Now matter how good a teacher is, no student is going to ask them to repeat something four times. The student will just nod and feign understanding, and the teacher will move on.
If the student is able to 'feign' understanding, the teacher isn't very good at all. A good teacher will be able to tell from the questions the kid asks how much he actually understands.
Or possibly the teacher just has a large class. I really doubt that currently a computer can really replace a teacher, but I can easily believe that they could replace a lecturer, with LOTS of improvement. Computer programs may not be as flexibly interactive as a one-on-one teacher, but they can be a lot more interactive than a lecturer can. If a teacher has to handle a class of 30, some of whom really don't want to be there, then the computer can probably teach those who *do* want to be there better than that teacher can. If the class size is 300, then I'm certain of it. But if the class size is 15 or smaller, then if the computer is better, then the teacher is probably incompetent. Today. This isn't talking about three years from now.
A flat rate package is essentially impossible. OTOH, billing by minutes connected is something that will only work in a monopoly environment. Billing by megabytes downloaded is reasonable in concept, but I have my doubts that it would be fairly implemented.
FWIW, *because* I don't trust the regulators to make things better, I'm opposed to any suggested change. It's not that I don't think that change is needed, it's that I don't trust the monopolies and their "regulators".
P.S.: This is independent of which party gets in. They *both* are savagely anti-citizen, in many different ways. And this is one of the ways in which they appear to be equally bad.
It sounds good, but the coffee grounds aren't the new part. That's a couple of years old. The new part is mixing it with cables, which is probably a bit trickier than it sounds like.
FWIW, I suspect that coffee grounds aren't a particularly good choice, outside of being cheap, and gleaning lots of PR. But when they're dry enough they aren't all that heavy. And they don't like to pack tightly, which is fairly important. But I think something sturdier would be better. Say hollow aluminum marbles. (They'd need to be sturdy enough not do dent in use, though. But coffee grounds turn into dust, which is also a bad thing.)
Still, for demonstration projects, coffee grounds is possibly the best choice. Sand is too heavy. Flour tends to pack. etc.
Perhaps I don't understand how Vector Linux works, but when the site is advertising version 7.0 for download, I end up with a strong suspicion that version 6.0 is deprecated, and that support (security fixes) will soon be ending. (This is increased by the announcement that the current verison of Vector Linux 6.0 is the final realease of the series.)
If I wanted an ultralight window manager, Debian would provide lots of options. That's not what I'm after. I'm after a maximally usable one, for a desktop system. With one screen. And no fancy graphics cards.
P.S.: I *have* considered running an old version of Debian in a virtual machine. In fact I do that kind of thing to keep old games working. But that kind of indirection isn't acceptable for major uses, even though it's the only way to keep non-supported systems relatively safe. And if that's what I wanted to do, I could run an old version of Debian.
If Vector Linux were actively supporting KDE3, then I would be extremely interested. But that's not what it sounds like is happening. Moving to a version that's being obsoleted isn't all that attractive a proposition, even if it does run the desktop I want. (I spent several years distro hopping, but it really interferes with getting much else done. Now when I switch distros, I want the new one to be one I can plan to stay with.)
OK. I gave it a look. All the purchase options make specific mention of KDE4, and *NO* mention of KDE3. I didn't see anything that indicated support of KDE3. So my expectation is that it will soon go away in an update, if it isn't already gone.
If you've ever called my ISP, you understand why most people will put up with very poor service rather than call and complain. One time it took me three days to get through. One time it took finding the local service center and parking in their driveway until a tech would talk to us. And it took HER over an hour to get through. (That was after 6 months of paying for DSL and getting a 20 hours/month dial-up.) Well, that was when they were rolling out DSL in the area, and I presume that things aren't quite that bad now, but as long as it's working at all, I'd rather not call and try to deal with them... but if my wife could keep her e-mail address we'd have switched to a different carrier.
I can accept that you already find KDE4 quite good. I don't. Kiosk, e.g., means nothing to me. (At one point it would have, but that isn't now.)
