What do you mean by that? Any news organization is going to have spectacular and not-so-spectacular segments and stories. If you're going to suspect an entire organization based on a report you might not agree with, do you discount *all* of the world's news organizations? Reporters aren't perfect.
Sometimes institutional bias does cause a mess (remember the BBC fiasco a few years ago). But if you read a variety of viewpoints, maybe there's something to be learned. I dunno. I tend to use BBC, CBC, and Al Jazeera for news generally.
Seems like lately almost all news sites seem to have an anti-Israeli bias, but I will admit that some of Israel's actions and policies have made it hard for even the most unbiased reporter to not sound critical. And criticism I don't mind, provided it is fair.
Yup here they come. Except for issues that have directly to do with the Qatari government and its interests (for example Arab Spring in Qatar), Al Jazeera english is quite fair and balanced. And they go a lot of places other news organizations are unable or unwilling to go. This may be unpleasant to Americans (the inside story of the civil war in Syria, for example), or even uncomfortable when the results of western action are exposed.
In any case, give it a look see yourself. Go to their web site and watch right there online. Or do this:
My bad. reading the charts wrong. 10% is indeed in some farm land in North America. 5% seems more typical though. And the lucky ones, such as those in my area, 2%.
Two weeks later, but hey, why not. Are you a farmer yourself? Do you grow organically? It doesn't sound like it.
And when you talk about 10% organic matter, you're too funny. 10% organic matter exists in tropical forest floors, but not in any farmland in north america. http://www.soils.wisc.edu/courses/SS325/organic.htm . Brazilian farmers get pretty excited about burning down rainforest to plant in that 10% soil. All that organic matter reduces inputs dramatically and generates extremely high yields, for a few years. Then the soil is depleted to the normal levels typical on North American farms and they find their input costs are driven way up, so they abandon that land and burn some more rainforest down. In North America we don't have that luxury if you want to call it that. One thing I do know about replenishing the soil is that erosion can harm soil and it will never ever recover.
Organic farming, really, is similar to Brazilian soil mining, unless you fertilize (manure can provide a lot of this) a lot. You will run out of the other nutrients also. That's why organic farming is no more sustainable than any other form of farming. That gets into weed control.
I repeat rotation is about weed and disease control plain and simple. You telling me it is otherwise is kind of like telling me I'm putting gas in my car for reasons other than I need fuel. I've told you that I rotate crops for weed and disease control.
Sadly in both of these particular areas, organic farming is falling way short. We had a near lawsuit over organic farming in my area because one guy's organic operation was spreading weeds far and wide an forcing neighbors to spray a lot more than they would normally, and for the next several years. Didn't impress me at all.
Oops you just gave it away that you didn't read the article (the original speech). Hint he addresses both of these issues. The first issue has largely come about because anti-GMO fervor has created a regulatory structure that essentially hands biotech to a few big multi-national companies (who are more about IP than humaity), and at the same time destroys independent and publicly-funded research by using emotional arguments to turn the public against any and all biotech. Finally the last issue you raise actually doesn't exist at all (I'm a farmer and I can attest to that). Hybrid crops (not the same as GMO by the way) pretty much guarantee that seed can only be planted once. This isn't some sort of sinister technology; it's the basis of plant genetics... go back and read Mendellson's original work on crossing peas.
Replying to my own post here. Another good example of where metric units don't work out so well is estimating distance by pacing. Most people don't have a yard or metre-long average stride. I can do metre-long strides, but I have to pace rather unnaturally and with very long steps. My average stride, and most people's actually, is closer to two feet. So is it easier to count paces and multiply by two, or count paces and multiply by 2 and divide by 3?
Of course in this day and age people don't pace off distance or estimate dimensions, so all of this argument is likely moot. Google Earth can do dimensions in either unit!
This is a highly subjective thing as you can get used to whatever you have been taught. I was taught in metric, but I'm also familiar with American units. I find metric vastly superior for math and science purposes, owing to the ease of conversion between units.
