What is important is that methane be created from source other than coal and oil. We have to reduce the introduction of new CO2 in the atmosphere. If there is a way to convert electricity + chemicals into methane, then we are in business. If we make methane from coal and oil, we are still producing excess green house gases.
C'mon. Nuclear as the safest, cheapest, and most environemtally friendly energy source ever created? Every heard of hydro electricity? Maybe where you live there is not many alternatives, but its sure is not the safest, cheapest, and most environemtally friendly ever created around the planet. There are plenty other. Wind mills come to mind in some very windy places. Water mills, solar stations... btw, these solutions would be perfect to produce hydrogen, since that we would not have to sync energy production with energy consomption.
Its a matter of quantity, and exposure to nature. The volume of nuclear waste is very very small compared to the size of the planet (very small). Carbon Dioxyde produced by burning oil on the other hand takes much, much more volume. CO2 is a gaz and thus becomes part of the atmosphere. Nuclear waste is solid and can be buried in the ground, like oil which in its natural form, is not environmental friendly either. But thats not a problem when it is buried deep down, is it? Oil has been naturaly been buried for millions of years. We can do the same with Nuclear waste. We will not run out of space to bury nuclear waste.
If you plan to work more, i.e. doing more hours, getting a 2nd job, you may have a point.
However, if you continue with the current number of hours (which most people would do), you will then cut other expenses to put more into your electrical car. Cutting other expenses might actually be good for the environment. If you postpone or abandon ideas of renovating your home for pure esthetical reasons, or buy a summer house, a boat, etc... you are actually polluting less.
Its known fact that the more money one has to spend, the more waste they generate and thus more pollution.
Have you seen the VNC support description? Is this feasable now? Usually, you could not remotely see the desktop of a remote user. You could start a VNC server with no window to a CRT, and have multiple users share it with VNC clients, but to look at the actual X desktop that shows up on the console, this is a feature that never existed before.
Anybody care to comment this? This is a neat feature if it works as described. However, how does this work when I run an accelerated Xorg server?
Depending of your needs, its better than a thin client, because each user still has his own computer, with all the CPU power, GPU power, etc... for him/herself.
You can still have one user work and experiment on a kernel module and crash his system while another continue with her wordprocessing.
Castle Wolfenstein, first version, 2D ascii, on a Commodore 64...
They had a neat trick. To unlock safes, you had to push the volume up of your monitor to the max to hear the "click". But when an SS entered the room and screamed "Achtung" at the max volume the C64 could produce, you would jump 3 feet behind and rush to take back control of your keyboard to take whatever action necessary to get out of this mess.
When business and people contribute to web servers and operating systems, its mainly because they expect something in return. They use these free tools for generating business. They reduce the cost of development of the tools they use to generate $$.
But with a open game, there is no business to be done. No $$ is returned. This is why we probably will never see IBM and the likes contributing to an open game. The only exception I could forsee is that an online game could be free, but subscription to servers would be charged.
Sure there are some developers which on their free time develop open games. Thats why there are a few. But because there are practically no developers payed by companies to develop open games, there are simply less effort going into open games than in web servers and operating systems.
If this is true, why then is Swing so slow while running? Does Swing purpusly run unnecessary loops? I mean fill up a list with 50 entries and scroll it down. Its so slow!
I never understood why Java is as fast as C for server apps but compares badly for GUI. I mean, how much of bad coding you have to do to get a set of Widgets as slow as Swing?
There are a bazillion sof native widgets for Linux out there (Gtk, KDE, TCL, wxWindows, etc...) and they all run fast. I doubt that they all have been tweaked up to the assembly level. After all, widgets should not take that much CPU (GEOS on a C64 was snappy, running at 1 MHz). So why is that Swing on a 1Ghz machine is so slow?
This has always been a mystery for me. Server side, Java is fast, Desktop it is slow. Must be a "if (desktop) { slowdown = true; }" statement in the VM.