But this is what I mean about choice being good. I'd *prefer* to choose KDE3. Maybe I eventually will have that option. In the meantime there are usable options...but those usable options don't include Gnome3 or Unity, and KDE4 is inferior (in my use case) to other existing choices. That these other choices are, themselves, inferior to Gnome2 and KDE3 doesn't matter, as those choices are no longer viable. (Unless Pearson finally gets Trinity into Debian.)
N.B.: If I had access to plenty of spare systems to test on, and plenty of bandwidth to download on, Trinity might already be usable. But installing it on my current system would require removing things that might break things horribly. So I've been avoiding that, just as I avoid upgrading Vala for the same reason.
I thought so too...until they started pushing Unity. OTOH, Gnome3 isn't that much better.
There wasn't anything major wrong with Gnome2 or KDE3. Gnome3 and KDE4 are (still?) far inferior. So much so that when neither Gnome2 nor KDE3 are available (and supported) anywhere, I expect to switch to LXDE or some such. I've experimented with them already, and they may not be as good as Gnome2 or KDE3, they are, for my purposes, far superior to any of Gnome3, KDE4, or Unity. If I used a tablet my opinions might be different, but I don't expect that to happen, as for my use case a tablet if far inferior to a desktop, or even a laptop.
As a result, I'm quite happy that there are lots of options. I currently have my wife on Ubuntu stable, but when Unity if forced on us, it's going to be over to Debian, and possibly one of the less publicized window managers. She's quite sensitive to visual elegance, so it's likely to not be the same one that I would prefer. But it's quite *unlikely* to be Gnome3 or Unity. KDE4 has some potential, though, even though it isn't as good as KDE3 was. (Good means "easy to use and get things done in". I'll agree that it's prettier, but for me that doesn't cut much ice. And my wife wants something that will run the electric-sheep screen-saver, something that's for me a minor consideration.)
So options are good. My wife wouldn't like to make the choice, but she delegates that to me. I just need to choose something that she likes.
Well, we have cables strong enough to build elevators on the Moon and on Mars. And on neither place is there a problem will people living underneath the fall path. The electrical charge problems don't exist on the Moon. (Not sure about Mars.)
But the stable ecosystem problem means that we can't support people out there yet, even so. That's the real major problem. Submarines aren't a good example, as even at the extreme they come up for air every month or so, and they've got plentiful access to water, so if worst came to worst they could electrolyze it for Oxygen. (Don't know if they do, but they *could*.)
A stable habitat implies, among other things, that it can supply it's own food, air, and water from locally available resources at a rate sufficient to keep it stable. So far we can't do that unless air and water are readilly available externalities. (Given ammonia, Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and water as available externalities (comets, Jovian orbit asteroids, etc.), we need LOTS!! of energy to convert them into food, air, and water. And that's if we move out to where those resources are available. Closer in asteroids are dry, because the volatiles have evaporated. So the ecosystem needs to be really TIGHT. Transporting the stuff up form Earth is not only expensive, it is a vital dependency that makes planning to live there unreasonably dangerous. Politics that you have nothing to do with can kill you without warning, and even by accident.
No, it won't look much like what we're building now, and the reason is that rotating habitat. That will be large compared with most of the rest of the ship, unless you are planning to use ion engines to take off from a planet with moderate g-forces.
What we are currently building is largely conditioned by air resistance. That won't have any effect on something that MUST stay out of atmospheres. So while inertial mass needs to be balanced, symmetry isn't needed. Neither is smoothness.
Sorry, but there *could* be star ships with just an ion drive. It wouldn't be fast, but it could be done.
The only thing it, you need the thing to support a large enough population to maintain a stable gene-pool, and you need the place to be comfortable enough that people are willing to live in it. (Fancy computer games help here a lot. So would various forms of virtual reality.) And maintaining civilization during the "voyage" becomes very important. (You lose it and everybody dies.) It becomes even more important that your leaders not be psychopaths. (We haven't solved that one locally, but perhaps a designed society could. Perhaps.) Etc.
