slavak

You mean in the United States? Or in the civilized world?

You mean a "lie." Calling a notched iPhone "all-screen" is a bit of a stretch. This is just straight upfalse.

Being targeted for hacking only adds to the risk of being involved in a regular old accident, not replaces it; and no matter who you are, your odds of eventually being involved in a non-hacking related crash are pretty high. The difference in severity of injuries and risk of death in a car accident between a 2018 model and a 2003 model is considerable.

So unless you're Snowden and someone is actively trying to kill you, citing the risk of hacking as a rational safety-based reason to drive a 15 year-old car just doesn't hold water.

And if you are Snowden, physically tampering with a car or just forcing you off the road is so easy, hacking probably doesn't increase the risk profile much either. Granted, it's slightly more convenient for your would-be murderers.

> Hell, I'll never own a car that dings at me until I fasten a seatbelt if I can help it either.

Serious question: Why? I've never found it particularly helpful myself, but what's the big deal about a sound that reminds you to put on a critical safety device that you should already be using anyway? Do you really find yourself hearing those dings for long enough that it becomes a serious annoyance? If so, don't you think the ding isn't the actual problem there?

You're orders of magnitude more likely to die in a regular old car accident than you are as a result of your car being hacked.

I'm as concerned about insecure computers in cars as the next tinfoil-wearing conspiracy theorist (that is to say- very, very much), but let's not overstate the actual numbers. A modern car getting hacked is a real risk that needs to be handled, but the actual occurrence of it in the wild is extremely low, and likely to remain that way for at least the next few decades.

Thanks, that's quite interesting.

Still, you do need very specific input materials for both processes.

In the case of the latter, you basically need a spool of explosive string. You're not so much printing an explosive as you are shaping an explosive into a desired form. I'm sure it's still very useful, but I don't think it's a particularly big game changer in the "smuggling things into a country" field.

You can "download" crappy, not very effective guns. And you still need to obtain the ammo (the actually lethal part) the old-fashioned way.

I would very much be surprised if it becomes possible for drugs or explosives any time within my lifetime. Chemistry and physics just don't work that way.

I think car companies should prevent people from publishing safety or performance analysis of their vehicles. And restaurants should disallow public reviews of their business. (Very few people have the culinary knowledge to properly and objectively assess a restaurant's quality.)

I very much doubt that is true. They wouldn't exist as a commercial carrier for long if they did this.

No idea. It seems to be sold under the "if you need to ask, you can't afford it" pricing model. These things are definitely not intended for home use; I don't think any tape drives being sold today are, really.

The cartridge is the same. It can be reformatted from 10 to 15TB using the newer tape drive.

https://spectralogic.com/features/ts1155-technology-tape-dri...

An IBM 3592 JD Advanced Data Tape Cartridge costs a bit over $200 and has a raw (uncompressed) storage capacity of 15TB. An LTO-8 cartridge is 12TB and under $200. Meanwhile the cheapest 10TB HDD Newegg sells is $304.27.

Murder has an equally gendered asymmetry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime#World...

I think Creative Commons licenses are much better known than Apache Commons. (This is the first time I've heard of the latter, for example.)

Yup. Open-source is a whole philosophy. What you're talking about is called source-available software.

> And "zero strings" here means exactly that in the most literal sense

Well, hopefully not in the _most_ literal sense, because Verizon can probably manage to provide you internet service with no actual balls of yarn tied to the router... :)

I believe most of the modules that have been re-licensed under this new license were previously AGPL.

Re. 1, that's a fair point. For what it's worth, the blog post does explicitly promise, in writing, that Redis itself will remain BSD-licensed forever. Take that for what you will, since I certainly don't have any more info on their intentions than you do (and probably would be prohibited from talking about it if I did), and you have no reason to trust me any more than the blog. I believe a written commitment under a company's official domain should at least have some legal weight, though IANAL.

