"If you want to live in the woods, why would you want power?"
If you want to live in the city, why would you want fresh food? If you want to live in the desert, why would you want water? If you want to live on a boat, why would you want to stay dry?
I nominate that for the worst argument of the week... and Slashdot has some pretty bad arguments.
I know a guy who lives in the Adirondacks where there are no power lines. He is completely off the grid thanks to solar and wind and a whole bunch of batteries, even in the winter when solar and wind are horrible choices. Satellite allows him to stay completely connected and still live where he wants.
Or we can look at the big blackout a decade ago... or the ice storms every winter... if we weren't on the grid, we could just walk to our neighbors or even run an extension cord to them if our power was down. But with the grid, sometimes our best option is to go completely without power.
It's the difference between trains and cars. Trains are great for population centers, but they quickly become inefficient, expensive, unreliable and inflexible when you try to use them for everyone's personal transportation everywhere. The grid vs personal power is the same way. And if you think everyone should live in the city, then I guess you must *really* hate food.
1. The idea is to reduce non-renewable sources in favor of renewable sources. The biggest issue facing this in the long run is the need to store the energy as most non-renewable sources are not continuously reliable (wind) or are cyclic (solar, some hydro). Saying you can load balance with a non-renewable resource is a short term solution.
2. Solar is getting pretty cheap, and a lot of places are using it to some degree already. It's not unheard of for poor African villages to use solar to recharge car batteries each day. It's the storage that's the weak link in cases like these moreso than the solar generation.
3. Generators get expensive fast once you consider the indirect costs such as transportation. Also, see 1. Most solutions not involving some kind of energy storage are short term solutions (within the lifetime of people already born).
I can think of a few reasons: 1) This doesn't scale. If we want solar to catch on a massive scale, we need a way to either store it, or a way for a night/cloudy/rainy power source to fill in the gaps 2) A lot of places where solar would be really useful doesn't have grid access to begin with. Many third world areas (IE: large portions of Africa) come to mind, but there's plenty of other places - the US has large swaths of nothingness that could benefit from solar power but don't have grid connections. 3) Portable applications, in which in would be impractical to run a temporary grid connection to it, would do great with some energy storage.
I'm fairly sure the cost of a new ship and the cost of salvage have absolutely nothing to do with each other. It's like saying "Why both removing the tree that fell on my roof? It's cheapest just to plant a new tree!" That's what the Costa Concordia is right now... a tree that fell on the roof. It needs to be chopped up and hauled away for scrap and they're trying to do it without causing more damage to the roof (which is largely the marine environment and tourism in this bad analogy).
Expecting the unexpected could mean that you expect something to happen that you couldn't expect... not necessarily that you expect the specific unexpected event itself... just that you expect some specific unexpected event to occur.
Which, of course, still makes it a completely useless piece of advice beyond "Don't let your guard down. Ever."
It's not even like Longhorn, because Longhorn was at least the codename for the final, complete product consumers would be looking at, the equivalent of which would be the codename for a distro (as opposed to the kernel). It's for developers, not for users or customers. If your customer just needs the Linux kernel and not a distro, odds are they're familiar enough with it to not care.
It mostly started with 2.6.x (there were only a couple prior to that with names). A few highlights:
2.6.17-rc6–2.6.17– Crazed Snow-Weasel 2.6.18–2.6.19– Avast! A bilge rat! 2.6.20-rc2–2.6.20– Homicidal Dwarf Hamster 2.6.22-rc3–2.6.22-rc4 Jeff Thinks I Should Change This, But To What? 2.6.23-rc7–2.6.23–2.6.24– Arr Matey! A Hairy Bilge Rat! stable: 2.6.24.1– Err Metey! A Heury Beelge-a Ret! 2.6.25-rc2–2.6.25– Funky Weasel is Jiggy wit it 2.6.34-rc5-2.6.34–2.6.35 Sheep on Meth stable: 3.9.6– Black Squirrel Wakeup Call
I'm more used to suicidal chipmunks. Had one charge both of my dogs. They were on leashes and wouldn't have caught him if he had gone any other direction but at us. My half-pit bull scooped it up in his mouth, but also being half moron, he didn't know what the hell to do with the damned chipmunk that was now just a tail sticking out out of his mouth. I just gave him a disapproving look and he set the (now slobber covered) chipmunk on the ground gently, where it apparently reconsidered its suicidal tendencies and ran off into the bushes.