Basically, the people aren't explorers or passengers, they are citizens. Every one of them needs to be a part of the crew, but there also need to be multiple thousands of them. (Not sure what the minimum number for a stable civilization is.) And you can expect that when they reach the next system they won't want to debark and live on a planet. Particularly on one that will need A LOT of terraforming, and still wouldn't be really suitable. When it gets to the goal system, it will probably do some research while building an industrial complex, build two new copies, and head off in at least two new directions. If communications are kept up, then they'll probably report back on what they found, if not, not.
But nothing here says you can't have a starship with an ion drive. Just that it won't be much like Star Trek.
P.S.: What you can't do it without is some efficient source of energy. Matter annihilation for preference, but fusion would probably be good enough. I'm not sure fission would cut the mustard.
Macs are generally very nice machines. It's only the EULAs they stick on their software that drove me away from them. And Linux installs quite easily. (Or at least it did the last time I tried. They may be nice, but not enough to cause me to pay the extra price. So instead I buy from ZAReason or Penguin Computing.)
Python is probably the most general language with fast results. Lots of users and activity.
Ruby has ended up largely as a language for web page developers. Probably because Python was already around, and Rails was one of the early packages. It can also be used as a general purpose language, but Unicode is more of a bother (than Python3, anyway).
C it an old stand-by with lots of libraries and highly efficient. It's handling of Unicode is atrocious.
Javascript is nice in the web area, but doesn't work well with local files.
D is an excellent language that is also efficient. But it doesn't have many libraries, so you need to get them as foreign functions.
Smalltalk doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but also it isn't losing steam rapidly. It suffers more than it benefits from being such an all-encompassing environment, and it's not the most efficient. But in some ways it's the most flexible easy language that's full-featured. (If that interests you, check out the Squeak and Croquet dialects.)
I really can't recommend touching anything that is connected to Oracle. They appear to be trying to copyright APIs, which, if they are successful, means that they will own (literally, not just 0wn) anything you write in one of their tools. Like MySQL, or Java. As a result I would stick to languages that have a user agreement that clearly states that you own what you write, even if you use the libraries or tools that they have made publicly available. And even then I wouldn't touch anything that Oracle has bought an interest in.
Sea water contains enough Uranium to power desalinization and (probably) separation of the residue into separate elements. But the power is probably worth more than the elements recovered (except for a few, like Bromine) so even when it becomes possible it won't be done unless the price becomes considerably higher.
Adding neutrons to atoms is likely to ALWAYS be a more expensive approach, even when it becomes easier than it currently is. And the main real value of gold is as a conductive & non-corroding coating. It has a few other uses, but most of them probably also depend on it's conductive & non-corroding character. (I'm not counting jewelry, as fashion is not subject to the same kinds of utility accounting.) It seems plausible that a synthetic (I want to say plastic, but that feels wrong) could be developed that would substitute reasonably well, think a plate-able stainless steel, though it probably wouldn't be a steel. This means substituting fancy internal structure for expensive components, but that's the kind of thing that can be done cheaply, and even improved beyond the original material being substituted for. (Often only in some respects. Think PVC vs. glass containers.)
That depends on how big they are. Micro-scale machinery (MEMS, but I can't remember what the acronym stands for) might be quite plausible for that. You'd need a really small stepper motor to apply the pressure, and another to do the fine positioning, and a more normal one to do the rough positioning....
Well, maybe not. But I bet we get useful MEMS before we get useful non-chemical nano-tech.
There are a lot of slightly to majorly different libertarian philosophies. Some of them just want no more government control that existed in, say, the 1960's. Others verge towards anarchy. And lots of points in between. Some believe that streets and roads should be privately owned and managed. Many think that's a proper governmental function.
All "libertarian" (small "l") tells you is that they prefer less governmental control that currently exists. Not how much less, or which trade-offs they think reasonable. Particular individuals can stand for an identifiable position, but that's not true of "libertarian". A case could be made that "Libertarian" stands for a particular position, but I'm not really certain that's even correct. Their position seems to wobble over time too much.
