The $5K a year just gives you a $300 per person per visit discount. So pays itself back in 15 visits or so.

Plenty of us nerds can afford this and want to see news about this.

Tero said: How did this article even get published?

It's a great article. There are a lot of apps, use cases, and workflows that can be duplicated in Linux, but which aren't obvious or well advertised. An article like this encourages people to share those workflows they have had problems duplicating and then others who have duplicated them or found other solutions can share them. Great idea. The lowest quality (or one of) part of this article was your comment.

couchslug said: Maintaining the low quality of Slashdot is a mysterious choice by its owners whose replacement by AI would be an upgrade.

...and here we have a tie for the other lowest quality part of this article. Great name, by the way. Matches your attitude. If you want to make a complaint, then offer a solution with it. If you hate Slashdot in general so much, why are you here? We have all watched the site slowly suffer from not having any energy input into the system, but maybe dragging it down further isn't the answer. Can you even see the irony of bitterly complaining about the lack of effort the owners are putting in?

Both of you, add some energy to the system, or vote with your feet. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Depends what you mean by video editor.

For transcoding, de and re-muxing, filtering, cropping, resizing, de-interlace, and some splicing with the equivalent audio capabilities (basically for format bashing with enough splicing ability to piece together pieces of movies, for example, spread over multiple discs) you have avidemux.

You have other tools like MKVToolNix, Mediainfo and MakeMKV for direct Matroska editing, meta-data vewing, and DVD/Blu-Ray ripping respectively too.

For video authoring with splices, fades, effects, animations, titles, with good timeline support, you have openshot.

Bah,

Made a typo in the quoting but I'm sure you can figure it out.

Would you actually be cheering if he was using Linux and had gotten away with his ransomware spree?

I would be cheering regardless of the end-use of the computer if the method used to apprehend the suspect was not frighteningly draconian. Yes.

It's not a win for anybody.

Indeed, invasion of privacy is not a remedy for crime.

These are the same arguments that legislators and law enforcement are using the world over to erode privacy. To institute "age verification" (which is really just tracking by another name) and to brand everything you do. This is the pre-internet equivalent to tattooing a serial number on everyone and then recording that number at every checkpoint and building access in order to track people. Good thing no one ever did that.

Oh.... wait....

There are many American vs "Rest of the English Speaking World" spellings that don't matter. This one does, as they are two very different things with completely different etymologies and histories.

A check is an action you perform to investigate, and perhaps a mark you make to indicate an investigation or task is completed.
A cheque is a financial instrument used to transfer funds.

If the British can set aside their hatred of all things French long enough to use the correct loan word, then even Americans can get it right.

"the difference between a story originating from the Guardian or some Russian bot-farm..." But how much difference is there? The Guardian is just a bot farm staffed by humans following a party line. Or they have been humans, though increasingly it seems like they too may be largely bots.

Yes, this is what the government has in mind. The Guardian, BBC and other certified righteous outfits would have to come at the top of searches. Other misinforming broadcasters like GBNews would come at the bottom with the Russian bot farms or not appear at all.

The faked news clips of Trump that the BBC broadcast would be at the top of the searches, and the stories that GBNews carries pointing out how they were faked would not feature at all.

This would be 'Verified Live', and challenging it would be misinformation. It would be sort of like the gender mafia at the BBC, but on a national scale.

And as a late great anti-psych writer once wrote: if you cannot talk about it, you cannot talk about the fact that you cannot talk about it. VPNs would be next, and pretty soon after that it would not be permitted to mention that there are such things. The Great Wall of Britain, Chinese media control with British characteristics. To protect people, or course.

The license fee is taxation tied to supporting one particular broadcaster. Its a government imposed tax on watching live TV from any broadcaster.

If you want an analogy from the cases you cite, it would be if you had to pay a tax on every newspaper purchase, whose proceeds were handed on to the Guardian. And if it were a criminal offence to read any newspaper without paying this tax. Go into a library, and you cannot read the papers without producing a paid permit. Go into a newsagent, and you cannot buy a paper without producing it.

