Am I correct in thinking that RedHat Enterprise Linux is freely redistributable? How could it not be, since all its components, including the kernel, are GPLed or licensed under other FOSS licenses? You only pay for support, including access to the ISO images, RPMs etc, but there is nothing to stop you putting it on as many machines as you like, or giving it to others. Is that correct?
Re:Natural capitalisim = use nuclear breeder react
on
Natural Capitalism
·
· Score: 1
..."but the amount of lives lost per/kw hour is less than with any other power technology"...until they explode (OK, Chernobyl was, or rather, is not a fast breeder, but you are asking us to beleive that something which uses a few tonnes of molten sodium as a coolant is safe?).
The book sounds like an interesting compilation of eco-capitalism arguments and IMHO is probably worth a read. However, the title is a disaster: "Natural Capitalism" immediately suggests "laissez-faire" or "(completely) free-market" or "unrestrained" capitalism, backed up by the usual spurious psuedo-Darwinian sociobiological arguments about "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest". In fact, the book does not appear to be about this at all - indeed it commendably appears to advocate government intervention to assist capitalists to take a rather longer-term view of life. It should have been titled "Ecological Capitalism" but that is hardly new or catchy. I suspect the title is intentionally misleading in order to try to hook the attention of people who would never look at something titled "Eco-capitalism". Like most of the people posting replies here...
Slashdot Mirror
Am I correct in thinking that RedHat Enterprise Linux is freely redistributable? How could it not be, since all its components, including the kernel, are GPLed or licensed under other FOSS licenses? You only pay for support, including access to the ISO images, RPMs etc, but there is nothing to stop you putting it on as many machines as you like, or giving it to others. Is that correct?
..."but the amount of lives lost per/kw hour is less than with any other power technology"...until they explode (OK, Chernobyl was, or rather, is not a fast breeder, but you are asking us to beleive that something which uses a few tonnes of molten sodium as a coolant is safe?).
The book sounds like an interesting compilation of eco-capitalism arguments and IMHO is probably worth a read. However, the title is a disaster: "Natural Capitalism" immediately suggests "laissez-faire" or "(completely) free-market" or "unrestrained" capitalism, backed up by the usual spurious psuedo-Darwinian sociobiological arguments about "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest". In fact, the book does not appear to be about this at all - indeed it commendably appears to advocate government intervention to assist capitalists to take a rather longer-term view of life. It should have been titled "Ecological Capitalism" but that is hardly new or catchy. I suspect the title is intentionally misleading in order to try to hook the attention of people who would never look at something titled "Eco-capitalism". Like most of the people posting replies here...