You win the contest, they recruit you, then you spend the rest of your life drinking vodka martinis, getting shot at, and having gorgeous women fall at your feet. (Time to start code breaking!)
No, if you want to be a British spy, you should go here.
If this stuff happened in the past without modern intervention, scientists must be doubly certain that any climate change is down to industrial abuse.
It does not matter who is to blame. What matters is that we prevent it from happening again. If industrial pollution is contributing to climate change, we still need to curtail the damage that we are inflicting on the environment -- even if there are other natural mechanisms operating in parallel.
So the scientists would have to show that any Kyoto-agreement like cut would be beneficial overall, not just putting your finger in a dyke.
Kyoto is not even putting half a finger in a dyke. It is a very weak protocol that does not go anywhere near far enough to prevent the avoidable damage that we are causing. However, it is still better than doing nothing at all. To use your metaphor: putting your finger in the dyke might buy enough time to find a solution to the flooding, or at least give us a chance to fix the holes in the dyke.
When will people get over their petty fears of nuclear ENERGY (not warheads!) and stop talking about wind power and all that other nonsense.
Not until either a solution is found for dealing with the radioactive waste that results from nuclear fission (i.e. never)
or
when we have perfected the use of controllable fusion (which is *always* 40 years away).
It depends how you build them. There are plenty of attractive windmills in Europe (particularly in Holland). If the wind farmers decide to get creative, they could surely create aesthetically pleasing turbines.
I'd almost rather have nuclear power plant IMBY than a wind farm.
Would you almost rather have the radioactive waste repository in your back yard as well?
I've lost count of how many greenies I've driven insane by telling them that letting people use all the oil they can get their hands on is a good thing, in that it will drive people to use alternatives sooner due to supply/demand curves.
That might be a good theory if the aim was to start using renewable energy as quickly as possible. However, that is not the main objective. Environmentalists want to transfer to green energy before we pump too much more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Using all of the oil reserves over many millenia may be sustainable. Releasing all of that carbon in one quick burst most certainly is not. Dynamic systems usually respond better to gradual sustained inputs than to large magnitude step changes. The climate is no exception.
In a capitalist economy such as america, money is the incentive, not goodwill.
That may be true for some of the population, but certainly not all. Many of the Americans that I most admire are more than capable of making a fortune with their talents but instead choose to do something worthwhile. Most of the professors at Ivy League universities could earn far more in industry. Or consider the likes of RMS or Ralph Nader. The media may focus on the rich and famous, but the US has a very high share of selfless visionary leaders. It is these people that the rest of the world look to for inspiration, not the multi-billionaires.
Yes. Scrap the patent system entirely. A couple of centuries ago, the way to produce a gold or purple coloured ink was a valuable secret. People could be wealthy by keeping such a secret. The patent system was a useful method of getting them to reveal their secrets. Nowadays, we have gas chromatographs, scanning electron microscopes and lots of clever hackers. Reverse engineering is possible in a way that was not feasible in Newton's time. We no longer need to grant patents to learn secrets. It is time that we abandoned this farce.
Actually, I'm perfectly content screwing other states, and they're perfectly content screwing us back... why would foreign nations be any different?
Actually, that probably is the biggest difference between the US and the rest of the world. People in Britain really have no desire to do anything to screw other countries (except the French:o) ). For some reason, the US takes a much more insular view than most nations. This probably explains why it is the one major industrialised nation not to sign up to the Kyoto protocol.
My experience is that Google search seems to be turning up more noise now than before. Two years ago I could with certainty do a search and get the page I wanted. Now it seems I must scroll through pages of commercial sites and the such to get to the meaty part of the Internet...those little novelty sites that people put up themselves.
The very last paragraph of the zdnet article might make you slightly happier then:
One big area of complaints for Google is connected to the growing prominence of commercial search results -- in particular price comparison engines and e-commerce sites. Hölzle is quick to defend Google's performance "on every metric", but admits there is a problem with the Web getting, as he puts it, "more commercial". Even three years ago, he said, the Web had much more of a grass roots feeling to it. "We have thought of having a button saying 'give me less commercial results'," but the company has shied away from implementing this yet.