Or it would be like a tax on shopping at any supermarket, whose proceeds went to Tesco. You would have to have a paid supermarket permit to allow you to shop at, for instance, Sainsburys or any other supermarket, and the proceeds would be given to Tesco, and it would be a criminal offence to shop at any supermarket without buying such a permit.

Or, put it another way, you would have to have a paid permit to drive a car, any car. The proceeds would be paid to Ford.

Still strikes you as reasonable? Still think its good value? For who is it good value? Its good value for all the people who like the BBC and would subscribe to it were subscription voluntary. Its good value because the other half of the country, or maybe more, are subsidizing them.

Its the great liberal tradition. Get something we want, then make everyone else pay for it whether they want it or not, call it 'public service xyz', then claim its great value. Because the fee, paid by everyone including all those who do not want or use it, is lower than the fee for, for instance, Sky. Which is only paid by those who want to watch it. So no wonder its cheaper.

Its like if beer from one brewer, every pint, half the cost was paid out of taxation, and they all go around saying what great cheap beer this is. Yes, because the whole country is paying half on every pint drawn, whether they drink it or not.

And then, immune from commercial pressures, the BBC goes around unaccountable and systematically making up fake news, and there is nothing you can do about it, if you want to watch any kind of live TV at all.

A garbage system. No wonder the French have dropped it.

...don't exist outside Apple.

Your argument fails at the subject line. Age verification is neither necessary, nor is it the actual predicate cause for almost all regulations requiring it. Age verification laws are more about instituting KYC reporting and tracking you than actually verifying your age.

Think about it. How can you verify your age and maintain your anonymity? You can't. How can jurisdictions make laws requiring you to give up your anonymity while justifying it another way? Age verification.

There is no good reason for it anywhere. The actual answer whenever you think age verification is the solution is parenting.

... "Canada declined to interfere with Darwisnism", with the story going on to lament the fact that unfortunately by the time of Stocton's fatal stupidity he'd already passed on his genes.

To call it a "missed opportunity" is a little extreme.

Call me a troll, but both his daredevil idiocy and the fact that other people were stupid enough to get on were and are self solving problems. Both solved by the predictable outcome. An outcome that, I'll add, wasn't merely predictable in hindsight. One hopes that people will ask more questions before getting on a submersible vehicle designed to protect the occupants with pencil lead.

I would be in favour of a law that makes many if not most liability waivers unenforceable. A company that invites people on board a vehicle not type certified as fit for purpose should not be able to enjoy any litigation protection. I would also be in favour of requiring a company that so takes passengers to prove it can cover its liability, through insurance or bond.

But none of this falls on Canada.

Savannah likes to advertise its thousands of projects and call itself an incubator. I have a small open source project I wanted to move off of Github a couple years ago, and the pain I went through to try and get hosting there was immeasurable. The arrogance they displayed, like they were God's gift to hosting. And the "advertising" requirements they had. Not just the project licensing, which I can understand them wanting to be GPL and which I had no problems with. But the wording in the documentation, needing it to talk up GNU. The changes I had to make in actual functionality too were not insignificant. And the sheer arrogance with which they made these demands. Not all at once in a list. One. By. One. Always in a "Ya, your reply to our last request wasn't good enough... because what about this?" way.

I kept the whole painful email exchange in a separate email folder just in case I ever get tempted to go back. I ended up going with Codeberg, which was simple, easy, and very philosophically compatible.

So it doesn't surprise me they have unpatched problems. Savannah itself is ancient and primitive. The kind of thing a couple hackers whip up in a day which suits them so doesn't need polish. They are far too interested in resting on decades-old laurels than in actually doing good work today.

How long before GNU realizes that its entire code base has been static so long that it's irrelevant and that "GNU/Linux" just isn't a think because there is very little left that hasn't been replaced.

Garbage regulations like IP create these behemoths. If you want freedom, stop regulating monopolies into existence.

Statism creates billionaires.