However, the problem with metric is that for the everyday things, metric units just aren't convenient nor easy for humans to estimate. For example, the centimetre is really too small to be useful for estimating dimensions, and the metre is too big for small things, like rooms, desk dimensions. A decimetre may work, but even that is a bit too big of a unit. An inch is just about right for many things, though. Likewise, for intermediate distances, feet vs metres. I submit it's easier to estimate one's own height in feet and inches than it is to use metres.
For other things like roads and fields (I happen to farm right now), the land was surveyed years ago in miles and acres. That's unlikely to ever change in Canada or the US. Grid roads are in miles here in Canada. After 150 years, we're really good at estimating in miles. Not so great in KM.
All this said, American science courses, from my experience, use metric in the worse possible way. So it's no wonder Americans grow up with a distaste for it in their minds. In college I remember doing physics where the inputs and calculations were all done in metric, and then they wanted the final answer in some bizarre mix of metric and imperial units. Granted I farm now and everything I do seems to end up in metric units per acre. ahh well.
I actually farm, so I feel the need to step in here and correct you a little bit. The richest soils I know are only 5% organic matter. And while I share your concerns over ethanol production in general, you don't appear to know a whole lot about soil science in general. Continuous cropping of any kind does deplete the soil. But it doesn't deplete it in terms of organic matter (though it can affect that). It depletes the soil of macro and micro nutrients (minerals). And you are wrong about corn being produced by top soil. Crops can grow in soils without any organic matter at all (I know because I've done it), but without organic matter you have to provide 100% of the nutrients the plant needs. N, P, K, S, Cu, Bo, and a host of others. That's part of the core problem with corn ethanol in general: corn is produced by feeding the plants the vast majority of their required nutrients through synthetic fertilizers, which come from fossil fuels (natural gas is the main one).
High organic matter soils are rich because they have a greater capacity to produce the fundamental nutrients by breaking down plant matter. But no matter how you cut it, if you aren't fertilizing in some way (synthetic or manure) you're just mining your soil of nutrients and eventually you'll run out.
Crop rotation has little to do with organic matter or soil richness. Crop rotation is almost all about disease and weed management. Corn farmers do rotate for this reason. Usually it's corn, soybeans, wheat, repeat, which is not enough. There is a small benefit to the soil of doing rotation, particularly when you grow legumes, which fix their own nitrogen and replenish the soil's nutrient levels.
I'm also in a position to comment on your thoughts on food production. The real problem with corn ethanol and food production is that it's driving up costs of all food commodities (wheat, beef, dairy) and inputs at a dramatic rate on a global level. This makes basic food more expensive all across the world. It's now cheaper in Africa to import grain than to grow it themselves, because of the input costs which are priced on a global market (yay for globalization). Not only is this an inflationary cycle, it also directly is affecting starvation in third-world countries who are now dependent on imports and handouts. So while starvation has nothing to do with the amount of food in the world, it's our practices that are directly contributing to it. Hence the criticisms of corn production replacing food production are indeed warranted.
Wow you had really crappy computer installations to work with. In my labs, gcc was in/usr/bin and I didn't have any write permission to that directory at all to mess things up. gcc and make just always worked for me.
Was she really convicted of "illegal downloading?" It has been my understanding of copyright law that downloading isn't illegal, only the uploading (making available). Hence the bittorrent crack downs. I can buy a bootleg CD abroad or in the US and it's not illegal to possess it. Is this incorrect? During the hay days of allofmp3.com, many Americans bought and downloaded music, but the RIAA could only shut it down by attacking the payment processors; I never heard of them going after allofmp3.com customers for illegal downloading (which they claimed all along that allofmp3.com was about).
