As far as I know, there is no province in Canada where you spend more than about $80 per person per month on public health care... which is less than $1k per year. However, public health care does not cover the costs of medication, which I know can get pretty expensive if you have certain medical issues.
Nothing wrong with rooftop PV... but above a certain latitude (above roughly 45 degrees N or S of the equator or so), it's just not going to be adequate... there isn't enough sunlight energy reaching a substantial portion of the globe to actually meet the energy demands required by all of the people who live in places that simply don't have the same amount of sunlight as people who live near the equator and who may be blessed with well over 300 or so days a year of sunshine.
I was under the impression that "Obamacare" is one of the first things that's going to be axed as soon as the USA gets its next Republican president... which is inevitable at some point in the future, given a two-party system.
Current superconducting technology has rather high cooling requirements, which demands energy consumption.... so the more length of superconducting cable you have, the more energy you end up using to keep it cool enough to be superconductive.
When somebody invents superconductors that work at temperatures that don't require such expensive cooling measures to operate, then maybe... otherwise you're talking science fiction, not reality.
How are you going to distribute that power? Remember that the further you are away from an energy source the more energy you'll lose in transmitting it.
Solar energy looks very attractive to many people, I know... But the reality is that it can't hope to sustain the industrialized world based even on current energy demands, let alone the doubtless larger energy demands of the future.
Nuclear is the only viable way.... Or something else which has not even been discovered yet.
No, they could not... Not unless we reduced our energy requirements. Substantially.
Taking the amount of solar energy that actually reaches the surface of the earth, you'll get maybe 1kw/square meter on a completely cloudless day even at 100% efficiency. On average, taking into consideration typical cloud cover and the fact that the sun is only up for roughly half of the time, the actual amount of power you'd be able to get from solar is somewhere in the vicinity of about 160 watts per square meter, which is not going to be anywhere nearly enough energy to meet current energy demands.
In my view, "l" might be an acceptable variable name in a scope that is only 2 or 3 lines long, and even then, only where it's pretty damn obvious even to a complete newbie who is barely qualified to be maintaining or making any changes to that code what they were thinking when they called it "l" in the first place, such as if it is explicitly being assigned as the length of something such as a string.
In fact, I can't think of any other remotely valid reason to call a variable "l", and to be perfectly honest would generally prefer a slightly more verbose name anyways, such as "len", if it's really meant to be a length.
Nonetheless, I'd let it slide in a code review if the scope was short enough and the purpose of the variable was otherwise completely obvious.
Hmmm... I only did a quick skim of the article before posting, and embarrassingly enough, missed the significance of that admittedly rather important point.
It's like I read the words but for some reason their significance to what was being said about them didn't gel in my brain as important enough to remember.
The GNU code was compiled for and then run on that particular platform. The platform does not become GNU just because one is running GNU tools on it any more than a somebody running a JVM on windows turns their windows box into a Java machine. It's still just a windows machine that is running Java.
Similarly, I used an HPUX that had GNU tools when I was at university. That doesn't make it GNU/HPUX, because it had no affiliation with the GNU project. It might still be GNU code, but the platform it was running on was still just plain old HPUX, because that was what the GNU programs were compiled for and run on. When used in a title, "GNU" implies that it is intended to be, officially or unofficially, considered part of the GNU project. HPUX is not. Linux is not.
Namecalling doesn't make you more right, by the way... I've presented factual basis for asserting that calling Linux GNU/LInux, even with a full suite of GNU tools, is mislabeling, misleading, and just plain wrong. Your continued assertion to the contrary does nothing to alter that. GNU code can be ported to practically every desktop or workstation computer platform currently in existence... but in the end it's still just GNU code running *ON* that particular platform.
That's why Linux is just Linux... because the kernel is still Linux, and all of the other GNU code just happens to run nicely inside of that.
I think, however, we're done. Unless you have new points to raise... but owing to the succinctness of your last comment, I expect that's probably not the case. If you insist on having the final word, however... knock yourself out.
Silicon is the 2nd most abundant element in the earth's crust... Carbon is like #9 or #10. Why would they want to replace something that's commonly available with something substantially less common?
