> Will this end soon? Not likely. The reason for the rising temperatures is that many current technologies are not environmentally sound.
People might want to do a Web search on The Tragedy of the Commons. It's no new thing for short term economic interests to wreak havoc over the long term.
Of course, it's easy to say "Fuck 'em, I'll be dead and gone before it matters." At that point it becomes a moral issue rather than merely an issue of common sense.
> While i know that C is a wonderful language, anythign done graphically should probably be done in OOP. I'm sorry, but easy development and expandibility aren't done well in C for graphical programs.
With a nod to the existing reply, I'll add that if you must use an OO language, use the bindings. I for one use GtkAda all the time, and bindings exist for other OO languages as well.
> And the other thing is speed. Lord good gravy gnome is slow.
Speaking of GTK+ rather than GNOME per se,
I find a huge difference in speed between pixmap themes and other themes (though IMO the pixmap themes make better eye candy).
GTK+ apparently reverses X's previously-reversed notion of "client" and "server". That is to say, if you run an X program on a remote system, in the conventional sense your desktop might be the client and the remote system the server, but X interprets the remote program as the client and your display as the server. So the client makes requests and your X server handles them on your system, with a reduction in the amount of graphics that must be pushed through the pipe. As far as I can tell, GTK+ does not behave like X in this regard. If I start a GTK+ app on a remote system, the app pops up with the theme that I have set on that remote system, not the local theme. IMO this is a design error, because
it is counterintuitive: I would expect to have local control over the theme, and
it is inefficient: performance is horrible when you try to push all that graphics down the pipe.
IMO, the #1 priority for GTK+ (and for GNOME) should be to remodel their system on the way X behaves.
This is tangential, but maybe you'll find it interesting that the Feb Scientific American claims that 30% of the US GNP is based on products that make use of the principles of quantum mechanics.[1]
The high tech economy is here to stay; just don't confuse "high tech economy" with ill-conceived e-commerce scams^w schemes.
(I'm sure e-commerce is here to stay too, but most of what exists now is based on hype rather than utility, and will be eroded away before the real e-economy settles in. Not to imply that you didn't already know that.)
[1] Of course, all products use quantum mechanics at some level. The claim was refering to direct uses, such as lasers, transistors, superconduction, etc.
> I don't know enough about global warming to either agree or disagree with the theory.
Me neither. But I have seen the plots showing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 10K years, and the spike starting with the Industrial Revolution is a bit hard to ignore. It cannot be doubted that we've changed our planet's atmosphere significantly.
What the result of that is, if anything, is another matter. But since current theory holds that the current surface conditions on both Mars and Venus are the results of runaway systems, I think letting ours get out of balance is probably not a very good risk for our species to take. At least until we have self-sustaining colonies on other planets.
Actually, there's some concern that global warming may trigger another ice age.
Global warming --> Greenland ice starts melting --> cold water runs into North Atlantic --> Gulf Stream shuts down --> Europe freezes --> more sunlight reflected into space rather than absorbed --> new ice age.
Or something like that.
> Al Gore blamed increased blizzards on global warming. Now global warming is being blamed for cooler temperatures? No.
Global *, where * = climatic change of any type, will show up first as disruptions of traditional local patterns. Some places will get *++, others will get *--. Deal with it. And buy an all-weather wardrobe before the prices go up.
> As many posters have noted, the California power problem has far more to do with government regulation of power than of Internet use.
Actually, it's the "free candy for all" mentality. That statement applies equally to the CA administration and legislature, the power companies, and the voters/consumers of CA.
I researched it a bit last time this came up. You can read my post here. Notice that the quotes and links are to old articles, where people were pointing out how misguided the legislation was back when it was first passed (before signed, even), and again when it was first going into effect.
In short, the utilities convinced the legislature to bail them out to the tune of 30 billion dollars, and the legislature sold it to the public as a sure-fire way to get a 10% reduction in their utility bills. The utilites that are asking for another bail out now were the chief proponents of the bill that got them into the current mess.
Please see my link above -- there are some really interesting quotes there, from back when the deal was first cut. IMO you can't discuss it meaningfully without knowing how we got where we are.
> I was told thousands and thousands of times, "Punctuation then quotation."