It's very simple. Since the VLC developers own the copyright on their code (for this Windows 8 version), and presumably would require all contributors to turn over copyright of patches to them, then they can license it however they want. They are promising to dual-license it, meaning the GPLv2+ for anyone that wants it, and some "proprietary" license for the version downloaded from the app store. I'm sure MS will find some excuse to say this violates the spirit of their app store licensing rules, but from a legal standpoint, it is a completely justified way of doing it, and MS can't really deny it on the grounds of the GPL, because the app store binary will not be GPL. Of course if you want to you can download the exact source used to create the binary from videolan.org under the terms of the GPLv2. You can then make a binary yourself, but you will be unable to offer it on the app store because it's now GPL. The original app store binary is not GPL and you can't copy it and re-submit it to the app store as your own work like so many do on the android store with open source utilities like dosbox.
For all intents and purposes, any code that is under the GPL can be offered by the copyright holders to anyone on any terms. So in a sense all GPL code is potentially dual-license-able, provided all the copyright holders agree.
Apple denying VLC from their app store is probably as much to do with "duplicating existing functionality" as much as any licensing issue.
Hmm I guess being critical of Israeli policies gets one modded down. Kind of proves my point I guess. Sad, really. Next time instead of blindly modding me down because you disagree with me, try addressing my points.
Wow. Where to start with that diatribe. While I agree with much of what you say about what has happened in Egypt, accusing this person of being anti-Semitic is pretty darn close to invoking Godwin's law, and highly disingenuous.
Israel, the nation-state, definitely has the whole world in a nice spot. We can't criticize what they are doing, and the fact that they are deliberately inciting the Palestinian people with their actions, lest we be accused if being a Jew-hater or an anti-Semite. I greatly admire the Jewish people and what they have built in Haaretz Israel, but I am highly critical of high-level government policies that seem specifically designed to thwart the prospect for peace for whatever reason. Granted Palestinian leadership doesn't seem interested in peace either, but then again most of the moderate leadership potential have been killed, either by the Israeli military or by extremists among their own people, or have been pushed to extremism by the ongoing-policies of settlement building (in land Israel has no intention of ever annexing except piecemeal) and Palestinian house razing. The situation in the Holy Land is a political one, not a religious one. I would urge you to travel there and see first hand how the two peoples interact with each other. Talk to Israelis about their Palestinian neighbors. Talk to Palestinians about their Jewish neighbors, and also about their prospects and hope for the future. I think you'll find that hope and future potential, particularly for the average west bank resident, are in very short supply, and it's easy to see why. I've done this and I have many good friends on both sides of the political divide. I'm aware of how difficult and nuanced the situation really is.
As for painting the Muslims with a broad brush, well, you've got it fairly wrong. In the middle east, the people and cultures are primarily Arab (Muslim, Christian, and for a very tiny minority, Jewish--yes Jewish Arabs do exist), and many of the things we have such a hard time with aren't really religious in nature, but cultural.
And as for Arabs being rich in natural resouces, I can tell by that statement you have never visited the region. All of the nations that surround Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria have practically no oil resources at all. Egypt has natural gas, but nothing like Saudi Arabia. And all of these countries have hardly any water. It's only the gulf Arab states that have oil and wealth. And they are beset by corrupt, despotic regimes that we support in the west. The average Saudi sees nothing of the benefit of the oil revenues that flow like liquid gold in the region.
Haha. Nice try. That's how I used to do it. Source code available != portable to Linux easily. These days, it's much harder, but is doable, at least for 10.6-compatible binaries: https://github.com/Tatsh/xchain/
A few years ago I regularly built Qt-based binaries on my Linux machine, targeting PPC OS X (10.3). It was pretty slick. I tried to set up a cross-compiling environment later under 10.4 fat binary days, but that proved too difficult, sadly. As it stands now, if I could run apple's native compiler and tools under linux, outputting nice OS X app bundles for Qt apps, that would be pretty slick.
Sounds great in theory, in practice could lead to a whole new form of closed source where open source code (which becomes public domain) is taken by companies with impunity and we'll never ever see their source code, copyright or not.
