Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Irreversible? (Score 1) 473

by Zocalo (#47766829) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report
Nope, just pointing out that using an absolute like "irreversible" isn't perhaps the smartest thing for the IPCC to do as it will almost certainly be seized on by the climate change deniers. Doubly so since it's demonstrably not the case except in our ability to use current science to resolve the problem.

Frankly the only things left in doubt for me about GW is just how much of a contribution mankind has made (it's certainly not zero, but I don't think it's 100% either), and whether the changes we *can* make to reduce the symptoms will have a worthwhile effect. Given enough will we can obviously reduce our GHG emissions significantly, migrate to cleaner fuels and generally move closer to living in balance with nature, but is that enough? The irony is that the more the AGW deniers are wrong about the level of our involvement, the greater the difference that we can make by changing our ways, but if they are right then we are all doomed to ride this out, wherever nature is taking us.

Comment: Re:Irreversible? (Score 1) 473

by Zocalo (#47765285) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report
"Irreversible" is a very strong word, and clearly incorrect. We're not so much talking about unscrambling eggs here as something than *can* be corrected, and in all likelihood *will* be corrected, just by leaving it alone and waiting long enough. The problem for us humans here today, of course, is that we won't we around that long and in all probability neither will many generations of our decendants. I fully expect the naysayers to latch on to this in combination with the historical record showing that the earth has been warmer than this in the past as further "evidence" that the IPCC has no clue in their rebuttals over the next few days.

Comment: Re:Choosing Sides (Score 5, Interesting) 806

by Zocalo (#47751093) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide
Not just the Registry, but it's also rapidly becoming the equivalent of "svchost.exe". I probably wouldn't have a problem with SystemD if it were designed to be *much* more modular, but the design goals for the package seem to be to embrace, extend and extinguish a significant number of other processes essential to the Linux boot process and to bring most of it straight into PID1. That's just asking for major problems if/when anything goes wrong, and makes troubleshooting a nightmare because you have one huge black box instead of a bunch of daemons. If the SystemD team want to manage network startup, system logging, firewalls and whatever else takes their fancy, then fine, go right ahead; just do it in a way that makes it easier for system admins to disable it and plug in a more fully featured and/or stable alternative, and do it as a child of PID1 so if/when it does crash it doesn't bring the whole system down with it.

If you want an eye opener take a look at the dependency list for SystemD and those packages that depend on SystemD some time, note how entries appear in both lists, then consider the following questions: Bearing in mind that SystemD is the first thing that is loaded after the Kernel; does that look like a good design to you? Does it explain why so many distros have adopted it, given that many of those dependencies either won't work without SystemD underneath or require a considerable amount of customisation to use any alternative?

Still, there's always BSD.

Comment: Re:OMG (Score 1) 29

by Zocalo (#47744199) Attached to: Iceland Stands Down On Travel Alert: From Orange To Red and Back Again
You missed my point, I think, I wasn't saying there was any connection with Eyjafjallajökull other than it might have prompted a slightly over cautious reaction in closing airspace before any actual airbourne dust became apparent. Sub-glacial volcanoes don't tend to throw huge volumes of ash into the atmosphere, so the main danger in the event of an eruption is far more likely to be flash floods than airbourne ash, although predicting the nature of a volcanic eruption is hardly an exact science so only time will tell. Of course, if Bardarbunga does manage to erupt with enough power to throw a sufficient volume of ash high enough into the atmosphere to cause chaos on a par with 2010 then an awful lot of ice is going to have to have been melted in the process, so there could still be a combination of physical damage from the hlaup and economic damage from disruption to air travel.

Comment: Re:OMG (Score 4, Interesting) 29

by Zocalo (#47743895) Attached to: Iceland Stands Down On Travel Alert: From Orange To Red and Back Again
Probably just erring on the side of caution after Eyjafjallajökull in 2010. There are a whole number of ways the potential eruption, if it happens all, could go but most of them are probably not going to result in massive volumes of ash being pumped into the atmosphere; the most likely outcome being that the melting ice will cool the magma and prevent anything hazardous reaching the atmosphere. The main danger from Iceland's sub-glacial eruptions is actually the hlaup, or outflow of water from beneath the glacier in the form of a potentially devastating flash flood, which is why people have already been evacuated from the highlands. If there is an eruption, I suspect the priority with be evacuating whichever sections of the coastal lowlands are going to be in the path of any outflow (somewhere along the South coast, I suspect), rather than rerouting aircraft in the area.

Comment: Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (Score 2) 186

by Zocalo (#47736885) Attached to: BBC and FACT Shut Down Doctor Who Fansite
Thanks for the clarification, I was leaning towards that being that case, but as others have noted that *really* need to be in the summary as it sets the tone of the entire story from "fan site shut down" to the far more accurate and far less newsworthy "site hosting lots of copyright infringing content shutdown". There's a big difference between the BBC exercising its rights to shutter outright copyright infringement and the BBC strong-arming a legit fan site for using too much content, and it's not that the latter gets DICE more page views and ad impressions.

Comment: Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (Score 5, Insightful) 186

by Zocalo (#47736565) Attached to: BBC and FACT Shut Down Doctor Who Fansite
FACT was involved, so my first guess was that they were hosting full episodes, or perhaps links to torrents, but according to TFA DWM had refused to carry any of the leaked episodes from the new series which seems unlikely for a site turning a blind eye to copyright, yet further up is the following quote: "Often times, having watched stuff there led to me purchasing the exact same content on iTunes as well as all the various other content available for Doctor Who", which implies they were hosting episodes, or at least extensive clips.

