You understanding of economics is poor. You also missed the main point: Externalities usually affect others than those who benefit from cheaper prices.
He claims that a moving non-object (a shadow, a reflection of light, or a mouse cursor) isn't real. They are real.
Of course the reflections are real. The movement is not real.
They can be seen, they can be measured and defined. And they can move faster than the speed of light.
They are real, but the movement is not. There is no movement of anything - because the reflections you see at different times are different reflections. They are just synchronized in some way to make it appear as there were moving - in other words: it is an illusion. Different things appearing at different places at different times is not movement. Do you know the story of the Hare and the Hedgehog?
I would say there is nothing which moves - atleast nothing physical. There are *different* things happening synchronized in a way that there is the appearance of motion. But talking about "motion" depends on an observer who synthesizes these different events into a motion of a single logical object. Similar to how a mouse pointer moves on a screen. Nothing actually moves. This is simply an illusion, not "propagation of non-information".
There is actually nothing which travels. Imaging you turn on lights one-by-one in a chain of lights. It would appear as if the light moves. Ofcourse this apparent movement can be made to be faster than the speed of light.
When you're accusing people who advocate something specific in a specific case of believing software "...should depend on some new random interfaces systemd invents to solve some minor problems in a new incompatible way" then you've given up on even the claim of intellectual honesty.
Especially where they cite actual, specific, non-random, real technical reasons, and you claim to be aware enough of the situation to form an opinion. If you know enough to know you disagree, you'd have to know that you're disagreeing with real things, real technical decisions that are actually happening, and have known, public reasons. Pretending to disagree, but actually just pretending that there were no reasons for the decisions, is just dishonest.
I think you read "That means if we still care for those non-Linux platforms replacements have to be written." a bit wrong.
And no, I think he proposes exactly what people are complaining about: Gnome should depend on some new random interfaces systemd invents to solve some minor problems in a new incompatible way.
I don't want my machine configured through d-bus interfaces which talk to a set of new pointless daemons. And personally, I think all these dbus new interfaces are complete crap.
If gnome components depend specifically on systemd this seems to imply that there are no well-defined interfaces and the code is coupled, this has nothing to do with linking vs RPC over dbus.
Interesting. I have to say I am also worried about software freedom, but not so much because of licensing.
I am worried because loosly coupled systems based on well defined interfaces are replaced by deeply integrated systems. This means that you cannot easily replace one part you do not like with another anymore. This is not only bad engineering, it also limits your freedom in a very real sense. This is the real problem with systemd - and not only with systemd
You are confusing some theoretical limit with actually approaching a limit. A recent study by Fraunhofer socierty for Germany shows the theoretical potential for wind power as 2900 TWh/a which is about five times the current consumption. So there is still plenty of wind left...
"Over the last five years, wind and solar PV have become increasingly cost-competitive with conventional generation technologies, on an unsubsidized basis, in light of material declines in the pricing of system components (e.g., panels, inverters, racking, turbines, etc.), and dramatic improvements in efficiency, among other factors"
I said more competitive than nuclear. The subsidies are paid to make renewables competitive relative to cheap but polluting energy sources such as coal. With respect to nuclear subsidies in UK, take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... This isn't even remotely economical without massive subsidies.
This is a red herring, except for fossil fuels health effects are not really an issue for any energy source. And with the money saved by not wasting it on nuclear you can easily save much more human lifes by putting the money in health care or safety in traffic.
Investing into a mix of renewables and improved energy efficiency is a much more economical way of achieving the same goal. In light of this, nuclear is simply a waste of resources.
It is true that such non-technical issues have driven up the cost of nuclear, but it is far from the truth that this is the only reason. Also some of the non-technical cost is not easy to avoid. Nuclear is expensive today and if you solve its inherent problems (essentially you need a closed fuel cycle if you want to scale it up) it will get even more expensive.
I don't think Microsoft as a company can claim a seat at any ISO standards committee. As far as I know - but I may be wrong - the members of the ISO, i.e. the national standard bodies, send people to the technical comittees. The rules the national standard organizations have probably vary a lot from country to country, but they mostly seem to be self-governed institutions. So it is hard to imaging that they there were no means to prevent this blatant misuse, either by enforcing existing rules or changing the rules.
The claim that "YOU JUST DON'T LIKE CHANGE" must be one of the most stupid arguments I have seen in this (or similar) debates. As if Linux hasn't changed before. It developed from a minor hobbiest project of a student to a system which took over the UNIX server market, runs on allmost all super computers and cell phones. You think it did not change it all that time?
I would say it is more like this: "Not known" should have been "not widely known". And "rediscovered" seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. The atlas has not been checked out for century is missing "in Stanford".
Slashdot Mirror
You understanding of economics is poor. You also missed the main point: Externalities usually affect others than those who benefit from cheaper prices.
> It's not to anyone's detriment other than the person spending.
False premise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Ok, I try again.
He claims that a moving non-object (a shadow, a reflection of light, or a mouse cursor) isn't real. They are real.
Of course the reflections are real. The movement is not real.
They can be seen, they can be measured and defined. And they can move faster than the speed of light.
