A home made waterwheel, biodiesel and burning trees for energy? Gimme a break...
The whooshing sound was my point passing over your head.
Have you ever done the sums on just how much land would be required to replace oil usage with biodiesel?
Not personally, but I have checked the figures that others have published. Have you checked your sources? Care to elucidate why you think there is more of a land shortage than an oil shortage? You might want to do some research on the omnibus farm bill that expires this year before you decide how cropland can or should be used.
What would happen to the US's forests if you started large-scale burning of trees for energy?
We are already doing it, and have been for over 200 years. However, both Engineer Poet's article and the Vermont furnace I linked are talking about using rapid-growth biomass, not ancient forests. I own less than two acres of land and I find that I need to dispose of more biomass every year (which I do by composting, burning in my clean woodstove, and woodworking) than would be required to heat a half-dozen typical Scandinavian homes. By contrast, my neighbors pay to have their fallen branches, garden wastes, and hedge trimmings hauled to the landfill.
And that in-stream hydro? With a grand total of 24 watts of output? Yes, you could light at least two flourescent lamps with that - but you'd struggle to run a laptop computer...
You're saying two fluorescent lights with zero hardware investment (all salvage most people would send to the landfill) and almost no maintenance isn't worthwhile because it won't help you look at porn? OK, the porn joke is an invalid argument - but so is yours.
My conclusion is that either most deep Greens can't do basic arithmetic, or expect unrealistic and totally unnecessary (you can generate more than enough carbon-free energy to support a modern lifestyle, it will just require the two methods that they don't like - nuclear and/or fossil fuels with geosequestration) alterations to Western lifestyles.
So, given the propositions that all fish live in the sea, and all herring are fish, you have gone on to conclude that if you buy kippers it will not rain on monday.
C'mon, give me a break. The point I was making is that green is not left (conservation is really a conservative value - think about it) and that greens are not marching in lockstep towards some group-think gestalt solution. You, like the person I was criticising, have already got your conclusions about who is "right" and "correct" and you are warping your perception of reality to suit! Why do you think "most deep Greens... don't like nuclear and/or geosequestration"? Because your logic is circular - you have predefined "deep Green" to be this boogeyman who doesn't like nukes. I know plenty of pro-nuke environmentalists - and I've also met plenty of people who are anti-nuke yet otherwise totally uncaring about environmental issues.
Try telling any green environmental lefty that Ethanol is a bad thing and show them why, and they turn their nose saying, "But, but, but, but its GREEN!"
This directly contradicts my own thirty years of experience with environmentally aware and politically active people. I strongly suspect you avoid such people, since you seem to have no idea how they behave or react in meatspace. News flash, glass saviour - ethanol and fool cells are what the right-wing browns are pushing. Products designed not only to fail, but to protect entrenched interests in the bargain.
Stop getting your perspective on "greens", "environmentalists", and "lefties" from the dirty energy meme-machine and you might find that there are some green environmentalists who know what they are talking about. Many of them are conservative (in the true sense of the term, not like the radical pro-monopoly big-government neo-cons who masquerade as conservatives).
Your statement is essentially the same kind of blind prejudice as "black people all like chitlins and watermelon"; it's a way to depersonalize a whole group of people so you can discount their value.
Contrary to the slashpost, every previous "upgrade" version of windows I've ever seen also required a previously installed version of windows (or DOS, in some cases).
The fix has always been pretty simple; boot the first installation disk, exit to a prompt, partition & format the drive, and create a directory called "C:/windows". Fdisk and format are both on the first installation disk so it's dead easy.
Restart installation and everything works fine. It's just checking for a directory name. Similarly, Vista has to be checking for something, so you just provide that something and roll on.
Similarly, when Sun switched to SysV-derived Solaris the boot disk you had to use to install the system booted BSD-derived SunOS. I thought it was very funny at the time that it needed to use BSD to install SysV.
I think the DEC VAX 8800 had a PDP-11 inside it for a boot device, probably running TSX (but that was a long time ago, I forget the details). It was funny to open up the giant blue cabinet (we called it "The IBM" because it was big and blue, our DEC sales rep was not amused) and see the old school PDP hiding inside.
Huh? Solaris is SysV. I remember when it came out, and the noise of gnashing teeth rose up to disturb heaven. Prior to Solaris (aka SunOS 5) all the Sun fan-boys I knew were die-hard BSD bigots, and spoke of SysV with great disdain - when Sun switched over they were in the same position as mac users who loudly trumpeted the inferiority of intel hardware.