That's... the point? VoIP not working during power outages is an obstacle to VoIP adoption in my area (where power outages aren't uncommon). Therefore, people have been sticking with traditional phone service, which usually still works during a blackout.
I've encountered, on more than one occasion, people with the opposite misunderstanding. They don't think their cars will start because the power is out on their block. There's also a lot of people that don't realize corded phones will still work with no power (in most situations) - probably the biggest obstacle to VoIP adoption in my area.
Look at the headlines. "Russia brokers a deal..." "Syrian Gov't Agrees to Russian Deal". Russian this, Russian that. It doesn't matter if Narnia was actually behind the deal, it only matters who gets all the headlines when it comes to who gets to claim the win.
The summary is about half the length of your post, and yet still answers every question you have. The texter is only liable if they are told or reason to know the text will be viewed specifically while driving.
Slashdot Mirror
What, you've never watched Star Trek?
When humans no longer need to do the work, then they can go bone green chicks across the galaxy.
Streaming music is ok, downloading it is not.
Streaming power is ok, downloading it is not.
Oh Spain, the RIAA/MPAA and their international counterparts must love you.
I can't wait for them to only allow you to eat storebought food.
"If you want to live in the woods, why would you want power?"
If you want to live in the city, why would you want fresh food?
If you want to live in the desert, why would you want water?
If you want to live on a boat, why would you want to stay dry?
I nominate that for the worst argument of the week... and Slashdot has some pretty bad arguments.
I know a guy who lives in the Adirondacks where there are no power lines. He is completely off the grid thanks to solar and wind and a whole bunch of batteries, even in the winter when solar and wind are horrible choices. Satellite allows him to stay completely connected and still live where he wants.
Or we can look at the big blackout a decade ago... or the ice storms every winter... if we weren't on the grid, we could just walk to our neighbors or even run an extension cord to them if our power was down. But with the grid, sometimes our best option is to go completely without power.
It's the difference between trains and cars. Trains are great for population centers, but they quickly become inefficient, expensive, unreliable and inflexible when you try to use them for everyone's personal transportation everywhere. The grid vs personal power is the same way. And if you think everyone should live in the city, then I guess you must *really* hate food.
1. The idea is to reduce non-renewable sources in favor of renewable sources. The biggest issue facing this in the long run is the need to store the energy as most non-renewable sources are not continuously reliable (wind) or are cyclic (solar, some hydro). Saying you can load balance with a non-renewable resource is a short term solution.
2. Solar is getting pretty cheap, and a lot of places are using it to some degree already. It's not unheard of for poor African villages to use solar to recharge car batteries each day. It's the storage that's the weak link in cases like these moreso than the solar generation.
3. Generators get expensive fast once you consider the indirect costs such as transportation. Also, see 1. Most solutions not involving some kind of energy storage are short term solutions (within the lifetime of people already born).
I can think of a few reasons:
1) This doesn't scale. If we want solar to catch on a massive scale, we need a way to either store it, or a way for a night/cloudy/rainy power source to fill in the gaps
2) A lot of places where solar would be really useful doesn't have grid access to begin with. Many third world areas (IE: large portions of Africa) come to mind, but there's plenty of other places - the US has large swaths of nothingness that could benefit from solar power but don't have grid connections.
3) Portable applications, in which in would be impractical to run a temporary grid connection to it, would do great with some energy storage.
Nonsense. The summary doesn't once mention tachyons OR reversing polarity.
