mindlesscrollyparrot

joined 10 months ago

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the leaking process will be the next process to try to allocate memory after you run out. It might actually be your window manager, for example.

The OOM killer is a last-ditch attempt by the OS to keep running, but it is very likely to leave your system in an unstable state.

In all seriousness, I think the reason why we are in the situation we are in is that, for about 50 years, people have ignored the worse scenarios and paid attention only to the ones that aren't that bad. That isn't the correct way to manage risk.

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think the convenience very much depends on the journey you want to make. To travel from London to Edinburgh by car means several hours where you can do nothing but hold the steering wheel. If you go by train, you can spend the time usefully ... or sleep. If you're talking about commuting, well, driving into most cities during rush hour means sitting in traffic jams every day, not just occasionally.

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's true, but they did already try it and it didn't catch on. There's a section about it on the Wikipedia page ("Copy protection").

That section also mentions that Philips stated that these discs couldn't have the CD logo on them. Since Philips was behind SACD, together with Sony, you'd think they wouldn't have imposed that restriction on themselves if they had the choice.

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 7 months ago (3 children)

You can definitely put DRM-protected content onto the physical CD media - that is exactly what SACD is. But then it isn't an audio CD, even if it will play on a regular CD player. Search for "nonstandard or corrupted" on the Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio .

It's my understanding that only conforming CDs can carry the CD logo. It's usually on the case, not the disc itself, and it isn't always there, particularly when the case isn't a jewel case. All the same, I think that most things that look like CDs are conformant.

Thanks for the tip - they do seem to have a lot. I had assumed that the labels had made it unprofitable for that type of service to exist. I guess maybe it's simply that there is more money to be made from streaming.

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 7 months ago (3 children)

There certainly are some services where you can legally download MP3 and FLAC files. Bandcamp, for example. If you download your music like that then, yes, you do own it.

But I'm not aware of anywhere you can get music from the major music labels nowadays (Amazon used to sell MP3s and so did Google Play Music, but neither does any more). If you do, I'd love to know.

On the other hand, you can still - although it's getting harder - buy CDs for major label artists and then you own the music (that copy of it).

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 7 months ago (5 children)

No, a CD that carries the actual CD logo cannot have DRM. It is true that the music industry has often pushed 'enhanced' formats that look like CDs that do; SACD, for example.

Ownership is different to possession, and I want to actually own my music, not just possess the files.

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 7 months ago (12 children)

CDs are digital files plus ownership.

Let them sell insurance against extreme weather incidents, like droughts, floods and hurricanes. If they're right, they should be able to offer lower rates than the rest of the market.

It isn't a big deal, but we do need the language to evolve a little bit. The problem with they/them is that it implies that you don't know the person, or that it doesn't matter who they are (like you say, you can't or don't want to use a more specific pronoun). It can feel quite rude to apply it to somebody that you do know.

[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It is a stretch to say that their motivation for protesting could never be relevant.

Not so long ago, we had protests which were illegal because the police refused to give them a permit. The protests were because a policeman had raped and killed a woman. The conduct of the police was simultaneously what made the protest illegal and also what they were protesting about.

In this case, the motivation is that the government is failing in its basic duty to protect the lives and future of its citizens (all of them), and it's the government that has passed legislation to make protest illegal.

view more: ‹ prev next ›