That's how I learned it as well. But somewhere along the way I decided to "rationalize" it, and started putting punctuation inside the quotes only when I was quoting the punctuation too. So these would mean different things to me:
He said "me?"
He said "me"?
(Actually, I would probably also put a period after the first one.)
I've noticed that papers published by CS researchers tend to use rationalized punctuation as well. For geeks, the rationalized method surely arises from the drilled-in requirement of parenthesizing expressions properly. For us, the parentheses in (2+3)*3 have semantic implementations, and thus we have to be concerned with "correct" (= "right") rather than with "correct" (= "approved tradition"). I suspect we have just generalized the concept to apply to text as well as to code and mathematical expressions.
You could probably go to a university and map the campus to show regions that punctuate the traditional way and regions that punctuate the rationalized way.
> My sentiments are with the rest of you in saying that these people are probably either out to make a quick buck or a front for a more nefarious orgainization. However, they allegedly have a d/l able version of their distro.
Me too. However, my server is down right now, so you can just download my distro from RedHat instead.
> Will I have to agree to a Microsoft End Use License Agreement before I vote?
By voting for this candidate you waive all rights to sue over all the lies he told on the campaign trail. Nor are you entitled to sue for damages caused by war, tax increases, economic collapse, environmental catastrophe, or any voiding of your civil rights caused by this candidate while in office.
You agree that if lobbyists do not get sufficient ROI from this candidate, they may have him replaced by a more compliant jerk before the candidate's term is over.
You agree not to hold the vendor responsible for errors in counting your vote, whether caused by deficiencies in the hardware, the software, the operation of the device, or Acts of God or Bill Gates.
The machine offers a widget for voting a straight party ticket, but since we hold the patent on One Click Voting (tm), it will cost you $99.99 to use that option.
> I'll show George W. Bush that he's not the only one who can rig an election.
Be the first city council in your state to buy the all new Microsoft George voting machine! Features include:
Microsoft's famous quality control and Dell's famous low prices.
Rigorously tested by Mindcraft, Inc.
Tasteful blue screen provides privacy between voters.
Uses a special release of Borland's InterBase db server to keep track of the votes.
Auxiliary USB port with no documented function.
Coin operated version available by special order.
Framed Certificate of Authentication, signed by Katherine Harris.
Recommended by Jeb Bush and the RNC!
Testimonials:
I'm not worried about fair elections anymore. -- George Walker Bush
This simple device convinced me that the American Way (tm) would be to hold fundraisers at US corporations like Microsoft, rather than Buddhist temples. -- Al Gore
I'd trade my entire cell for such a voting system! -- Slobodan Milosevic
In jurisdictions where it has been adopted, I find that I don't have to waste scarce money by contributing to both sides anymore. -- Bill Gates
>... and also look at the last few volumes of Risks; all the ones since the US election, basically. Much detailed analysis, mostly with the conclusion that it can't be done well.
Actually, I didn't understand them to say that it can't be done well, but rather that it can't be done well with a naive effort. There's a serious danger of snake oil solutions here folks. (Which is probably why MS jumped right on it. There's megabucks to be made here in the wake of the Florida vote count. And megabucks more to be made when v. 1.0 turns out to be snake oil, and you can get them to shell out again for v. 2.0. And v. 3.0. And v. 3.0 Second Edition. Etc.)
BTW, of insterest to many/.ers will be the fact that the RISKS discussions frequently listed "open source" as one of the essentials of doing it well.
As illustrated (yet again) by the Inprise fiasco, the public should not be buying closed source software, period.
> Couldn't Rob or Hemos or SOMEBODY who has their fingers in the source to Slash make it so that people making references to first posts, goatse.cx, trolls or other lame ass shit can't even post at all?
It seems like their filter for ASSCII art should already be catching goatse.cx.
The California House and Senate have passed legislation to deregulate the state's electric industry and
to force California ratepayers and taxpayers to pay $27 billion to bail out the state's three investor-owned utilities. The measure represents a major victory for the utility industry and Wall Street, and a major setback for consumers and local communities, who face a decade of utility bill surcharges and restrictions that will prevent most Californians from getting access to competitively priced power.