If the chart you linked shows OS-X as "a direct descendant" of BSD, it also shows linux as a "direct descendant" of minix. The author of minix has publically stated that linux does not have any code from minix in it. I admire the dedication of the person who created the chart, but I don't think it is relevant to the discussion of whether MacOSX = BSD. It doesn't even distinguish between kernels and utility suites, I don't think the author intends it to be a canonical reference.
The entire BSD userland is available on OSX. So I'd say that's pretty much BSD.
If you install the Berkeley VOS toolkit and TGV Multinet on a DEC VAX/VMS system you have the BSD networking stack and user interface. Does that magically transform the VMS kernel into a NO-OP? I've never yet heard anyone say VMS was BSD (not even "pretty much" BSD) although I seem to recall VMS was actually the first POSIX-compliant operating system.
Saying something contains your favorite parts of something_else and therefore is something_else is sounds highly illogical to me.
FreeBSD is the primary reference codebase for the BSD portion of the XNU kernel. It's fair to say that there is more FreeBSD-derived code in MacOS than in Windows, Solaris, or Linux.
I have no reason to disagree with either statement, although I have not personally measured the amount of BSD source in any of those.
I only balk when people equate XNU with BSD. Share the love with Carnegie-Mellon's mach kernel, I say.
DEC's OSF/1 unix was also a choreographed train-wreck of mach and BSD; a pretty nice OS, in some ways quite similar to XNU.
And wasn't AIX's microkernel derived from mach as well?
I'd argue that an OS is BSD if it's a direct descendant of the Berkeley Systems Distribution. I don't have much truck with Humpty Dumpty definitions, personally.
Are you sure that we agree on what the definition of "is" is?;)
By your argument, Cheslov is actually the dead guy he got his replacement heart from. Or is he still Cheslov, since your nebulously defined word "essence" implies air and he just got a heart, not a full heart-lung job? I'm not buying it. Mac OSX is not BSD. Neither is Solaris, and neither is Windows 98se. All three contain BSD code but that's the extent of it.
I don't know about current versions (perhaps someone else will enlighten us?) but years ago I ran the GNU version of the unix utility "strings" on some of the executables in a win98 install, and found BSD code in the ftp client.
If you are on a dual-boot system, mount your windows partition and do "strings" on the files, look for something obvious like "regents"...
find/windows_partition -type f -exec strings {} \; | grep -i regent...might do the trick.
Macs do not come with BSD. They run XNU.
on
Small Form Factor PCs
·
· Score: 5, Informative
They run XNU (perhaps known to you as Darwin or MacOS X) which has exactly as much relationship to BSD as a chevy does to a ford - they use similar interfaces and are derived from the same original innovations.
One of the many contradictions inherent in the Apple Religion is that BSD is bad, but Mac OSX is BSD in all ways that matter, and Mac OSX is good. Go read the wikipedia article if you want to get past the religious dogma.
In reality MacOS is not BSD (BSD is tighter, faster, and uglier). It's the latest version of XNU, and XNU probably has no more BSD code in it than Solaris, linux or Windows does.
PS: I use a mac, so the faithful need not crucify me for these comments. I'm sure simple flogging will do.
...the failure of more CIOs to become CEO has to be one of the biggest mysteries of our age
It's only a mystery to the sort of schmuck that actually aspires to be a CEO.
Many geeks aspire to be rich, famous, or powerful. Achieving this without becoming a manager - especially without becoming a CEO - is success, you fail when you have to resort to sleazy trades like sales or management in order to acheive your end goals.
Despite his non-violent rhetoric, Ghandi's political activities caused a tremendous amount of sectarian and racist violence, which he was never able to control.
A better example of your point would be some of the Tibetan Bhuddists - if you REALLY REALLY piss them off, they will douse themselves in gasoline and (carefully, with due consideration for bystanders) IMMOLATE THEMSELVES! Take that, you opressors, guess we showed you what for!
Yeah, I don't worry much about those guys getting out of control.
Since it is an article of faith among the Neocon chorus that "dissent is being suppressed by politically motivated Global Warming fear-mongers" I'd guess the gentleman figures if he's going to be blamed for it, he may as well do it.
If some lying bastich that hates me claims I scratched his car, and I'm going to have to pay for his new paint job despite my innocence, I'm gonna go scratch that mother!
I'm not sure what "the inspiration of this project may be diluted" means. Nobody on the project expects the machines to be invulnerable to theft, so I don't anticipate anyone getting disillusioned.
Some people will always steal. This does not matter to the project, it's not a project to stop theft; and since OLPC machines aren't going to be shipped into areas where it would make economic sense to steal them, their theft is unlikely to be profitable enough to endanger the project goals.
