If you buy a share in any company, it means you invest in it. That means it makes sense you hold on to that share for a minimum duration. A month seems reasonable.
They can sell it in the blink of an eye, but only after they've held on to that share for a month. If they don't trust the value will remain stable enough for a month, don't buy it.
It would mean a share in a company is once again a share in a company. It means that people buy it because they believe in a company... not because a computer predicts a trend for the next 5 microseconds.
But although the point stands: America is definitely bullying the whole world when it comes to copyright issues, as far as I understood, this researcher is actually based in the US.
Do you miss the old Slashdot, or do you miss that old world when IT was small and nerdy, instead of run by big companies that rule the world? I hear you old timers complain often about how/. has changed, but I think it still reports the same type of news. It's just that the world has changed around us.
Slashdot started when Windows 98 was not even around. When the 2.0 Linux kernel was brand new. And dial up was the main method for connecting to the internet. I guess that old time made for good articles about nerdy computer related issues, but I do not want to go back to that period.
Those early men who tried to make fire by rubbing some sticks together in vain were obviously wasting their time. They could have better spent that time chasing a mammoth, and humanity would have been far better off.
Exactly! We should be setting up a farm on the moon. Just to test it out. Start small: 1 m2 of soil in a greenhouse.
The cost of such a mission is for a small part related to the cost of the boosters to get things in orbit and to the moon, and for a large part to the over-engineering that NASA is doing. That over-engineering is caused by a fear of failure. It's not like it's rocketscience to get anything to the moon. The fear of failure is the only thing that seems to hold us back.
If it costs 5000 $/kg to launch anything into a high orbit (which I will equate with getting it to the moon), a decent sized farm (1000 tons of material) would cost 5 billion $ in launch costs, which is nothing.
We could set up some practice greenhouses for a fraction of the cost. If failure is an option, that should be cheap enough in an age when more than that is spent on warfare every day...
Well, the ISS has a mass of over 400,000 kg. It would make sense to include a box of random spare parts. It's not like it will have a huge impact on the total mass of stuff we've sent up there.
The costs of launching anything on a Soyuz is about 6,000 $/kg. With the newer Falcon rockets of SpaceX, it's supposed to go down towards 2,000 $/kg. So that makes it a very expensive Coffee Can. But it's not impossible. Also annoying the entire internet with your questions about how to fix a nut and bolt is more expensive.
The following goes for Ceres and Mars: Water + sunlight (on a solar panel) = fuel
Alright, so Mars is probably the better place for settling.
But Ceres and Vesta are gonna be like finding water in the desert. Not enough reason to stick around for long, but really convenient to have when you're passing by.
They turned it from "Linux for Humans" to "Linux for morons".
I love them for that. No, I am not kidding.
But no jokes aside, Linux is not a single system. Ubuntu is for the complete n00bs (like myself), but there are still plenty of other Linux versions for the better-informed people like yourself. Stop complaining and shop around a bit. Most are easy to download.
That's the post I was looking for... someone to call Russia "the enemy". If you twist it that way, the news article suddenly becomes very interesting. Now it says: "the enemy plans to have better bombers than us". Weapons manufacturers will be smiling when they see a post like that. Screw the crisis, time to send more money to Lockheed Martin. The Russians are coming!
So, the way I see it, there are 3 competing families of OSs. That is Windows, Linux and Apple. With Linux traditionally installed on about 1% of desktops, I would think that Windows is the big loser here. If OS X is nowadays installed on 6 -7% of desktops (see: TFA), then it's Windows that lost marketshare.
Sure, it could have been Linux to steal that marketshare. Linux might still benefit from it though... once the market realizes that you can switch without turning your PC into a smoking pile of rubble, they also might try Linux. I still think that Ubuntu is a very decent option.
That would technically be a simple solution. Heck, you might as well implant a beacon on the people themselves. But from the point of view of marketing, that won't sell so well. And our dear politicians are afraid of only 1 thing: election time.
Exactly. The only people who flew in the 1930s to the 1960s were the rich. Why are we surprised that they flew in luxury?
The fact the the middle class can fly today only means that the price to fly has dropped dramatically.
Of course, that is obvious... this article just complains that we still don't have flying cars, free energy and everlasting happiness. So far, every article that claims that the past was better has been full of logical fallacies. Usually they compare a romanticised past with a pessimistic view of the present. The past sucked for most people, but some are reluctant to admit it.