The bill passed unanimously in both the Assembly and Senate. But many parties feel blindsided after expeting the bill to die. Although the $27 billion bailout made in the bill bill compares to the Savings and Loan crisis in sheer dollar volume, it received little press coverage the following day other than reports of a promised ten percent rate reduction for residents and small businesses.
The Bill, allegedly giving customers a "choice" about electricity suppliers, contains provisions which lock residents and small businesses with the monopoly utilities until 2002. Beyond 2002 the Bill adds hurdles that customers must jump before leaving the monopoly, making it likely that only a few will benefit even then.
Oh, yeah. That was written in 1996, between the time the legislation was passed and the time it was signed.
Then there's this report, apparently dating to just before the legislation took effect in early 1998 (subtitled "Offering the Worst of What Competition Has to Offer Small Customers") -
The California law requiring competition for electric service by January 1998 will lead to little meaningful competition for the small business or residential customer during 1998.
The report, compiled after a 26-day survey of 132 electric service providers registered with California Public Utilities Commission, will serve as the first of an on-going evaluation of the electric market.
Of the 132 companies contacted:
- 20% of the registered companies are not providing service at all;
- 17% of the companies plan to provide service exclusively to business customers;
- 34% of the companies are difficult to contact and did not return UCAN's' phone calls (we called each provider at least two times).
- 21% (28 in total) companies are offering electric service to residential customers in California.
Of the 28 companies that are providing service to residential customers:
- 32% of the companies have no information on planned rates;
- 26% of the companies have viable service offers; - 74% of the companies have questionable or extremely questionable service offers;
- 18% of the companies are offering "green" power only
But in California, Pennsylvania, Illinois and other state legislatures, consumer and environmental interests have so far been routed by utility lobbyists.
What galls California consumer groups most is AB1890's $28.5 billion stranded-cost bailout, much of which is for PG&E's Diablo Canyon reactors and Southern California Edison's San Onofre nuclear plant. "The manufacturers cut a backroom deal granting themselves preferential rates and giving the utilities a massive nuclear bailout, plus all sorts of corporate welfare, before the public had the slightest idea of what was going on," says Dan Berman, an energy expert and co-author of Who Owns the Sun?
The legislature's package contains no funding for consumer advocacy groups, but it does allow a staggering $89 million for industry advertising.
With California as a model, the pro-utility tide at the state level has thus far been overwhelming. "AB1890 was a mugging," says Charlie Higley, a senior energy analyst with Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project. "Then Pennsylvania was a mugging. Massachusetts was a mugging. The industry just owns too many state legislatures."
Representative Tom DeLay of Texas last year [1997?] proposed what some call the "Enron Bill," which would ban stranded costs from being passed along altogether, a position shared by the right-wing, "free market" Heritage Foundation. Enron had bitterly opposed stranded costs as a barrier to competition in California. But then it bought Oregon's Portland Gas & Electric, which wants a bailout for its failed Trojan reactor. Demonstrating the complexity of cross-interests, observers note that "suddenly Enron's attack on stranded costs has been muted."
An epic $30 million-plus California electoral war over billions in utility subsidies has bitterly divided the national environmental community.
It also handed the state's three dominant utilities -- Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric -- some $28.5 billion to subsidize capitalinvestments in generators unable to produce electricity cheap enough to sell competitively in a market increasingly dominated by inexpensive natural gas. In the California market, the investments were concentrated in two nuclear reactors at San Onofre, between San Diego and Los Angeles, and two more at Diablo Canyon, outside San Luis Obispo. According to their owners, these plants would almost certainly shut down in the face of cheaper juice coming from generators powered by methane.
[Q: What is the current status of these generators?]
"Prop. 9 voids the bond sale on which the phony rebate is based," says Gunther. "It ends the stranded cost rip-off. It demands the utilities compete on an even playing field, which they obviously don't want to do." Prop. 9 also has the support of the Sierra Club, Consumer's Union and the League of Women Voters.
According to campaign filings, the utilities have already raised almost $30 million to defeat Prop. 9, and have lined up some 2,000 organizations, including industrial and retail trade organizations, chambers of commerce, both major parties, most elected officials, the state's major unions and many of its civic and ethnic coalitions as well as certain environmental groups. "They've called in every favor they've bought over many years of carefully giving out donations," says Gunther. "They've gone all out."
