and the difference between the top of the index and the US isn't that significant.
I misread your previous comment. I thought it had the USA above Ireland, but I now see you were trying to say that they were about the same, because in fact Ireland scores higher than the USA in that one too.
So you're saying countries with lower power consumption have at least as good a quality of life as the USA.
Therefore lower power consumption does not equal a lower quality of life. See, you knew you were wrong all along!
Let me get this right. A higher quality of life is associated with such things as trade unions?
Yes, having the right to form trade unions is important to your quality of life. Countries where you get shot or arrested for doing so aren't so nice to live in.
Gender equity?
Yes, again, countries where women aren't allowed to do certain jobs are generally not good places to live (particularly if you are a woman).
Glancing around, I see other life expectancy indices that provide different quality of life indices for Ireland and US (0.965 versus 0.956). Given that this index supports my view, I'll pick it instead.
OK, pick that one then. Of course it doesn't support your view. Ireland and the USA have a small difference in QoL despite having a huge difference in energy usage. What's worse, from your point of view, is that Norway tops that Index and Norway's energy usage is 249.21 compared to (I'm sure you remember!) 327.38 for the USA!
Your own figures let you down.
Quality of life is highly subjective.
Then why did you make the statement that it must decrease if you decrease energy usage? Surely for some people it would actually increase if it's that subjective.
There's no point to using as evidence some kooky index that a newspaper threw together to grab a few eyeballs
The Economist prints "kooky" indices? Who would have thought? Perhaps they should be less capitalist; maybe then they'd be more serious.
or a UN index that has to survive negotiation with a bunch of countries gaming to increase their position in the list
Well, they ranked the UNs most powerful and influential member way down in 13th place, so perhaps there wasn't that much gaming going on.
The thing to remember about energy consumption is that it is by choice. For some reason, people choose to consume energy.
I don't care about how much energy people choose to use, as long as it doesn't impact on me. When people start fucking up the planet I live on; then I object.
But that's besides the point. The point is that you claimed that lower energy usage necessarily meant a lower standard of living. I claimed that was untrue, and so far the figures are bearing me out, even the ones you supplied.
Why? Don't you believe my figures? Well, here then.
And what happens if I dig in there and find out that per capita power usage is considered by this "quality of life" index to have a negative correlation with quality of life?
"Dig in there"? You mean like you actually doing some checking of your own theory? Like that's ever going to happen!
Still, the Wikipedia page describes the criteria used, and as you can see power usage is not included.
There is a link for the original Economist PDF down there at the bottom of the Wikipedia page. Use your scrollbar.
I'm not sure exactly what you expected could go horribly wrong just using sed! (Not that this should be a general rule for trying out different commands)
Millions of (mostly poor and brown) human children died from malaria, which was a non-problem until DDT was banned.
See, this is why some people consider corporations evil. They spread deliberate lies like this, solely in order to discredit environmental groups, so that they can get away with ignoring environmental issues.
Malaria has always been a problem. DDT was never banned for use against malaria. The widespread use of DDT made it less effective against malaria as it produced DDT resistant mosquitoes to the point that several countries had to stop using it altogether. There are other chemicals which can be used against mosquitoes.
But don't believe me: check it out for yourself. And if you make that a general rule, perhaps you'll stop spreading corps lies for them.
Why do Americans say "Indian giving" for this sort of behaviour? Didn't the Europeans take the whole country away from the indigenous population, signing and then breaking many treaties in the process?
I'm not an American, but I thought that's exactly what it meant: that it was like someone giving something to the Indian and then taking it back.
No, that's idiot logic employed by thieves. The fact that someone wants it means it has a non-zero value. Thusly blowing a huge hole in your entire bullshit theory.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts as I laid them out, since I never claimed they had a non-zero value and in fact stated the exact opposite.
I'm not sure whether you're so ignorant you know nothing about economics, or so moronic you can't understand what is being said, but either way it's pointless talking to the kind of idiot who can claim in a single post that "piracy" both devalues a commodity and simultaneously increases its price. So, bye for now!
Another fallacy of logic. Actually, it PROVES the law of demand
No, just you didn't understand my post. Their figures are based on the presumption that everyone who "bought" a copy at $0 would also have bought a copy at $60 (or whatever they charge). This denies the law of demand. Therefore you are plainly wrong.
No doubt about it - pirates are stealing. Pirates are thieves.
if person A downloads item X, and subsequently persons B through F snatch that item from person A, its not an unreasonable conclusion to say that person A potentially caused five lost sales to the company
But it is an unreasonable conclusion. It presupposes that the same number of people will pay for something as will accept it for free. In short, it supposes that the Law of Demand does not apply.
Personally, I'd consider the distance to Mars vast, since it's an order of magnitude greater than the total distance I'm likely to travel in my lifetime.
Not so! At its closest, Mars is about 55 millions km away whereas you travel about 150 million km each year.
50% is also known as a completely meaningless prediction. Basically, it says the price could go up or down.
I buy four lottery tickets over the next four weeks. With 2 of them I win the lottery, and with 2 of them I fail to win anything. Presumably you'd be unimpressed at my 50% success rate?