I'm fairly sure the cost of a new ship and the cost of salvage have absolutely nothing to do with each other. It's like saying "Why both removing the tree that fell on my roof? It's cheapest just to plant a new tree!" That's what the Costa Concordia is right now... a tree that fell on the roof. It needs to be chopped up and hauled away for scrap and they're trying to do it without causing more damage to the roof (which is largely the marine environment and tourism in this bad analogy).
Expecting the unexpected could mean that you expect something to happen that you couldn't expect... not necessarily that you expect the specific unexpected event itself... just that you expect some specific unexpected event to occur.
Which, of course, still makes it a completely useless piece of advice beyond "Don't let your guard down. Ever."
It's not even like Longhorn, because Longhorn was at least the codename for the final, complete product consumers would be looking at, the equivalent of which would be the codename for a distro (as opposed to the kernel). It's for developers, not for users or customers. If your customer just needs the Linux kernel and not a distro, odds are they're familiar enough with it to not care.
If you're going to compare codename to codename, then you should have been trying to sell them "Microsoft Whistler", not "Windows XP Professional".
It mostly started with 2.6.x (there were only a couple prior to that with names). A few highlights:
2.6.17-rc6–2.6.17– Crazed Snow-Weasel
2.6.18–2.6.19– Avast! A bilge rat!
2.6.20-rc2–2.6.20– Homicidal Dwarf Hamster
2.6.22-rc3–2.6.22-rc4 Jeff Thinks I Should Change This, But To What?
2.6.23-rc7–2.6.23–2.6.24– Arr Matey! A Hairy Bilge Rat!
stable: 2.6.24.1– Err Metey! A Heury Beelge-a Ret!
2.6.25-rc2–2.6.25– Funky Weasel is Jiggy wit it
2.6.34-rc5-2.6.34–2.6.35 Sheep on Meth
stable: 3.9.6– Black Squirrel Wakeup Call
Full List: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_kernel_names
Suicidal Snickers?
Killin' Kitkat?
Manslaughter Mars?
Arson Almond Joy?
Homicidal Heath Bar?
Regicidal Reese's Pieces?
Patricidal PayDay?
Matricidal Milky Way?
I'm more used to suicidal chipmunks. Had one charge both of my dogs. They were on leashes and wouldn't have caught him if he had gone any other direction but at us. My half-pit bull scooped it up in his mouth, but also being half moron, he didn't know what the hell to do with the damned chipmunk that was now just a tail sticking out out of his mouth. I just gave him a disapproving look and he set the (now slobber covered) chipmunk on the ground gently, where it apparently reconsidered its suicidal tendencies and ran off into the bushes.
Maybe Linus doesn't consider Linux to be critical...
Microsoft sure as hell doesn't seem to find Windows to be critical.
That's... the point? VoIP not working during power outages is an obstacle to VoIP adoption in my area (where power outages aren't uncommon). Therefore, people have been sticking with traditional phone service, which usually still works during a blackout.
I've encountered, on more than one occasion, people with the opposite misunderstanding. They don't think their cars will start because the power is out on their block. There's also a lot of people that don't realize corded phones will still work with no power (in most situations) - probably the biggest obstacle to VoIP adoption in my area.
Of course they're humorless. They would much rather have humour.
That's easy. Putin will be having sex with fully armed and operational chemical weapons. It's sort of what he does. No PR machine needed.
Look at the headlines. "Russia brokers a deal..." "Syrian Gov't Agrees to Russian Deal". Russian this, Russian that. It doesn't matter if Narnia was actually behind the deal, it only matters who gets all the headlines when it comes to who gets to claim the win.
Yes, but in Russian Chess, you do not capture your opponents pieces. You unload a light machine gun onto the chess board.
Sand carriers always ride single file to hide their numbers
Which is sometimes still better than giving several people the job of one person.
I misread the other candidate, Julie Larson-Green, as Julie Green Lantern. I think that would be an even better publicity generating name.
That's sort of my point. They're telling you when you can and can't text people. So what are their arbitrary boundaries?
The summary is about half the length of your post, and yet still answers every question you have. The texter is only liable if they are told or reason to know the text will be viewed specifically while driving.