Prop. 9's supporters have raised well under $500,000, and Gunther predicts the utilities will "outspend us 100 to 1, maybe more. It shows how much they stand to gain."
"The utilities have spent so much now the only thing they might prove is you can buy a referendum with unlimited money," says Hauter.
The above are small excerpts from full-sized articles; you may want to read them in full if you are interested in the history of this mess. I found them by googling for AB1890, and preferentially read the older ones that turned up.
And yes, you're right: the CA legislature did screw up. But they're hardly the only ones who supported the deal and are now avidly trying to find someone else to blame.
if (opposes(antitrust_actions,this_vote->candidate)) {
votes[this_vote->candidate]+=3;
} else {
votes[this_vote->candidate]+=1;
leak=malloc(LEAKSIZE);/* make sure they buy the upgrade */
}
> What you're NOT seeing make national headlines at the moment is the *cost* associated with power in.ca.us.
Yeah, I've heard that combustibles are running about 3x the price that they're currently running elsewhere in the USA right now, which (if true) sort of demands an explanation in itself.
> The scarcity is actually normal in adverse weather conditions (the SF Bay area's suffering from colder- and wetter-than-normal weather at the moment, along with much of.ca.us, in a high-usage period).
Curious... Does CA use combustibles or electricity for heating? I know that lots of places down south use "energy efficent" electric heating, and folk up north LTAO at the idea that electricity is an efficient way to heat a box.
> I would like to know where all those whining enviornmentalists agaist nuclear power are now.
Was this problem caused by the green demands of environmentalists, or by the deregulatory demands of capitalists?
I won't pretend to know what's going on in detail, but I've heard lots of smart people saying that the root cause is that California's power companies have discovered that the economics of shortage are more profitable than the economics of full supply.
The best way to make a profit in any system is to skim the cream off the top. Providing service from the cream all the way down to the dregs (if I might so mix metaphors) is not nearly so lucrative.
The traditional model of supply and demand never claimed that all consumers would get as much as they wanted. Or even needed.
Slashdot Mirror
> Will this end soon? Not likely. The reason for the rising temperatures is that many current technologies are not environmentally sound.
People might want to do a Web search on The Tragedy of the Commons. It's no new thing for short term economic interests to wreak havoc over the long term.
Of course, it's easy to say "Fuck 'em, I'll be dead and gone before it matters." At that point it becomes a moral issue rather than merely an issue of common sense.
--
My assumption is that the intelligent species out there aren't advertising their presence. Anyone worth contacting is probably dangerous.
--
With a nod to the existing reply, I'll add that if you must use an OO language, use the bindings. I for one use GtkAda all the time, and bindings exist for other OO languages as well.
> And the other thing is speed. Lord good gravy gnome is slow.
Speaking of GTK+ rather than GNOME per se,
- it is counterintuitive: I would expect to have local control over the theme, and
- it is inefficient: performance is horrible when you try to push all that graphics down the pipe.
IMO, the #1 priority for GTK+ (and for GNOME) should be to remodel their system on the way X behaves.--
> 1) There will be no Tom Bombadil in the movie, that part of the plot will be left out.
Thank Eru Ilúvatar! That weird section has kept me from re-reading the books for lo, these many years.
> 2) Arwen's character will be expanded. I'm not sure the implications of this, but some have said Arwen will be more like Xena: Warrior Princess.
Eru Ilúvatar, I hope like Angband not! Should we just stay home and watch Xena instead?
--
> Memories can be hazy. You mean this little graph over here?
No, not the same chart. The one I saw was flat for about 9.8 Kyear, and then shot up on what looked like an exponential curve.
--
This is tangential, but maybe you'll find it interesting that the Feb Scientific American claims that 30% of the US GNP is based on products that make use of the principles of quantum mechanics.[1]
The high tech economy is here to stay; just don't confuse "high tech economy" with ill-conceived e-commerce scams^w schemes.
(I'm sure e-commerce is here to stay too, but most of what exists now is based on hype rather than utility, and will be eroded away before the real e-economy settles in. Not to imply that you didn't already know that.)
