Don't you realise that creating dams everywhere not only ruins the environment and local wildlife but also displaces anyone living in the path of the new planned dam.
First you got to produce the panels which are environmentally damaging. Then you need to store the electricity in batteries which are also bad for the environment. Not only this but both things need to eventually be replaced as well. Sure it doesn't use oil, doesn't mean it's any better for the environment though. Even if you go with the pump water rather then use batteries idea it still requires flooding huge areas of the environment.
A lot of environmentalists don't really think ahead. They don't think when things scale up. Take the headline for example.
If just 1% of the Sahara Desert were covered in concentrating solar panels it would create enough energy to power the entire world.
To the average person that sounds great until you start to think about all the infrastructure needed to stick solar panels in the desert. You need to build roads and buildings for the project. You need to import materials needed for construction. You need to create huge barriers to stop sand storms from engulfing all your stuff.
According to wikipedia the Sahara is around "9,400,000 sq km or 3,630,000 sq miles". The makes 1% of the Sahara 94,000 kilo-meters or 58,408 miles. That's billions of solar panels.
I'm not saying that replacing energy production shouldn't be a goal, however to say we should build billions of solar panels in the dessert to replace environmentally damaging oil/coal power stations is both ridiculous and hypocritical. It lacks critical thinking, so just saying as long as it's renewable energy, do it just causes more harm then good.
So firstly criminal law doesn't come in here so your story about beating up a passer-by is not accurate.
Secondly, the US law doesn't apply to the rest of the world. Spamhaus chose not to appear in court because they:
1 - Weren't even in america 2 - Weren't doing anything illegal in their own country.
Since you support the rule of law I fully expect you to also support the deportation of Americans to the middle east to be put on trial for whatever stupid laws they have over there that don't apply to the US.
It does explain why the world is in such massive debt. Our governments wanted to fool us into thinking it was the banks that drained all the money but now we all know the truth. They used the money to build massive boats in China to save the select few!
supporting PNG is failing irrelevant for me. Advanced editing is a job for the GNU Image Manipulation Program.
It is relevant because the reason they took GIMP out by default in Lucid was because people can edit images in f-spot. Now if they're replacing f-spot as well you can no longer by default edit PNG files and whatever else Shotwell doesn't support. That includes screen shots you take.
Unlike F-Spot which pulls in a lot of Mono dependencies and requires you to import the photos into it’s library,...
Firstly, F-Spot doesn't require you to import photos, there is a checkbox that says "Copy files to the Photos folder"
Secondly, Shotwell has the exact same tickbox and is enabled by default exactly like F-Spot.
It is written in Vala and super fast.
Personally I prefer something this works rather then a program whose only remarkable feature is "it is written in Vala". So they're replacing Microsoft dependent Mono with Gnome dependent Vala, sweet..
F-spot makes duplicates of my photos. Good riddance!
The version in lucid doesn't seem to do that any more whereas Shotwell does this. So it's not "good riddance". They finally fixed the problem only to bring it back again in a different photo manager..
The question is whether people like having Mono installed on their system, and the answer is no.
No it's not. Ubuntu has never been a distribution for Free software activists. Ubuntu has always been about "linux for humans". That's why there is always fuss over the nvidia drivers, that's why they made a fuss over the firefox branding. If your primary concern is with freedom then you should be on a different distribution such as Gnewsense or Debian. Ubuntu however has always been about ease of use over making things difficult and just so we're clear here.. Both F-Spot and Shotwell are Free Open Source Software, it's just that some people don't like using mono.
The REAL question however is, does this new Photo Manager provide an adequate replacement for the Ubuntu user and the answer is "not yet". It doesn't import certain images, it imports duplicates, its UI is not that great compared to f-spot and it has less import/export options then f-spot. Regardless of how you feel about Mono it sucks for Ubuntu's target audience which doesn't care about Mono or C#, they care about if they can use it.
I think the only news worthy part of this is that it's a ridiculous decision that they're considering to switch to an inferior product by default. Add on the fact that they removed GIMP by default from Lucid it means that there will now be no way by default to edit images in Ubuntu for the next release that won't open in Shotwell. It's just completely stupid and I doubt Canonical will stick with this decision. Ubuntu is popular because they don't do this kind of thing.
I just downloaded shotwell from the PPA in the blog and here is my little test..
I made a folder with some random images. I put all the images in a sub folder and made another subfolder with an extra copy of one of the images in a different folder. I did this because this best represents my photo folder. It has lots of images in different places and some of them are the same image because an early version of f-spot messed it up.
