fffggg

Terminal environment? You're gauging the performance of the kernel by interactive typing performance?

I don't know where to start.

That's just to become an acquiring bank, to save on exchange fees.

Ultimately VISA determines who gets to participate in the VISA credit exchange network and will fine acquiring banks who participate in things like this. No one can force their way in and avoid responsibility -- period.

One obvious example would be if you had hired the interviewee in question. If so, it would be awfully difficult to demonstrate discrimination against them!

Don't get me wrong, it is a very bad idea to ask these questions. But it is not illegal, strictly speaking.

Can you cite the relevant Texas statute? I don't believe you are correct.

It is very common for confused employers to claim it is illegal, but as eli described this is an oversimplification and is not actually true.

Here's one for you: City real estate dips in price. Suburb real estate rises, especially at the fringe of the suburbs. A self-driving car with a LTE wireless hotspot would make a previously absurd commute manageable.

Heck, you could sleep during your drive in to work.

This question is equally applicable to all data sources -- not just filesystems. The question applies to sockets, IPC, databases, everything.

That's incorrect. As was already pointed out this issue has nothing to do with reading data from the filesystem or manipulating variables internal to the program and everything to do with poor choices made when using printf.

In other words, those files aren't causing the QEMU program internals to re-interpolate one variable as two values. They're merely messing up a poorly written data exchange format.

Other languages such as I listed above simply do not have the same issue. The C program did not mis-interpret a variable as two separate values because it contained spaces. That is the nature of the danger with shell -- any reference to a variable in Bourne involves string interpolation and tokenization. This simply does not happen in C.

This rant misplaces its frustration. This is not a problem with unix filesystems, this is a problem with Bourne Shell scripts, and with UNIX argument parsing semantics.

Bourne shell is notorious for its problematic quoting, both of filesystem data and of any data from any other source. Every example in which he described a problem with a filename parameter could just as well be a problem with a non-filename parameter. The correct solution is to not program complicated scripts in Bourne Shell, and instead use a language which does not implement variable access by interpolating strings and then re-tokenizing and re-evaluating them. Examples of satisfactory languages include Perl, Python, Ruby.

Regarding UNIX arguments and the dash, it is an unfortunate aspect to the flag argc/argv/envp calling convention for unix programs. Some other operating systems provide more structure in their calling convention, explicitly separating different types of parameters from one another. This is both a strength and a weakness, as it results in a uniform yet inflexible systems interface. One of the greatest strengths of UNIX is that its calling convention is so flexible. The semantics used today are quite different from the semantics used 40 years ago -- yet execve() remains unchanged. I would encourage anyone interested to do a bit of historical digging here, and see how those more ridged system APIs fared over time.

Anyway, the solution to his initial question of using `ls` is the -- argument, which signifies argument parsing should be disabled for the remainder of argv: ls -- *

The correct answer to his dotfile/glob question is: "glob() and the Bourne shell do not have the semantics you're after. Do not use them, use readdir()."

The correct answer to his find -print question is: Yes, print's use of whitespace was a mistake, and it is a mistake repeated continually throughout the land of shell scripting and accompanying standard UNIX utilities. As he notes, it is why print0 was introduced. Making print0 standard is far easier than reworking filesystem semantics (and, reworking userland in this manner is a more complete solution as it addresses data integrity issues from non-filesystem inputs as well). If you want reliable, correct programs, do not write them in shell.

Regarding the expense of clinical trials, it's important to note that the scientific results of a clinical trial are not protected by either patent or copyright. Pure research data cannot be restricted under any form of IP. Factual data without a creative element is explicitly exempted from both the patent and copyright system.

A published paper on the results of a trial may fall under copyright, but the factual observations and conclusions cannot be.

The "clinical trials are expensive" argument is incredibly disingenuous.

It's much, much worse than what you describe. They are seizing domains based on the preference of a private entity. There is no allegation of criminal infringement against dajaz1.com -- not even a little bit.

This is not an issue of harassing minor offenders, this is an issue of harassing those who have not offended in the slightest. Who are guilty of nothing more than saying something (in the form of links) which the RIAA does not wish to hear.

Not to mention you can write down the seed itself and simply type it into another phone.

"I just know that is a stolen car"

Which is why criminals do not charge half of its used value -- they charge 100% of the used value just like everyone else.

You cannot tell a stolen bike on craigslist apart from a non-stolen bike based on the price alone.

The problem of stolen cars is addressed through licensing and registration. Not to mention, bicycles do not have a reliable and standardized VIN system like cars do. The fact is, the hassle of creating and enforcing such a system probably outweighs the positive aspects of preventing bike crime.

Absolutely.

When a civil contract is broken the appropriate response is a trial in a court of law. Businesses are quite familiar with the debt collection process. A judge and possibly a jury are needed to resolve these types of disputes fairly.

Under no circumstances should a merchant be permitted to forcefully take funds from another person, outside the purview of the law.

Not designing for an appropriately sized earthquake is itself an engineering failure.

FDIC? In Brazil?

The UK does not, but Sweden has violated said treaties. Here is an article on the subject, where several men were extradited from Sweden at the USA's behest, to Egypt where they were tortured: http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b...

As the UN panel notes this is in violation of the very treaty you cite. This is precisely the fear and it is clear the fear is reasonable and well founded in fact. The UN findings are unequivocal.

