I direct you to FairTax.org where the dream lives on,
Yes, I suppose the extremely wealthy have dreams of pushing even more of the tax burden upon the poorest and middle classes, so I _guess_ calling it a "dream" is a fair characterization.
Kerberos provides strong authentication and encryption of network authentication, but nothing for the data communications part of a session.
You are a ignorant fool...
The kerberised services exist in encrypted and non-encrypted versions. The encrypted services have an "e" prepended to the name and the programs take `-x' as an option indicating encryption. http://www.pdc.kth.se/kth-krb/doc/kth-krb_4.html#S EC32
30 seconds on Google and you could have avoided making a complete idiot of yourself on/.
They are probably the only company with the cash and skills to "fix" everything that is wrong with Linux on the desktop. But they don't do it.
What YOU are interested in Linux for, and what IBM is interested in Linux for, are vastly different things.
IBM couldn't care less about how easy Linux is to setup for your grandmother. They like Linux as a solution to be deployed on company computers, low maintenance costs, easy administration (by paid professionals).
Whether your $5 sound card works under Linux doesn't matter one bit to IBM, or to any company that has more than a handful of machines.
As far as IBM's purposes are concerned, Linux has long been ready for use everywhere they care about. You can run Linux on all your IBM servers and workstations without problems.
The daemon could, of course, be a little bit smarter and not try to do a reverse DNS, when there are no hostname-based authorization rules in the first place...
No no no! I don't want SSHD to be any smarter than it already is. The more smarts, the more potential security issues.
If you want smarts, reverse DNS lookup can be disabled with a single config option. Of course for that you need smarter users, not software...
Just because the login is "safe" doesn't mean that using an unencrypted protocol is ever a good idea.
You're right... No more secure websites for you, since HTTPS is just HTTP over an SSL data stream.
You could just as easily use Kerberos to encrypt HTTP traffic as SSL, and that is indeed exactly what Kerberos does for just about any communications protocol...
If new powerplants started generally doing this, it'd lead to an 80% reduction in CO2 emitted from them, compared to not doing anything.
Yes, well the onus is on you to demonstrate that the 80% reduction from this source alone, will save billions of dollars in damage that would otherwise be caused by global warming, that this will cost to institute.
Saying that it's better than nothing is completely avoiding the real issue... Is that SOMETHING worth the cost? By all means, prove it is.
I'm not sure what you mean by "scaling up", the powerplants *are* full-scale comercial powerplants.
I mean full-scale use of this option... If everyone starts doing this, you're going to have problems in excess of the normal 20% cost. How long until the more ideal spots are full? How long until you exceed the capacity of the wells? You certainly can't pump the coal exhaust back into coal mines...
even ignoring the fact that *should* the wells end up leaking CO2 back to the atmosphere, they'd do it slowly, it's not like a Balloon, we're talking gargantuan volumes of *rock* here.
It doesn't matter how much material there is, or what it's made up. Things like earthquakes an volcanoes open up underground gas deposits regularly.
Why ? It's just an example of something that saves a lot of energy with modest cost.
Exactly. It has NOTHING to do with CO2 at all (except incidentally). Whether CO2 is a major cause of global warming or not has little bearing on whether people should try to be more energy efficient... I certainly never said that we SHOULDN'T do so.
You're putting up a straw-man. Nobody is suggesting "stopping all activities that emit Co2",
Yes, that is exactly the scenario the parent suggested.
Evilviper: "IF Co2 is only responsible for 10% of global warming" $uperJay: "If global warming was reduced by 10%,"
In order to get 10% out of 10%, that means a 100% reduction in CO2. You understand (or you may not, seeing your political inclination) this just a hypothetical, of course. Even in less extreme examples, you have exactly the same problems.
(or may not, seeing your political inclination)
I suggest you keep your speculation to yourself, as you have no idea what my political inclinations are...
I could just as easily speculate that you are very simple minded, and just swallow whatever political tripe you are offered by Green Peace, and in your world there exists no possibility of rational debate of an issue, and any dissent must be silenced, or written off as idiocy.
the budgets for pumping CO2 from gas-powered powerplants back into the wells where the gas originally came from rather than releasing it to the atmosphere are that it'll make the powerplant ~20% more expensive, and will make them emit 95% less CO2.