I then loaded up shotwell and did an import, then got this error..
The 2 photos that it successfully imported were the same photo. F-Spot has a feature to not import the same photo twice even if the filename differs which is handy. For me this is no where near f-spot technically.
It can't even import PNGs. What use is an photo manager that can't import images..
If someone already has a perfectly good laptop why should they be forced by the school at get another one (buy or rent) simply because it's not a mac?
This is 100% Mac zealotry.
What if a student doesn't WANT to use a mac? Does it somehow interrupt the steve jobs circle jerk that they won't be allowed to attend the school? This is pathetic.
It ties you down to one javascript framework - its really something that should be provided by the video element itself
No, it shouldn't. There's a million ways you could do subtitles. There are lots of different formats and there are many ways you could serve up the subtitle content that restricting it to a certain way only limits a developer.
I have seen issues where, although rendered above the video stream, links are not clickable, and other issues where components that should be rendered above are infact rendered below the stream.
I haven't experienced any of these issues and it sounds like your z-index is the problem.
Perhaps you should take time to understand the ramifications and goals of your license better.
Cool story bro but I think I know my own reasons for putting my code under the GPL you don't need to tell me why I did it or tell me I'm wrong.
Regarding the purpose of the GPL, that's actually the purpose of the LGPL
The LGPL is for libraries where you want to allow applications to be able to use them without having to use the same license.
My application isn't a library so the GPL is serving the purpose that I already stated quite well thanks. I know the licenses quite well already and seem to have a better understanding then you do.
You can see my response to JohnFluxx below because it applies to your childish post too.
You've called anyone that puts a project under the GPL a zealot that's out to convert the world yet you call my reasonable response childish.
Some people don't like their code being used in certain ways. Get over it dude.
The only one being childish and a zealot is you. You simply can't accept that not everyone agrees with your way of thinking and when people point out the flaw in your logic you simply attack them.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you realise that creating dams everywhere not only ruins the environment and local wildlife but also displaces anyone living in the path of the new planned dam.
There is no such thing as renewable energy.
First you got to produce the panels which are environmentally damaging. Then you need to store the electricity in batteries which are also bad for the environment. Not only this but both things need to eventually be replaced as well. Sure it doesn't use oil, doesn't mean it's any better for the environment though. Even if you go with the pump water rather then use batteries idea it still requires flooding huge areas of the environment.
A lot of environmentalists don't really think ahead. They don't think when things scale up. Take the headline for example.
To the average person that sounds great until you start to think about all the infrastructure needed to stick solar panels in the desert. You need to build roads and buildings for the project. You need to import materials needed for construction. You need to create huge barriers to stop sand storms from engulfing all your stuff.
According to wikipedia the Sahara is around "9,400,000 sq km or 3,630,000 sq miles". The makes 1% of the Sahara 94,000 kilo-meters or 58,408 miles. That's billions of solar panels.
I'm not saying that replacing energy production shouldn't be a goal, however to say we should build billions of solar panels in the dessert to replace environmentally damaging oil/coal power stations is both ridiculous and hypocritical. It lacks critical thinking, so just saying as long as it's renewable energy, do it just causes more harm then good.
Good luck with that.
You can't take someone to court for civil penalties in America if they beat you up and live in England.
riiight... because no one studied the effects of radiation on humans before phones came along....
So firstly criminal law doesn't come in here so your story about beating up a passer-by is not accurate.
Secondly, the US law doesn't apply to the rest of the world. Spamhaus chose not to appear in court because they:
1 - Weren't even in america
2 - Weren't doing anything illegal in their own country.
Since you support the rule of law I fully expect you to also support the deportation of Americans to the middle east to be put on trial for whatever stupid laws they have over there that don't apply to the US.
Why should they bother exactly? My understanding is that even if they loose it makes no difference to them because they're not even in the US.
Do you really think they're taking this seriously? It's just another one of those lolamerica stories we hear over here.
It does explain why the world is in such massive debt. Our governments wanted to fool us into thinking it was the banks that drained all the money but now we all know the truth. They used the money to build massive boats in China to save the select few!
Quick the sky is falling!
On Mars there isn't much of an atmosphere so parachutes wouldn't work.
Except it's not because upstream doesn't have any say into what Ubuntu or Debian decides to change in their distro.
Except that's not happening here, is it. What they've done here is replace a completely working program with a piece of junk.
They could quite easily wait until Shotwell is actually worth using before adding it by default to the distro.