(Last time I checked the Libertarian Party they had some genuinely authoritarian ideas mingled with the reasonably libertarian ones. And the common thread was more "extremist" than libertarian, though there was still a libertarian theme to much of it, and most of the justifications of their position was based on libertarian rhetoric. My feeling was that has politicians they hadn't learned to lie very well more than that they represented a coherent position.)
But a Universal Health Care plan that offers unlimited service is physically impossible. And one that involves the insurance companies is economically impossible.
Yes, I've got problems with Universal Health Care, but not as great as the ones I have with the current system. And no health care is a gross risk to public health (not to mention inhumane, I'm trying to delimit actual bounds, not moral ones).
So I support free public health care for all basic health needs. This wouldn't cover plastic surgery except when needed to repair damage caused in an accident (reasonable interpretation needed here). I dislike it because of the incredible amount of information and control that this would place in the hands of the government, but to be honest, they already have almost all of that information anyway. And if they really want to control you, they can already do that too. We might as well get some benefit with the risk.
And health insurance should have NO PART in this plan. They can insure for non-covered services. Maybe heart replacements? Anything that's an expectable part of living should not be handled by an insurance service, as that's a grossly inefficient economic model for anything expectable, as opposed to unlikely possibilities, where it can be reasonable.
FWIW, I looked into Dental Insurance. It is ALWAYS a bad idea, unless someone else is paying. If it's unusual and expensive, then they don't cover it. If it's common and covered, then they charge more than the dentist would (figured over time). I haven't looked as carefully at health insurance, as "someone else is paying" (my employer), but I would bet that if I tried to buy the same results would apply.
Unfortunately, the "philosophically pure" position he articulates appears to be ante-bellum South. There were, indeed, so good things about that position. They don't make up for the deficiencies, even as a philosophical position.
IIRC, that Ubuntu default of "user can use sudo" only exists for the first user created at installation time (unless they've changed this recently). With additional users, you need to add them to the sudoers group if you want to give them root access. (I could go check, but I know that it was trivial to create a user that doesn't have that privilege.)
The impression I've gotten so far is that he didn't reveal anything all that useful against his organization. It does appear, however, that he missed the opportunity to encrypt 15GB of/dev/random . This is an opportunity that any successors should not miss. It might not do you any good, but it will really annoy the opposition.
FWIW, just because he was dead doesn't mean that anyone would have known, or could have identified the body.
I'd say the weight of plausibility is that he died when and where the govt. said. OTOH, they've lied so often that it wouldn't surprise me to find that they lied again.
I've got a problem here. Were the owners of the data served with a warrant? If not, then to me it seems illegal search and seizure of the data, if not of the hardware.
Once you allow the existence of "Intellectual Property" (which does seem to be implicit in "secure in their persons and effects") then you need a search warrant to search or seize the "Intellectual Property" legally. And the warrant needs to be served on the owners of the property, or you are behaving illegally.
Of course, if you deny the existence of "Intellectual Property", then this problem goes away, but so does much current legal history.
That site won't even listen to you unless you are already using the latest version of Firefox. I.e., they're shutting their ears and going "la la la".
FWIW, I'm on the Debian stable version of IceWeasel, but I have just downloaded IceApe and something called bookmarkbridge...which claims to be able to synch bookmarks between different browsers.
When I looked at the proposal, there weren't any images that showed the bookmark menu, but as it's hidden by default I don't *know* that this means they've disabled it. The merging of the portable and desktop UI groups doesn't leave me feeling optimistic though. And the refusal to listen to comments from those who haven't installed the latest version leaves me quite pessimistic.
You may think it better. Perhaps for your use-case it is. For mine it isn't. I occasionally try other browsers (FOSS only), and none have been as good as Firefox. (I will admit that Seamonkey was better, but it hasn't been properly maintained.)
My feeling is that it's impossible to design a single UI that works well on both tablets and desktops. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but so far all I've seen is UI's that appear to work equally poorly on both platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you confuse Jung and Adler? If not, authority figures don't play a major role in Jung's theories. (OTOH, the definitely do in Adler's.)
