Did you only read two sentences and then reply or something?
I think this would sound a lot more credible, were you to actually explain why you're supposedly right. Your rude, single-sentence replies to most posters don't make you look all that smart, either.
It's true that the chimpanzees will under no circumstances get the same kind of "personhood" as corporations. This does not mean that corporate personhood is problem-free, however. Working for a corporation makes you less likely to be punished personally, and being rude to other posters will not change that.
Most smartphones are more powerful than the X11 desktop computers of just a few years ago; I don't think anyone has realistically been claiming that they wouldn't be able to to run a normal display server.
More powerful when they have power. A powerful desktop can run something that uses 10% of resources constantly without a problem. A powerful phone, not so much.
I'm not saying X11 takes 10% phone power constantly: I don't know. But it could be that X11 is significantly worse for battery life than Wayland, despite running without performance problems. If someone actually has any data, I'd be interested to hear about it.
"While it's tempting to upgrade your flatscreen to the latest technology,
I don't have a TV, and don't watch TV/movies other than through my faux-HD monitor.
I understand not everyone is like me, and that's OK. But in my circle of friends, it's really common to not have a TV and not care. Is this the experience of others, too?
Also, this whole 4K thing reeks of "we tried to sell 3D, failed, now trying desperately with the next thing..." But please reply if you're really into 4K, too...
You mean like how they currently add acetaminophen to most opiates (check out your next codeine prescription) so that if you take too much you'll suffer liver damage? If you can't lead a horse to water, just poison every other source of water in the area and that fucking horse better damn well drink the right water... if not it's the horses fault its pissing blood.
Can you provide a source which shows acetaminophen has no medical purpose in those drugs? Those drugs are used in combination in most places I've heard of, so there would have to be a worldwide conspiracy for it to be just a poison.
A quick search found this: http://www.bmj.com/content/313/7053/321. That says that if you want to remove one drug from the combination, it's codeine. Also, up to 10% of white people apparently "immune" to codeine (side note: I do not know the academic field of medicine, and do not know if that paper is connected to anyone/thing reputable).
So basically, acetaminophen is an analgesic. You can get it by itself, or in combination with another analgesic. I think it's somewhat less far-fetched to believe that a painkiller is there for pain relief, than that it's there because of a worldwide conspiracy...
That means that to provide 100% of the power the US generates in a year (which was 4,054 billion kilowatthours of electricity in 2012), you'd need about 18,000 square miles of solar panels.
The short answer is that to provide all our power needs from solar, assuming we could actually get full use from the panels, which you can't, you'd use about 50% of the total land area on Earth that we currently use for crops, to hold all the panels. (I don't know about you, but I'd rather grow more food)
So basically, this is just not true. It's FUD. Get your facts straight before accusing others of being blind.
Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing everyone who supports renewables. There's a sound economic reason for subsidizing R&D of renewables - fossil fuels externalize costs via pollution, so the subsidy just helps level the playing field. But just like there's an idiot segment of the right who can't grok the externalized cost problem, there's an idiot segment of the left who can't grok that the cost to produce energy still matters, regardless of how beneficial renewables are. Higher energy costs translate directly into lower standard of living. We've just been fortunate so far that our rate of technological progress has managed to outpace the drag higher oil prices have put on our productivity.
I think you're basically right, but you're forgetting one group. The corrupt POS slimebags on both sides, who will betray and destroy anything and everything, as long as they get money.
"All" Republicans wouldn't be for something other than oil, because their paymasters aren't about to approve that. Some percentage of Republicans would just look at the electricity price, though, because you always get both good and bad people.
The short answer is that to provide all our power needs from solar, assuming we could actually get full use from the panels, which you can't, you'd use about 50% of the total land area on Earth that we currently use for crops, to hold all the panels. (I don't know about you, but I'd rather grow more food)
Using your links, that would mean 30 kW constantly per capita, assuming seven billion humans. A quick check shows that's too high. Not to mention that the diagram in one of your links shows solar would take a lot less space.
Can you show those calculations you did? At this point, you're starting to sound like solar being bad is the most important thing, facts be damned. But I'll admit I'm wrong if you can show some credible data.
Wikipedia says that thing was fourth magnitude when visible in the night sky: that's not very bright. But it can *seem* bright in good dark skies. Dark skies were, of course, much more common in the seventies than they are now. Light pollution eats comet tails for breakfast.
Now, few comments (nice typo...COMETS) are really impressive in the night sky. Hale-Bopp was one exception. Most are impressive only close to the sun - this was true of Kohoutek, and will be true of ISON if it survives.
The predictions for ISON place it very close to Kohoutek in terms of brightness, actually. This brightness is for the closest approach to the sun - meaning best viewing is right after sunset, or just before sunrise. If things pan out, we might get to see a huge, bright tail against a backdrop of somewhat dark sky.