Re. 2, I /personally/ believe the BSD-licensed Redis itself will continue to be developed and improved as before, but I hope you appreciate why I'm being very cautious about what I say. I'm not really positioned or authorized to make any statements on behalf of Redis Labs.

No, nothing you obtain from the antirez/redis repo will come with this restriction clause, and you are free to continue using it under the terms of the vanilla BSD license.

The new clause is mainly used for some of the add-on Redis modules developed by Redis Labs (https://github.com/RedisLabsModules), all of which you would need to pull in manually and intentionally.

I totally get the confusion. The good news is that, at least as far as I can see, you should never find yourself accidentally pulling in something without meaning to that brings along this restriction clause.

IANAL, but my understanding is that as long as you only provide the knowledge but not the actual software you're fine. e.g.: conducting paid training sessions, even ones where the attendants are required to download the software from the official site and install it on their machines for practical exercises, should be okay. If someone wants to pay you to install licensed software on their production machines and configure it... Eh, probably not.

Also to reiterate that Redis itself is still BSD, so if you're not using add-on modules licensed with this clause you're unaffected.

Full disclosure: Am a Redis Labs employee, although not here in any official capacity.

Sorry for spamming this all over the post, but I think it's important enough for everyone to see this:

Redis itself IS NOT changing licenses, and if you only use the core Redis product you are unaffected. This license change only applies (or _will_ apply, I guess) to some source-available addon Redis modules. (I'm not sure if any existing open-source modules developed by Redis Labs will have their license changed, or if this will only apply to modules published after the announcement.)

Full disclosure: Am a Redis Labs employee, although not here in any official capacity.

> Not true. You have to remember that the new license only applies to Redis going forward.

At the risk of repeating myself all over this thread, I feel the need to emphasize that the new license does _not_ apply to Redis proper, which, in the words of the post, "is, and always will remain, an open source BSD license."

Full disclosure: Am a Redis Labs employee, although not here in any official capacity.

To be clear, this license does not (and, according to the post, never will) apply to regular Redis deployments, so from that angle at least you're clear. Currently it only applies to certain Redis modules, which need to be deployed separately anyway.

I'm also a bit unclear on whether this would prevent you from selling consulting services for products licensed under this clause that the paying customer deployed themselves or were deployed by someone other than you.

Full disclosure: Am a Redis Labs employee, although not here in any official capacity.

But this _doesn't_ make Redis proprietary, because Redis is and will always remain BSD-licensed, THAT is what the claim you're referring to is talking about.

As a longtime Firefox user, on mobile I actually use Opera. I really wish I could use Firefox on Android, but for some reason Opera is the last mobile browser to support proper text reflow, which is a feature I cannot fathom a reason for actually removing.

On the plus side, it might not have extensions, but Opera is a pretty damn solid mobile browser, especially now that they've added night(-ish) mode support.

Women internalized them differently as well, back when they were taught that was "just the way things are", "not a big deal", and to "suck it up".

This is intuitively true, but is it also factually true? Many studies (https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/kze8qn/the-hidden-epi...) seem to indicate that, at least for cases of actual rape, it is not, and women are abusers at pretty much the same rate as men. This might be different for sexual harassment, but that's a claim that needs to be verified.

As it is, research and public perceptions when it comes to sexual violence against men are sorely lacking.

I've been using this for a while now, and it has been a godsend.

That said, I do consider it a ding against MacOs, because it's ridiculous that I'm forced to use third-party tools for such basic functionality. (Other examples: USB-tethering with non-Apple phones requires hunting down and installing third-party drivers. A feature that just works, out-of-the-box, on every other system I've ever used.)

In which case any driver of above-average ability would be insane to put their lives in the hands of one.

How many people do _you_ know that consider themselves below-average drivers?

We place them _both_ inside the aircraft and on the ground. While ATC does provide separation, conflicts still can and do happen. Aircraft have onboard systems to warn of conflicts and even to suggest corrective action, but the pilots must be the ones to make the correction.