Or is this more of a "because we can" kind of thing... just to be able to say that they did it?
... that since there's always going to be detractors in any programming language, the more popular a language is in actual use, the more prevalent there is liable to be a bias against that particular language. The correlation of course, is not strictly linear, since different percentages of people familiar with a language will be biased against them, Nonetheless, I think a more interesting and informative analysis would be to normalize the list of hated languages against the individual language's actual real-world use.
But then I wouldn't be likely to confuse a youth group that focuses exclusively on specialized technical skills that are not really relevant without modern the conveniences of that electronics provides with a youth group that focuses on outdoor and other life skills either.
This has nothing to with the kernel itself or the suite of tools it is distributed with. It has to do with calling something GNU that isn't GNU. It compeletely misrepresents what LInux originally was... which is a free replacement for Minix. It was Stallman's decision to call it GNU/Linux, which, I'd like to point out, he did so without asking anybody, effectively trying to appropriate Linux as if it were part of the GNU project all along even... though, again, it never was.
If I write my own OS and released it under a GNU license, just because I bundle it with GNU tools, that doesn't suddenly make it GNU/BlahOS. It makes it BlahOS bundled with GNU tools that were ported to it.
I used an HPUX system in university that the sysadmin had replaced all the starndard tools with GNU ones... that didn't make that system GNU/HPUX.
Slashdot Mirror
What website are you looking at? Specifically.... this does not correspond with anything that I've read for BC, Alberta, or Ontario.
As far as I know, there is no province in Canada where you spend more than about $80 per person per month on public health care... which is less than $1k per year. However, public health care does not cover the costs of medication, which I know can get pretty expensive if you have certain medical issues.
Nothing wrong with rooftop PV... but above a certain latitude (above roughly 45 degrees N or S of the equator or so), it's just not going to be adequate... there isn't enough sunlight energy reaching a substantial portion of the globe to actually meet the energy demands required by all of the people who live in places that simply don't have the same amount of sunlight as people who live near the equator and who may be blessed with well over 300 or so days a year of sunshine.
I was under the impression that "Obamacare" is one of the first things that's going to be axed as soon as the USA gets its next Republican president... which is inevitable at some point in the future, given a two-party system.
Not sure how the heck my brain confused "Steam" with "Brain", obviously my own brain needs more sleep.
I think it's supposed to be a play on words. GNU --> New....
?
Maybe?
Absent Linux, there'd still be FreeBSD.
Current superconducting technology has rather high cooling requirements, which demands energy consumption.... so the more length of superconducting cable you have, the more energy you end up using to keep it cool enough to be superconductive.
When somebody invents superconductors that work at temperatures that don't require such expensive cooling measures to operate, then maybe... otherwise you're talking science fiction, not reality.
Not on any given part of the world... unless the region is polar, and even then it only does so for 6 months of the year.
How are you going to distribute that power? Remember that the further you are away from an energy source the more energy you'll lose in transmitting it.
Solar energy looks very attractive to many people, I know... But the reality is that it can't hope to sustain the industrialized world based even on current energy demands, let alone the doubtless larger energy demands of the future.
Nuclear is the only viable way.... Or something else which has not even been discovered yet.
No, they could not... Not unless we reduced our energy requirements. Substantially.
Taking the amount of solar energy that actually reaches the surface of the earth, you'll get maybe 1kw/square meter on a completely cloudless day even at 100% efficiency. On average, taking into consideration typical cloud cover and the fact that the sun is only up for roughly half of the time, the actual amount of power you'd be able to get from solar is somewhere in the vicinity of about 160 watts per square meter, which is not going to be anywhere nearly enough energy to meet current energy demands.
Most people, I would expect, would not intentionall dismember themselves.
....... the number of accidental amputees is going to skyrocket.
Makes me suspect that this is anything but affordable.
In my view, "l" might be an acceptable variable name in a scope that is only 2 or 3 lines long, and even then, only where it's pretty damn obvious even to a complete newbie who is barely qualified to be maintaining or making any changes to that code what they were thinking when they called it "l" in the first place, such as if it is explicitly being assigned as the length of something such as a string.