The people who are really interested in this level of destruction are more likely to go with the more cost-effective method of garnering attention for their cause. I don't see suicide-hijackings becoming so common that passengers will automatically distrust an armed man enough that they will rush towards certain death in an attempt to forestall it.
Certain death?? Even assuming that a large proportion of passengers are incapable of fighting, even a group of hijackers is likely to be outnumbered three to one. They will not get into the cockpit before the crew can use the address system.
The passengers will communicate using their cell phones, just like last time. The hijackers won't fool anyone again. And, as another poster said, they will never get to the point of telling anyone anything.
The rules have changed, and you're also failing to account for what desperate people can do.
'Priuses' is the only plural that makes sense. 'Prius' *is* a Latin word from the start - Wikipedia says that its correct plural form is 'priora', with caveats. Latin is a tricky language and any guess is likely to be unluckly. Stick to English plurals when in doubt, and see http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2139/what-is-the-plural-of-penis for an entertaining and insightful read on the topic.
While I'm at it: 'penii' is wrong, and 'virii' is completely, utterly wrong. Viruses and penises are great, see the article for the actual Latin plural of penis (there is no such thing for 'virus').
This subthread is so political that I suspect nothing of what I say will get across. That said, I'll still try - it won't be a lot of wasted effort in any case.
When Shuttleworth compares people to the Tea Party here, he's not talking about the party's ideals. That would make no sense: how could adherence to the US Constitution be relevant to open source development?
Instead, he's referring to the actions of the party. This is pretty good, really: any party can say nice words, but should really be judged by its actions and results. The Tea Party has been doing its best to retard legislation for weeks.
Co-operation is fundamental to politics, both when it comes to countries and open source software. No matter what the principles are, someone who says "no" all the time will be called stubborn. If the Tea Party wants to get its ideals across, it will have to grow up and negotiate solutions with others. No one else will negotiate for them.
In the same way, the Ubuntu naysayers will have to put up or shut up. I actually think Shuttleworth is pretty arrogant, and that Ubuntu is getting worse. But if Mir ships before Wayland, the latter really won't be looking very good. OTOH, if Mir becomes this thing which only Ubuntu ever supports, then Shuttleworth will be stuck being the stubborn one.
Richard F Post has a lot of interesting things to say on the subject, and was one of the scientists behind the magnetic mirror experiment at LLNL, that was mothballed before it ever started due to budget cuts..
That's insufficient to explain what science is, when it is what it should be. And then science today is not what it should be. "The process of getting closer to truth by experiment" is not what most people are talking about when they talk about 'science'.
What does public perception have to do with what science is? They're two completely different things. How do you know what "most people" think about this?
You say science today is not what it should be. Do you realise it never has been? The founders of natural science were known to work based on strange religious ideas, not to mention the whole alchemy background thing. Christianity continued to shape science significantly right up to the 20th century. By that point, the social sciences you so seem to loathe had already been founded. Add to this the fact that the very definitions of science we use today are from the 20th century.
I do not know when you think this time of better science took place. But, rest assured, science was far from any ideal then, too. Just like any other human endeavour it's just an approximation of the right way. And a wonderful approximation it is.
I've only used Windows 7 for a little bit, but the configuration options I've seen are vastly superior to the current Ubuntu LTS (which mostly means they simply exist). You can tell it to stack/not stack things in the taskbar, for one.
If you're saying not all the computer-using youth will configure things, then you are absolutely right. But with pretty much 100% computer use the amount of more savvy users should also be larger.
Not to mention that if it is indeed harder to configure a desktop GUI than it is to buy software with *real money*, then someone is doing something horribly wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you only read two sentences and then reply or something?
I think this would sound a lot more credible, were you to actually explain why you're supposedly right. Your rude, single-sentence replies to most posters don't make you look all that smart, either.
It's true that the chimpanzees will under no circumstances get the same kind of "personhood" as corporations. This does not mean that corporate personhood is problem-free, however. Working for a corporation makes you less likely to be punished personally, and being rude to other posters will not change that.
Nokia actually funded this company with contributions towards a federal goodwill program that provides funds for nationalistic (Finnish) startups.
That should be *national* program. Finland is not a federation.
Most smartphones are more powerful than the X11 desktop computers of just a few years ago; I don't think anyone has realistically been claiming that they wouldn't be able to to run a normal display server.
More powerful when they have power. A powerful desktop can run something that uses 10% of resources constantly without a problem. A powerful phone, not so much.
I'm not saying X11 takes 10% phone power constantly: I don't know. But it could be that X11 is significantly worse for battery life than Wayland, despite running without performance problems. If someone actually has any data, I'd be interested to hear about it.