Now matter how good a teacher is, no student is going to ask them to repeat something four times. The student will just nod and feign understanding, and the teacher will move on.
If the student is able to 'feign' understanding, the teacher isn't very good at all. A good teacher will be able to tell from the questions the kid asks how much he actually understands.
Or possibly the teacher just has a large class. I really doubt that currently a computer can really replace a teacher, but I can easily believe that they could replace a lecturer, with LOTS of improvement. Computer programs may not be as flexibly interactive as a one-on-one teacher, but they can be a lot more interactive than a lecturer can. If a teacher has to handle a class of 30, some of whom really don't want to be there, then the computer can probably teach those who *do* want to be there better than that teacher can. If the class size is 300, then I'm certain of it. But if the class size is 15 or smaller, then if the computer is better, then the teacher is probably incompetent. Today. This isn't talking about three years from now.
A flat rate package is essentially impossible. OTOH, billing by minutes connected is something that will only work in a monopoly environment. Billing by megabytes downloaded is reasonable in concept, but I have my doubts that it would be fairly implemented.
FWIW, *because* I don't trust the regulators to make things better, I'm opposed to any suggested change. It's not that I don't think that change is needed, it's that I don't trust the monopolies and their "regulators".
P.S.: This is independent of which party gets in. They *both* are savagely anti-citizen, in many different ways. And this is one of the ways in which they appear to be equally bad.
It sounds good, but the coffee grounds aren't the new part. That's a couple of years old. The new part is mixing it with cables, which is probably a bit trickier than it sounds like.
FWIW, I suspect that coffee grounds aren't a particularly good choice, outside of being cheap, and gleaning lots of PR. But when they're dry enough they aren't all that heavy. And they don't like to pack tightly, which is fairly important. But I think something sturdier would be better. Say hollow aluminum marbles. (They'd need to be sturdy enough not do dent in use, though. But coffee grounds turn into dust, which is also a bad thing.)
Still, for demonstration projects, coffee grounds is possibly the best choice. Sand is too heavy. Flour tends to pack. etc.
Perhaps I don't understand how Vector Linux works, but when the site is advertising version 7.0 for download, I end up with a strong suspicion that version 6.0 is deprecated, and that support (security fixes) will soon be ending. (This is increased by the announcement that the current verison of Vector Linux 6.0 is the final realease of the series.)
If I wanted an ultralight window manager, Debian would provide lots of options. That's not what I'm after. I'm after a maximally usable one, for a desktop system. With one screen. And no fancy graphics cards.
P.S.: I *have* considered running an old version of Debian in a virtual machine. In fact I do that kind of thing to keep old games working. But that kind of indirection isn't acceptable for major uses, even though it's the only way to keep non-supported systems relatively safe. And if that's what I wanted to do, I could run an old version of Debian.
If Vector Linux were actively supporting KDE3, then I would be extremely interested. But that's not what it sounds like is happening. Moving to a version that's being obsoleted isn't all that attractive a proposition, even if it does run the desktop I want. (I spent several years distro hopping, but it really interferes with getting much else done. Now when I switch distros, I want the new one to be one I can plan to stay with.)
Thanks. I'll give it a look.
OK. I gave it a look. All the purchase options make specific mention of KDE4, and *NO* mention of KDE3. I didn't see anything that indicated support of KDE3. So my expectation is that it will soon go away in an update, if it isn't already gone.
If you've ever called my ISP, you understand why most people will put up with very poor service rather than call and complain. One time it took me three days to get through. One time it took finding the local service center and parking in their driveway until a tech would talk to us. And it took HER over an hour to get through. (That was after 6 months of paying for DSL and getting a 20 hours/month dial-up.) Well, that was when they were rolling out DSL in the area, and I presume that things aren't quite that bad now, but as long as it's working at all, I'd rather not call and try to deal with them... but if my wife could keep her e-mail address we'd have switched to a different carrier.
I can accept that you already find KDE4 quite good. I don't. Kiosk, e.g., means nothing to me. (At one point it would have, but that isn't now.)