Also it adds some burden to, for example, open source developers. This puts a considerable amount of work on an open source developer to ensure that his work remains FLOSS. For example, the Linux kernel is a lot older than 12 years now. If Linus hadn't gone through the motions to register the copyright and apply for extensions, by now we'd see a whole host of proprietary companies legally take the Linux source code and do what they want with it. Tivos, android, whatever. Sure Linus could renew the copyright, but how do you judge the revenue on a FLOSS project? Redhat's revenue? IBM?
And while the code would in theory be not copyrighted anymore, companies can still sell a closed, copyrighted project derived from it, and keep the modifications they made secret, without sharing any code ever. And just because they lose the copyright on their own works after 12 years doesn't mean you'll get to see their source code either, unless someone physically leaks it. So the benefit of copyrights expiring, in terms of open source, is really just one-way, towards a proprietary software company's benefit. We'll never see Microsoft releasing windows source code, even if they no longer own the copyright on it.
The one remote user per computer bit is a limitation Microsoft has placed on their non-server OS's. So no matter what software solution you use, you have to buy a Windows Server license and a bunch of CALs.
Chrome Remote Desktop can be enabled as a service. That's what the second box is for on the main screen when you first fire it up in chrome. you can have a whole bunch of computers that show up there and connect to them any time anywhere. And the Remote Desktop Server part runs as a service (I think it interfaces with Microsoft's RDP server for this). This part doesn't work on Linux though.
The rest of Chrome Remote Desktop works fine on Linux. In either direction.
Sorry, but copyright law (not talking about the DMCA nonsense here) is required to keep FLOSS FLOSS. It's our weapon to keep our software that we write and use free. At least until everyone advances to the point of being able to function in an anarchist, libertarian paradise.
Umm, yeah. I think you have a reading comprehension failure.
There is no logical fallacy in what I wrote. Unless you have a license to do so, you may not include code for which you do not own the copyright into your own code. Hope that is more clear for you. But the original sentence is both correct, and logical. And in fact supports your statement that a piece of code that has no license is not open source. That is the whole point. Sorry you missed it the first time.
Whether you are working on proprietary code or open source code, you can't just paste code from the net into your project without a license, regardless of whether it's GPL, BSD, or some royalty-free use grant. Unless the code has an explicit license, or states explicitly that it is in the public domain, you simply cannot use it without express permission from the copyright holder, because no law grants you that right. Plain and simple. So if code in a git repo is "all rights reserved," the you can look, and even download it, but you cannot put it into your own code. So I don't see what the problem is here. License always matters, whether you're a FLOSS person or developing commercial software.
So of course half of all git repos are unsafe to use. Why does this warrant some big sensationalist article? Kind of along the lines of articles claiming the GPL is a threat to proprietary software companies because it will "infect" them somehow magically. Folks, a little bit of understanding of copyright law will go a long ways I think. Open source, even copyleft, depends on copyright to keep it as such. We should all have a basic understanding of it.
Just as in the US, in Canada there's no such thing as "illegal downloading." Guess it's lucky for the copyright cartels that the most popular way to download a movie is with bittorrent which, conveniently-enough, involves uploading (making available).
In general, though, I wish the media would stop parroting the general idea that it's illegal to download copyrighted materials. It's no more illegal than bringing home a bootleg CD bought on the streets of Karachi.
This is odd, since on my Fedora 17 box I have both GTK+2 and GTK+3 installed just fine. I am running a mix of GTK+2 and GTK+3 apps. I also have the -devel packages for both installed.
I think you're conflating GTK with Gnome here. Gnome 3 purposely broke things by using the same library names for key gnome components. For example, Nautilus is still Nautilus, so I can't install Nautilus 2 and Nautilus 3 because they both use/usr/share/nautilus, for example. That's the issue.
There is no DLL hell here. Shared libraries are versioned, always have been always will. Except for packaging issues I can always install multiple versions of the same DLL. So stop spreading this kind of thing because it is untrue.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean by that? Any news organization is going to have spectacular and not-so-spectacular segments and stories. If you're going to suspect an entire organization based on a report you might not agree with, do you discount *all* of the world's news organizations? Reporters aren't perfect.