In fact, I can't think of any other remotely valid reason to call a variable "l", and to be perfectly honest would generally prefer a slightly more verbose name anyways, such as "len", if it's really meant to be a length.
Nonetheless, I'd let it slide in a code review if the scope was short enough and the purpose of the variable was otherwise completely obvious.
Hmmm... I only did a quick skim of the article before posting, and embarrassingly enough, missed the significance of that admittedly rather important point.
It's like I read the words but for some reason their significance to what was being said about them didn't gel in my brain as important enough to remember.
Yes... *THAT* is my point. Thank you for putting it much more succinctly than I.
The GNU code was compiled for and then run on that particular platform. The platform does not become GNU just because one is running GNU tools on it any more than a somebody running a JVM on windows turns their windows box into a Java machine. It's still just a windows machine that is running Java.
Similarly, I used an HPUX that had GNU tools when I was at university. That doesn't make it GNU/HPUX, because it had no affiliation with the GNU project. It might still be GNU code, but the platform it was running on was still just plain old HPUX, because that was what the GNU programs were compiled for and run on. When used in a title, "GNU" implies that it is intended to be, officially or unofficially, considered part of the GNU project. HPUX is not. Linux is not.
Namecalling doesn't make you more right, by the way... I've presented factual basis for asserting that calling Linux GNU/LInux, even with a full suite of GNU tools, is mislabeling, misleading, and just plain wrong. Your continued assertion to the contrary does nothing to alter that. GNU code can be ported to practically every desktop or workstation computer platform currently in existence... but in the end it's still just GNU code running *ON* that particular platform.
That's why Linux is just Linux... because the kernel is still Linux, and all of the other GNU code just happens to run nicely inside of that.
I think, however, we're done. Unless you have new points to raise... but owing to the succinctness of your last comment, I expect that's probably not the case. If you insist on having the final word, however... knock yourself out.
Silicon is the 2nd most abundant element in the earth's crust... Carbon is like #9 or #10. Why would they want to replace something that's commonly available with something substantially less common?
Or is this more of a "because we can" kind of thing... just to be able to say that they did it?
... that since there's always going to be detractors in any programming language, the more popular a language is in actual use, the more prevalent there is liable to be a bias against that particular language. The correlation of course, is not strictly linear, since different percentages of people familiar with a language will be biased against them, Nonetheless, I think a more interesting and informative analysis would be to normalize the list of hated languages against the individual language's actual real-world use.
Negtaive.... labelling it GNU would imply that it has some affiliation with the GNU project. HPUX does not. Neither did the sysadmin.
My point was that it was *NEVER* GNU/HPUX.... It was always just an HPUX with the GNU tools ported to it and installed on it.
Not very...
But then I wouldn't be likely to confuse a youth group that focuses exclusively on specialized technical skills that are not really relevant without modern the conveniences of that electronics provides with a youth group that focuses on outdoor and other life skills either.
I used an HPUX system in university where the sysadmin had replaced every last command line tool with GNU counterparts.
The system didn't spontaneously become a GNU/HPUX system.... it was still all HPUX, The GNU tools has just been ported to run on it.
Likewise, the GNU tools have all been ported to run on Linux. That doesn't make it GNU/Linux.
This has nothing to with the kernel itself or the suite of tools it is distributed with. It has to do with calling something GNU that isn't GNU. It compeletely misrepresents what LInux originally was... which is a free replacement for Minix. It was Stallman's decision to call it GNU/Linux, which, I'd like to point out, he did so without asking anybody, effectively trying to appropriate Linux as if it were part of the GNU project all along even... though, again, it never was.
If I write my own OS and released it under a GNU license, just because I bundle it with GNU tools, that doesn't suddenly make it GNU/BlahOS. It makes it BlahOS bundled with GNU tools that were ported to it.
I used an HPUX system in university that the sysadmin had replaced all the starndard tools with GNU ones... that didn't make that system GNU/HPUX.