Prior administrations did not routinely cut benefits after people had "signed up". (Yes, I'm thinking military here...that's the big PR point of the government currently.)
I don't know whether this administration has been living up to contracts that it signed with independent contractors. I do know, because of reading the papers, that it has cut benefits to troops after they have signed up. (And it wasn't a legislative decision...though I haven't heard many voices from Congress objecting, either.)
That was blatantly dishonest on their part. If you forgive that, then you deserve whatever happens to you. (I also seem to remember that the administration has been slashing the funding on VA hospitals...but I'm less certain of that. If I were considering voting for them, I'd need to check, but as they're already beyond redemption, I see no reason to pore through garage.)
This government doesn't have a good name for honesty. Or trustworthiness. Or consideration. Or not cutting your benefits after they have you signed up. Or...
Turn it around. Why *expletive* would anyone want to work for it? Including DARPA.
Ignorance is the prime reason that I can think of. Tunnel vision & short sightedness comes a close second. But those aren't characteristics of the "best and the brightest".
OK. When I said changing licenses, I meant along the lines of "I had been planning on switching from GPL2 to GPL3, but now I'm going to seriously consider the AGPL".
OTOH, I do consider what Noika's proposing as being more offensive than sending spam.
GPL code can be used in a lot of ways, and perhaps Noika can use it in the way they desire. But I have no desire to help them in doing so. And I see no advantage in helping them in doing so.
I don't really see any advantage in Linux running on a lot of locked and sealed boxes, and that seems to be all that Noika is offering. I'm not really against allowing them to do that, as long as they abide by the licensing agreements. (I'm contemplating using AGPL from now on, though.) But I don't see ANY reason to help them. And I don't see any reason to use licenses friendly to their desires, when they so totally ignore mine.
Personally, if he can do what he wants with the existing licenses, it makes me think that perhaps the licenses need to be changed, but I'm not certain. We don't explicitly forbid using FOSS to send spam, so maybe this is also something that should be tolerated. But I put it in the same class, or possibly worse.
Well, remember that Noika owns TrollTech.... You know, the people who write Qt.
I still don't see any reason to accept his demands. I don't see much benefit and I see lots of costs. But he could be "subtly" threatening to kill open Qt development.
And I still say "Drop Dead twice!". (But your argument needs revising.)
Meta: Clicking on "Continue Editing" discards ...
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 1
Meta: Clicking on "Continue Editing" discards what has currently been entered.
Multi-Edit was nice. When I used MSWind, it was my favorite editor. Now, though, I use NEdit or Kate or KEdit or GEdit. Usually Kate or NEdit. NEdit is better for languages that I need to define the parsing rules for, Kate is better if the language exists in it's database of languages that it knows how to parse.
Thanks for the memory. It's been a long time since I've thought of Multi-Edit.
Actually, in the case of editors, he may have a point, but in the case of IDEs it's not Free Software that killed developer tools, it's MSVisualStudio. They take most of the money from people who have money to throw around. And if you don't have money to throw around, you aren't going to pay for something that's only (perhaps) marginally better than the FOSS version. (I've frequently found that tools that I paid for were dramatically WORSE than the FOSS tools. It's hard to give most software a reasonable test before purchasing it.)
Unfortunately, when I look around at Pizza businesses I see everything from moderate success to bankruptcy. And that's in just one small neighborhood.
So without knowing the factors that determine success in the Pizza business, I can't guess whether he has those factors. Perhaps he would have done much worse in the Pizza business.
I wouldn't claim that economics isn't a science. I don't know enough about it. But popular economics isn't a science, and neither is politically motivated economics.
It's a pity. Almost any other electoral system would be better. I favor Condorcet (sp?), but Instant Runoff isn't all *that* bad, and both are amazingly superior to the winner-take-all system that the US uses.
She *could* be angling for the vice-presidency. (I haven't seen the campaign ads, as I don't watch TV. If she hasn't said anything unforgivable, then it seems plausible. I'm not sure about desirable.)
This seems a bit of a wild card, but the investment seems actually rather small, and if it works the payoff is high.
