Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Abandoning Desktop was a BIG Mistake for RedHat (Score 1) 211

by whoever57 (#47768981) Attached to: How Red Hat Can Recapture Developer Interest

More than a decade ago, when they abandoned desktop and regular users and only focused on enterprise, they made their biggest mistake. Where do you think Ubuntu Server users come from?

This.

Absolutely true. RedHat desktop was awful (in comparison to other distros) for a while. Unfortunately, it's going that way again (Gnome 3). I only hope that someone will create a MATE repository for RHEL/CentOS 7.

What this implies is that the execs at RedHat don't eat their own dogfood, which is terrible for any software company. They should run RHEL on their personal desktops/laptops, etc..

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 313

by whoever57 (#47768885) Attached to: Comcast Tells Government That Its Data Caps Aren't Actually "Data Caps"

After Citizens United, they can fund Super PACs.

Incorrect. You could have at least tried to check Wikipedia before posting ignorant comments. This is directly from their page (check the link if you want source references).

Pot, kettle, much? I specifically referenced Super PACs. From that very page:

Super PACs[edit]
Super PACs, officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups without any legal limit on donation size.[19]

Comment: Re:I like... (Score 1) 536

by whoever57 (#47767723) Attached to: U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

it's only a bad idea if the police have control over the recordings ... then you would see incriminating footage getting lost or deleted (and blamed on "equipment failure" )

Even if the police have control, after some time, ordinary people would see a pattern: "no recording == suspicious behaviour by the police". Then, turning off the camera isn't going to provide much protection to a police officer.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 313

by whoever57 (#47767229) Attached to: Comcast Tells Government That Its Data Caps Aren't Actually "Data Caps"

Corporations can create PACs, but cannot contribute to them.

After Citizens United, they can fund Super PACs.

They can (after the SCOTUS decision) fund media information about candidates but cannot endorse for or against any candidates

In other words, corporations can put unlimited money towards echoing a candidate's talking points, as long as they don't coordinate with with candidate. However, as Stephen Colbert [I think] pointed out, Super PACs can apparently have an office next door to a candidate, have staff who work for both, but still not be coordinating with that candidate.

As far as I can tell, the banned activities are:
Give money either directly or indirectly (via a PAC) to a candidate.
Directly endorse/oppose a candidate

But, as I have pointed out above, they can use their own money to promote the same message as a candidate.

Comment: Re:DNS? (Score 0) 114

by whoever57 (#47764899) Attached to: Time Warner Cable Experiences Nationwide Internet Outage

When I subscribed to Comcast a while back, there was a 4 day outage. By the second day, I found out that it was due to an attack on the DNS servers.

Comcast runs DNS servers? Wow, perhaps I did not need to run my own for all these years! On the other hand, I have not had any problems at my home LAN due to DNS going down.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 313

That's exactly what I said, but in different language.

Umm, no, it isn't. You quoted a statement that companies are banned from "spending money to influence federal elections.", whereas the quote I provided shows that companies can spend money on "electioneering communications", which I think includes spending money to influence federal elections.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 2) 313

I think that you missed the note at the beginning of that page:

Note: Portions of this publication may be affected by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Essentially, the Court's ruling permits corporations and labor organizations to use treasury funds to make independent expenditures in connection with federal elections and to fund electioneering communications.

Comment: Re:My opinion on the matter. (Score 3, Insightful) 785

by whoever57 (#47751421) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide

and I've lost count of the amount of times when I simply wanted to just find a way to make the init system restart a service automatically when it crashes

I cannot understand what your problem is. I have systems that run continuously for years without processes dying. I have systems where the OOM killer inadvertantly kills some system task, in which case, simply re-starting that task isn't likely to be a helpful response.

From the perspective of re-starting system tasks, systemd is a solution to a non-problem.

Comment: Re:NT is best (Score 1) 188

by whoever57 (#47751007) Attached to: Munich Council Say Talk of LiMux Demise Is Greatly Exaggerated

The point is that although it happened it's isolated

My point is that your experience is meaningless in the context of how many machines are affected. Yes, it may be a small percentage of machines that are affected, but how small? 1%? .1%, .01%? I have not seen any figures published on this.

PS. Please, please, look up the definitions of "to affect" and "to effect". Make sure you are looking at definitions of the verbs, not nouns.

Comment: Re:NT is best (Score 1) 188

by whoever57 (#47747967) Attached to: Munich Council Say Talk of LiMux Demise Is Greatly Exaggerated

Yes there was and as I read about it I thought "Oh crap, We have 40k systems that might be effected." but not one had a bsod so I was very relieved

And in my small office, we had one machine that was affected. So what's your point? Clearly MS screwed up with bad updates. You were just lucky, probably because you buy from a single supplier, whose machines were not affected.

Comment: Re:WTF is up with the title of this article... (Score 1) 188

by whoever57 (#47747879) Attached to: Munich Council Say Talk of LiMux Demise Is Greatly Exaggerated

It is a single council, speaking as a single entity. One council says; two councils say.

This is British English style. In British English, when referring to certain entities that are made up of many people (such as sports teams), the plural is often used. However, in the case of this story, I am not sure that this would apply to "Council" in this manner.

Comment: Re:Should have kept the domain name (Score 1) 182

by whoever57 (#47736745) Attached to: BBC and FACT Shut Down Doctor Who Fansite

He should have held on to the domain name. He may have been obigated to shut the site down, but nothing requires him to give the name over to them.

It appears there was some negotiation over the shutdown and perhaps giving up the domain name was done in order to secure the user database:

With the user database secured, an agreement was quickly reached to close down the site and transfer the domain.

Comment: Re:Actually, it does ! (Score 1) 375

by whoever57 (#47731373) Attached to: Would Scottish Independence Mean the End of UK's Nuclear Arsenal?

I should also point out that tax revenues per head are only higher in Scotland if oil and gas revenues are included in the calculations. Otherwise, they are broadly similar to UK average.

Even if oil and gas are included, spending per head in Scotland is approximately 1,400 more than UK average, while revenues are about 1,700 more than UK average -- really quite a small difference.

Comment: Re:Actually, it does ! (Score 1) 375

by whoever57 (#47731249) Attached to: Would Scottish Independence Mean the End of UK's Nuclear Arsenal?

Half of your argument is missing. You need the revenues collected information ("taxes per head"). If you get that and do the math, then you've got something.

Really? That's all you have? Not even a citation to prove a point?

The GGP claimed 2 things (1: more taxes per head, 2: less spending per head). I showed that the second was false. The other claim (greater taxes per head), I left alone. There is no math involved.

Save yourself! Reboot in 5 seconds!

Working...