Yes, running Linux is still the best option, for most Windows users.
Obviously if you are required to use software that only runs on Windows --perhaps you are a photographer who has to submit his finals in Photoshop format-- then you are stuck in the Microsoft microbiome. Too bad.
But most Windows users are not being coerced into that submissive role; they could switch to something like an Ubuntu LTS and be happy --and more productive at lower long term cost-- than if they continue to pay to be a commodity in an obsolete and slowly failing marketeers' world.
What indications are those? Please specify. Otherwise please quit making noise.
HRC and her team did everything they said they were going to do: they curated the emails, marked the ones that were personal for deletion, then used bleachbit to do the actual deletion. There is nothing new in that story.
But Trey Gowdy has demonstrated an appalling level of ignorance wrt to technology, and to the recent history of Federal level Republican politics. Oliver North, in Reagan's Iran - Contra fiasco, demonstrated full well that when it is expedient to delete something, you better damn well delete it. And not simply mark it as deleted. Gowdy is either an ignorant fool, or a disingenuous fool. But note that "fool" remains a constant with him, in this context.
To repeat: the Clinton team handled the deletions that she said she was doing in a professional manner. Gowdy just thinks that is somehow criminal that HRC is competent at handling sensitive information.
At this point I'm beginning to see a pattern shaping up where HRC is being found to be too competent at what she has been doing for fifty years, and therefore we hates her, we do, yes, we hates how this mere woman who is not a Republican is competent. Yes, we hates her.
Have gnu, will travel.
That is SO wrong. As someone who has been using various FOSS since before it was FOSS, LMFTFY:
Have gnu, will travail.
The GOP wasn't hacked cuz it was self-destructing on its own and didn't need any help from Russia to fall completely apart.
Also there is this possibility that Trump is a Russian agent, doing what he does best, to be rewarded with ownership of a prime vacation palace on the shores of the Crimea. I'm not saying that's what's going on... I mean you just got to wonder. You know? What with being so chummy with Vladimir. It could be.... we'll have to wait and see where Trump goes after he drops out of the race... but I'm just speculating. You know?
Passwords in wallets:
Carry a business card (not your own) and steg the password on its back using some variant of the following:
"Ben O. Aronsen: 237 Smith Place #12 Roxbury Vt 05669 ---Sally has phone number". This stegs the password "237SP#12RVt05669" for a Bank Of America account.
Like the Purloined Letter, the password hides in plain sight. Ain't stegging wunnerful?
That doesn't matter. Until it is demonstrated in court that she does not have standing to press her suit, Getty Images continues to lose credibility and customers. She wins.
And if GI does take it into court and proves that the images are public domain, then its loss is even greater since that would also prove that it had been fraudulently claiming to own the non-existent copyrights. That opens the door for multiple lawsuits from its previous customers. And of course is an admission of violation of USA Federal law.
Checkmate. She wins. Getty Images best course of action is to attempt to liquidate itself while trying to cover the asses of all its highest level executives.
If the FBI is not yet investigating, it will be soon.
Exactly how she gave the images to the LoC, and exactly what the LoC means when it says the images are now in the public domain, will need to be explored in court. If she transferred the copyrights to the LoC, then she has no standing to sue for copyright violation. So she must be saying that she retained the copyrights and only gave an unlimited use license to everyone.
Getty Images needs to show that she transferred the actual copyrights to the LoC and therefore has no standing. That is likely to be a very tough thing to do.
And frankly I'm not sure that it matters. The photographer is righteously pissed off that Getty Images is making profits off of her work when she intended it to be freely given to everyone. And for as long as this trial makes news, Getty Images is being righteously punished as its name gets dragged through the mud, and potential customers start using the LoC and other resources for stock photos. Which is as it should be.
Getty Images best course of action is to settle quickly and quietly and cut its losses. But it may already be too late: it is clear that G.I. was making false claims of copyright ownership, which violates USA Federal law, and must have involved a conspiracy between the executive officers of the corporation. Since they were either doing this knowingly, or were deliberately grossly, criminally, negligent in failing to search for prior copyright before they claimed they held it.
There should be a story along soon about FBI involvement in this case.
Yes, it appears they were not in public domain. And Getty violated a copyright notice that gave a broad class of individuals license to use these photos without payment in certain ways. But also Getty claimed a false copyright on material that was copyrighted by the creator.
There is no problem here in understanding "WTF the actual status is" for anyone who has a passing familiarity with FOSS copyrights. And those who benefit from the use of FOSS copyrights should become somewhat familiar with FOSS. Such as anyone who makes use of the material in any of the more than 80% of all websites that use Apache. And of course anyone who uses Slashdot.
I also feel this is not enough.
Getty was either doing this with full knowledge that it was breaking the law, or it was grossly negligent-- criminally negligent-- in failing to determine that it could not have copyright on these images no matter how the images might have come to it. A company that makes its profits by licensing use of copyrighted material does not search the Library of Congress before purchasing or otherwise claiming copyright on its stuff? The only way that could happen is if the company deliberately chooses not to do due diligence before representing itself as the copyright holder.
At the least, the courts should put the company in receivership to be dissolved since that is the only way to assure that the clique of corporate officers who conspired to bring this situation about would be broken apart. Ideally various corporate officers would be tried for fraud or other white collar crimes, but at least the corporation could be destroyed.
Really? In light of the server scandal, paid internet trolls, DNC emails showing the placement of various disinformation, and "it depends on what the meaning of is, is", reasoned and intelligent are not the first descriptives that come to my mind concerning the DNC at large.
Above written by someone who has just demonstrated that he is capable of absorbing and truthifying all the reporting that Fox News delivers.
Without Ailes, what is going to happen to all the people for whom Trump is their voice? Will they wither away? Will they be consigned to the state of permanent, terminal confusion?
So when looking objectively at the TSA, it was found that, despite all the expenses, security theater does not improve security. And that it isn't good theater, either.
Why am I not surprised?
I do not disagree with your general argument, but you are taking it too far.
DATA does not "say" dark matter exists. The indirect data we have suggests that as one possible explanation (and so far the only one that has survived critical analysis of numerous experiments).
But please look up the history of the theory of phlogiston. Data from numerous experiments and observations at the time suggested that it existed and went a long way toward describing its characteristics. But later experiments showed that there was no such fluid and that heat was an inherent characteristic of the atoms and molecules that were already somewhat understood.
The phenomena that led us to the ideas of dark matter and dark energy can also arise from a not-as-yet discovered self-organizing characteristic of the matter and energy we do know. While that would have a profound effect on our understanding of thermodynamics --reducing entropy to the same fictional status as centrifugal force-- it would also provide a far better basis for developing theories on how life and consciousness have evolved.
A far simpler explanation is that the universe looks the way it does because we are in the light-distorting turbulent wake of somebody's FTL drive. So far as I know, no one has given much thought as to how to prove or disprove that. Perhaps we are too parochial in our thinking that there really could not be any other species so far advanced that our science might be affected by their unintended artifacts; that our science might be a cargo cult.
On the face of it, that approach seems as reasonable as positing dark matter and dark energy. And possibly it would be easier to frame falsifiable hypotheses with it.
Porsche: there simply is no substitute. -- Risky Business