20% is quite a big expense, doesn't scale up, and all for a very small change in the level of atmospheric CO2. It's also potentially quite dangerous to sequester CO2. Should it ever leak, it could suffocate anyone in the vicinity. Potentially a huge number of people killed, even dozens of miles away (if they're downhill from the leak).
And, if you aren't very careful about it, you end up with a 20% tax on power plants, while other (quite numerous) CO2 emitters that aren't forced to cut back, effectively get a 20% subsidy, and you encourage investment in other CO2 emitters that are harder to contain.
Another example -- building a house that needs 1/3rd the energy for heating and AC compared to a standard house costs on the order of 10% more
You're assuming you know how much MORE global warming is going to cost (world wide) than the status quo.
Don't.
Indeed, it would have to be a RIDICULOUSLY high amount of monetary damage, for just 1/10th of it to be worth the incredibly high price of stopping all activities that emit Co2.
If we now discover that cosmic rays are warming the planet, that doesn't exclude the effect of carbon as an insulator from the equation.
No, but HOW MUCH of an effect is up for unlimited debate.
What do we do about it?
1. Reduce carbon emissions.
Doing this is going to require a serious economic hit to pretty much every country around the world. IF Co2 is only responsible for 10% of global warming, then it's probably not worth the economic hit it will take to reduce our emissions of it.
People that say "do it anyways" must subscribe to the "broken window" theory of economics, which has been disproven time and time again.
I'm all for it, as long as I'm the one who owns the dish.
What? Why is that now a requirement? Just because you personally don't like an idea, doesn't preclude it from consideration.
In fact, that might be a way to increase what advertisers pay.
I wouldn't think so. It's just as likely no humans are watching the program to begin with.
At ten minutes of ads per hour and 2 Mbps of the stream dedicated to the zipfile
2Mbps is probably 2/3rds of the entire channel bitrate, leaving very crappy looking commercials (they typically need a higher bitrate than regular programming, not the other way around).
One of the interesting things about Open Source is the completely unlimited distribution rights.
Besides putting it on the net, and distributing CDs, and USB driver, there's also the possibility of broadcasting it... A few minutes on a TV channel, either terrestrial or direct broadcast satellite, and you can transfer an entire CD. Just mux in some open source software into your DVB broadcast, perhaps only during times when the video can do with a lower bitrate, and some quite inexpensive equipment, that takes just one-time investment, can pick it up.
Also, in most of the underdeveloped parts of the world, I have to wonder if 802.11 isn't the perfect answer to all of this... Even if only a few people in all of the country can afford to download something, it may be able to be pushed to everyone else with 802.11 cards, through P2P apps such as Gnutella, (bittorrent is woefully inadequate here... and on unreliable networks in general).
And for the first open source program to be widely distributed through Asia with one of these methods... I nominate ClamWin.
I imagine this has happened many times before. It can just be hard to narrow down the cause to a single source.
5 years ago, 6 out of 100 of our new 17" Dell monitors went up in flames, over the first 3 months. This was fortunately an office building with very high ceilings, so there was little risk. I've long imagined just how bad that could have been in a private home, with a low ceiling, and wall nearby. That experience alone stopped me from ever buying anything from Dell.
All the articles on Notebook fires are very old news. Dell's been having fire problem with their entire product range for about the past 10 years. Passing it off as Sony's fault ignores Dell's long history of similar ocurances with all of their machines.
Since it happened to me, I've been wonder when I'd hear about a class action against Dell, but it's never been forthcoming. I guess residential building fires can cover up the evidence pretty well. Sooner or later, it's going to have to come out.
500,000 years+ worth of stored energy in oil has been used in 200 years, and will be gone in another 200. Bummer. We found it, and used it. We have 6 billion people now (and growing fast) who want energy -- lots and lots of it.
Oil is a convenient PORTABLE energy source.