Get war-torn theocracies and starving African families out of your mind, they are not part of this project - there's another project for them, that involves keeping them from starving. The OLPC project is NOT dealing with cultures where people can routinely steal from children without repercussions.
Ah, the global warming defense.
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
"Why, if this was happening, there would be a great big smoking gun lying on the table in front of me!"
Your post is nonsensical. (Hint: eBay is on board.)
Not that anyone really cares, though. Are you proposing that we prevent people from giving water to Pakistanis because they might give some to terrorists? Terrorists need water more than laptops, after all.
I've offered to pay him for stuff several times, he either turns me down or simply doesn't answer.
Doesn't trust me for some reason. Probably my winning personality... even though I have offered to sign whatever paperwork he wants, and have my employers do the same...
The 90/10 rule says that your program spends 90% of its time in only 10% of its code, and that optimizing the other 90% of the code is basically a waste. And yet people who want their programs to "go fast" are writing that 90% in a low-level language, effectively wasting a large amount of effort.
Um, I recommend to you reusable code modules. In any language.
At least 90% of that 90% should be implemented as library routines.
Back in the day we talked about OTL and RTL, before the black ships came and we lost the secret of hose gartering that never ravels, er, but I digress...
Slashdot Mirror
C'mon, give me a break. The point I was making is that green is not left (conservation is really a conservative value - think about it) and that greens are not marching in lockstep towards some group-think gestalt solution. You, like the person I was criticising, have already got your conclusions about who is "right" and "correct" and you are warping your perception of reality to suit! Why do you think "most deep Greens... don't like nuclear and/or geosequestration"? Because your logic is circular - you have predefined "deep Green" to be this boogeyman who doesn't like nukes. I know plenty of pro-nuke environmentalists - and I've also met plenty of people who are anti-nuke yet otherwise totally uncaring about environmental issues.
Corn ethanol is not green. Greens aren't following your agenda.
Stop getting your perspective on "greens", "environmentalists", and "lefties" from the dirty energy meme-machine and you might find that there are some green environmentalists who know what they are talking about. Many of them are conservative (in the true sense of the term, not like the radical pro-monopoly big-government neo-cons who masquerade as conservatives).
Your statement is essentially the same kind of blind prejudice as "black people all like chitlins and watermelon"; it's a way to depersonalize a whole group of people so you can discount their value.
Contrary to the slashpost, every previous "upgrade" version of windows I've ever seen also required a previously installed version of windows (or DOS, in some cases).
The fix has always been pretty simple; boot the first installation disk, exit to a prompt, partition & format the drive, and create a directory called "C:/windows". Fdisk and format are both on the first installation disk so it's dead easy.
Restart installation and everything works fine. It's just checking for a directory name. Similarly, Vista has to be checking for something, so you just provide that something and roll on.
In Delaware at least, a verbal contract is binding. Legally, the company must honor it.
The problem is that you have to prove the contract was made, and without a written copy that can be difficult.
Similarly, when Sun switched to SysV-derived Solaris the boot disk you had to use to install the system booted BSD-derived SunOS. I thought it was very funny at the time that it needed to use BSD to install SysV.
I think the DEC VAX 8800 had a PDP-11 inside it for a boot device, probably running TSX (but that was a long time ago, I forget the details). It was funny to open up the giant blue cabinet (we called it "The IBM" because it was big and blue, our DEC sales rep was not amused) and see the old school PDP hiding inside.
...you're on slashdot trying to make a point. I shall counter your extension with one of my own!
The offspring of a zebra and a horse is not a horse
Something derived from two other things, containing elements of both, is not merely one of those things.
I don't know why people are so vehement that the mach part of XNU doesn't count... but having just found the kernelthread article where Apple zealots flame the hell out of Amit Singh for saying Mac OSX isn't unix (horrors! the sky is falling!) I do believe I will give up now.
Never mind.
Huh? Solaris is SysV. I remember when it came out, and the noise of gnashing teeth rose up to disturb heaven. Prior to Solaris (aka SunOS 5) all the Sun fan-boys I knew were die-hard BSD bigots, and spoke of SysV with great disdain - when Sun switched over they were in the same position as mac users who loudly trumpeted the inferiority of intel hardware.
If the chart you linked shows OS-X as "a direct descendant" of BSD, it also shows linux as a "direct descendant" of minix. The author of minix has publically stated that linux does not have any code from minix in it. I admire the dedication of the person who created the chart, but I don't think it is relevant to the discussion of whether MacOSX = BSD. It doesn't even distinguish between kernels and utility suites, I don't think the author intends it to be a canonical reference.
