I'm sorry, but buying credits from a company that doesn't produce as much carbon emission as the government says it can is in no way actually helping the environment.
Wrong. It gives people a financial incentive to reduce their carbon emissions if possible.
If you merely tax or fine people, they will reduce their carbon emissions to the point where the cost of further reductions would outweigh the fines/taxes they'll have to pay. If they have the prospect of selling further reductions i.e. making money out of them, there is an incentive to make further investments to cut emissions below statutory levels.
If you and I both manufacture widgets, but I invest to reduce carbon emissions below whatever limit is placed and you don't, under a tax / fining system I'd be bonkers to go below the limit, or even to the limit. If it costs me $20 to avoid a fine of $10 it'd be stupid.
Under a carbon trading system, if I reduce my emissions below the limit, I can sell the credits to you so you can continue to emit the same levels of carbon. So the people who buy your high carbon widgets are subsidising the people who buy my low carbon widgets.
I'd go so far as to say a properly constructed carbon trading system is the only way forward.
By the way, there is a precedent. The US EPA introduced a trading system for sulphur dioxide emissions and apparently it worked like a charm.
Yeah, but haven't you ever had a power outage? It's the same thing.
No it isn't. My laptop will still function several hours after the power goes off.
In fact, in the last year at work I had more power outages than internet outages, exactly one power outage and no internet outages.
I spent about 6 months of last year working at a customer site. Thanks to their rules about connecting to the network, my internet connection was effectively down every day during the working day.
The point is that the offline capability has a place. It's not going to just go away.
Was either DOS or CP/M a good operating system at the time? Heeeeeeell no.
This is bullshit. CP/M was a general purpose operating system written for an eight bit microprocessor with no virtual memory and a maximum address space of 64Kbytes. DOS was written for a 16 bit processor with no virtual memory and a maximum address space of 1Mbyte.
Given the hardware constraints, you were never going to do much better than DOS or CP/M.
Not that either operating system was actually written by Microsoft.
MS BASIC was way better than other BASICs made by other computer companies.
I don't think that's true. At the time when MS BASIC came out, it was the only BASIC available for microcomputers. Microsoft was the first company to put a high level language (sadly it was BASIC) on a microcomputer.
It's what happened since then that gets people annoyed.
The OS X kernel is Open Source. If you sign up to ADC (free as in beer) you can have it and the kernel debug kit for free (as in beer).
Speaking from experience, I wouldn't recommend trying it. Better just to isolate the bug, report it to Apple and let somebody who understands the XNU kernel fix it.
The above is probably true for Linux too. Most people are just not technically competent to code in the kernel of any modern operating system.
In my opinion what Apple is doing is bad for the market and bad for end consumers who want choices. They should explicitly state their product's system requirements and let the consumer decide (like everyone else). Sure, they think they're protecting us from bad situations but where will that mothering stop and at what cost?
The consumers who want choice have still got choice. They can buy an Apple computer, or a Dell, or an HP or whatever. They can buy a computer that runs OS X or one that runs Windows, or Linux no problem. They just have to pay a premium if they want an Apple.
Is anybody whining about Porsche limiting consumer choice just because their cars are quite expensive? No.
One wonders how much of this stuff is self-inflicted in some fashion or another.
It's all self inflicted. Nobody makes you upgrade to the latest bleeding edge of the software. That's not an attempt to excuse companies whose.0 releases are rubbish.
"the vast majority of hardware and peripherals are designed from the ground up to work with Windows, so why would you buy a different operating system?"
Yes, exactly. X11 ran reasonably complicated applications 20 years ago on hardware that we throw out as woefully inadequate (or quaintly archaic) today
But that was in an environment where the average PC had a 640x480 display with 16 or maybe 256 colours. High end workstations had higher resolution but were often monochrome. The X server simply didn't have to do anywhere near as much work as a modern one.
A PDF file produced by the LiveCycle suite is actually an XML document with a thin PDF wrapper. The XML conforms to the XFA standard which is owned by Adobe but is a published standard (http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/xml/xfa_spec_2_4.pdf).
Handwriting is just too physically draining for what you get out of it. Pen and paper are for *short* notes to myself, marking up copy, etc. Everything else is 1s and 0s.
For fuck's sake. What do you think we used to do in olden days before there were laptop computers? I went through college, not only writing my notes in lectures with my bare hands but also copying them out neatly later with my bare hands.
There's this amazing thing with muscles, if you use them they get stronger.