I have not checked the list of stocks you showed me, but are they preferred stocks? Preferred stocks usually do not give more voting powers, to the contrary (they often have none). Its more like a debt certificate. As I said, I do not know many US businesses that offer shares which have superior voting powers compared to their common stocks.
Actually, it is a bad habit in Canada, but in the US you do not see this as often. I follow stocks and altough I have seen many class A and class B stocks on the Canadian market, I never heard of such thing in the US. I do not say that there are none, but it must be very uncommon.
Can you name me other well known business that have 2 classes of voting shares?
Two class of voting shares - Founders keep power.
on
Google Slashes IPO price
·
· Score: 5, Informative
And for those who are not aware, there exist two classes of voting share, one class that offers 10 votes per share reserved to the founders and CEO, and another which as 1 vote per share, for the rest of us.
I have been told once (but never actually read an article on this) that if everybody lived like americans, we would need 9 planets earth.
Pollution has many forms. We have waste, energy, water supplies, etc...
Some of your solutions would be fantastic if they were implementable. But they are far away of being technically feasable or cheap enough to be adopted. Population reduction is a cheap, easy way to control pollution until we find serious alternatives energy supplies. And there are other forms of pollution that are adressed too with population reduction, such as environmental impact (city growth, forest destruction), solid waste, more resources per capita, etc..
My point is that the only and "easy" solution we have right now, that can be implemented, is population reduction. Don't forget that with higher income comes also higher pollution production. So its a catch 22.
Lets face it. The only serious way to reduce pollution is population reduction. What is the point to reduce by 20% our pollution production on a per capita basis, if the overall population would increase by 50% in a few decades?
Societies should seriously start discouraging having more than 2 kids. People pollute. Reduce the population to a sustainable level.
I wonder how many people could the world sustain on the long term living with american standards?
and who knows if America will attack another country again.
I doubt the USA will attack another country anytime soon, unless there is actually a REAL threath. At that point, it would pull out from Iraq, leaving it to civil war, to attack the other country.
The war is causing a huge deficit, the army does not have many men to spare anymore. To go to war like in Iraq would require a pullout or conscription. The threat is better be serious or at that point, the population would start to seriously question the motives (hopefully).
And trains get worse gas-mileage, as do airplanes. Shall we ban them?
Do they, on a per passenger basis? I doubt it. If you fly 300 persons Montreal-Mexico vs have say 200 cars driving the distance, which will polute more? Trains are meant to be efficient. Rail reduce ground friction and because the wagons follow each other, air friction is also reduced. On a per weight basis, they are more efficient.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Potential_patent _issues The JPEG committee investigated the patent claims in 2002 and found that they were invalidated by prior art. Nevertheless, between 2002 and 2004 Forgent was able to obtain about $90 million by licensing their patent to some 30 companies. In April 2004 Forgent sued 31 other companies to enforce further license payments. In July of the same year, a consortium of 21 large computer companies filed a countersuit, with the goal of invalidating the patent.
There is a solution: Population reduction. What polutes at the basis is human beings. Reduce their number and you will have less polution and less energy demand. Societies must start considering population reduction by attrition, policies that do not encourage families to have over 2 kids on average.
I agree. This is why I mentionned "and the window is by default 12 cm wide or 50% of the width of the desktop (user configurable)." Let the user configure the size of the application and save it. What is important is that once the apps has the right dimensions, it renders beautifully.
And since current desktops are not vector based, desktop icons are ridiculously minuscules and increasing the fonts up to 1000% causes text to fail fitting within the widgets boundaries.
I want a fully vector based desktop, on Linux, and I want it adopted by the major distributions as the default. I know that their are some vector based desktop, but they are not usefull since they are not widely deployed and apps are not coded for them.
I want to be able to program and specify that Widget B is 70% the size of Widget a, and the window is by default 12 cm wide or 50% of the width of the desktop (user configurable).
I hate specifying in pixels. They are not the same on different display devices.
Slashdot Mirror
What is important is that methane be created from source other than coal and oil. We have to reduce the introduction of new CO2 in the atmosphere. If there is a way to convert electricity + chemicals into methane, then we are in business. If we make methane from coal and oil, we are still producing excess green house gases.