Your flippant rudeness is inappropriate. Sweden has an established history of extraditing on behalf of the US in various illegal fashions. Here is one example: http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b...

Sweden has been breaking international law for some time now, at the USA's behest. As the UN panel noted there is no reason to think Sweden might uphold their own diplomatic assurances as they have been caught violating them repeatedly.

No. Square's product is all about accepting credit cards. From the press release:

"Square will process Starbucks U.S. credit and debit card transactions, which will significantly expand Square’s scale and accelerate the benefits to businesses on the Square platform, especially small businesses, while reducing Starbucks payment processing costs"

https://squareup.com/news/releases/2012/square-starbucks

The Square Register product takes plastic as well as letting people pay via the geo-fencing Pay with Square app.

I didn't say anything about banning copyright; I didn't express my own position at all.

Frankly I'm at a loss as to your point, or how it is relevant. You seem to be jumping between various argumentative positions as they crumble away. It's clear you'd really like to discredit RMS, but beyond that I don't know what you're trying to achieve.

I'd rather not argue with you. I'm just here to explain the problem with your initial position and I've already done that.

"Regardless of how you get there, not having the app is not having the app."

This sentiment is a great example of how you're missing the point. It isn't about having an app. It isn't about getting things.

It's about freedom of expression. Intellectual control laws - Patents and Copyright - both work by preventing individuals from creating or sharing their own intellectual work, or sharing a work they have observed. That is quite literally their only function. Without Copyright I am free to create and share anything I can imagine. With Copyright, I am forbidden from creating certain kinds of works, and I am forbidden from sharing certain kinds of communications regarding works I have observed.

If, in the absence of Copyright, you simply neglect to create a work then my freedom of expression remains unencumbered. This is the nature of the freedom Stallman seeks to defend.

Your mention of contracts again indicates you do not understand the essence of this issue. Contracts are entered into willingly, between consenting participants. Copyright however, does not come in the form of a contract. It is an intellectual shackle which restricts the freedom of every person to create works based on what they observe, whether they like it or not. The licensing you refer to is a merely a mechanism to loosen the already-existing shackle of Copyright -- for a price.

Reading your post I'm lead to believe that you haven't read (or properly understood) his philosophical stance.

You say: "he's a nosy noser who can't keep his nose out of what goes on among consenting adults in situations that don't really involve him"

Yet, proprietary software development and the accompanying restrictions on related freedoms impacts us all. Any time someone creates a proprietary computer program it restricts everyone's ability to freely interact with it.

You may disagree with his conclusion; you may believe it is OK to claim property-like control over intangible, intellectual constructs. But you cannot say that this control does not affect others. You cannot say that it does not affect him.

The very nature of copyright is to limit the freedom of all other persons with respect to a particular work.

Actually I believe you're suggesting that the paradigm of tagging files may be inappropriately complex for most users. And I would agree.

The point is that we've had the ability to apply tags since the dawn of unix. It remains an obscure feature because as you say most users are uninterested.

"This is why directories are getting old - they allow only one tag for a file"

Erm, no. A file can be tagged (linked) into as many directory locations as you like. This is what hardlinks do and it is not a new concept.

It's not necessary for them to do so. It's incumbent upon CL to prove the infringement, not the other way around.

Every service I've worked on doesn't look, because they don't want to know -- there's no business reason to know. Having this kind of knowledge about customer content is completely counter to the business goals.

An intelligent company will work to minimize disruption to the user. Affording the user privacy and turning a blind eye to this sort of thing goes a long way towards producing a usable product.

But, what if someone complains? What if this photo was public and resulted in a complaint?

Even then, the idea that an entire account should be suspended over a TOS violation is absurd. By all means remove the content. Perhaps even disallow uploads for a time, or even indefinitely. But a policy of disabling everything including unrelated services and purchased content smacks if ignorant product design and typical Microsoft hubris.

This is a great example of why their product services can't gain traction in the market.

I've dealt with both RHEL and OEL support contracts over long periods of time, in large scale environments (a few orders of magnitude larger than your example). OEL was free as we had other Oracle licensing in place and the thought was "Why not switch and save money?"

We eventually switched back to RHEL. It's well worth the money for any serious player. The "support" from OEL seemed fairly amateurish -- for example broken hotfix packages that appeared to be one-off builds.

Nowhere did I suggest the message was cohesive. It is very much an arena of competing propaganda. The mention of a unified conspiratorial message was a strawman introduced by tptacek, not I.

As for your complaint about the sinister tone, I think offering deference to those with money rather than those with truth is quite sinister. I think it's sad you disagree.

There's no need for a conspiracy or for central organization when incentives align. In this case, the incentives to manipulate are often financial or political. You have misunderstood my meaning of "machine" -- not all social systems involve a central authority.

I hope you can agree that American media can be influenced, for profit, by monied interests. If you agree, then you acknowledge the system I have described above.

The best lies incorporate as much truth as possible. I believe you're suggesting the same thing I am -- that the US propaganda machine is much more subtle, and therefore more credible.

A false narrative is a false narrative, regardless of how skillfully it is intertwined with truth.

My father once said "The difference between American and Russian propaganda is that Russians know that Pravda is propaganda."

The problem with American media is certainly not limited to Fox.