Now that you've published a link to a Wiki running on a Sheevaplug on Slashdot, you are probably aware of its limitations. I hope it didn't burn your house down when it melted.
Fat binaries in MacOS X/NextStep are not the same as bundles. Bundles are merely special directory structures containing several architecture specific binaries. Fat binaries are single flat files containing the executable code for two or more architectures. Fat binaries need support from the OS dynamic linker.
If you look inside an OS X application bundle you will see only one compiled executable file, but that executable will contain PPC and 386 executables and often 64 bit versions of both of those too.
Fat binaries can work without bundles. All of the command line executable programs supplied with OS X are fat binaries.
Let the package system handle these things, they do it well and does not bloat your boat.
No they don't. Package managers are a necessary evil. If I want software for Windows or OS X, I can download an installer or buy it on a CD from the company or person that wrote it. I don't have to hope that the company I bought the operating system has put it in their database.
Package managers are only necessary because of the fragmented nature of the Linux universe.
Yes, but WGS84 is designed so that average continental drift over the planet relative to it is zero. In the WGS84 datum, Greenwich is moving North East, so one day the two meridians will coincide.
Well, technically, one instant the two meridians will coincide.
Spanish would be the obvious first choice since a variation on it is used in large parts of the Americas (including the USA). It also (I am told) gives you a head start in Italian and Portuguese.
What I do is learn a few words of the language of the country I am going to. When I need to communicate with a native, I speak as well as I can in their language in an excruciating accent and the native, realising I am actually making an effort, immediately switches to English.
This is particularly effective with the French who are notorious for being able to speak English but not bothering, because, hey, it's their country, why should they? However, if you begin the communication in French, they appreciate the fact that you tried.
Slashdot Mirror
That's got to be bullshit. ls follows a sort of pattern.
list
remove
copy
move
I've never head anybody refer to it as anything except a contraction of "list" in all my 20 years of Unix experience, until today.
And if I want to find out what the command is to search the documentation for the man page relevant to a particular task is?
Seriously, one of the biggest issues I had when I first started using Unix was remembering how the hell to spell apropos.
I'm sorry, but buying credits from a company that doesn't produce as much carbon emission as the government says it can is in no way actually helping the environment.
Wrong. It gives people a financial incentive to reduce their carbon emissions if possible.
If you merely tax or fine people, they will reduce their carbon emissions to the point where the cost of further reductions would outweigh the fines/taxes they'll have to pay. If they have the prospect of selling further reductions i.e. making money out of them, there is an incentive to make further investments to cut emissions below statutory levels.
If you and I both manufacture widgets, but I invest to reduce carbon emissions below whatever limit is placed and you don't, under a tax / fining system I'd be bonkers to go below the limit, or even to the limit. If it costs me $20 to avoid a fine of $10 it'd be stupid.
Under a carbon trading system, if I reduce my emissions below the limit, I can sell the credits to you so you can continue to emit the same levels of carbon. So the people who buy your high carbon widgets are subsidising the people who buy my low carbon widgets.
I'd go so far as to say a properly constructed carbon trading system is the only way forward.
By the way, there is a precedent. The US EPA introduced a trading system for sulphur dioxide emissions and apparently it worked like a charm.
Yeah, but haven't you ever had a power outage? It's the same thing.
No it isn't. My laptop will still function several hours after the power goes off.
In fact, in the last year at work I had more power outages than internet outages, exactly one power outage and no internet outages.
I spent about 6 months of last year working at a customer site. Thanks to their rules about connecting to the network, my internet connection was effectively down every day during the working day.
The point is that the offline capability has a place. It's not going to just go away.
MS SQL Server originated as a rebadged version of Sybase.
Was either DOS or CP/M a good operating system at the time? Heeeeeeell no.
This is bullshit. CP/M was a general purpose operating system written for an eight bit microprocessor with no virtual memory and a maximum address space of 64Kbytes. DOS was written for a 16 bit processor with no virtual memory and a maximum address space of 1Mbyte.
Given the hardware constraints, you were never going to do much better than DOS or CP/M.
Not that either operating system was actually written by Microsoft.
MS BASIC was way better than other BASICs made by other computer companies.
I don't think that's true. At the time when MS BASIC came out, it was the only BASIC available for microcomputers. Microsoft was the first company to put a high level language (sadly it was BASIC) on a microcomputer.
It's what happened since then that gets people annoyed.
My nephew WROTE Ubuntu during the nine months between conception and birth. "There was nothing else to do" he said later.