Only PORTABLE applications will really be adversely affected when we run out of oil. Coal, hydro electric, nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, etc. will continue to function just fine.
Energy isn't the problem. Inexpensive portable energy is.
We need to perfect nuclear power engineering,
You want everyone to have a nuclear power plant in their cars?
[...] leave the worldwide transport infrastructure needed to take the seeds and "feed a hungry planet" but happened to kill all seed stores and food sources...
Why would you need a "worldwide transport infrastructure"? A single ship (from the 1700s) could make the trip, load up a significant portion of the seeds, and drop off a load on each continent if you like.
That's merely assuming the location of the vault is not completely forgotten.
Wrong: The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Nothing about patents. Such a payment clause is just not allowed in the license.
Scroll down to "export restrictions" to see another similar case.
obviously if there's a mandatory patent license fee, I can't freely redistribute the software.
Do you even bother to READ what I write?
the act of paying for the patent license makes it no worse, nor better.
Ubuntu is zero cost, which allows Ubuntu CDs to be freely copied and redistributed.
The Linspire deal may allow Ubuntu to use WMV/WMA codecs for zero cost, but it certainly doesn't extend to third parties who want to modify and/or otherwise redistribute Ubuntu.
So, as I keep saying (and you keep ignoring):
"So, it's really just a question of money... and a very small amount of money at that." "The only benefit they get is not having to pay the few cents per copy for the codec patent licenses."
And in exchange for not having to pay a few cents per copy... they're forced to use closed-source, binary-only codecs. That can't POSSIBLY be BETTER, for a FSF/OSS project.
Since almost everything must deal with dissipating heat, why can't someone invent something that collect the heat and re-use it to generate even more power?
A few reasons (off the top of my head)...
You need very high temperature differences to get any reasonable amount of usable energy. This precludes most heat sources, because the difference is small.
If you try to get something to put out higher temperature waste, you adversely affect the operation of that device. Whether it's computers or air conditioners, you don't want them to get hotter or else you'll waste energy cooling them than you'll get out of your generator.
Equipment to harness that heat isn't cheap at all. With small amounts of energy to be had, it will take forever to pay off the initial investment cost of the equipment; never mind maintenance.
No option that involves paying patent license fees is compatible with Free Software, or even with the Open Source definition.
That's moronic.
USING patented software may not be compatible with the FSF, but the act of paying for the patent license makes it no worse, nor better.
You certainly don't speak for Open Source. There are a vast number of open source projects out there that are quite happy to coexist with patents.
As temporary compromises go, the deal with Linspire should work fine.
Using closed-source, patented software is WORSE for everyone, not better. The only benefit they get is not having to pay the few cents per copy for the codec patent licenses.
So how would getting those patent licenses work for Canonical then? It's not like they're selling copies of Ubuntu.
That seems pretty obvious...
The Open Source(y) option would be to take donations, and use that to pay for the licenses.
Another option would be to offer a licensed version up for sale, eg. on their website, much like CnR. Unlike Linspire, they could license the standard, open source codecs, instead of proprietary ones, which probably perform much more poorly as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I suppose the extremely wealthy have dreams of pushing even more of the tax burden upon the poorest and middle classes, so I _guess_ calling it a "dream" is a fair characterization.
Now THAT'S what I come to
Bring it on.
You are a ignorant fool...
The kerberised services exist in encrypted and non-encrypted versions. The encrypted services have an "e" prepended to the name and the programs take `-x' as an option indicating encryption.
http://www.pdc.kth.se/kth-krb/doc/kth-krb_4.html#
30 seconds on Google and you could have avoided making a complete idiot of yourself on
What YOU are interested in Linux for, and what IBM is interested in Linux for, are vastly different things.
IBM couldn't care less about how easy Linux is to setup for your grandmother. They like Linux as a solution to be deployed on company computers, low maintenance costs, easy administration (by paid professionals).
Whether your $5 sound card works under Linux doesn't matter one bit to IBM, or to any company that has more than a handful of machines.
As far as IBM's purposes are concerned, Linux has long been ready for use everywhere they care about. You can run Linux on all your IBM servers and workstations without problems.