Note the "yet"!
Re:Welcome to capitalism
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Ever heard "those who can't, teach"? It's true. Academia is good for theoretical work, but not for actually getting something done.
That rather silly cliche is way off the mark -- universities generally contain the very brightest people within the population. If academia isn't producing the specific targetted research that society requires, that is because society isn't funding it to do so. If the billions that were spent on buying cheap-to-produce drugs were spent on university research, it would be possible to fund both basic and applied research properly.
Re:Mixed feeling
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The only victims of HIV are those who got an infected blood transfusion by "mistake".
So you don't class babies born to HIV+ mothers as innocent?
Re:Welcome to capitalism
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, it's a trade-off: we want private companies to invest billions of dollars to develop medicines we need.
The dependence on the private sector is the real problem here. Of course, pharmaceutical companies spend a lot of money on R&D and expect to make it back with the lucrative successes. However, this is not necessarily the best solution for society as a whole. Particularly in countries with a national health service funded by general taxation, paying lots of money to drugs companies is not an efficient use of resources. Directing the same money to universities to perform the research would ensure development of the same life-saving drugs while also ensuring that the drugs can be made available to all who need them.
Does anyone know if theyre allowed to "spy" on foreign citizen? If i chat on an european server with fellow europeans i cant see any way that they should be allowed to "spy" on me?
I was under the impression that the CIA were *only* allowed to spy on foreigners and that the FBI had jurisdiction over the US. Nevertheless, I have absolutely no doubt whatsover that the CIA couldn't give a damn about the rights of foreigners. The US administration is only concerned with protecting US interests. The CIA take that to the next level. Be honest, would you expect MI5/FSB/Mossad/etc. to ask for permission before spying on someone?
Re:Still for sale though
on
The VHS is Dead
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You obviously don't care about video quality, nor do you care about the audio portion of it. Bush dvd player? you get what you pay for.
Alternatively, perhaps I decided not to buy a DVD player (because of the aforementioned problems) but received one as a gift.
considering the amount of piracy, the copyright notices are there for a reason.
I don't care why they are there. I find them intensely annoying and have no desire to watch an industry's enforced propaganda.
you're in THAT much of a hurry that you can't look at that for, what, 5 seconds? i bet you nuke your poptarts because "you don't have time to cook."
No, I don't generally eat poptarts -- they are junk food.
Re:Buy a VCR... Now! -- Boot sales
on
The VHS is Dead
·
· Score: 1
I don't recall ever seeing one in Tennessee, though yard sales/garage (carhole) sales are common around here. Is it a UK peculiarity, or maybe just more common in areas more densely populated than TN suburbs?
Most towns in the UK advertise weekly car boot sales. I have never actually seen one, however, because they are always on a Sunday morning. Whatever that is.
Re:Still for sale though
on
The VHS is Dead
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It amazes me though that all the big retailers are still selling and having sales on VCRs.. I mean.. who still has a VCR? Even if you do have one.. why would you bother buying a new one?
I prefer videos to DVD. When I rent a DVD from Blockbuster, I often find that the film just stops when it gets to a damaged part. With rented VHS, the quality may not be quite as good as the best parts of DVD, but it keeps running.
I am also not at all amused at the inability of my (Bush) DVD player to skip certain content on the disk. For some reason, it won't let me bypass those ridiculous copyright notices. I have never had that problem with a VCR.
Come on, I really want to know whether this allows someone to take over my machine. Besides, as an M$ hater, I want to be able to tell people 'hey, the linux kernel exploit *doesn't* allow root'. Unless, of course, it does. Does it?
While any of these vulnerabilities can be easily used as remote
denial of service exploits against Linux systems, it is unclear if
it is possible for a skilled local or remote attacker to use any of
the possible bufferoverflows for arbitrary code execution in kernel
space.