C'mon. Nuclear as the safest, cheapest, and most environemtally friendly energy source ever created? Every heard of hydro electricity? Maybe where you live there is not many alternatives, but its sure is not the safest, cheapest, and most environemtally friendly ever created around the planet. There are plenty other. Wind mills come to mind in some very windy places. Water mills, solar stations... btw, these solutions would be perfect to produce hydrogen, since that we would not have to sync energy production with energy consomption.
Its a matter of quantity, and exposure to nature. The volume of nuclear waste is very very small compared to the size of the planet (very small). Carbon Dioxyde produced by burning oil on the other hand takes much, much more volume. CO2 is a gaz and thus becomes part of the atmosphere. Nuclear waste is solid and can be buried in the ground, like oil which in its natural form, is not environmental friendly either. But thats not a problem when it is buried deep down, is it? Oil has been naturaly been buried for millions of years. We can do the same with Nuclear waste. We will not run out of space to bury nuclear waste.
If you plan to work more, i.e. doing more hours, getting a 2nd job, you may have a point.
However, if you continue with the current number of hours (which most people would do), you will then cut other expenses to put more into your electrical car. Cutting other expenses might actually be good for the environment. If you postpone or abandon ideas of renovating your home for pure esthetical reasons, or buy a summer house, a boat, etc... you are actually polluting less.
Its known fact that the more money one has to spend, the more waste they generate and thus more pollution.
Have you seen the VNC support description? Is this feasable now? Usually, you could not remotely see the desktop of a remote user. You could start a VNC server with no window to a CRT, and have multiple users share it with VNC clients, but to look at the actual X desktop that shows up on the console, this is a feature that never existed before.
Anybody care to comment this? This is a neat feature if it works as described. However, how does this work when I run an accelerated Xorg server?
Now, now. Since when prior art prevents you to patent something?
Depending of your needs, its better than a thin client, because each user still has his own computer, with all the CPU power, GPU power, etc... for him/herself.
You can still have one user work and experiment on a kernel module and crash his system while another continue with her wordprocessing.
Castle Wolfenstein, first version, 2D ascii, on a Commodore 64...
They had a neat trick. To unlock safes, you had to push the volume up of your monitor to the max to hear the "click". But when an SS entered the room and screamed "Achtung" at the max volume the C64 could produce, you would jump 3 feet behind and rush to take back control of your keyboard to take whatever action necessary to get out of this mess.
The C64... ahhhhh... the good old days.
When business and people contribute to web servers and operating systems, its mainly because they expect something in return. They use these free tools for generating business. They reduce the cost of development of the tools they use to generate $$.
But with a open game, there is no business to be done. No $$ is returned. This is why we probably will never see IBM and the likes contributing to an open game. The only exception I could forsee is that an online game could be free, but subscription to servers would be charged.
Sure there are some developers which on their free time develop open games. Thats why there are a few. But because there are practically no developers payed by companies to develop open games, there are simply less effort going into open games than in web servers and operating systems.
If this is true, why then is Swing so slow while running? Does Swing purpusly run unnecessary loops? I mean fill up a list with 50 entries and scroll it down. Its so slow!
I never understood why Java is as fast as C for server apps but compares badly for GUI. I mean, how much of bad coding you have to do to get a set of Widgets as slow as Swing?
There are a bazillion sof native widgets for Linux out there (Gtk, KDE, TCL, wxWindows, etc...) and they all run fast. I doubt that they all have been tweaked up to the assembly level. After all, widgets should not take that much CPU (GEOS on a C64 was snappy, running at 1 MHz). So why is that Swing on a 1Ghz machine is so slow?
This has always been a mystery for me. Server side, Java is fast, Desktop it is slow. Must be a "if (desktop) { slowdown = true; }" statement in the VM.
He knows that they have nukes. That is why he finished his message with:
*RRRINNNGGGG*
Yep, available for only 4 easy paiements of $29.99.