I have had lovely flights quite recently. Friendly stewardesses, nice view, decent seat with leg space (not too much, but enough), and a free drink + lunch + coffee. A minimal chech-in time (30 min before departure), only a metal detector as a security and very quick bagage handling. Also, public transportation to and from airports has vastly improved (in Europe, at least).
And all that for 100 euro for a 2 hrs flight (i.e. 1200 km), which I booked online in a matter of 10 minutes.
You could write an article about how murder helped win the American revolution. True, but relevant?
Yes, relevant. It means that you cannot interpret the rules literally and similarly in every case. You just have to use your head. There are times when murder can be justified because you protect a greater good.
Petrol is amazingly cheap for what it gives you compared to EVERYTHING else that's at the cutting edge of research.
You apparently did not do the actual maths.
Electric: 0.09 euro/kWh, or about 0.025 euro/MJ Gasoline: 1.5 euro/liter, or about 0.047 euro/MJ
In other words, the energy for electric costs half that of gasoline, and that's still excluding the much higher efficiency of the electric car. Per driven kilometer, it is even more extreme.
If you don't like electric for it's limited range and slow charging times, sure. But despite the expensive batteries, it's getting damn close to the gsaoline cars.
What I meant is that there is a massive incentive for an insurance company to monitor the driving style, the roads they choose, the time they drive, and all of that 24/7. It is the logical next step.
I have nothing to hide from my government, but I just do not trust commercial enterprises enough to trust them with my data. Not even if it might make the roads safer.
If you want the kids to drive safely, then put a speed-limiter on cars (you're not allowed to exceed the speed limit anyway), like the lorries already have for a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, were you root?
Who the hell are you calling a root, buddy??
Can someone mod this up? The guys at Ubuntu have to realize what they're dealing with. This is your average consumer, and that was a serious question.
Trademark laws.
They're just running out of good names.
And I totally agree that the OSes are actually names quite ok, in comparison to other things. Cars are an excellent example.
If you buy a share in any company, it means you invest in it. That means it makes sense you hold on to that share for a minimum duration. A month seems reasonable.
They can sell it in the blink of an eye, but only after they've held on to that share for a month. If they don't trust the value will remain stable enough for a month, don't buy it.
It would mean a share in a company is once again a share in a company. It means that people buy it because they believe in a company... not because a computer predicts a trend for the next 5 microseconds.
But although the point stands: America is definitely bullying the whole world when it comes to copyright issues, as far as I understood, this researcher is actually based in the US.
- Team America, World Police. America, f*** yeah!
Do you miss the old Slashdot, or do you miss that old world when IT was small and nerdy, instead of run by big companies that rule the world? /. has changed, but I think it still reports the same type of news. It's just that the world has changed around us.
I hear you old timers complain often about how
Slashdot started when Windows 98 was not even around. When the 2.0 Linux kernel was brand new. And dial up was the main method for connecting to the internet. I guess that old time made for good articles about nerdy computer related issues, but I do not want to go back to that period.
You cannot eat research.
Those early men who tried to make fire by rubbing some sticks together in vain were obviously wasting their time. They could have better spent that time chasing a mammoth, and humanity would have been far better off.
I think we should mod this 'hilarious' instead of funny. 10 points, sir A. Coward.
Exactly! We should be setting up a farm on the moon. Just to test it out. Start small: 1 m2 of soil in a greenhouse.
The cost of such a mission is for a small part related to the cost of the boosters to get things in orbit and to the moon, and for a large part to the over-engineering that NASA is doing. That over-engineering is caused by a fear of failure. It's not like it's rocketscience to get anything to the moon. The fear of failure is the only thing that seems to hold us back.
If it costs 5000 $/kg to launch anything into a high orbit (which I will equate with getting it to the moon), a decent sized farm (1000 tons of material) would cost 5 billion $ in launch costs, which is nothing.
We could set up some practice greenhouses for a fraction of the cost. If failure is an option, that should be cheap enough in an age when more than that is spent on warfare every day...
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Read that. Then memorize it. Then never forget. Please. Thanks.
Well, the ISS has a mass of over 400,000 kg. It would make sense to include a box of random spare parts. It's not like it will have a huge impact on the total mass of stuff we've sent up there.
The costs of launching anything on a Soyuz is about 6,000 $/kg. With the newer Falcon rockets of SpaceX, it's supposed to go down towards 2,000 $/kg. So that makes it a very expensive Coffee Can. But it's not impossible.