Sometimes institutional bias does cause a mess (remember the BBC fiasco a few years ago). But if you read a variety of viewpoints, maybe there's something to be learned. I dunno. I tend to use BBC, CBC, and Al Jazeera for news generally.
Seems like lately almost all news sites seem to have an anti-Israeli bias, but I will admit that some of Israel's actions and policies have made it hard for even the most unbiased reporter to not sound critical. And criticism I don't mind, provided it is fair.
Here's the web url for watching if you don't want to use mplayer or vlc:
http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/
Yup here they come. Except for issues that have directly to do with the Qatari government and its interests (for example Arab Spring in Qatar), Al Jazeera english is quite fair and balanced. And they go a lot of places other news organizations are unable or unwilling to go. This may be unpleasant to Americans (the inside story of the civil war in Syria, for example), or even uncomfortable when the results of western action are exposed.
In any case, give it a look see yourself. Go to their web site and watch right there online. Or do this:
rtmpdump -v -r rtmp://aljazeeraflashlivefs.fplive.net/aljazeeraflashlive-live/aljazeera_eng_med | mplayer -
My bad. reading the charts wrong. 10% is indeed in some farm land in North America. 5% seems more typical though. And the lucky ones, such as those in my area, 2%.
Two weeks later, but hey, why not. Are you a farmer yourself? Do you grow organically? It doesn't sound like it.
And when you talk about 10% organic matter, you're too funny. 10% organic matter exists in tropical forest floors, but not in any farmland in north america. http://www.soils.wisc.edu/courses/SS325/organic.htm . Brazilian farmers get pretty excited about burning down rainforest to plant in that 10% soil. All that organic matter reduces inputs dramatically and generates extremely high yields, for a few years. Then the soil is depleted to the normal levels typical on North American farms and they find their input costs are driven way up, so they abandon that land and burn some more rainforest down. In North America we don't have that luxury if you want to call it that. One thing I do know about replenishing the soil is that erosion can harm soil and it will never ever recover.
Organic farming, really, is similar to Brazilian soil mining, unless you fertilize (manure can provide a lot of this) a lot. You will run out of the other nutrients also. That's why organic farming is no more sustainable than any other form of farming. That gets into weed control.
I repeat rotation is about weed and disease control plain and simple. You telling me it is otherwise is kind of like telling me I'm putting gas in my car for reasons other than I need fuel. I've told you that I rotate crops for weed and disease control.
Sadly in both of these particular areas, organic farming is falling way short. We had a near lawsuit over organic farming in my area because one guy's organic operation was spreading weeds far and wide an forcing neighbors to spray a lot more than they would normally, and for the next several years. Didn't impress me at all.
Oops you just gave it away that you didn't read the article (the original speech). Hint he addresses both of these issues. The first issue has largely come about because anti-GMO fervor has created a regulatory structure that essentially hands biotech to a few big multi-national companies (who are more about IP than humaity), and at the same time destroys independent and publicly-funded research by using emotional arguments to turn the public against any and all biotech. Finally the last issue you raise actually doesn't exist at all (I'm a farmer and I can attest to that). Hybrid crops (not the same as GMO by the way) pretty much guarantee that seed can only be planted once. This isn't some sort of sinister technology; it's the basis of plant genetics... go back and read Mendellson's original work on crossing peas.
Replying to my own post here. Another good example of where metric units don't work out so well is estimating distance by pacing. Most people don't have a yard or metre-long average stride. I can do metre-long strides, but I have to pace rather unnaturally and with very long steps. My average stride, and most people's actually, is closer to two feet. So is it easier to count paces and multiply by two, or count paces and multiply by 2 and divide by 3?
Of course in this day and age people don't pace off distance or estimate dimensions, so all of this argument is likely moot. Google Earth can do dimensions in either unit!
This is a highly subjective thing as you can get used to whatever you have been taught. I was taught in metric, but I'm also familiar with American units. I find metric vastly superior for math and science purposes, owing to the ease of conversion between units.