SecurityFocus have this down as a "Design Error". Is that in the design of the implementation, or the design of the protocol? Can we start blaming Microsoft for bugs in Linux now?
That's strange. In most enlightened cultures, the legal right to control which contracts parties may enter into by mutual agreement is reserved to legally recognised government, not to the whims of a random organisation with no more legal significance than Joe down the street.
Entering a contract and distributing a license are not the same thing.
You can buy off-the-shelf legal documents (e.g. tenancy agreements) from stationers in the UK. You are free to use them to enter into contracts with whomever you choose. However, they explicitly state that they are protected by copyright and that you may not distribute the document to the general public - that is how the legal firms which write them make their money.
The GPL is distributed with the software; it is not a contract. Although MegaCorpXXX could enter into a contract with you on the basis of their latest evil version, they are not able to bundle it with software as a generic license. To do that, they would have to write their own without deriving it from the GPL, in which case they could not argue that their new license satisfies the "later version" provision of the GPL.
Of course, all this is entirely moot, because the text of the GPL actually states:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
In fact, it amazes me that (AFAIK) none of the megacorps has yet tried to assimilate AnyGPL'd code on the basis that the licence under which it was distributed was GPL version 19,754, as defined by MegaCorp, Inc., and they therefore have full rights (and no-one else has any).
I think you are missing the fact that the GPL itself is covered by copyright. You cannot distribute a work (i.e. license) derived from the GPL without the permission of the copyright holder (the FSF).
The issue is about packages availaible on distro X, but not on distro Y and you are unfortunately using Y. Or your version of X is too old.
Well, package "X" being too old will always be a problem if new features have been added to "X" but some distributions have not yet upgraded to the new version. However, there are very, very good reasons why the very latest version of any given package is not suitable for everyone. Debian stable is renowned for being a bit behind the cutting edge. It is also renowned for being rock solid. This stability requires that new versions go through extensive testing before being incorporated into the main distribution. Meanwhile, distributions such as Red Hat offer cutting edge packages which contain all the latest features. Unfortunately, this also means that many packages also contain the latest bugs. Which distribution is right in any given situation depends on what the user wants to do with the system. This is a strength of the multiple distribution system, not a weakness. The user is free to choose whatever update policy is appropriate for them.
All that has been said is very nice, but there haven't been any good reasons why packages can't be compatible across all distros (or mainstream ones, at least).
Perhaps binary compatibility between formats would be nice, but there really isn't any compelling reason to strive for it. There is already compatibility in the form of "./configure && make && make install".
It can't be both ways: installation on Linux can't be as easy as "apt-get install package" and still require users to compile from source, track dependencies and diagnose compilation problems, even sometimes
If you never want to compile anything, just choose a distribution like Red Hat or Debian Unstable which offers the latest packages. If you don't mind waiting for new features, use something like Debian stable. It is all a matter of choice for the user. Things can be as easy or as hard as they wish.
Even if AdBlock were responsible for preventing a user from getting a virus this time, that's hardly enough to make up for the theft of services and fraud that people who use it commit every day.
Utter drivel. I suppose you think that it is "theft" to change the channel on the TV when adverts come on, as well. Is it also "theft" to turn the page of a magazine without looking at the adverts on it? As far as I am concerned, advertising is a form of pollution. It reduces the visual beauty of the environment and I don't want to see it.
So then I'm at the mercy of the distro people? I have to wait for them to support the app (if they ever do); I have to wait for them for new versions, long after the creator has released it. I thought free software was supposed to be decentralized.
The only reason to use a distribution is to let other people do some of the work for you. If you want to do it all yourself and not wait for someone else to do the work, then just roll your own GNU/Linux system.
On my (Debian) machines, I let the very good folk at Debian take care of making sure that the overall system just works. There are just a few key applications that I need the very latest version of. I can compile and install these myself without waiting for anyone other than the application developer.
Slashdot Mirror
No, if you want to be a British spy, you should go here.