In those days, the little town newspapers used boilerplate from the larger city newspapers and only added in a few local articles. So the fact that the meteor was reported in many newspapers means diddly squat.
I think that they would probably have only counted articles that were written in different styles or with local eyewitness accounts. I'm sure that a load of identical articles would have been very obvious.
Yes, it is. Every single time I have heard the phrase used — whether on TV, in magazines, in newspapers or in casual conversation — that is exactly what it has meant. The only exception is people "correcting" others on Slashdot.
http://begthequestion.info/
Page on Internet is wrong. Just because a phrase has a specific meaning in one particular field (debate, in this case) does not mean it cannot have another meaning in everyday conversation.
That makes it an even more perfect device for iPad users because they don't even get the full functionality out of it.
The transfer speed might be the same, but of course the superior USB3 connection will give a very open, transparent and natural sound, without any harshness, to your AAC files.
In North America a carrier will often replace your SIM card free if you tell them you lost it.
In the UK (where he is) Vodaphone will send you a couple of SIMs for free just for asking. Lots of networks just hand them out. I think I've probably got 4 or 5 lying about the house myself.
Yeah, try fielding a few hundred of those calls, every 5 minutes.
That's what IT support staff are for. If you don't have the staff to deal with a sudden influx of calls for a few days, then you stagger the deployment. Were you really stumped by this problem yourself?
Then start updating your resume, because your boss (who has been making many of those calls himself) is about to call you into his office and let you know what he thinks of your brilliant new security plan to install Linux on everyone's computer.
Well now I'm starting to think you've never actually had a job.
Your boss would have been involved in the planning and execution from the start, so why would he be phoning you? He would certainly have been involved in the trial run and you'd already have addressed any user issues. In real companies you don't just randomly change things without planning it out beforehand.
My point needs no answer:) It is simply an observation.
Well, you seemed to think there was a conflict between supporting the GPL and dismissing copyright. I hope I've explained how you can be in favour of both.
One day, when copyright is abolished and private companies are free to take all the open source code they want, put it in proprietary software and resell it - I would be interested in revisiting the topic;)
I would suggest that the existence of the BSDs shows that Free software can exist without the restrictions of the GPL. Also, the motivation for keeping the source code hidden is greatly reduced if there is no copyright on the software to begin with.
Linux is simply not realistic in a regular office environment.
I disagree. The main problem is if they need to exchange documents with people outside the company, and that's an Office software issue, not an OS issue.
I work at a non tech company with a lot of average Jane's and Joe's.
Well, I don't now, but I used to.
We are talking about people....[snip]
Yes, agreed.
If after a update button X is moved to another menu or simply 100 pixels to the right hell breaks loose.
No, it doesn't. They call up and say they can't find button X, and you show them where it is now, and they write it down on a post-it and stick it to the monitor along with the 20 others.
Now imagine what would happen if their "computer" doesn't look like the "computer" they are used to seeing at home and everywhere else.
Their work computer never looked like the one at home (e.g. it might run a locked down version of XP Pro, while they have Windows 7 at home). They don't use a computer anywhere else.
And this is what a lot of nerds like "us" tend to forget a lot of the time.
You say this, but seem to have missed the point yourself. People in an office don't "use a computer". They follow a process that (hopefully!) results in what they want. They get a load of envelopes printed, or a group email sent. If the process changes in some way, they're lost because they don't understand what the process is, they just have some steps they need to follow.
And they can follow these steps just as well on Linux as they can on Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
What's that got to do with anything?
I misread your previous comment. I thought it had the USA above Ireland, but I now see you were trying to say that they were about the same, because in fact Ireland scores higher than the USA in that one too.
So you're saying countries with lower power consumption have at least as good a quality of life as the USA.
Therefore lower power consumption does not equal a lower quality of life. See, you knew you were wrong all along!
Yes, having the right to form trade unions is important to your quality of life. Countries where you get shot or arrested for doing so aren't so nice to live in.
Yes, again, countries where women aren't allowed to do certain jobs are generally not good places to live (particularly if you are a woman).
OK, pick that one then. Of course it doesn't support your view. Ireland and the USA have a small difference in QoL despite having a huge difference in energy usage. What's worse, from your point of view, is that Norway tops that Index and Norway's energy usage is 249.21 compared to (I'm sure you remember!) 327.38 for the USA!
Your own figures let you down.
Then why did you make the statement that it must decrease if you decrease energy usage? Surely for some people it would actually increase if it's that subjective.
The Economist prints "kooky" indices? Who would have thought? Perhaps they should be less capitalist; maybe then they'd be more serious.
Well, they ranked the UNs most powerful and influential member way down in 13th place, so perhaps there wasn't that much gaming going on.
I don't care about how much energy people choose to use, as long as it doesn't impact on me. When people start fucking up the planet I live on; then I object.
But that's besides the point. The point is that you claimed that lower energy usage necessarily meant a lower standard of living. I claimed that was untrue, and so far the figures are bearing me out, even the ones you supplied.
Why? Don't you believe my figures? Well, here then.
"Dig in there"? You mean like you actually doing some checking of your own theory? Like that's ever going to happen!