I have not checked the list of stocks you showed me, but are they preferred stocks? Preferred stocks usually do not give more voting powers, to the contrary (they often have none). Its more like a debt certificate. As I said, I do not know many US businesses that offer shares which have superior voting powers compared to their common stocks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_stock/
Actually, it is a bad habit in Canada, but in the US you do not see this as often. I follow stocks and altough I have seen many class A and class B stocks on the Canadian market, I never heard of such thing in the US. I do not say that there are none, but it must be very uncommon.
Can you name me other well known business that have 2 classes of voting shares?
And for those who are not aware, there exist two classes of voting share, one class that offers 10 votes per share reserved to the founders and CEO, and another which as 1 vote per share, for the rest of us.
g y/2004-05-16-google-nonvoting_x.htm/
See: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technolo
Great. Now we only need to find a cheap way to bring power to everybody's hut...
I have been told once (but never actually read an article on this) that if everybody lived like americans, we would need 9 planets earth.
Pollution has many forms. We have waste, energy, water supplies, etc...
Some of your solutions would be fantastic if they were implementable. But they are far away of being technically feasable or cheap enough to be adopted. Population reduction is a cheap, easy way to control pollution until we find serious alternatives energy supplies. And there are other forms of pollution that are adressed too with population reduction, such as environmental impact (city growth, forest destruction), solid waste, more resources per capita, etc..
My point is that the only and "easy" solution we have right now, that can be implemented, is population reduction. Don't forget that with higher income comes also higher pollution production. So its a catch 22.
Lets face it. The only serious way to reduce pollution is population reduction. What is the point to reduce by 20% our pollution production on a per capita basis, if the overall population would increase by 50% in a few decades?
Societies should seriously start discouraging having more than 2 kids. People pollute. Reduce the population to a sustainable level.
I wonder how many people could the world sustain on the long term living with american standards?
and who knows if America will attack another country again.
I doubt the USA will attack another country anytime soon, unless there is actually a REAL threath. At that point, it would pull out from Iraq, leaving it to civil war, to attack the other country.
The war is causing a huge deficit, the army does not have many men to spare anymore. To go to war like in Iraq would require a pullout or conscription. The threat is better be serious or at that point, the population would start to seriously question the motives (hopefully).
And trains get worse gas-mileage, as do airplanes. Shall we ban them?
Do they, on a per passenger basis? I doubt it. If you fly 300 persons Montreal-Mexico vs have say 200 cars driving the distance, which will polute more? Trains are meant to be efficient. Rail reduce ground friction and because the wagons follow each other, air friction is also reduced. On a per weight basis, they are more efficient.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Potential_patent _issues
The JPEG committee investigated the patent claims in 2002 and found that they were invalidated by prior art. Nevertheless, between 2002 and 2004 Forgent was able to obtain about $90 million by licensing their patent to some 30 companies. In April 2004 Forgent sued 31 other companies to enforce further license payments. In July of the same year, a consortium of 21 large computer companies filed a countersuit, with the goal of invalidating the patent.
I guess the prior art does not stand in court.
There is a solution: Population reduction. What polutes at the basis is human beings. Reduce their number and you will have less polution and less energy demand. Societies must start considering population reduction by attrition, policies that do not encourage families to have over 2 kids on average.
I agree. This is why I mentionned "and the window is by default 12 cm wide or 50% of the width of the desktop (user configurable)." Let the user configure the size of the application and save it. What is important is that once the apps has the right dimensions, it renders beautifully.
And since current desktops are not vector based, desktop icons are ridiculously minuscules and increasing the fonts up to 1000% causes text to fail fitting within the widgets boundaries.
I want a fully vector based desktop, on Linux, and I want it adopted by the major distributions as the default. I know that their are some vector based desktop, but they are not usefull since they are not widely deployed and apps are not coded for them.
I want to be able to program and specify that Widget B is 70% the size of Widget a, and the window is by default 12 cm wide or 50% of the width of the desktop (user configurable).
I hate specifying in pixels. They are not the same on different display devices.
Its been a while, and I do not remember what the URL was. But it was not chtah.com.