But this is what I mean about choice being good. I'd *prefer* to choose KDE3. Maybe I eventually will have that option. In the meantime there are usable options...but those usable options don't include Gnome3 or Unity, and KDE4 is inferior (in my use case) to other existing choices. That these other choices are, themselves, inferior to Gnome2 and KDE3 doesn't matter, as those choices are no longer viable. (Unless Pearson finally gets Trinity into Debian.)
N.B.: If I had access to plenty of spare systems to test on, and plenty of bandwidth to download on, Trinity might already be usable. But installing it on my current system would require removing things that might break things horribly. So I've been avoiding that, just as I avoid upgrading Vala for the same reason.
I thought so too...until they started pushing Unity. OTOH, Gnome3 isn't that much better.
There wasn't anything major wrong with Gnome2 or KDE3. Gnome3 and KDE4 are (still?) far inferior. So much so that when neither Gnome2 nor KDE3 are available (and supported) anywhere, I expect to switch to LXDE or some such. I've experimented with them already, and they may not be as good as Gnome2 or KDE3, they are, for my purposes, far superior to any of Gnome3, KDE4, or Unity. If I used a tablet my opinions might be different, but I don't expect that to happen, as for my use case a tablet if far inferior to a desktop, or even a laptop.
As a result, I'm quite happy that there are lots of options. I currently have my wife on Ubuntu stable, but when Unity if forced on us, it's going to be over to Debian, and possibly one of the less publicized window managers. She's quite sensitive to visual elegance, so it's likely to not be the same one that I would prefer. But it's quite *unlikely* to be Gnome3 or Unity. KDE4 has some potential, though, even though it isn't as good as KDE3 was. (Good means "easy to use and get things done in". I'll agree that it's prettier, but for me that doesn't cut much ice. And my wife wants something that will run the electric-sheep screen-saver, something that's for me a minor consideration.)
So options are good. My wife wouldn't like to make the choice, but she delegates that to me. I just need to choose something that she likes.
Well, we have cables strong enough to build elevators on the Moon and on Mars. And on neither place is there a problem will people living underneath the fall path. The electrical charge problems don't exist on the Moon. (Not sure about Mars.)
But the stable ecosystem problem means that we can't support people out there yet, even so. That's the real major problem. Submarines aren't a good example, as even at the extreme they come up for air every month or so, and they've got plentiful access to water, so if worst came to worst they could electrolyze it for Oxygen. (Don't know if they do, but they *could*.)
A stable habitat implies, among other things, that it can supply it's own food, air, and water from locally available resources at a rate sufficient to keep it stable. So far we can't do that unless air and water are readilly available externalities. (Given ammonia, Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and water as available externalities (comets, Jovian orbit asteroids, etc.), we need LOTS!! of energy to convert them into food, air, and water. And that's if we move out to where those resources are available. Closer in asteroids are dry, because the volatiles have evaporated. So the ecosystem needs to be really TIGHT. Transporting the stuff up form Earth is not only expensive, it is a vital dependency that makes planning to live there unreasonably dangerous. Politics that you have nothing to do with can kill you without warning, and even by accident.
No, it won't look much like what we're building now, and the reason is that rotating habitat. That will be large compared with most of the rest of the ship, unless you are planning to use ion engines to take off from a planet with moderate g-forces.
What we are currently building is largely conditioned by air resistance. That won't have any effect on something that MUST stay out of atmospheres. So while inertial mass needs to be balanced, symmetry isn't needed. Neither is smoothness.
Sorry, but there *could* be star ships with just an ion drive. It wouldn't be fast, but it could be done.
The only thing it, you need the thing to support a large enough population to maintain a stable gene-pool, and you need the place to be comfortable enough that people are willing to live in it. (Fancy computer games help here a lot. So would various forms of virtual reality.) And maintaining civilization during the "voyage" becomes very important. (You lose it and everybody dies.) It becomes even more important that your leaders not be psychopaths. (We haven't solved that one locally, but perhaps a designed society could. Perhaps.) Etc.