So, is this a case of major fansite being shutdown for using a more copyrighted material than the BBC was prepared to stomach (in which case where was the friendly letter asking them to "tone it down a bit, please"), a copyright infringement portal being shuttered for hosting/linking to aired episodes and other content, some kind of trademark issue, or just a domain grab by the BBC ("doctorwhomedia.co.uk" is a fairly nice domain name, afterall)?

Comment: Re:missing the point (Score 1) 609

by Zocalo (#47721677) Attached to: Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year
I was thinking more of the sites that shutdown due to lack of funds, but yes, they could burn it all down when they shutter the site if they really wanted to be dicks about it. If they go to a subscription only model, then the content is still available, even if you have to pay the sub - it's just a personal call whether you think their version of the content is worth paying for of one of the free alternative sites meets your needs.

Comment: Re:missing the point (Score 4, Insightful) 609

by Zocalo (#47720041) Attached to: Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year
Quite. Also, even when a site is using ads there are usually alternatives that provide similar content for free. If we were able to wave a wand and magically remove all advertising companies from the Internet (or better still, existance in general), I suspect most ad-funded sites would try and transition to Tip Jars or subscriptions, the browsing public would re-distribute to different sites, and a number of sites would ultimately fold, including most of the ad-laden SEO landing pages. No actual content of value would be lost (although some might only continue to exist in the Wayback Machine) and life would go on, only without the ads and malware attack vectors that piggyback on it.

Where do I sign up?

Comment: Re:That's it? (Score 5, Interesting) 609

by Zocalo (#47719967) Attached to: Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year

Adblock and no script do more to keep viruses out of your stuff than antivirus.

That's actually a very good point. I haven't had a single alert from the AV component of my security suite (software on PC, host and hardware firewalls, etc.) for longer than I can remember, and that was a false positive from an installer. Then again, I whitelist cookies, JavaScript, Flash, etc., block all ads, treat all links/files I get sent with a healthy degree of skepticism, and don't tend to visit sites usually regarded as "suspect" (compromised is another matter, of course), so even the likes of SpyBot S&D and CCleaner seldom flag anything. Given how ineffectual AV is against the latest 0-day vulnerabilites and drive-bys, I'm giving serious thought to just switching off the real-time scanner and running a manual scan every week or so for peace of mind.

+ - Gmail Now Rejects Emails With Misleading Combinations Of Unicode Characters

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Google today announced it is implementing a new effort to thwart spammers and scammers: the open standard known as Unicode Consortium’s “Highly Restricted” specification. In short, Gmail now rejects emails from domains that use what the Unicode community has identified as potentially misleading combinations of letters. The news today follows Google’s announcement last week that Gmail has gained support for accented and non-Latin characters. The company is clearly okay with international domains, as long as they aren’t abused to trick its users."

+ - NVIDIAs 64-bit Tegra K1: The Ghost of Transmeta Rides Again, Out Of Order->

Submitted by MojoKid
MojoKid (1002251) writes "Ever since Nvidia unveiled its 64-bit Project Denver CPU at CES last year, there's been discussion over what the core might be and what kind of performance it would offer. Visibly, the chip is huge, more than 2x the size of the Cortex-A15 that powers the 32-bit version of Tegra K1. Now we know a bit more about the core, and it's like nothing you'd expect. It is, however, somewhat similar to the designs we've seen in the past from the vanished CPU manufacturer Transmeta. When it designed Project Denver, Nvidia chose to step away from the out-of-order execution engine that typifies virtually all high-end ARM and x86 processors. In an OoOE design, the CPU itself is responsible for deciding which code should be executed at any given cycle. OoOE chips tend to be much faster than their in-order counterparts, but the additional silicon burns power and takes up die area. What Nvidia has developed is an in-order architecture that relies on a dynamic optimization program (running on one of the two CPUs) to calculate and optimize the most efficient way to execute code. This data is then stored inside a special 128MB buffer of main memory. The advantage of decoding and storing the most optimized execution method is that the chip doesn't have to decode the data again; it can simply grab that information from memory. Furthermore, this kind of approach may pay dividends on tablets, where users tend to use a small subset of applications. Once Denver sees you run Facebook or Candy Crush a few times, it's got the code optimized and waiting. There's no need to keep decoding it for execution over and over."
Link to Original Source

+ - Why social media needs to manipulate you->

Submitted by edA-qa
edA-qa (536723) writes "Has Facebook really done something deviant with their emotional feed experiment? Sure, it is despicable and unethical, but it wasn’t truly different from what is done on social sites every day. The truth is that all social media, even search engines, filter what we see. From thousands, even millions, of possible posts or articles, only a tiny few have been selected for us to view. As long as you don’t understand the filtering you are being manipulated."
Link to Original Source

+ - Patents that kill->

Submitted by wabrandsma
wabrandsma (2551008) writes "The Economist:
The patent system, which was developed independently in 15th century Venice and then in 17th century England, gave entrepreneurs a monopoly to sell their inventions for a number of years. Yet by the 1860s the patent system came under attack, including from The Economist. Patents, critics argued, stifled future creativity by allowing inventors to rest on their laurels. Recent economic research backs this up."

Link to Original Source

How often I found where I should be going only by setting out for somewhere else. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Working...