what many companies are doing with GPL'd code (use it this way for free or pay money to use it some other way). Other than "in this case, it affects ME-E-E!!"

This has been a long known fact,

Some of this was known back in the '60s and '70s. But the federal government decided to suppress it. In particular: Any drug with side-effects that were pleasant was considered a threat to the status quo of governance - a way for productive people to achieve happiness without driving industrial profit and/or part of a Communist conspiracy to rot the "Free World"'s moral fiber.

There was a period where researchers would only get new grants if the conclusions of their studies stated that the drugs - psychedelics, marijhuana, etc. - were useless for medical purposes and/or dangerous. (The papers in Science, for instance, were often pathetically hilarious. The reduced data said one thing, while the conclusion said the opposite.)

Meanwhile the government (notably with such things as the FBI's COINTELPRO program) smeared those (formerly highly respected scientists) who had been proponents of finding uses for them (especially those who had tried to use them to augment intelligence and experimented on themselves - often with bizarre results). The most prominent of these was Timothy Leary, though there were a number of others.

Somewher in there the drugs were added to various "schedules" and banned from medical use.

After a couple years of this, with any actual benefits buried in the noise, the government declared that it was "settled science" that there were no useful treatments using these drugs and stopped issuing new permits for their use in new research projects. (It's very much like research into global warming: You can't convince people on either side because the research is suspect due to the government becoming involved and pushing its horse in the race.)

Then the government declared acts related to banned-drug trafficing, possession, and use to be "serious" crimes and imposed passed mandatory minimum sentences - recreating the scenario of alcohol prohibition, funding organized crime, filling up the prisons, and lining corrupt police personell's pockets with graft money. Then it passed RICO and created the same financial incentive structure that fueled the Spanish Inquisition - driving ever-increasing anti-drug activity and blocking attempts to repeal drug bans.

And that's where it stood for decades. Negligible work on uses for the chemicals - either by organized research or private self-medication (with drugs of uncertain content and quality).

So while Moore's Law drove the computes from giant cabnets filling floors of office buildings to chips in everything under the sun, work on a nimber of categories of drugs stagnated.

The canabinoids of Marijuana, alone, have a number of apparent (but not adequately researhed) benefits:

  - They appear to be a specific treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (which, itself, seems to be a result of undermeidcation for pain - also driven by the "drug war").
  - Canabinoids (including at least one which does not produce a substantial "high") also appear to be a successful treatment for a debilitating form of childhood epilepsy.
  - Parkinson's disease eventually kills, not directly through loss of dopamine, but by the body's attempt to compensate for it by fouling up a system that uses the recently discovered endocanabinoids as neurotransmitters. (These are the chemicals that THC and its relatives mimic, much as opioids mimic endorphins.) This ends up with loss of memory and loss of appetite, and the victim starves herself to death. Canabinoids may help alleviate this and/or prolong life, (if only by reducing the tendency to self-starvation by inducing "the munchies").
  - Canabinoids have been claimed to arrest the progress of several cancers, including a brain cancer.d
  - Canabinoids have long been used for reducing the nausea of chemotherapy, easing self-starvation in cancer patients. (Similarly with side-effects of anti-AIDS drug coctails.)

I could go on.

But "more research is needed" to determine which (if any) of these effects are real, turn them into practical treatments, and deploy them. And it's not going to happen smoothly and rapidly with the government continuing to interfere.

And that's the sort of thing that Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to prevent. If you live somewhere that doesn't have anti-SLAPP laws, I strongly recommend never doing anything that might piss off someone with money, whether government or private.

However, the term "assault weapon" is more fuzzy, at least according to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has it right, in its own "being unbiased in the wording" way.

"Assault Rifle" is a technical term in warfare. It first applied to a particluar select-fire rifle short enough to avoid getting hung up when popping up through the hatch of a tank to fire at surrounding infantry (or otherwise going through tight spaces), and since has been applied to others with simiilar characteristics. This trades away some accuracy for rapid fire and rapid movement.

"Assault Weapon" is a term invented by antigunners and defined in particular laws, to confuse the population about proposed gun control laws by making them appear to be banning military design Assault Rifles when they actually ban a hodge-podge of civilian guns based on some arbitrary (and juristiction-specific) set of characteristics typically unrelated to any objective standard of danger or functionaity.

'twas a joke.

I've seen mine go from 5 to 15 and back and forth. Never seen a 10 though.

This is very common in the military and in defense contractors, and it happens elsewhere too. There is a reason for it. Many of these organizations are worried about malicious stuff going in and/or exfiltration of non-public data going out. Employer MITM makes it easy to examine every packet for these kinds of things (to counter them). In the US, at least, it's generally accepted that employer equipment is owned by the employer, and thus they expressly have the authority to examine what goes over their own network... and as a condition of employment or computer use you probably signed something agreeing to this. I'm not a fan of this approach, but it certainly happens.