It is relevant because the reason they took GIMP out by default in Lucid was because people can edit images in f-spot. Now if they're replacing f-spot as well you can no longer by default edit PNG files and whatever else Shotwell doesn't support. That includes screen shots you take.
Indeed even slightly changing your figures to be more realistic to an average non-slashdotter makes it not worth it.
(250 USD) / (0.07 USD/kWh) / (0.150 kW) / (7 hr/day) / (350 day/yr) = 9.7 years
Some how I doubt they'll add the features and debug the problems I am talking about in less then the two months they have before the feature freeze.
Neither? It's a space agency. They should be finding ways to make a profit in space as well as explore and research.
Upstream forking as much as they want isn't the problem.
The problem is with distributions which do everything you just described.
From the blog you posted...
Firstly, F-Spot doesn't require you to import photos, there is a checkbox that says "Copy files to the Photos folder"
Secondly, Shotwell has the exact same tickbox and is enabled by default exactly like F-Spot.
Personally I prefer something this works rather then a program whose only remarkable feature is "it is written in Vala". So they're replacing Microsoft dependent Mono with Gnome dependent Vala, sweet..
The version in lucid doesn't seem to do that any more whereas Shotwell does this. So it's not "good riddance". They finally fixed the problem only to bring it back again in a different photo manager..
There is this discussion from 2009..
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2009-December/010173.html
and this one from May 2010..
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-desktop/2010-May/002569.html
Apart from that I can't find anything about a decision being made.
No it's not. Ubuntu has never been a distribution for Free software activists. Ubuntu has always been about "linux for humans". That's why there is always fuss over the nvidia drivers, that's why they made a fuss over the firefox branding. If your primary concern is with freedom then you should be on a different distribution such as Gnewsense or Debian. Ubuntu however has always been about ease of use over making things difficult and just so we're clear here.. Both F-Spot and Shotwell are Free Open Source Software, it's just that some people don't like using mono.
The REAL question however is, does this new Photo Manager provide an adequate replacement for the Ubuntu user and the answer is "not yet". It doesn't import certain images, it imports duplicates, its UI is not that great compared to f-spot and it has less import/export options then f-spot. Regardless of how you feel about Mono it sucks for Ubuntu's target audience which doesn't care about Mono or C#, they care about if they can use it.
I think the only news worthy part of this is that it's a ridiculous decision that they're considering to switch to an inferior product by default. Add on the fact that they removed GIMP by default from Lucid it means that there will now be no way by default to edit images in Ubuntu for the next release that won't open in Shotwell. It's just completely stupid and I doubt Canonical will stick with this decision. Ubuntu is popular because they don't do this kind of thing.
I just downloaded shotwell from the PPA in the blog and here is my little test..
I made a folder with some random images. I put all the images in a sub folder and made another subfolder with an extra copy of one of the images in a different folder. I did this because this best represents my photo folder. It has lots of images in different places and some of them are the same image because an early version of f-spot messed it up.
I then loaded up shotwell and did an import, then got this error..
The 2 photos that it successfully imported were the same photo. F-Spot has a feature to not import the same photo twice even if the filename differs which is handy. For me this is no where near f-spot technically.
It can't even import PNGs. What use is an photo manager that can't import images..
If someone already has a perfectly good laptop why should they be forced by the school at get another one (buy or rent) simply because it's not a mac?
This is 100% Mac zealotry.
What if a student doesn't WANT to use a mac? Does it somehow interrupt the steve jobs circle jerk that they won't be allowed to attend the school? This is pathetic.
If you're just going to make stuff up and argue with things I didn't say in the first place I think we're pretty much done here..
No, it shouldn't. There's a million ways you could do subtitles. There are lots of different formats and there are many ways you could serve up the subtitle content that restricting it to a certain way only limits a developer.
I haven't experienced any of these issues and it sounds like your z-index is the problem.
Cool story bro but I think I know my own reasons for putting my code under the GPL you don't need to tell me why I did it or tell me I'm wrong.
The LGPL is for libraries where you want to allow applications to be able to use them without having to use the same license.
My application isn't a library so the GPL is serving the purpose that I already stated quite well thanks. I know the licenses quite well already and seem to have a better understanding then you do.
You've called anyone that puts a project under the GPL a zealot that's out to convert the world yet you call my reasonable response childish.
Some people don't like their code being used in certain ways. Get over it dude.
The only one being childish and a zealot is you. You simply can't accept that not everyone agrees with your way of thinking and when people point out the flaw in your logic you simply attack them.
What's wrong with the jquery srt plugin?
What issues?