Also annoying the entire internet with your questions about how to fix a nut and bolt is more expensive.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems
http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/Space_Transportation_Costs_Trends_0902.pdf
The following goes for Ceres and Mars: Water + sunlight (on a solar panel) = fuel
Alright, so Mars is probably the better place for settling.
But Ceres and Vesta are gonna be like finding water in the desert. Not enough reason to stick around for long, but really convenient to have when you're passing by.
They turned it from "Linux for Humans" to "Linux for morons".
I love them for that. No, I am not kidding.
But no jokes aside, Linux is not a single system. Ubuntu is for the complete n00bs (like myself), but there are still plenty of other Linux versions for the better-informed people like yourself. Stop complaining and shop around a bit. Most are easy to download.
while Anglicized spelling of 'center' might seem pretentious
How is it pretentious to use correct spelling? Should they have called it the "Can I has Bioinspiration Centr, LOL"?
"doesn't seem particularly realistic"?
Huh? Sun Tzu: Never underestimate your opponent
That's the post I was looking for... someone to call Russia "the enemy".
If you twist it that way, the news article suddenly becomes very interesting. Now it says: "the enemy plans to have better bombers than us".
Weapons manufacturers will be smiling when they see a post like that. Screw the crisis, time to send more money to Lockheed Martin. The Russians are coming!
So, the way I see it, there are 3 competing families of OSs. That is Windows, Linux and Apple. With Linux traditionally installed on about 1% of desktops, I would think that Windows is the big loser here. If OS X is nowadays installed on 6 -7% of desktops (see: TFA), then it's Windows that lost marketshare.
Sure, it could have been Linux to steal that marketshare. Linux might still benefit from it though... once the market realizes that you can switch without turning your PC into a smoking pile of rubble, they also might try Linux. I still think that Ubuntu is a very decent option.
So, we're going all the way to another planet, just so we can live in the basement again.
I can still hear his lowest notes, you insensitive clod!
That would technically be a simple solution. Heck, you might as well implant a beacon on the people themselves. But from the point of view of marketing, that won't sell so well. And our dear politicians are afraid of only 1 thing: election time.
You don't understand it. The lawyers are indeed really happy. They still got paid.
To argue whether it is legal just misses the point: does it make sense?
Exactly. The only people who flew in the 1930s to the 1960s were the rich. Why are we surprised that they flew in luxury?
The fact the the middle class can fly today only means that the price to fly has dropped dramatically.
Of course, that is obvious... this article just complains that we still don't have flying cars, free energy and everlasting happiness. So far, every article that claims that the past was better has been full of logical fallacies. Usually they compare a romanticised past with a pessimistic view of the present. The past sucked for most people, but some are reluctant to admit it.
I have had lovely flights quite recently. Friendly stewardesses, nice view, decent seat with leg space (not too much, but enough), and a free drink + lunch + coffee. A minimal chech-in time (30 min before departure), only a metal detector as a security and very quick bagage handling. Also, public transportation to and from airports has vastly improved (in Europe, at least).
And all that for 100 euro for a 2 hrs flight (i.e. 1200 km), which I booked online in a matter of 10 minutes.
No way that was better in the 1960s.
You could write an article about how murder helped win the American revolution. True, but relevant?
Yes, relevant.
It means that you cannot interpret the rules literally and similarly in every case. You just have to use your head. There are times when murder can be justified because you protect a greater good.
Did that help?
Petrol is amazingly cheap for what it gives you compared to EVERYTHING else that's at the cutting edge of research.
You apparently did not do the actual maths.
Electric: 0.09 euro/kWh, or about 0.025 euro/MJ
Gasoline: 1.5 euro/liter, or about 0.047 euro/MJ
In other words, the energy for electric costs half that of gasoline, and that's still excluding the much higher efficiency of the electric car. Per driven kilometer, it is even more extreme.
If you don't like electric for it's limited range and slow charging times, sure. But despite the expensive batteries, it's getting damn close to the gsaoline cars.
If the parent is watching all the time, the kid won't ever steal a cookie. I'm not sure that's a desirable world to live in though.
What I meant is that there is a massive incentive for an insurance company to monitor the driving style, the roads they choose, the time they drive, and all of that 24/7. It is the logical next step.
I have nothing to hide from my government, but I just do not trust commercial enterprises enough to trust them with my data. Not even if it might make the roads safer.
If you want the kids to drive safely, then put a speed-limiter on cars (you're not allowed to exceed the speed limit anyway), like the lorries already have for a long time.