Of course, the fact that it was written by a foetus does show in the product.
problematicalisticious
The OS X kernel is Open Source. If you sign up to ADC (free as in beer) you can have it and the kernel debug kit for free (as in beer).
Speaking from experience, I wouldn't recommend trying it. Better just to isolate the bug, report it to Apple and let somebody who understands the XNU kernel fix it.
The above is probably true for Linux too. Most people are just not technically competent to code in the kernel of any modern operating system.
In my opinion what Apple is doing is bad for the market and bad for end consumers who want choices. They should explicitly state their product's system requirements and let the consumer decide (like everyone else). Sure, they think they're protecting us from bad situations but where will that mothering stop and at what cost?
The consumers who want choice have still got choice. They can buy an Apple computer, or a Dell, or an HP or whatever. They can buy a computer that runs OS X or one that runs Windows, or Linux no problem. They just have to pay a premium if they want an Apple.
Is anybody whining about Porsche limiting consumer choice just because their cars are quite expensive? No.
One wonders how much of this stuff is self-inflicted in some fashion or another.
It's all self inflicted. Nobody makes you upgrade to the latest bleeding edge of the software. That's not an attempt to excuse companies whose .0 releases are rubbish.
In other news Steve Ballmer said:
"the vast majority of hardware and peripherals are designed from the ground up to work with Windows, so why would you buy a different operating system?"
Yes, exactly. X11 ran reasonably complicated applications 20 years ago on hardware that we throw out as woefully inadequate (or quaintly archaic) today
But that was in an environment where the average PC had a 640x480 display with 16 or maybe 256 colours. High end workstations had higher resolution but were often monochrome. The X server simply didn't have to do anywhere near as much work as a modern one.
A PDF file produced by the LiveCycle suite is actually an XML document with a thin PDF wrapper. The XML conforms to the XFA standard which is owned by Adobe but is a published standard (http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/xml/xfa_spec_2_4.pdf).
Handwriting is just too physically draining for what you get out of it. Pen and paper are for *short* notes to myself, marking up copy, etc. Everything else is 1s and 0s.
For fuck's sake. What do you think we used to do in olden days before there were laptop computers? I went through college, not only writing my notes in lectures with my bare hands but also copying them out neatly later with my bare hands.
There's this amazing thing with muscles, if you use them they get stronger.
Now that you've published a link to a Wiki running on a Sheevaplug on Slashdot, you are probably aware of its limitations. I hope it didn't burn your house down when it melted.
Fat binaries in MacOS X/NextStep are not the same as bundles. Bundles are merely special directory structures containing several architecture specific binaries. Fat binaries are single flat files containing the executable code for two or more architectures. Fat binaries need support from the OS dynamic linker.
If you look inside an OS X application bundle you will see only one compiled executable file, but that executable will contain PPC and 386 executables and often 64 bit versions of both of those too.
Fat binaries can work without bundles. All of the command line executable programs supplied with OS X are fat binaries.
Let the package system handle these things, they do it well and does not bloat your boat.
No they don't. Package managers are a necessary evil. If I want software for Windows or OS X, I can download an installer or buy it on a CD from the company or person that wrote it. I don't have to hope that the company I bought the operating system has put it in their database.
Package managers are only necessary because of the fragmented nature of the Linux universe.
How long does it take to compile Firefox on your computer?
What if you don't have all the right dependencies?
You want "platform independence"? We already had that with source.
No we don't. The Gnu autoconf system is testament to the fact that it is hard to write platform independent source code.
Yes, but WGS84 is designed so that average continental drift over the planet relative to it is zero. In the WGS84 datum, Greenwich is moving North East, so one day the two meridians will coincide.
Well, technically, one instant the two meridians will coincide.
Spanish would be the obvious first choice since a variation on it is used in large parts of the Americas (including the USA). It also (I am told) gives you a head start in Italian and Portuguese.
What I do is learn a few words of the language of the country I am going to. When I need to communicate with a native, I speak as well as I can in their language in an excruciating accent and the native, realising I am actually making an effort, immediately switches to English.
This is particularly effective with the French who are notorious for being able to speak English but not bothering, because, hey, it's their country, why should they? However, if you begin the communication in French, they appreciate the fact that you tried.
That didn't take to long at all!
You need to count the time it takes for you to switch to a terminal session and type the command in.
Of course, many Windows and Apple users get the driver preinstalled or through other means that wouldn't be measured in the download figure.
In short, the download figure is completely useless as a measure of operating system share.