No no no! I don't want SSHD to be any smarter than it already is. The more smarts, the more potential security issues.
If you want smarts, reverse DNS lookup can be disabled with a single config option. Of course for that you need smarter users, not software...
You're right... No more secure websites for you, since HTTPS is just HTTP over an SSL data stream.
You could just as easily use Kerberos to encrypt HTTP traffic as SSL, and that is indeed exactly what Kerberos does for just about any communications protocol...
Kerberos telnet is as encrypted as it gets.
Yes, well the onus is on you to demonstrate that the 80% reduction from this source alone, will save billions of dollars in damage that would otherwise be caused by global warming, that this will cost to institute.
Saying that it's better than nothing is completely avoiding the real issue... Is that SOMETHING worth the cost? By all means, prove it is.
I mean full-scale use of this option... If everyone starts doing this, you're going to have problems in excess of the normal 20% cost. How long until the more ideal spots are full? How long until you exceed the capacity of the wells? You certainly can't pump the coal exhaust back into coal mines...
It doesn't matter how much material there is, or what it's made up. Things like earthquakes an volcanoes open up underground gas deposits regularly.
Exactly. It has NOTHING to do with CO2 at all (except incidentally). Whether CO2 is a major cause of global warming or not has little bearing on whether people should try to be more energy efficient... I certainly never said that we SHOULDN'T do so.
Yes, that is exactly the scenario the parent suggested.
Evilviper: "IF Co2 is only responsible for 10% of global warming"
$uperJay: "If global warming was reduced by 10%,"
In order to get 10% out of 10%, that means a 100% reduction in CO2. You understand (or you may not, seeing your political inclination) this just a hypothetical, of course. Even in less extreme examples, you have exactly the same problems.
I suggest you keep your speculation to yourself, as you have no idea what my political inclinations are...
I could just as easily speculate that you are very simple minded, and just swallow whatever political tripe you are offered by Green Peace, and in your world there exists no possibility of rational debate of an issue, and any dissent must be silenced, or written off as idiocy.
20% is quite a big expense, doesn't scale up, and all for a very small change in the level of atmospheric CO2. It's also potentially quite dangerous to sequester CO2. Should it ever leak, it could suffocate anyone in the vicinity. Potentially a huge number of people killed, even dozens of miles away (if they're downhill from the leak).
And, if you aren't very careful about it, you end up with a 20% tax on power plants, while other (quite numerous) CO2 emitters that aren't forced to cut back, effectively get a 20% subsidy, and you encourage investment in other CO2 emitters that are harder to contain.
Now THAT'S a REAL straw man!
Congratulations.
Why?
If it is so important, it would be possible to keep cattle enclosed, and containing the vast majority of methane releases.
In fact, it would partially pay for itself, as the methane would be sold as fuel.
You're assuming you know how much MORE global warming is going to cost (world wide) than the status quo.
Don't.
Indeed, it would have to be a RIDICULOUSLY high amount of monetary damage, for just 1/10th of it to be worth the incredibly high price of stopping all activities that emit Co2.
Umm... What?
No, but HOW MUCH of an effect is up for unlimited debate.
Doing this is going to require a serious economic hit to pretty much every country around the world. IF Co2 is only responsible for 10% of global warming, then it's probably not worth the economic hit it will take to reduce our emissions of it.
People that say "do it anyways" must subscribe to the "broken window" theory of economics, which has been disproven time and time again.
What? Why is that now a requirement? Just because you personally don't like an idea, doesn't preclude it from consideration.
Yes, but not in the 3rd world... Don't expect them to have HD anything to begin with.
You're thinking of trademarks.
Patents have no such limitations.
I wouldn't think so. It's just as likely no humans are watching the program to begin with.
2Mbps is probably 2/3rds of the entire channel bitrate, leaving very crappy looking commercials (they typically need a higher bitrate than regular programming, not the other way around).
One of the interesting things about Open Source is the completely unlimited distribution rights.