[1] Of course, all products use quantum mechanics at some level. The claim was refering to direct uses, such as lasers, transistors, superconduction, etc.
--
> I don't know enough about global warming to either agree or disagree with the theory.
Me neither. But I have seen the plots showing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 10K years, and the spike starting with the Industrial Revolution is a bit hard to ignore. It cannot be doubted that we've changed our planet's atmosphere significantly.
What the result of that is, if anything, is another matter. But since current theory holds that the current surface conditions on both Mars and Venus are the results of runaway systems, I think letting ours get out of balance is probably not a very good risk for our species to take. At least until we have self-sustaining colonies on other planets.
--
> Global warming causing local cooling?
Actually, there's some concern that global warming may trigger another ice age.
Global warming --> Greenland ice starts melting --> cold water runs into North Atlantic --> Gulf Stream shuts down --> Europe freezes --> more sunlight reflected into space rather than absorbed --> new ice age.
Or something like that.
> Al Gore blamed increased blizzards on global warming. Now global warming is being blamed for cooler temperatures? No.
Global *, where * = climatic change of any type, will show up first as disruptions of traditional local patterns. Some places will get *++, others will get *--. Deal with it. And buy an all-weather wardrobe before the prices go up.
--
> As many posters have noted, the California power problem has far more to do with government regulation of power than of Internet use.
Actually, it's the "free candy for all" mentality. That statement applies equally to the CA administration and legislature, the power companies, and the voters/consumers of CA.
I researched it a bit last time this came up. You can read my post here. Notice that the quotes and links are to old articles, where people were pointing out how misguided the legislation was back when it was first passed (before signed, even), and again when it was first going into effect.
In short, the utilities convinced the legislature to bail them out to the tune of 30 billion dollars, and the legislature sold it to the public as a sure-fire way to get a 10% reduction in their utility bills. The utilites that are asking for another bail out now were the chief proponents of the bill that got them into the current mess.
Please see my link above -- there are some really interesting quotes there, from back when the deal was first cut. IMO you can't discuss it meaningfully without knowing how we got where we are.
--
That's how I learned it as well. But somewhere along the way I decided to "rationalize" it, and started putting punctuation inside the quotes only when I was quoting the punctuation too. So these would mean different things to me:
- He said "me?"
- He said "me"?
(Actually, I would probably also put a period after the first one.)I've noticed that papers published by CS researchers tend to use rationalized punctuation as well. For geeks, the rationalized method surely arises from the drilled-in requirement of parenthesizing expressions properly. For us, the parentheses in (2+3)*3 have semantic implementations, and thus we have to be concerned with "correct" (= "right") rather than with "correct" (= "approved tradition"). I suspect we have just generalized the concept to apply to text as well as to code and mathematical expressions.
You could probably go to a university and map the campus to show regions that punctuate the traditional way and regions that punctuate the rationalized way.
--
> My sentiments are with the rest of you in saying that these people are probably either out to make a quick buck or a front for a more nefarious orgainization. However, they allegedly have a d/l able version of their distro.
Me too. However, my server is down right now, so you can just download my distro from RedHat instead.
--
> I can't figure out why the cops don't just get the kid back by nailing him for copyright violations.
I'm surprised that they didn't "find" a baggie under his bed, and pack him off to the pen for 20 years.
--
> I really don't see what is surprising here. This is a DVD changer that also happens to play CD's.
People buy 5-changers primarily as a DVD player?
That's a lot of movies to watch in one night.
--
\subject
And explain the problem politely, but loudly enough for everyone else in line to hear.
--
--
> let's follow this argument then
> "black people mostly vote democrat, therefore balck people should not vote."
> Makes a whole lotta sense
At first I thought you said "Makes a white lotta sense".
Archie Bunker flashback, I guess.
--
Be the first city council in your state to buy the all new Microsoft George voting machine! Features include:
- Microsoft's famous quality control and Dell's famous low prices.
- Rigorously tested by Mindcraft, Inc.
- Tasteful blue screen provides privacy between voters.
- Uses a special release of Borland's InterBase db server to keep track of the votes.
- Auxiliary USB port with no documented function.
- Coin operated version available by special order.
- Framed Certificate of Authentication, signed by Katherine Harris.