If it fits, wear it.
Saying something contains your favorite parts of something_else and therefore is something_else is sounds highly illogical to me.
I only balk when people equate XNU with BSD. Share the love with Carnegie-Mellon's mach kernel, I say.
DEC's OSF/1 unix was also a choreographed train-wreck of mach and BSD; a pretty nice OS, in some ways quite similar to XNU.
And wasn't AIX's microkernel derived from mach as well?
I'd argue that an OS is BSD if it's a direct descendant of the Berkeley Systems Distribution. I don't have much truck with Humpty Dumpty definitions, personally.
;)
Are you sure that we agree on what the definition of "is" is?
By your argument, Cheslov is actually the dead guy he got his replacement heart from. Or is he still Cheslov, since your nebulously defined word "essence" implies air and he just got a heart, not a full heart-lung job? I'm not buying it. Mac OSX is not BSD. Neither is Solaris, and neither is Windows 98se. All three contain BSD code but that's the extent of it.
I don't know about current versions (perhaps someone else will enlighten us?) but years ago I ran the GNU version of the unix utility "strings" on some of the executables in a win98 install, and found BSD code in the ftp client.
/windows_partition -type f -exec strings {} \; | grep -i regent ...might do the trick.
If you are on a dual-boot system, mount your windows partition and do "strings" on the files, look for something obvious like "regents"...
find
They run XNU (perhaps known to you as Darwin or MacOS X) which has exactly as much relationship to BSD as a chevy does to a ford - they use similar interfaces and are derived from the same original innovations.
One of the many contradictions inherent in the Apple Religion is that BSD is bad, but Mac OSX is BSD in all ways that matter, and Mac OSX is good. Go read the wikipedia article if you want to get past the religious dogma.
In reality MacOS is not BSD (BSD is tighter, faster, and uglier). It's the latest version of XNU, and XNU probably has no more BSD code in it than Solaris, linux or Windows does.
PS: I use a mac, so the faithful need not crucify me for these comments. I'm sure simple flogging will do.
Many geeks aspire to be rich, famous, or powerful. Achieving this without becoming a manager - especially without becoming a CEO - is success, you fail when you have to resort to sleazy trades like sales or management in order to acheive your end goals.
Despite his non-violent rhetoric, Ghandi's political activities caused a tremendous amount of sectarian and racist violence, which he was never able to control.
A better example of your point would be some of the Tibetan Bhuddists - if you REALLY REALLY piss them off, they will douse themselves in gasoline and (carefully, with due consideration for bystanders) IMMOLATE THEMSELVES! Take that, you opressors, guess we showed you what for!
Yeah, I don't worry much about those guys getting out of control.
Since it is an article of faith among the Neocon chorus that "dissent is being suppressed by politically motivated Global Warming fear-mongers" I'd guess the gentleman figures if he's going to be blamed for it, he may as well do it.
If some lying bastich that hates me claims I scratched his car, and I'm going to have to pay for his new paint job despite my innocence, I'm gonna go scratch that mother!
I'm not sure what "the inspiration of this project may be diluted" means. Nobody on the project expects the machines to be invulnerable to theft, so I don't anticipate anyone getting disillusioned.
Some people will always steal. This does not matter to the project, it's not a project to stop theft; and since OLPC machines aren't going to be shipped into areas where it would make economic sense to steal them, their theft is unlikely to be profitable enough to endanger the project goals.
Get war-torn theocracies and starving African families out of your mind, they are not part of this project - there's another project for them, that involves keeping them from starving. The OLPC project is NOT dealing with cultures where people can routinely steal from children without repercussions.
"Why, if this was happening, there would be a great big smoking gun lying on the table in front of me!"
CLUNK
"I'm not looking down, I'm not looking down, I'm not looking down! There's no smoking gun on this table!"
Your post is nonsensical. (Hint: eBay is on board.)
Not that anyone really cares, though. Are you proposing that we prevent people from giving water to Pakistanis because they might give some to terrorists? Terrorists need water more than laptops, after all.
I've offered to pay him for stuff several times, he either turns me down or simply doesn't answer.
Doesn't trust me for some reason. Probably my winning personality... even though I have offered to sign whatever paperwork he wants, and have my employers do the same...
Um, I recommend to you reusable code modules. In any language.
At least 90% of that 90% should be implemented as library routines.
Back in the day we talked about OTL and RTL, before the black ships came and we lost the secret of hose gartering that never ravels, er, but I digress...
I don't know of any case where a memory leak can be considered user error so saying "you have to use it right" sounds pretty fishy to me.