Besides putting it on the net, and distributing CDs, and USB driver, there's also the possibility of broadcasting it... A few minutes on a TV channel, either terrestrial or direct broadcast satellite, and you can transfer an entire CD. Just mux in some open source software into your DVB broadcast, perhaps only during times when the video can do with a lower bitrate, and some quite inexpensive equipment, that takes just one-time investment, can pick it up.
Also, in most of the underdeveloped parts of the world, I have to wonder if 802.11 isn't the perfect answer to all of this... Even if only a few people in all of the country can afford to download something, it may be able to be pushed to everyone else with 802.11 cards, through P2P apps such as Gnutella, (bittorrent is woefully inadequate here... and on unreliable networks in general).
And for the first open source program to be widely distributed through Asia with one of these methods... I nominate ClamWin.
I imagine this has happened many times before. It can just be hard to narrow down the cause to a single source.
5 years ago, 6 out of 100 of our new 17" Dell monitors went up in flames, over the first 3 months. This was fortunately an office building with very high ceilings, so there was little risk. I've long imagined just how bad that could have been in a private home, with a low ceiling, and wall nearby. That experience alone stopped me from ever buying anything from Dell.
All the articles on Notebook fires are very old news. Dell's been having fire problem with their entire product range for about the past 10 years. Passing it off as Sony's fault ignores Dell's long history of similar ocurances with all of their machines.
Since it happened to me, I've been wonder when I'd hear about a class action against Dell, but it's never been forthcoming. I guess residential building fires can cover up the evidence pretty well. Sooner or later, it's going to have to come out.
Oil is a convenient PORTABLE energy source.
Only PORTABLE applications will really be adversely affected when we run out of oil. Coal, hydro electric, nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, etc. will continue to function just fine.
Energy isn't the problem. Inexpensive portable energy is.
You want everyone to have a nuclear power plant in their cars?
Of course not, this is just a typical straw man.
Each country already has their own seed banks.
Why would you need a "worldwide transport infrastructure"? A single ship (from the 1700s) could make the trip, load up a significant portion of the seeds, and drop off a load on each continent if you like.
That's merely assuming the location of the vault is not completely forgotten.
Oooohhhh... I was wondering why scientists were in such a hurry to change the classification of Pluto to a non-planet last year...
Wrong: The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Nothing about patents. Such a payment clause is just not allowed in the license.
Scroll down to "export restrictions" to see another similar case.
Do you even bother to READ what I write?
the act of paying for the patent license makes it no worse, nor better.
The Linspire deal may allow Ubuntu to use WMV/WMA codecs for zero cost, but it certainly doesn't extend to third parties who want to modify and/or otherwise redistribute Ubuntu.
So, as I keep saying (and you keep ignoring):
"So, it's really just a question of money... and a very small amount of money at that."
"The only benefit they get is not having to pay the few cents per copy for the codec patent licenses."
And in exchange for not having to pay a few cents per copy... they're forced to use closed-source, binary-only codecs. That can't POSSIBLY be BETTER, for a FSF/OSS project.
A few reasons (off the top of my head)...
You need very high temperature differences to get any reasonable amount of usable energy. This precludes most heat sources, because the difference is small.
If you try to get something to put out higher temperature waste, you adversely affect the operation of that device. Whether it's computers or air conditioners, you don't want them to get hotter or else you'll waste energy cooling them than you'll get out of your generator.
Equipment to harness that heat isn't cheap at all. With small amounts of energy to be had, it will take forever to pay off the initial investment cost of the equipment; never mind maintenance.
That's moronic.
USING patented software may not be compatible with the FSF, but the act of paying for the patent license makes it no worse, nor better.
You certainly don't speak for Open Source. There are a vast number of open source projects out there that are quite happy to coexist with patents.
Using closed-source, patented software is WORSE for everyone, not better. The only benefit they get is not having to pay the few cents per copy for the codec patent licenses.
That seems pretty obvious...
The Open Source(y) option would be to take donations, and use that to pay for the licenses.
Another option would be to offer a licensed version up for sale, eg. on their website, much like CnR. Unlike Linspire, they could license the standard, open source codecs, instead of proprietary ones, which probably perform much more poorly as well.