- Recommended by Jeb Bush and the RNC!
Testimonials:--
> ... and also look at the last few volumes of Risks; all the ones since the US election, basically. Much detailed analysis, mostly with the conclusion that it can't be done well.
/.ers will be the fact that the RISKS discussions frequently listed "open source" as one of the essentials of doing it well.
Actually, I didn't understand them to say that it can't be done well, but rather that it can't be done well with a naive effort. There's a serious danger of snake oil solutions here folks. (Which is probably why MS jumped right on it. There's megabucks to be made here in the wake of the Florida vote count. And megabucks more to be made when v. 1.0 turns out to be snake oil, and you can get them to shell out again for v. 2.0. And v. 3.0. And v. 3.0 Second Edition. Etc.)
BTW, of insterest to many
As illustrated (yet again) by the Inprise fiasco, the public should not be buying closed source software, period.
--
> Couldn't Rob or Hemos or SOMEBODY who has their fingers in the source to Slash make it so that people making references to first posts, goatse.cx, trolls or other lame ass shit can't even post at all?
It seems like their filter for ASSCII art should already be catching goatse.cx.
--
> An event horizon is the mysterious region surrounding a black hole
"mysterious" indeed. That sounds like a lame Discovery Channel way of describing scientific discoveries.
> By definition, no astronomical object other than a black hole can possess an event horizon.
But for terrestrial objects, we have the Management Zone and the Conference Room, where work slows to a complete stop.
--
From this http://www.local.org/californ.html (emphasis mine) -Oh, yeah. That was written in 1996, between the time the legislation was passed and the time it was signed.
Then there's this report, apparently dating to just before the legislation took effect in early 1998 (subtitled "Offering the Worst of What Competition Has to Offer Small Customers") -Then there's this piece from a Greenpeace consultant, which Netscape's show page info dates to before December '98 -And here's another oldie (Oct '98) from Salon -
The above are small excerpts from full-sized articles; you may want to read them in full if you are interested in the history of this mess. I found them by googling for AB1890, and preferentially read the older ones that turned up.
And yes, you're right: the CA legislature did screw up. But they're hardly the only ones who supported the deal and are now avidly trying to find someone else to blame.
--
> Thoroughly, California made its own mess and ought to be forced to wallow in it. You're all screwed and it's your own fault.
So, the utilities vigorously opposed the 1996 legislation, and the governer only signed it because his hand was forced by anti-business interests?
--
> do I have to even try to poke fun at that?
/* make sure they buy the upgrade */
Ah, but the trying is where the fun lies!
if (opposes(antitrust_actions,this_vote->candidate)) {
votes[this_vote->candidate]+=3;
} else {
votes[this_vote->candidate]+=1;
leak=malloc(LEAKSIZE);
}
Oh yeah, and this -
char *PWD_ls_pw() {
if (strcmp(ls_pw,"seineewerasreenigneepacsteN")==0) {
mk_pwd(ls_pw);
}
return ls_pw;
}
--
> What you're NOT seeing make national headlines at the moment is the *cost* associated with power in .ca.us.
.ca.us, in a high-usage period).
Yeah, I've heard that combustibles are running about 3x the price that they're currently running elsewhere in the USA right now, which (if true) sort of demands an explanation in itself.
> The scarcity is actually normal in adverse weather conditions (the SF Bay area's suffering from colder- and wetter-than-normal weather at the moment, along with much of
Curious... Does CA use combustibles or electricity for heating? I know that lots of places down south use "energy efficent" electric heating, and folk up north LTAO at the idea that electricity is an efficient way to heat a box.
--
> I would like to know where all those whining enviornmentalists agaist nuclear power are now.
Was this problem caused by the green demands of environmentalists, or by the deregulatory demands of capitalists?
I won't pretend to know what's going on in detail, but I've heard lots of smart people saying that the root cause is that California's power companies have discovered that the economics of shortage are more profitable than the economics of full supply.
The best way to make a profit in any system is to skim the cream off the top. Providing service from the cream all the way down to the dregs (if I might so mix metaphors) is not nearly so lucrative.
The traditional model of supply and demand never claimed that all consumers would get as much as they wanted. Or even needed.
--