In that case, your conclusion of "RedHat lover" on a mention of yum was wrong, if RedHat means RHEL. Fedoras, the latest, riskiest and cutting-edgest ones, do use yum; and they do support upgrade.
Every sentence in your post about Indian law and business environment is false. Most verifiable by 15 second Google search, some run deeper - might take 10 minutes.
Yes, the article is not the best, but this is the one I found in a hurry that deals with the complete issue at once rather than a one day news update at a time. All this transpired over some months so better articles are some 50 in number, each adding a bit to the story so far. But the issue is quite famous.
And no, you are caricaturing the isssue by your battery example. India is not going to Canadian manufacturer for $300 batteries. The agreements being discussed are for billion dollar deals, over years.
If someone were saying it is ridiculously easy to not cause an accident at nuclear plants by making a mistake in mowing grass, yet no company is ready to undertake that including the risk even at twice market rates, this is a serious argument against it being ridiculously easy to not cause accident, right?
And India is ready to limit liability of manufacturer upto purchase price, but manufacturers are STILL not ready. That tells about their confidence in their own technology, doesn't it?
That's good. But generally if you can't spend it without travelling to the bank, you can't even have money go there without travelling to the bank. How do you accomplish that?
Ok, so why are nuclear equipment builders and suppliers running away from having to pay compensation if equipment is found to have caused the accident ? In fact the "global standard" is for builders to have no liability!
as if costly problems are unique to the nuclear industry
I'll tell you what is unique to the nuclear industry. Other industries have costly problems, they insure, and get on with it. A construction company paid out a huge sum in compensation for an under-construction building collapse recently in my country.
Nuclear industry insists on immunity from consequences of any accident. Not very confidence inspiring, wouldn't you say?
I don't understand this post, and I consulted the budget FAQ too. I guess there is an immense ambiguity(, or an intention to mislead readers) in both the FAQ and your post.
You say "yes, the outreach program took funds out of the general funds". So, do you mean it should not have taken the funds out of the general funds? Where else should it have taken them from?
From FAQ - "GNOME, as the lead organization, has been responsible for managing the finances for the entire effort". I don't understand what managing the finances means. Does it mean all participating organizations have their own income sources, and GNOME just does the paperwork + temporary loaning to smooth over their temporary difficulties? Or does it mean GNOME finance the OPW ?
And if GNOME is only managing the finances, and not financing the activities, how did 25% of GNOME budget get taken up with OPW? Is all of the 25% temporary loans?
If GNOME is actually financing OPW, there is a big transparency gap here - the donors to GNOME may not be aware that one fourth of their money goes toward outreach to arbitrary subsets of people.
Exactly because they are socially stratified from "normals", your chances of crossing them by coming into contact with them are negligible. So effort to maintain relationships with them is negligible.
Effort to keep "powerful people" un-crossed is enormous in non-"civilized" society because they are frequently right next to you.
Also, in "civilized" society, people powerful enough to get away with murder are about one in a million. In non-"civilized", there are multiple within a tribe, say 15-100.
If the boys coming out of IT are so fucking special then what's wrong with the girls that produce code that's just as good?
You haven't proven that the girls produce code that's just as good. Computer Science grades are very different from ability to code.
There is slight evidence that girls produced less good code - the fact that they weren't hired in spite of similar grades to people who did get hired. Could be discrimination - girls lose productivity by getting pregnant, after all. But there are arguments against that - pregnant nurses and teachers are much more unable to work than pregnant coders.
And then girls joining Computer Science in 1980s couldn't have more contact with computers before joining, than girls joining Computer Science in 1990s, and more so for 2000s. Yet girls joined less in 1990s and 2000s - more evidence that girls knowing what computer programming is like, before joining Computer Science, DO NOT join computer science.
In 1980s, they could have joined just because it was a "new" field, which they had no idea of, and likely to provide indoor jobs like typists had.
most of his wealth is in his relationship with his tribe
Yes, and it is extremely hard work to acquire and maintain this wealth. Your tribe has powerful members that will kill you if you cross them - really or only in their perception. That means letting go of your good food because they want it, offering them your mate if they like her, besides the harder physical work you do than the powerful members.
Plasma is not a necessity for glowing - typically gases start visibly glowing at lower temperatures than needed to qualify as plasma. So low temperature flames glow without being plasma.
and they awarded her a small sum, presumably because they thought the slight was minor - cameras and all
No. It is because there was no evidence that the slight was enormous. A variant of "innocent until proven guilty".
That, in turn, is because it is not punishable in any sense of the word to intentionally damage cameras/surveillance devices. So they were damaged - a variant of "you get what you measure".
"God as in what is literally described as such in the bible" as a definition tends to fail pretty hard, since there are numerous hard-and-fast rules given about what that god does.
No, the story of Job pretty much undoes everything. God does things according to some rules, but may choose not to do it. Just because fuck you.
While any superheated gases can glow visibly, flame has a stricter definition which does not allow your statement to be true. You'll have to redefine flame for that.
No, 2ClO denotes chlorine oxide, not oxygen chloride. So oxygen is still the oxidizing agent. Even with more covalent bonds, oxygen being stronger oxidizing agent, can not be said to being oxidized here.
Only elemental oxidizing agent stronger than oxygen is fluorine, but I've never heard of oxygen fluoride.
Slashdot Mirror
In that case, your conclusion of "RedHat lover" on a mention of yum was wrong, if RedHat means RHEL. Fedoras, the latest, riskiest and cutting-edgest ones, do use yum; and they do support upgrade.
Every sentence in your post about Indian law and business environment is false. Most verifiable by 15 second Google search, some run deeper - might take 10 minutes.
Twice market rates would be $200 ($120 profit). Is is smart to risk $200 million in order to make $120? No.