Basically, the people aren't explorers or passengers, they are citizens. Every one of them needs to be a part of the crew, but there also need to be multiple thousands of them. (Not sure what the minimum number for a stable civilization is.) And you can expect that when they reach the next system they won't want to debark and live on a planet. Particularly on one that will need A LOT of terraforming, and still wouldn't be really suitable. When it gets to the goal system, it will probably do some research while building an industrial complex, build two new copies, and head off in at least two new directions. If communications are kept up, then they'll probably report back on what they found, if not, not.
But nothing here says you can't have a starship with an ion drive. Just that it won't be much like Star Trek.
P.S.: What you can't do it without is some efficient source of energy. Matter annihilation for preference, but fusion would probably be good enough. I'm not sure fission would cut the mustard.
Macs are generally very nice machines. It's only the EULAs they stick on their software that drove me away from them. And Linux installs quite easily. (Or at least it did the last time I tried. They may be nice, but not enough to cause me to pay the extra price. So instead I buy from ZAReason or Penguin Computing.)
Python is probably the most general language with fast results. Lots of users and activity.
Ruby has ended up largely as a language for web page developers. Probably because Python was already around, and Rails was one of the early packages. It can also be used as a general purpose language, but Unicode is more of a bother (than Python3, anyway).
C it an old stand-by with lots of libraries and highly efficient. It's handling of Unicode is atrocious.
Javascript is nice in the web area, but doesn't work well with local files.
D is an excellent language that is also efficient. But it doesn't have many libraries, so you need to get them as foreign functions.
Smalltalk doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but also it isn't losing steam rapidly. It suffers more than it benefits from being such an all-encompassing environment, and it's not the most efficient. But in some ways it's the most flexible easy language that's full-featured. (If that interests you, check out the Squeak and Croquet dialects.)
I really can't recommend touching anything that is connected to Oracle. They appear to be trying to copyright APIs, which, if they are successful, means that they will own (literally, not just 0wn) anything you write in one of their tools. Like MySQL, or Java. As a result I would stick to languages that have a user agreement that clearly states that you own what you write, even if you use the libraries or tools that they have made publicly available. And even then I wouldn't touch anything that Oracle has bought an interest in.
Yes, but you have the wrong minor improvement.
Sea water contains enough Uranium to power desalinization and (probably) separation of the residue into separate elements. But the power is probably worth more than the elements recovered (except for a few, like Bromine) so even when it becomes possible it won't be done unless the price becomes considerably higher.
Adding neutrons to atoms is likely to ALWAYS be a more expensive approach, even when it becomes easier than it currently is. And the main real value of gold is as a conductive & non-corroding coating. It has a few other uses, but most of them probably also depend on it's conductive & non-corroding character. (I'm not counting jewelry, as fashion is not subject to the same kinds of utility accounting.) It seems plausible that a synthetic (I want to say plastic, but that feels wrong) could be developed that would substitute reasonably well, think a plate-able stainless steel, though it probably wouldn't be a steel. This means substituting fancy internal structure for expensive components, but that's the kind of thing that can be done cheaply, and even improved beyond the original material being substituted for. (Often only in some respects. Think PVC vs. glass containers.)
That depends on how big they are. Micro-scale machinery (MEMS, but I can't remember what the acronym stands for) might be quite plausible for that. You'd need a really small stepper motor to apply the pressure, and another to do the fine positioning, and a more normal one to do the rough positioning....
Well, maybe not. But I bet we get useful MEMS before we get useful non-chemical nano-tech.
There are a lot of slightly to majorly different libertarian philosophies. Some of them just want no more government control that existed in, say, the 1960's. Others verge towards anarchy. And lots of points in between. Some believe that streets and roads should be privately owned and managed. Many think that's a proper governmental function.
All "libertarian" (small "l") tells you is that they prefer less governmental control that currently exists. Not how much less, or which trade-offs they think reasonable. Particular individuals can stand for an identifiable position, but that's not true of "libertarian". A case could be made that "Libertarian" stands for a particular position, but I'm not really certain that's even correct. Their position seems to wobble over time too much.