However, the problem with metric is that for the everyday things, metric units just aren't convenient nor easy for humans to estimate. For example, the centimetre is really too small to be useful for estimating dimensions, and the metre is too big for small things, like rooms, desk dimensions. A decimetre may work, but even that is a bit too big of a unit. An inch is just about right for many things, though. Likewise, for intermediate distances, feet vs metres. I submit it's easier to estimate one's own height in feet and inches than it is to use metres.
For other things like roads and fields (I happen to farm right now), the land was surveyed years ago in miles and acres. That's unlikely to ever change in Canada or the US. Grid roads are in miles here in Canada. After 150 years, we're really good at estimating in miles. Not so great in KM.
All this said, American science courses, from my experience, use metric in the worse possible way. So it's no wonder Americans grow up with a distaste for it in their minds. In college I remember doing physics where the inputs and calculations were all done in metric, and then they wanted the final answer in some bizarre mix of metric and imperial units. Granted I farm now and everything I do seems to end up in metric units per acre. ahh well.
I actually farm, so I feel the need to step in here and correct you a little bit. The richest soils I know are only 5% organic matter. And while I share your concerns over ethanol production in general, you don't appear to know a whole lot about soil science in general. Continuous cropping of any kind does deplete the soil. But it doesn't deplete it in terms of organic matter (though it can affect that). It depletes the soil of macro and micro nutrients (minerals). And you are wrong about corn being produced by top soil. Crops can grow in soils without any organic matter at all (I know because I've done it), but without organic matter you have to provide 100% of the nutrients the plant needs. N, P, K, S, Cu, Bo, and a host of others. That's part of the core problem with corn ethanol in general: corn is produced by feeding the plants the vast majority of their required nutrients through synthetic fertilizers, which come from fossil fuels (natural gas is the main one).
High organic matter soils are rich because they have a greater capacity to produce the fundamental nutrients by breaking down plant matter. But no matter how you cut it, if you aren't fertilizing in some way (synthetic or manure) you're just mining your soil of nutrients and eventually you'll run out.
Crop rotation has little to do with organic matter or soil richness. Crop rotation is almost all about disease and weed management. Corn farmers do rotate for this reason. Usually it's corn, soybeans, wheat, repeat, which is not enough. There is a small benefit to the soil of doing rotation, particularly when you grow legumes, which fix their own nitrogen and replenish the soil's nutrient levels.
I'm also in a position to comment on your thoughts on food production. The real problem with corn ethanol and food production is that it's driving up costs of all food commodities (wheat, beef, dairy) and inputs at a dramatic rate on a global level. This makes basic food more expensive all across the world. It's now cheaper in Africa to import grain than to grow it themselves, because of the input costs which are priced on a global market (yay for globalization). Not only is this an inflationary cycle, it also directly is affecting starvation in third-world countries who are now dependent on imports and handouts. So while starvation has nothing to do with the amount of food in the world, it's our practices that are directly contributing to it. Hence the criticisms of corn production replacing food production are indeed warranted.
Wow you had really crappy computer installations to work with. In my labs, gcc was in /usr/bin and I didn't have any write permission to that directory at all to mess things up. gcc and make just always worked for me.
Was she really convicted of "illegal downloading?" It has been my understanding of copyright law that downloading isn't illegal, only the uploading (making available). Hence the bittorrent crack downs. I can buy a bootleg CD abroad or in the US and it's not illegal to possess it. Is this incorrect? During the hay days of allofmp3.com, many Americans bought and downloaded music, but the RIAA could only shut it down by attacking the payment processors; I never heard of them going after allofmp3.com customers for illegal downloading (which they claimed all along that allofmp3.com was about).
Any comments?