There is still a niche for people with standards and always will be imo.
"Not the horrible, shitty, anti-trust-deserving US cell phone market" is a niche now? I thought it was most of the world...
"While it's tempting to upgrade your flatscreen to the latest technology,
I don't have a TV, and don't watch TV/movies other than through my faux-HD monitor.
I understand not everyone is like me, and that's OK. But in my circle of friends, it's really common to not have a TV and not care. Is this the experience of others, too?
Also, this whole 4K thing reeks of "we tried to sell 3D, failed, now trying desperately with the next thing..." But please reply if you're really into 4K, too...
You mean like how they currently add acetaminophen to most opiates (check out your next codeine prescription) so that if you take too much you'll suffer liver damage? If you can't lead a horse to water, just poison every other source of water in the area and that fucking horse better damn well drink the right water... if not it's the horses fault its pissing blood.
Can you provide a source which shows acetaminophen has no medical purpose in those drugs? Those drugs are used in combination in most places I've heard of, so there would have to be a worldwide conspiracy for it to be just a poison.
A quick search found this: http://www.bmj.com/content/313/7053/321. That says that if you want to remove one drug from the combination, it's codeine. Also, up to 10% of white people apparently "immune" to codeine (side note: I do not know the academic field of medicine, and do not know if that paper is connected to anyone/thing reputable).
So basically, acetaminophen is an analgesic. You can get it by itself, or in combination with another analgesic. I think it's somewhat less far-fetched to believe that a painkiller is there for pain relief, than that it's there because of a worldwide conspiracy...
That means that to provide 100% of the power the US generates in a year (which was 4,054 billion kilowatthours of electricity in 2012), you'd need about 18,000 square miles of solar panels.
Per http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2013/2269.html there are ~691 000 square miles of cropland in the US. 18 000 square miles fit inside that 38 times over.
The short answer is that to provide all our power needs from solar, assuming we could actually get full use from the panels, which you can't, you'd use about 50% of the total land area on Earth that we currently use for crops, to hold all the panels. (I don't know about you, but I'd rather grow more food)
So basically, this is just not true. It's FUD. Get your facts straight before accusing others of being blind.
Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing everyone who supports renewables. There's a sound economic reason for subsidizing R&D of renewables - fossil fuels externalize costs via pollution, so the subsidy just helps level the playing field. But just like there's an idiot segment of the right who can't grok the externalized cost problem, there's an idiot segment of the left who can't grok that the cost to produce energy still matters, regardless of how beneficial renewables are. Higher energy costs translate directly into lower standard of living. We've just been fortunate so far that our rate of technological progress has managed to outpace the drag higher oil prices have put on our productivity.
I think you're basically right, but you're forgetting one group. The corrupt POS slimebags on both sides, who will betray and destroy anything and everything, as long as they get money.
"All" Republicans wouldn't be for something other than oil, because their paymasters aren't about to approve that. Some percentage of Republicans would just look at the electricity price, though, because you always get both good and bad people.
The short answer is that to provide all our power needs from solar, assuming we could actually get full use from the panels, which you can't, you'd use about 50% of the total land area on Earth that we currently use for crops, to hold all the panels. (I don't know about you, but I'd rather grow more food)
Using your links, that would mean 30 kW constantly per capita, assuming seven billion humans. A quick check shows that's too high. Not to mention that the diagram in one of your links shows solar would take a lot less space.
Can you show those calculations you did? At this point, you're starting to sound like solar being bad is the most important thing, facts be damned. But I'll admit I'm wrong if you can show some credible data.
because they are crazy busy doing their best to provide quality software to you for nothing.
Uhh, the guy flaming in this case is working for Ubuntu. I don't know this, but I'd bet he's *employed* by Ubuntu.
Meaning, he probably has even fewer excuses.
And if making distros is a thankless job, maybe he should have some respect for others doing it? The guy behaved badly, end of story.
Actually, ISON is still on its way towards the sun. And it has been observed with the naked eye. Still not a great comet, though.
Wikipedia says that thing was fourth magnitude when visible in the night sky: that's not very bright. But it can *seem* bright in good dark skies. Dark skies were, of course, much more common in the seventies than they are now. Light pollution eats comet tails for breakfast.
Now, few comments (nice typo...COMETS) are really impressive in the night sky. Hale-Bopp was one exception. Most are impressive only close to the sun - this was true of Kohoutek, and will be true of ISON if it survives.
The predictions for ISON place it very close to Kohoutek in terms of brightness, actually. This brightness is for the closest approach to the sun - meaning best viewing is right after sunset, or just before sunrise. If things pan out, we might get to see a huge, bright tail against a backdrop of somewhat dark sky.