They are real, but the movement is not. There is no movement of anything - because the reflections you see at different times are different reflections. They are just synchronized in some way to make it appear as there were moving - in other words: it is an illusion. Different things appearing at different places at different times is not movement. Do you know the story of the Hare and the Hedgehog?
I would say there is nothing which moves - atleast nothing physical. There are *different* things happening synchronized in a way that there is the appearance of motion. But talking about "motion" depends on an observer who synthesizes these different events into a motion of a single logical object. Similar to how a mouse pointer moves on a screen. Nothing actually moves. This is simply an illusion, not "propagation of non-information".
There is actually nothing which travels. Imaging you turn on lights one-by-one in a chain of lights. It would appear as if the light moves. Ofcourse this apparent movement can be made to be faster than the speed of light.
When you're accusing people who advocate something specific in a specific case of believing software "...should depend on some new random interfaces systemd invents to solve some minor problems in a new incompatible way" then you've given up on even the claim of intellectual honesty.
Especially where they cite actual, specific, non-random, real technical reasons, and you claim to be aware enough of the situation to form an opinion. If you know enough to know you disagree, you'd have to know that you're disagreeing with real things, real technical decisions that are actually happening, and have known, public reasons. Pretending to disagree, but actually just pretending that there were no reasons for the decisions, is just dishonest.
You are telling knowing lies here.
Wow, grow up.
I think you read "That means if we still care for those non-Linux platforms replacements have to be written." a bit wrong.
And no, I think he proposes exactly what people are complaining about: Gnome should depend on some new random interfaces systemd invents to solve some minor problems in a new incompatible way.
I don't want my machine configured through d-bus interfaces which talk to a set of new pointless daemons. And personally, I think all these dbus new interfaces are complete crap.
Apparently this has been encouraged by systemd developesr: https://mail.gnome.org/archive...
In all seriousness, if there are parts in my system for which I do not know what it is good for, I want to be able to remove it.
If gnome components depend specifically on systemd this seems to imply that there are no well-defined interfaces and the code is coupled, this has nothing to do with linking vs RPC over dbus.
Interesting. I have to say I am also worried about software freedom, but not so much because of licensing.
I am worried because loosly coupled systems based on well defined interfaces are replaced by deeply integrated systems. This means that you cannot easily replace one part you do not like with another anymore. This is not only bad engineering, it also limits your freedom in a very real sense. This is the real problem with systemd - and not only with systemd
You are confusing some theoretical limit with actually approaching a limit. A recent study by Fraunhofer socierty for Germany shows the theoretical potential for wind power as 2900 TWh/a which is about five times the current consumption. So there is still plenty of wind left...
"Over the last five years, wind and solar PV have become increasingly cost-competitive with conventional generation
technologies, on an unsubsidized basis, in light of material declines in the pricing of system components (e.g., panels,
inverters, racking, turbines, etc.), and dramatic improvements in efficiency, among other factors"
http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Leve...
I said more competitive than nuclear. The subsidies are paid to make renewables competitive relative to cheap but polluting energy sources such as coal. With respect to nuclear subsidies in UK, take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
This isn't even remotely economical without massive subsidies.
This is a red herring, except for fossil fuels health effects are not really an issue for any energy source. And with the money saved by not wasting it on nuclear you can easily save much more human lifes by putting the money in health care or safety in traffic.
We basically just started investing in renewables. There is no indication whatsoever that we are at some kind of limit.
Investing into a mix of renewables and improved energy efficiency is a much more economical way of achieving the same goal. In light of this, nuclear is simply a waste of resources.
It is true that such non-technical issues have driven up the cost of nuclear, but it is far from the truth that this is the only reason. Also some of the non-technical cost is not easy to avoid. Nuclear is expensive today and if you solve its inherent problems (essentially you need a closed fuel cycle if you want to scale it up) it will get even more expensive.
A technique which is not economical is not of much use for solving global problems.
Strawman.
I would mod you up if I could.
I don't think Microsoft as a company can claim a seat at any ISO standards committee. As far as I know - but I may be wrong - the members of the ISO, i.e. the national standard bodies, send people to the technical comittees. The rules the national standard organizations have probably vary a lot from country to country, but they mostly seem to be self-governed institutions. So it is hard to imaging that they there were no means to prevent this blatant misuse, either by enforcing existing rules or changing the rules.
The claim that "YOU JUST DON'T LIKE CHANGE" must be one of the most stupid arguments I have seen in this (or similar) debates. As if Linux hasn't changed before. It developed from a minor hobbiest project of a student to a system which took over the UNIX server market, runs on allmost all super computers and cell phones. You think it did not change it all that time?
Land use is only one aspect of environmental impact.
Most of the area used by wind farms can be used for something else, so your definition of "land use" is somewhat questionable.
Most of the environmental impact of nuclear is not from the plant, but from other parts of the chain, especially mining.
Having said that, I agree that nuclear is overall a very environmentally friendly energy source. It just is far too expensive to be of much use.
I would say it is more like this: "Not known" should have been "not widely known". And "rediscovered" seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. The atlas has not been checked out for century is missing "in Stanford".