It's very simple. Since the VLC developers own the copyright on their code (for this Windows 8 version), and presumably would require all contributors to turn over copyright of patches to them, then they can license it however they want. They are promising to dual-license it, meaning the GPLv2+ for anyone that wants it, and some "proprietary" license for the version downloaded from the app store. I'm sure MS will find some excuse to say this violates the spirit of their app store licensing rules, but from a legal standpoint, it is a completely justified way of doing it, and MS can't really deny it on the grounds of the GPL, because the app store binary will not be GPL. Of course if you want to you can download the exact source used to create the binary from videolan.org under the terms of the GPLv2. You can then make a binary yourself, but you will be unable to offer it on the app store because it's now GPL. The original app store binary is not GPL and you can't copy it and re-submit it to the app store as your own work like so many do on the android store with open source utilities like dosbox.
For all intents and purposes, any code that is under the GPL can be offered by the copyright holders to anyone on any terms. So in a sense all GPL code is potentially dual-license-able, provided all the copyright holders agree.
Apple denying VLC from their app store is probably as much to do with "duplicating existing functionality" as much as any licensing issue.
Hmm I guess being critical of Israeli policies gets one modded down. Kind of proves my point I guess. Sad, really. Next time instead of blindly modding me down because you disagree with me, try addressing my points.
Wow. Where to start with that diatribe. While I agree with much of what you say about what has happened in Egypt, accusing this person of being anti-Semitic is pretty darn close to invoking Godwin's law, and highly disingenuous.
Israel, the nation-state, definitely has the whole world in a nice spot. We can't criticize what they are doing, and the fact that they are deliberately inciting the Palestinian people with their actions, lest we be accused if being a Jew-hater or an anti-Semite. I greatly admire the Jewish people and what they have built in Haaretz Israel, but I am highly critical of high-level government policies that seem specifically designed to thwart the prospect for peace for whatever reason. Granted Palestinian leadership doesn't seem interested in peace either, but then again most of the moderate leadership potential have been killed, either by the Israeli military or by extremists among their own people, or have been pushed to extremism by the ongoing-policies of settlement building (in land Israel has no intention of ever annexing except piecemeal) and Palestinian house razing. The situation in the Holy Land is a political one, not a religious one. I would urge you to travel there and see first hand how the two peoples interact with each other. Talk to Israelis about their Palestinian neighbors. Talk to Palestinians about their Jewish neighbors, and also about their prospects and hope for the future. I think you'll find that hope and future potential, particularly for the average west bank resident, are in very short supply, and it's easy to see why. I've done this and I have many good friends on both sides of the political divide. I'm aware of how difficult and nuanced the situation really is.
As for painting the Muslims with a broad brush, well, you've got it fairly wrong. In the middle east, the people and cultures are primarily Arab (Muslim, Christian, and for a very tiny minority, Jewish--yes Jewish Arabs do exist), and many of the things we have such a hard time with aren't really religious in nature, but cultural.
And as for Arabs being rich in natural resouces, I can tell by that statement you have never visited the region. All of the nations that surround Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria have practically no oil resources at all. Egypt has natural gas, but nothing like Saudi Arabia. And all of these countries have hardly any water. It's only the gulf Arab states that have oil and wealth. And they are beset by corrupt, despotic regimes that we support in the west. The average Saudi sees nothing of the benefit of the oil revenues that flow like liquid gold in the region.
Haha. Nice try. That's how I used to do it. Source code available != portable to Linux easily. These days, it's much harder, but is doable, at least for 10.6-compatible binaries: https://github.com/Tatsh/xchain/
A few years ago I regularly built Qt-based binaries on my Linux machine, targeting PPC OS X (10.3). It was pretty slick. I tried to set up a cross-compiling environment later under 10.4 fat binary days, but that proved too difficult, sadly. As it stands now, if I could run apple's native compiler and tools under linux, outputting nice OS X app bundles for Qt apps, that would be pretty slick.
Sounds great in theory, in practice could lead to a whole new form of closed source where open source code (which becomes public domain) is taken by companies with impunity and we'll never ever see their source code, copyright or not.