Open source software that implements crypto protocols (e.g., SSL or SSH) will (correctly!) report that there's a MITM attack. So if you want to actually *use* the software in such settings, someone has to configure the software to trust the MITM. Some admins will do this automatically. If not, you may need to do it yourself. E.G., on Firefox, install the organization's certificate.

You configure Linux systems to work in these environments, but since the certs are often files in Windows aka DOS aka CP/M format, you need to convert the files as well as put the into somewhere useful. Here's one way to deal with it.

On Fedora, given a bunch of .crt files, you can do this:

dos2unix *.crt ; cat *.crt >> /etc/pki/tls/certs/ca-bundle.crt

On Ubuntu, you can do this given a bunch of .cer files:

dos2unix *.cer ; rename 's/.cer$/.crt/' *.cer ; ca=/usr/share/ca-certificates ; mkdir -p $ca/MYORG ; cp *.crt $ca/MYORG ; cd $ca ; ls MYORG/* >> /etc/ca-certificates.conf ; update-ca-certificates

You could avoid appending to the file if you want to, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

5 digit UIDs are far beyond caring about mod points.

4 digit UIDs have unlimited mod points anyway.

3 digit UIDs can take mod points away from users.

2 digit UIDs.. well, there's only one still posting and he bought his so he gets jack shit.

You and your colleagues have horrible taste! :p

As for the just-one-cup issue, there are dozens of other options, from single-use filters to single-cup-size presses to simple espresso machines. I have a press that doubles as a travel cup.

I rest my case on the horrible taste issue. No one with any taste in coffee would ever mention Folgers, except as a how-NOT-to! :D

I'd really like to be able to install something on the lines leaving my breaker panel that acts like a firewall and blocks any kind of network communication over powerline.

1. Get some electrical-noise suppression ferrite toroids and some ceramic capacitors at your local electronics store. (.005 microfarad at a minimum of 600V would be good for the caps. 1000V or higher on cap used for 240V circuits.)

2. In your fusebox connect a cap from each breaker's hot output to the nearest ground bus, keeping the wires as short as possible. (You want them downstream of the breaker so they blow the breaker, rather than start a fire, in the very unlikely chance that one fails shorted.) On 220v loads hook the cap between the two hot wires (red and black in the US).

The cap wires are too small to carry the current in case of a short, so get some tiny 1A pigtail fuses and wire them in series on the hot side (either side in the 240V both-are-hot case). Put plastic insulation rated at least 600V over (at least) the hot side wires and the fuse. (You can get such insulation, of adequate voltage and temperature ratings, by stripping the insulation from a spare piece of electrical wiring.)

3. In your fusebox disconnect the circuits, one by one, both hot and neutral. On each run the hot and neutral lines through a ferrite toroid core in opposite directions and reconnect the . For a 220V circuit run the two hot lines through the ferrite core, again in opposite directions, and ignore the Neutral. If you have multiple loads on a breaker, you can use separate toroids on each load or a single one on from two to all of them: Run the hot wires all one way through the toroid and the neutral (or red-hot on 240V) the other way.

This puts inductance in series with the signal and capacitance shunting it, forming a low pass filter. The low-frequency power will get through just fine and the high frequency networking signals will get stopped.

Putting cores on the main feeds also works, and takes fewer cores. You can also put one on each of the hot wires, separately, rather than using one with the wires crossed through it. You can get big ones that are split, intended to be clamped over a computer signal cable to prevent it from acting like an antenna, which you can clamp onto the wires without unhooking them.

Don't bother putting the two haves of the circuit through the core in the SAME direction, as you would with the signals in a cable or power cord if you clamped a core around the whole thing. This keeps the common-mode (both wires go positive or negative together) from propagating past the core, but the differential mode (one goes positive while the other goes negative), which is what power line networking uses, goes right through.

Note that putting this stuff in your fusebox may be against code, and void your fire insurance. The capacitor wiring may also be problematic for creating hazards if not done properly (insulated with "spaghetti tubing" on at least the hot side, hot side cut short, a little fuse (1A or so) in series, etc.).

"THE" billion dollar hacker club? Seems to me there are several of those.

Two instances just from the public record: First there's the Homebrew Computer Club, founded in '73, which includes a number of leading lights in the Silicon Valley part of the industry, including Jobs and Woz. (Apple alone has WhatsApp beat by a factor of neary 25, as of today's close.) Then there's the (invitation-only) Hackers Conference, Founded by in '84, whose membership may not have as high a percentage of people who made billions in high tech, but does have more than one just among those whose membership is publicly known.

I could go on for a while, and I'm SURE I don't know anywhere near all such organizations.