I don't really have an informed opinion as to how reasonable this is, but consider it as an important test of a non-mainstream theory. As such it seems worth the cost (provided that the report of the results is detailed, honest, and complete). People should report experimental failures as well as successes.
OTOH, it's not my money they're spending...so I can't even claim the right to a report on the results...
I agree that there's also a lot of short term fluctuation that some people are getting rich on. (The terms "price-fixing" and "criminal conspiracy" somehow come to mind.)
And it's also true that the oil supply is limited (at any particular price).
But I still think that the basic cause of the current price level is the devaluation of the dollar...and that it hasn't hit bottom yet. Much of the US debt is held by a few foreign countries, and they could kill the dollar in a day if they chose to (and at the cost of devaluing their holdings).
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron. The rules of property have been designed to be a (minimally) acceptable compromise on how to deal with physical objects. They fail miserably when you attempt to extend them to cover information.
Of the approaches known, copyright is the best approach to covering information, but I would argue that if the publisher implements DRM then the copyright should not apply to his works, because he is reneging on the social contract ab initio (or at least attempting to do so). This could be dealt with via "libraries of deposit", but as far as I know it is not being so dealt. The stated purpose of copyright (and patents) is to facilitate the information currently held as secret becoming public knowledge. Attempting to prevent this from happening (e.g. via DRM) should automatically forfeit any protection from the law.
Trademarks are a separate issue. Here the issue is protecting the identity of an entity. The current law seems to work fairly well. It's got some rough spots that should be debugged, but they are relatively trivial.
1) For a long trip, say to a distant part of the galaxy, your assertion is correct, though I would assert that longevity is a much easier problem than generating the amount of energy that would be required. (Even total conversion of mass to energy wouldn't suffice.)
2) You can almost leave relativity out of your calculations below 90% of the speed of light. Above that it becomes increasingly important. I don't think (I haven't calculated) that you'd hit 99.9% before turnover on the way to Alpha Centauri. (You might, it's close enough that a guess is uncertain, and that's what I'm making.)
So the minimum trip before you start to see significant time dilation (at constant 1 G) would be a couple of years. Add in slowdown and that means that you've invested 4 years without any age related advantage to speak of. Not what I understand the goal to be in this discussion.
If I'm remembering correctly the goal stated at the ancestral post was to traverse space at high speed (posited 99.9% of light speed) as a way of extending life span (wrt stationary entities). You don't get that effect unless you turn around and come back (or circumnavigate total space, if space is a closed curve.) Now if you can maintain a constant 1 G, then it's quite possible to outlive the sun within a normal human lifetime. But the energy expenditure seems totally impossible, so some way would need to be found to sidestep that problem. (So I proposed inertialesssness [E.E.Smith's Lensman series] and momentum transfer [My own wild idea based off J.W.Campbell's "The Mightest Machine" and "The Incredible Planet" where momentum is handled via a sub-atomic particle, which they can manipulate]. Something as off the wall as one of those is going to be needed.)
In most places wind is intermittent. That means that if wind is your primary energy source you also need to build efficient ways to storing energy for when the wind isn't blowing, and these storage capacities need to be large enough to compensate for a long spell of dead air. (Alternatively, you could have secondary generators.)
This raises the expenses quite a lot. Just how much depends on what your secondary store is, and how much secondary storage you need. Unfortunately, most ways of storing energy have tremendous inefficiencies, and many of them are quite expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Prior administrations did not routinely cut benefits after people had "signed up". (Yes, I'm thinking military here...that's the big PR point of the government currently.)
I don't know whether this administration has been living up to contracts that it signed with independent contractors. I do know, because of reading the papers, that it has cut benefits to troops after they have signed up. (And it wasn't a legislative decision...though I haven't heard many voices from Congress objecting, either.)
That was blatantly dishonest on their part. If you forgive that, then you deserve whatever happens to you. (I also seem to remember that the administration has been slashing the funding on VA hospitals...but I'm less certain of that. If I were considering voting for them, I'd need to check, but as they're already beyond redemption, I see no reason to pore through garage.)