Also it adds some burden to, for example, open source developers. This puts a considerable amount of work on an open source developer to ensure that his work remains FLOSS. For example, the Linux kernel is a lot older than 12 years now. If Linus hadn't gone through the motions to register the copyright and apply for extensions, by now we'd see a whole host of proprietary companies legally take the Linux source code and do what they want with it. Tivos, android, whatever. Sure Linus could renew the copyright, but how do you judge the revenue on a FLOSS project? Redhat's revenue? IBM?
And while the code would in theory be not copyrighted anymore, companies can still sell a closed, copyrighted project derived from it, and keep the modifications they made secret, without sharing any code ever. And just because they lose the copyright on their own works after 12 years doesn't mean you'll get to see their source code either, unless someone physically leaks it. So the benefit of copyrights expiring, in terms of open source, is really just one-way, towards a proprietary software company's benefit. We'll never see Microsoft releasing windows source code, even if they no longer own the copyright on it.
The one remote user per computer bit is a limitation Microsoft has placed on their non-server OS's. So no matter what software solution you use, you have to buy a Windows Server license and a bunch of CALs.
Chrome Remote Desktop can be enabled as a service. That's what the second box is for on the main screen when you first fire it up in chrome. you can have a whole bunch of computers that show up there and connect to them any time anywhere. And the Remote Desktop Server part runs as a service (I think it interfaces with Microsoft's RDP server for this). This part doesn't work on Linux though.
The rest of Chrome Remote Desktop works fine on Linux. In either direction.
FreeNX still works for me, with the opennx client. I can yum install both the server and client.
Sorry, but copyright law (not talking about the DMCA nonsense here) is required to keep FLOSS FLOSS. It's our weapon to keep our software that we write and use free. At least until everyone advances to the point of being able to function in an anarchist, libertarian paradise.
Umm, yeah. I think you have a reading comprehension failure.
There is no logical fallacy in what I wrote. Unless you have a license to do so, you may not include code for which you do not own the copyright into your own code. Hope that is more clear for you. But the original sentence is both correct, and logical. And in fact supports your statement that a piece of code that has no license is not open source. That is the whole point. Sorry you missed it the first time.
Whether you are working on proprietary code or open source code, you can't just paste code from the net into your project without a license, regardless of whether it's GPL, BSD, or some royalty-free use grant. Unless the code has an explicit license, or states explicitly that it is in the public domain, you simply cannot use it without express permission from the copyright holder, because no law grants you that right. Plain and simple. So if code in a git repo is "all rights reserved," the you can look, and even download it, but you cannot put it into your own code. So I don't see what the problem is here. License always matters, whether you're a FLOSS person or developing commercial software.
So of course half of all git repos are unsafe to use. Why does this warrant some big sensationalist article? Kind of along the lines of articles claiming the GPL is a threat to proprietary software companies because it will "infect" them somehow magically. Folks, a little bit of understanding of copyright law will go a long ways I think. Open source, even copyleft, depends on copyright to keep it as such. We should all have a basic understanding of it.
Just as in the US, in Canada there's no such thing as "illegal downloading." Guess it's lucky for the copyright cartels that the most popular way to download a movie is with bittorrent which, conveniently-enough, involves uploading (making available).
In general, though, I wish the media would stop parroting the general idea that it's illegal to download copyrighted materials. It's no more illegal than bringing home a bootleg CD bought on the streets of Karachi.
This is odd, since on my Fedora 17 box I have both GTK+2 and GTK+3 installed just fine. I am running a mix of GTK+2 and GTK+3 apps. I also have the -devel packages for both installed.
I think you're conflating GTK with Gnome here. Gnome 3 purposely broke things by using the same library names for key gnome components. For example, Nautilus is still Nautilus, so I can't install Nautilus 2 and Nautilus 3 because they both use /usr/share/nautilus, for example. That's the issue.
There is no DLL hell here. Shared libraries are versioned, always have been always will. Except for packaging issues I can always install multiple versions of the same DLL. So stop spreading this kind of thing because it is untrue.