The people who are really interested in this level of destruction are more likely to go with the more cost-effective method of garnering attention for their cause. I don't see suicide-hijackings becoming so common that passengers will automatically distrust an armed man enough that they will rush towards certain death in an attempt to forestall it.
Certain death?? Even assuming that a large proportion of passengers are incapable of fighting, even a group of hijackers is likely to be outnumbered three to one. They will not get into the cockpit before the crew can use the address system.
The passengers will communicate using their cell phones, just like last time. The hijackers won't fool anyone again. And, as another poster said, they will never get to the point of telling anyone anything.
The rules have changed, and you're also failing to account for what desperate people can do.
I'm wondering what size the neutrino-dosimeters everybody has to carry will be :-)
Not very large, but they will sound an alarm from one detected particle and up. =)
Wow, impressively persistent Goatse trolling! I salute you!
Too bad it's probably more constructive than all the silly nationalist discussion threads.
>>This will exactly meat the requested specifications,
>As long as it's not beef.
No problem: it easily passed pear review.
>Priuses (Prii?)
'Priuses' is the only plural that makes sense. 'Prius' *is* a Latin word from the start - Wikipedia says that its correct plural form is 'priora', with caveats. Latin is a tricky language and any guess is likely to be unluckly. Stick to English plurals when in doubt, and see http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2139/what-is-the-plural-of-penis for an entertaining and insightful read on the topic.
While I'm at it: 'penii' is wrong, and 'virii' is completely, utterly wrong. Viruses and penises are great, see the article for the actual Latin plural of penis (there is no such thing for 'virus').
Thank you for today's Linux troll post. It was above-average.
Wow, that's bad. Here in Finland, it's usually one year of specifically stated store warranty, and often more.
Only when there's a second or third year of warranty is it common to have to deal with the manufacturer.
This subthread is so political that I suspect nothing of what I say will get across. That said, I'll still try - it won't be a lot of wasted effort in any case.
When Shuttleworth compares people to the Tea Party here, he's not talking about the party's ideals. That would make no sense: how could adherence to the US Constitution be relevant to open source development?
Instead, he's referring to the actions of the party. This is pretty good, really: any party can say nice words, but should really be judged by its actions and results. The Tea Party has been doing its best to retard legislation for weeks.
Co-operation is fundamental to politics, both when it comes to countries and open source software. No matter what the principles are, someone who says "no" all the time will be called stubborn. If the Tea Party wants to get its ideals across, it will have to grow up and negotiate solutions with others. No one else will negotiate for them.
In the same way, the Ubuntu naysayers will have to put up or shut up. I actually think Shuttleworth is pretty arrogant, and that Ubuntu is getting worse. But if Mir ships before Wayland, the latter really won't be looking very good. OTOH, if Mir becomes this thing which only Ubuntu ever supports, then Shuttleworth will be stuck being the stubborn one.
Richard F Post has a lot of interesting things to say on the subject, and was one of the scientists behind the magnetic mirror experiment at LLNL, that was mothballed before it ever started due to budget cuts..
A small clarification: Richard F. Post is an actual person: http://www.aip.org/history/acap/biographies/bio.jsp?postr
So, despite appearances, the above post is NOT "F. Post" troll. I'm actually a bit disappointed.
If aliens read Slashdot they'd use their superior, high-performance tech toFhR05TY PI22 0MG P0NIES C0WB0YNEALS BREARD
That's insufficient to explain what science is, when it is what it should be. And then science today is not what it should be. "The process of getting closer to truth by experiment" is not what most people are talking about when they talk about 'science'.
What does public perception have to do with what science is? They're two completely different things. How do you know what "most people" think about this?
You say science today is not what it should be. Do you realise it never has been? The founders of natural science were known to work based on strange religious ideas, not to mention the whole alchemy background thing. Christianity continued to shape science significantly right up to the 20th century. By that point, the social sciences you so seem to loathe had already been founded. Add to this the fact that the very definitions of science we use today are from the 20th century.
I do not know when you think this time of better science took place. But, rest assured, science was far from any ideal then, too. Just like any other human endeavour it's just an approximation of the right way. And a wonderful approximation it is.
I've only used Windows 7 for a little bit, but the configuration options I've seen are vastly superior to the current Ubuntu LTS (which mostly means they simply exist). You can tell it to stack/not stack things in the taskbar, for one.
If you're saying not all the computer-using youth will configure things, then you are absolutely right. But with pretty much 100% computer use the amount of more savvy users should also be larger.
Not to mention that if it is indeed harder to configure a desktop GUI than it is to buy software with *real money*, then someone is doing something horribly wrong.
I'll look at it again, then. I should probably try a fresh install after all these years, too.