This government doesn't have a good name for honesty. Or trustworthiness. Or consideration. Or not cutting your benefits after they have you signed up. Or...
Turn it around. Why *expletive* would anyone want to work for it? Including DARPA.
Ignorance is the prime reason that I can think of. Tunnel vision & short sightedness comes a close second. But those aren't characteristics of the "best and the brightest".
Sounds to me like syndicated columnists. Such people are paid for.
OK. When I said changing licenses, I meant along the lines of "I had been planning on switching from GPL2 to GPL3, but now I'm going to seriously consider the AGPL".
OTOH, I do consider what Noika's proposing as being more offensive than sending spam.
Now explain why we would want to help them.
GPL code can be used in a lot of ways, and perhaps Noika can use it in the way they desire. But I have no desire to help them in doing so. And I see no advantage in helping them in doing so.
I don't really see any advantage in Linux running on a lot of locked and sealed boxes, and that seems to be all that Noika is offering. I'm not really against allowing them to do that, as long as they abide by the licensing agreements. (I'm contemplating using AGPL from now on, though.) But I don't see ANY reason to help them. And I don't see any reason to use licenses friendly to their desires, when they so totally ignore mine.
Personally, if he can do what he wants with the existing licenses, it makes me think that perhaps the licenses need to be changed, but I'm not certain. We don't explicitly forbid using FOSS to send spam, so maybe this is also something that should be tolerated. But I put it in the same class, or possibly worse.
Well, remember that Noika owns TrollTech. ... You know, the people who write Qt.
I still don't see any reason to accept his demands. I don't see much benefit and I see lots of costs. But he could be "subtly" threatening to kill open Qt development.
And I still say "Drop Dead twice!".
(But your argument needs revising.)
Meta: Clicking on "Continue Editing" discards what has currently been entered.
And before that so full of coffee your nerves were jangly.
Is it still mandatory that a copy be deposited with the Library of Congress? I thought that had been eliminated.
No! No!
It's lying about a blowjob.
Multi-Edit was nice. When I used MSWind, it was my favorite editor. Now, though, I use NEdit or Kate or KEdit or GEdit. Usually Kate or NEdit. NEdit is better for languages that I need to define the parsing rules for, Kate is better if the language exists in it's database of languages that it knows how to parse.
Thanks for the memory. It's been a long time since I've thought of Multi-Edit.
Actually, in the case of editors, he may have a point, but in the case of IDEs it's not Free Software that killed developer tools, it's MSVisualStudio. They take most of the money from people who have money to throw around. And if you don't have money to throw around, you aren't going to pay for something that's only (perhaps) marginally better than the FOSS version. (I've frequently found that tools that I paid for were dramatically WORSE than the FOSS tools. It's hard to give most software a reasonable test before purchasing it.)
Unfortunately, when I look around at Pizza businesses I see everything from moderate success to bankruptcy. And that's in just one small neighborhood.
So without knowing the factors that determine success in the Pizza business, I can't guess whether he has those factors. Perhaps he would have done much worse in the Pizza business.
I wouldn't claim that economics isn't a science. I don't know enough about it. But popular economics isn't a science, and neither is politically motivated economics.
I don't think it's easy to upgrade their network (to FIOS), but I *DO* think that the government already paid them to do it.
Because of the design of the electoral system.
It's a pity. Almost any other electoral system would be better. I favor Condorcet (sp?), but Instant Runoff isn't all *that* bad, and both are amazingly superior to the winner-take-all system that the US uses.
If you don't trust what he says now, why do you trust what he said earlier?
McCain is one who wishes to continue this illegal war indefinitely. I can't imagine a virtue good enough to excuse that.
She *could* be angling for the vice-presidency. (I haven't seen the campaign ads, as I don't watch TV. If she hasn't said anything unforgivable, then it seems plausible. I'm not sure about desirable.)
This seems a bit of a wild card, but the investment seems actually rather small, and if it works the payoff is high.