It does not matter who is to blame. What matters is that we prevent it from happening again. If industrial pollution is contributing to climate change, we still need to curtail the damage that we are inflicting on the environment -- even if there are other natural mechanisms operating in parallel.
So the scientists would have to show that any Kyoto-agreement like cut would be beneficial overall, not just putting your finger in a dyke.
Kyoto is not even putting half a finger in a dyke. It is a very weak protocol that does not go anywhere near far enough to prevent the avoidable damage that we are causing. However, it is still better than doing nothing at all. To use your metaphor: putting your finger in the dyke might buy enough time to find a solution to the flooding, or at least give us a chance to fix the holes in the dyke.
Not until either a solution is found for dealing with the radioactive waste that results from nuclear fission (i.e. never) or when we have perfected the use of controllable fusion (which is *always* 40 years away).
It depends how you build them. There are plenty of attractive windmills in Europe (particularly in Holland). If the wind farmers decide to get creative, they could surely create aesthetically pleasing turbines.
I'd almost rather have nuclear power plant IMBY than a wind farm.
Would you almost rather have the radioactive waste repository in your back yard as well?
That might be a good theory if the aim was to start using renewable energy as quickly as possible. However, that is not the main objective. Environmentalists want to transfer to green energy before we pump too much more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Using all of the oil reserves over many millenia may be sustainable. Releasing all of that carbon in one quick burst most certainly is not. Dynamic systems usually respond better to gradual sustained inputs than to large magnitude step changes. The climate is no exception.
I returned to academia from industry (engineering) precisely so that I could think more!
That may be true for some of the population, but certainly not all. Many of the Americans that I most admire are more than capable of making a fortune with their talents but instead choose to do something worthwhile. Most of the professors at Ivy League universities could earn far more in industry. Or consider the likes of RMS or Ralph Nader. The media may focus on the rich and famous, but the US has a very high share of selfless visionary leaders. It is these people that the rest of the world look to for inspiration, not the multi-billionaires.
As an academic, I publish my neat ideas in the hope that someone will be able to make use of them.
Yes. Scrap the patent system entirely. A couple of centuries ago, the way to produce a gold or purple coloured ink was a valuable secret. People could be wealthy by keeping such a secret. The patent system was a useful method of getting them to reveal their secrets. Nowadays, we have gas chromatographs, scanning electron microscopes and lots of clever hackers. Reverse engineering is possible in a way that was not feasible in Newton's time. We no longer need to grant patents to learn secrets. It is time that we abandoned this farce.
Actually, that probably is the biggest difference between the US and the rest of the world. People in Britain really have no desire to do anything to screw other countries (except the French :o) ). For some reason, the US takes a much more insular view than most nations. This probably explains why it is the one major industrialised nation not to sign up to the Kyoto protocol.
The very last paragraph of the zdnet article might make you slightly happier then:
Note the "yet"!That rather silly cliche is way off the mark -- universities generally contain the very brightest people within the population. If academia isn't producing the specific targetted research that society requires, that is because society isn't funding it to do so. If the billions that were spent on buying cheap-to-produce drugs were spent on university research, it would be possible to fund both basic and applied research properly.
So you don't class babies born to HIV+ mothers as innocent?
The dependence on the private sector is the real problem here. Of course, pharmaceutical companies spend a lot of money on R&D and expect to make it back with the lucrative successes. However, this is not necessarily the best solution for society as a whole. Particularly in countries with a national health service funded by general taxation, paying lots of money to drugs companies is not an efficient use of resources. Directing the same money to universities to perform the research would ensure development of the same life-saving drugs while also ensuring that the drugs can be made available to all who need them.
I was under the impression that the CIA were *only* allowed to spy on foreigners and that the FBI had jurisdiction over the US. Nevertheless, I have absolutely no doubt whatsover that the CIA couldn't give a damn about the rights of foreigners. The US administration is only concerned with protecting US interests. The CIA take that to the next level. Be honest, would you expect MI5/FSB/Mossad/etc. to ask for permission before spying on someone?