Still, the Wikipedia page describes the criteria used, and as you can see power usage is not included.
There is a link for the original Economist PDF down there at the bottom of the Wikipedia page. Use your scrollbar.
The facts don't fit your theory, therefore your theory is wrong.
Quality of life index (out of 10):
Ireland: 8.333
USA: 7.615
Per capita power usage (GJ):
Ireland: 157.97
USA: 327.38
$ sed s/khan/kahn tmp.txt
sed: -e expression #1, char 11: unterminated `s' command
I'm not sure exactly what you expected could go horribly wrong just using sed! (Not that this should be a general rule for trying out different commands)
Why not Ekiga? What does Skype do that it doesn't? (Genuine question, I really don't know; I don't use either yet, but I thought I'd be using Ekiga).
See, this is why some people consider corporations evil. They spread deliberate lies like this, solely in order to discredit environmental groups, so that they can get away with ignoring environmental issues.
Malaria has always been a problem. DDT was never banned for use against malaria. The widespread use of DDT made it less effective against malaria as it produced DDT resistant mosquitoes to the point that several countries had to stop using it altogether. There are other chemicals which can be used against mosquitoes.
But don't believe me: check it out for yourself. And if you make that a general rule, perhaps you'll stop spreading
corps lies for them.
I'm not an American, but I thought that's exactly what it meant: that it was like someone giving something to the Indian and then taking it back.
Have I had the whole idea backwards?
Do they? I thought they got deals to build satellites, not launch them. Got a link?
And what about his wizard hat?
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts as I laid them out, since I never claimed they had a non-zero value and in fact stated the exact opposite.
I'm not sure whether you're so ignorant you know nothing about economics, or so moronic you can't understand what is being said, but either way it's pointless talking to the kind of idiot who can claim in a single post that "piracy" both devalues a commodity and simultaneously increases its price. So, bye for now!
No, just you didn't understand my post. Their figures are based on the presumption that everyone who "bought" a copy at $0 would also have bought a copy at $60 (or whatever they charge). This denies the law of demand. Therefore you are plainly wrong.
No, they're not.
But it is an unreasonable conclusion. It presupposes that the same number of people will pay for something as will accept it for free. In short, it supposes that the Law of Demand does not apply.
Not so! At its closest, Mars is about 55 millions km away whereas you travel about 150 million km each year.
I buy four lottery tickets over the next four weeks. With 2 of them I win the lottery, and with 2 of them I fail to win anything. Presumably you'd be unimpressed at my 50% success rate?
I think that they would probably have only counted articles that were written in different styles or with local eyewitness accounts. I'm sure that a load of identical articles would have been very obvious.
Yes, it is. Every single time I have heard the phrase used — whether on TV, in magazines, in newspapers or in casual conversation — that is exactly what it has meant. The only exception is people "correcting" others on Slashdot.
Page on Internet is wrong. Just because a phrase has a specific meaning in one particular field (debate, in this case) does not mean it cannot have another meaning in everyday conversation.
The transfer speed might be the same, but of course the superior USB3 connection will give a very open, transparent and natural sound, without any harshness, to your AAC files.
In the UK (where he is) Vodaphone will send you a couple of SIMs for free just for asking. Lots of networks just hand them out. I think I've probably got 4 or 5 lying about the house myself.
If you mean Portable Firefox, it's here. If you mean Portable Chrome, it's here. If you want to try Portable Opera, it's here.
And Portable IE7, though I believe you need IE6 installed, which isn't very portable at all, but it's here.
I got my first online gig from Gmail!
(I warned you in the subject line)
That's what IT support staff are for. If you don't have the staff to deal with a sudden influx of calls for a few days, then you stagger the deployment. Were you really stumped by this problem yourself?
Well now I'm starting to think you've never actually had a job.
Your boss would have been involved in the planning and execution from the start, so why would he be phoning you? He would certainly have been involved in the trial run and you'd already have addressed any user issues. In real companies you don't just randomly change things without planning it out beforehand.
Well, you seemed to think there was a conflict between supporting the GPL and dismissing copyright. I hope I've explained how you can be in favour of both.
I would suggest that the existence of the BSDs shows that Free software can exist without the restrictions of the GPL. Also, the motivation for keeping the source code hidden is greatly reduced if there is no copyright on the software to begin with.
Yes it is. Would you like to try again?
I disagree. The main problem is if they need to exchange documents with people outside the company, and that's an Office software issue, not an OS issue.
Well, I don't now, but I used to.
Yes, agreed.
No, it doesn't. They call up and say they can't find button X, and you show them where it is now, and they write it down on a post-it and stick it to the monitor along with the 20 others.
Their work computer never looked like the one at home (e.g. it might run a locked down version of XP Pro, while they have Windows 7 at home). They don't use a computer anywhere else.
You say this, but seem to have missed the point yourself. People in an office don't "use a computer". They follow a process that (hopefully!) results in what they want. They get a load of envelopes printed, or a group email sent. If the process changes in some way, they're lost because they don't understand what the process is, they just have some steps they need to follow.
And they can follow these steps just as well on Linux as they can on Windows.