I don't really have an informed opinion as to how reasonable this is, but consider it as an important test of a non-mainstream theory. As such it seems worth the cost (provided that the report of the results is detailed, honest, and complete). People should report experimental failures as well as successes.
OTOH, it's not my money they're spending...so I can't even claim the right to a report on the results...
I agree that there's also a lot of short term fluctuation that some people are getting rich on. (The terms "price-fixing" and "criminal conspiracy" somehow come to mind.)
And it's also true that the oil supply is limited (at any particular price).
But I still think that the basic cause of the current price level is the devaluation of the dollar...and that it hasn't hit bottom yet. Much of the US debt is held by a few foreign countries, and they could kill the dollar in a day if they chose to (and at the cost of devaluing their holdings).
You might consider the following question:
How much is $4/gal a price increase, and how much is it a devaluation of the dollar?
I think it's pretty clear that it's largely a devaluation of the dollar.
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron. The rules of property have been designed to be a (minimally) acceptable compromise on how to deal with physical objects. They fail miserably when you attempt to extend them to cover information.
Of the approaches known, copyright is the best approach to covering information, but I would argue that if the publisher implements DRM then the copyright should not apply to his works, because he is reneging on the social contract ab initio (or at least attempting to do so). This could be dealt with via "libraries of deposit", but as far as I know it is not being so dealt. The stated purpose of copyright (and patents) is to facilitate the information currently held as secret becoming public knowledge. Attempting to prevent this from happening (e.g. via DRM) should automatically forfeit any protection from the law.
Trademarks are a separate issue. Here the issue is protecting the identity of an entity. The current law seems to work fairly well. It's got some rough spots that should be debugged, but they are relatively trivial.
Well, when you get infected with a virus it can't phone home. That's worth a lot. (Not enough, maybe, but a lot.)
1) For a long trip, say to a distant part of the galaxy, your assertion is correct, though I would assert that longevity is a much easier problem than generating the amount of energy that would be required. (Even total conversion of mass to energy wouldn't suffice.)
2) You can almost leave relativity out of your calculations below 90% of the speed of light. Above that it becomes increasingly important. I don't think (I haven't calculated) that you'd hit 99.9% before turnover on the way to Alpha Centauri. (You might, it's close enough that a guess is uncertain, and that's what I'm making.)
So the minimum trip before you start to see significant time dilation (at constant 1 G) would be a couple of years. Add in slowdown and that means that you've invested 4 years without any age related advantage to speak of. Not what I understand the goal to be in this discussion.
If I'm remembering correctly the goal stated at the ancestral post was to traverse space at high speed (posited 99.9% of light speed) as a way of extending life span (wrt stationary entities). You don't get that effect unless you turn around and come back (or circumnavigate total space, if space is a closed curve.) Now if you can maintain a constant 1 G, then it's quite possible to outlive the sun within a normal human lifetime. But the energy expenditure seems totally impossible, so some way would need to be found to sidestep that problem. (So I proposed inertialesssness [E.E.Smith's Lensman series] and momentum transfer [My own wild idea based off J.W.Campbell's "The Mightest Machine" and "The Incredible Planet" where momentum is handled via a sub-atomic particle, which they can manipulate]. Something as off the wall as one of those is going to be needed.)
The current google search returns mostly entries referencing the Ruby version, but there's also a Python version.
Kirbybase stores its data in text files, so I think that counts as flat.
http://www.netpromi.com/kirbybase_ruby.html
http://www.netpromi.com/kirbybase_python.html
(s.a. http://www.netpromi.com/index.html )
Caution: I've never used this product. I just noted that the specs seem to fit your request.
In most places wind is intermittent. That means that if wind is your primary energy source you also need to build efficient ways to storing energy for when the wind isn't blowing, and these storage capacities need to be large enough to compensate for a long spell of dead air. (Alternatively, you could have secondary generators.)
This raises the expenses quite a lot. Just how much depends on what your secondary store is, and how much secondary storage you need. Unfortunately, most ways of storing energy have tremendous inefficiencies, and many of them are quite expensive.