Alternatively, perhaps I decided not to buy a DVD player (because of the aforementioned problems) but received one as a gift.
considering the amount of piracy, the copyright notices are there for a reason.
I don't care why they are there. I find them intensely annoying and have no desire to watch an industry's enforced propaganda.
you're in THAT much of a hurry that you can't look at that for, what, 5 seconds? i bet you nuke your poptarts because "you don't have time to cook."
No, I don't generally eat poptarts -- they are junk food.
Most towns in the UK advertise weekly car boot sales. I have never actually seen one, however, because they are always on a Sunday morning. Whatever that is.
I prefer videos to DVD. When I rent a DVD from Blockbuster, I often find that the film just stops when it gets to a damaged part. With rented VHS, the quality may not be quite as good as the best parts of DVD, but it keeps running. I am also not at all amused at the inability of my (Bush) DVD player to skip certain content on the disk. For some reason, it won't let me bypass those ridiculous copyright notices. I have never had that problem with a VCR.
Probably not. Quote:
SecurityFocus have this down as a "Design Error". Is that in the design of the implementation, or the design of the protocol? Can we start blaming Microsoft for bugs in Linux now?
Entering a contract and distributing a license are not the same thing. You can buy off-the-shelf legal documents (e.g. tenancy agreements) from stationers in the UK. You are free to use them to enter into contracts with whomever you choose. However, they explicitly state that they are protected by copyright and that you may not distribute the document to the general public - that is how the legal firms which write them make their money.
The GPL is distributed with the software; it is not a contract. Although MegaCorpXXX could enter into a contract with you on the basis of their latest evil version, they are not able to bundle it with software as a generic license. To do that, they would have to write their own without deriving it from the GPL, in which case they could not argue that their new license satisfies the "later version" provision of the GPL.
Of course, all this is entirely moot, because the text of the GPL actually states:
I think you are missing the fact that the GPL itself is covered by copyright. You cannot distribute a work (i.e. license) derived from the GPL without the permission of the copyright holder (the FSF).
Well, package "X" being too old will always be a problem if new features have been added to "X" but some distributions have not yet upgraded to the new version. However, there are very, very good reasons why the very latest version of any given package is not suitable for everyone. Debian stable is renowned for being a bit behind the cutting edge. It is also renowned for being rock solid. This stability requires that new versions go through extensive testing before being incorporated into the main distribution. Meanwhile, distributions such as Red Hat offer cutting edge packages which contain all the latest features. Unfortunately, this also means that many packages also contain the latest bugs. Which distribution is right in any given situation depends on what the user wants to do with the system. This is a strength of the multiple distribution system, not a weakness. The user is free to choose whatever update policy is appropriate for them.
All that has been said is very nice, but there haven't been any good reasons why packages can't be compatible across all distros (or mainstream ones, at least).
Perhaps binary compatibility between formats would be nice, but there really isn't any compelling reason to strive for it. There is already compatibility in the form of "./configure && make && make install".
It can't be both ways: installation on Linux can't be as easy as "apt-get install package" and still require users to compile from source, track dependencies and diagnose compilation problems, even sometimes
If you never want to compile anything, just choose a distribution like Red Hat or Debian Unstable which offers the latest packages. If you don't mind waiting for new features, use something like Debian stable. It is all a matter of choice for the user. Things can be as easy or as hard as they wish.
Are you saying that it is wrong to house the homeless?!
Utter drivel. I suppose you think that it is "theft" to change the channel on the TV when adverts come on, as well. Is it also "theft" to turn the page of a magazine without looking at the adverts on it? As far as I am concerned, advertising is a form of pollution. It reduces the visual beauty of the environment and I don't want to see it.
The only reason to use a distribution is to let other people do some of the work for you. If you want to do it all yourself and not wait for someone else to do the work, then just roll your own GNU/Linux system.
On my (Debian) machines, I let the very good folk at Debian take care of making sure that the overall system just works. There are just a few key applications that I need the very latest version of. I can compile and install these myself without waiting for anyone other than the application developer.