Not if odds of losing $200 million in this way is one in a billion.
And, they do need to buy batteries from somewhere, and right now it would be stupid for anyone to sell batteries to them.
Ok, telling the second time - they buy batteries but these agreements are NOT about those.
And of course you conveniently ignored that manufacturers do not even want a liability with an upper bound at the sale price.
Yes, the article is not the best, but this is the one I found in a hurry that deals with the complete issue at once rather than a one day news update at a time. All this transpired over some months so better articles are some 50 in number, each adding a bit to the story so far. But the issue is quite famous.
And no, you are caricaturing the isssue by your battery example. India is not going to Canadian manufacturer for $300 batteries. The agreements being discussed are for billion dollar deals, over years.
If someone were saying it is ridiculously easy to not cause an accident at nuclear plants by making a mistake in mowing grass, yet no company is ready to undertake that including the risk even at twice market rates, this is a serious argument against it being ridiculously easy to not cause accident, right?
And India is ready to limit liability of manufacturer upto purchase price, but manufacturers are STILL not ready. That tells about their confidence in their own technology, doesn't it?
Fedora supports upgrades for a year or so. FedUp FTW.
Fixing a broken update can be simply rolling back to a btrfs snapshot.
That's good. But generally if you can't spend it without travelling to the bank, you can't even have money go there without travelling to the bank. How do you accomplish that?
Ok, so why are nuclear equipment builders and suppliers running away from having to pay compensation if equipment is found to have caused the accident ? In fact the "global standard" is for builders to have no liability!
as if costly problems are unique to the nuclear industry
I'll tell you what is unique to the nuclear industry. Other industries have costly problems, they insure, and get on with it. A construction company paid out a huge sum in compensation for an under-construction building collapse recently in my country.
Nuclear industry insists on immunity from consequences of any accident. Not very confidence inspiring, wouldn't you say?
Companies which accept donations, might want to put this in their charters then? Or a quarter of expenses could slip unmentioned in the charter?
I don't understand this post, and I consulted the budget FAQ too. I guess there is an immense ambiguity(, or an intention to mislead readers) in both the FAQ and your post.
You say "yes, the outreach program took funds out of the general funds". So, do you mean it should not have taken the funds out of the general funds? Where else should it have taken them from?
From FAQ - "GNOME, as the lead organization, has been responsible for managing the finances for the entire effort". I don't understand what managing the finances means. Does it mean all participating organizations have their own income sources, and GNOME just does the paperwork + temporary loaning to smooth over their temporary difficulties? Or does it mean GNOME finance the OPW ?
And if GNOME is only managing the finances, and not financing the activities, how did 25% of GNOME budget get taken up with OPW? Is all of the 25% temporary loans?
If GNOME is actually financing OPW, there is a big transparency gap here - the donors to GNOME may not be aware that one fourth of their money goes toward outreach to arbitrary subsets of people.
Lot different too, in spite of common words. Whodathunkit!!! Try again, find the difference.
I didn't, read again
Strawman
Doesn't change anything
To credibly say it is a simple case of exclusion, you DO have to prove women are as good as men in coding.
Exactly because they are socially stratified from "normals", your chances of crossing them by coming into contact with them are negligible. So effort to maintain relationships with them is negligible.
Effort to keep "powerful people" un-crossed is enormous in non-"civilized" society because they are frequently right next to you.
Also, in "civilized" society, people powerful enough to get away with murder are about one in a million. In non-"civilized", there are multiple within a tribe, say 15-100.
If the boys coming out of IT are so fucking special then what's wrong with the girls that produce code that's just as good?
You haven't proven that the girls produce code that's just as good. Computer Science grades are very different from ability to code.
There is slight evidence that girls produced less good code - the fact that they weren't hired in spite of similar grades to people who did get hired. Could be discrimination - girls lose productivity by getting pregnant, after all. But there are arguments against that - pregnant nurses and teachers are much more unable to work than pregnant coders.
And then girls joining Computer Science in 1980s couldn't have more contact with computers before joining, than girls joining Computer Science in 1990s, and more so for 2000s. Yet girls joined less in 1990s and 2000s - more evidence that girls knowing what computer programming is like, before joining Computer Science, DO NOT join computer science.
In 1980s, they could have joined just because it was a "new" field, which they had no idea of, and likely to provide indoor jobs like typists had.
Destruction/prevention of evidence FTW!!!
most of his wealth is in his relationship with his tribe
Yes, and it is extremely hard work to acquire and maintain this wealth. Your tribe has powerful members that will kill you if you cross them - really or only in their perception. That means letting go of your good food because they want it, offering them your mate if they like her, besides the harder physical work you do than the powerful members.
Plasma is not a necessity for glowing - typically gases start visibly glowing at lower temperatures than needed to qualify as plasma. So low temperature flames glow without being plasma.
and they awarded her a small sum, presumably because they thought the slight was minor - cameras and all
No. It is because there was no evidence that the slight was enormous. A variant of "innocent until proven guilty".
That, in turn, is because it is not punishable in any sense of the word to intentionally damage cameras/surveillance devices. So they were damaged - a variant of "you get what you measure".
"God as in what is literally described as such in the bible" as a definition tends to fail pretty hard, since there are numerous hard-and-fast rules given about what that god does.
No, the story of Job pretty much undoes everything. God does things according to some rules, but may choose not to do it. Just because fuck you.
While any superheated gases can glow visibly, flame has a stricter definition which does not allow your statement to be true. You'll have to redefine flame for that.
No, 2ClO denotes chlorine oxide, not oxygen chloride. So oxygen is still the oxidizing agent. Even with more covalent bonds, oxygen being stronger oxidizing agent, can not be said to being oxidized here.
Only elemental oxidizing agent stronger than oxygen is fluorine, but I've never heard of oxygen fluoride.