(Last time I checked the Libertarian Party they had some genuinely authoritarian ideas mingled with the reasonably libertarian ones. And the common thread was more "extremist" than libertarian, though there was still a libertarian theme to much of it, and most of the justifications of their position was based on libertarian rhetoric. My feeling was that has politicians they hadn't learned to lie very well more than that they represented a coherent position.)
But a Universal Health Care plan that offers unlimited service is physically impossible. And one that involves the insurance companies is economically impossible.
Yes, I've got problems with Universal Health Care, but not as great as the ones I have with the current system. And no health care is a gross risk to public health (not to mention inhumane, I'm trying to delimit actual bounds, not moral ones).
So I support free public health care for all basic health needs. This wouldn't cover plastic surgery except when needed to repair damage caused in an accident (reasonable interpretation needed here). I dislike it because of the incredible amount of information and control that this would place in the hands of the government, but to be honest, they already have almost all of that information anyway. And if they really want to control you, they can already do that too. We might as well get some benefit with the risk.
And health insurance should have NO PART in this plan. They can insure for non-covered services. Maybe heart replacements? Anything that's an expectable part of living should not be handled by an insurance service, as that's a grossly inefficient economic model for anything expectable, as opposed to unlikely possibilities, where it can be reasonable.
FWIW, I looked into Dental Insurance. It is ALWAYS a bad idea, unless someone else is paying. If it's unusual and expensive, then they don't cover it. If it's common and covered, then they charge more than the dentist would (figured over time). I haven't looked as carefully at health insurance, as "someone else is paying" (my employer), but I would bet that if I tried to buy the same results would apply.
Unfortunately, the "philosophically pure" position he articulates appears to be ante-bellum South. There were, indeed, so good things about that position. They don't make up for the deficiencies, even as a philosophical position.
IIRC, that Ubuntu default of "user can use sudo" only exists for the first user created at installation time (unless they've changed this recently). With additional users, you need to add them to the sudoers group if you want to give them root access. (I could go check, but I know that it was trivial to create a user that doesn't have that privilege.)
The impression I've gotten so far is that he didn't reveal anything all that useful against his organization. It does appear, however, that he missed the opportunity to encrypt 15GB of /dev/random . This is an opportunity that any successors should not miss. It might not do you any good, but it will really annoy the opposition.
FWIW, just because he was dead doesn't mean that anyone would have known, or could have identified the body.
I'd say the weight of plausibility is that he died when and where the govt. said. OTOH, they've lied so often that it wouldn't surprise me to find that they lied again.
I've got a problem here. Were the owners of the data served with a warrant? If not, then to me it seems illegal search and seizure of the data, if not of the hardware.
Once you allow the existence of "Intellectual Property" (which does seem to be implicit in "secure in their persons and effects") then you need a search warrant to search or seize the "Intellectual Property" legally. And the warrant needs to be served on the owners of the property, or you are behaving illegally.
Of course, if you deny the existence of "Intellectual Property", then this problem goes away, but so does much current legal history.
That site won't even listen to you unless you are already using the latest version of Firefox. I.e., they're shutting their ears and going "la la la".
FWIW, I'm on the Debian stable version of IceWeasel, but I have just downloaded IceApe and something called bookmarkbridge...which claims to be able to synch bookmarks between different browsers.
When I looked at the proposal, there weren't any images that showed the bookmark menu, but as it's hidden by default I don't *know* that this means they've disabled it. The merging of the portable and desktop UI groups doesn't leave me feeling optimistic though. And the refusal to listen to comments from those who haven't installed the latest version leaves me quite pessimistic.
You may think it better. Perhaps for your use-case it is. For mine it isn't. I occasionally try other browsers (FOSS only), and none have been as good as Firefox. (I will admit that Seamonkey was better, but it hasn't been properly maintained.)
My feeling is that it's impossible to design a single UI that works well on both tablets and desktops. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but so far all I've seen is UI's that appear to work equally poorly on both platforms.