Oh please, this is a load of crap. A politician like Hillary does not fulfill the will of the majority of voters: she tells the voters what they want to hear, then after she gets elected, she does something completely different. That's exactly what many people complained about with Obama. What makes you think Hillary will actually do what the voters want, rather than what Wall Street wants?
What's important is if anyone is going to sue over it. The only people who can sure are those who have standing. Arguably, Linus himself has the most standing, and his position is the pragmatic one: he doesn't mind modules linking to the kernel, though they can't declare themselves GPL and use the GPL-only interfaces if they're not. He's even given Nvidia the middle finger in one interview because he wasn't a big fan of their proprietary route, but he's never talked about suing them or causing any legal problems, and since then from what I've read they've actually helped out with the Nouveau drivers some.
The issue isn't going to be ruled on in court until someone with standing sues over it. And if they haven't done so by now with Nvidia and AMD, I don't see why they'd start now. They'd only be hurting the cause for Linux proliferation. Having more software working in Linux is a good thing for the users. The only people who are against this are the extremists, and none of them seem to do any kernel work. So they can whine all they want, but no one cares, and they'll be laughed out of court if they try to bring a lawsuit.
All this speculation is pretty silly IMO, because you're trying to draw conclusions about possible civilizations far more advanced than ours, using a ridiculously small and limited amount of data from a civilization that hasn't even really left its own planet yet, except for a few primitive robotic probes within its system and one manned mission to its nearby moon for rock collecting. We haven't even visited our nearest neighboring system.
We have no idea how many habitable planets are out there, because we can't even detect them. All the exoplanets we've seen have been big and very close to their stars, because that's what our limited technology allows us to see. We would not be able to see an Earth in orbit around Alpha Centauri, much less a much farther star. 20 years ago, we didn't even know definitively about any exoplanets at all, but when we developed the capability of seeing "hot Jupiters" suddenly we started seeing hundreds of them. Most likely, there's an enormous number of Earth-sized planets out there, we just can't see them yet.
The search for radio waves is dumb. We don't even use high-powered radio waves any more, we only did for a very brief time, and radio is very hard to detect over large distances due to the Inverse Square Law. The whole SETI search seems to be based on the silly idea that ETs are out there, working their asses off to build the biggest radio transmitters they possibly can and then devoting all their energy to powering them, just so they can point these transmitters at us to send us a signal. We don't do that, so why do we assume anyone else is going to?
The megastructure thing is pretty silly too: a Dyson sphere (or better yet, a Dyson swarm which is much more realistic) wouldn't be easily detectable by us because it'd be blocking all the star's light, and would only be detectable by IR radiation. Are we even actively looking for such things? And would we be able to detect them?
Honestly, even if there were a Star Trek TNG-level civilization out there in the Delta Quadrant, we wouldn't be able to see it. It's too far away, and we wouldn't be able to detect their technology. There's a lack of signs of civilizations because we do not have the capability of seeing them, and we haven't put that much effort into looking, and certainly not into leaving our star system to check out neighboring systems. It's a lot like living on an island and concluding there's no other civilization out there because you haven't seen any come visit you, when you haven't even bothered building a boat and looking for yourself.
Actually, you don't need to make up crazy analogies about worms and apples and beans here. Just look at how the Nvidia proprietary kernel modules are shipped, and how they've been shipped for over a decade now. Nvidia's driver also links to the kernel as a dynamically-loaded module (nvidia.ko). Is anyone complaining? Outside of a few extremists, no.
This situation with ZFS is no different than the situation with Nvidia.
No one is combining Linux + ZFS into a single binary. Ubuntu has already said, over and over, that ZFS will be a separate kernel module (zfs.ko).
This is no different from how Nvidia drivers are distributed, and Nvidia's drivers are completely proprietary. They've been distributing them this way for well over a decade now.
The "astrophysicist" came up with a model which says that Earth doesn't exist.
Obviously, his model is plainly wrong. Why should I believe his simulation results when his simulation can't even get the one data point we *do* know about right?
Wrong about Bernie: how do you think Obama got elected? He energized the young people and they turned out in droves to vote for him.
Of course, then Obama turned out to be a big disappointment to him, as he was just a lot of hype, and then you saw a lot of non-voting as you noted from that crowd, because other Dem candidates just didn't excite them. However, Bernie is exciting them now, and unlike Obama, Bernie actually has a long political career that backs his rhetoric, and has done a lot more than just being a "community organizer" and a short-tern Senator voting mostly "present".
Bernie could easily get elected, but only if the DNC allows him to win the nomination. They don't look like they want to do that, because they want corrupt Hillary instead and are willing to do just about anything to get her there.
And on foreign policy, Rubio is another adventurer who wants to ally w/ 'Sunni Arabs'. Never mind that Sunni Arabs are the backbone of both al Qaeda & ISIS. Fact is we don't have a dog in those fights - they're ALL our enemies, and our only role there should be to defang them.
I disagree. You're right that the Sunnis are the worst of the lot (and the backbone of ISIS), however they're not all our enemies. I don't really see how the Shias are our enemies at all; the "allahuakbar" ones all seem to be Sunnis. And if we ally with anyone over there, it should be the Kurds: they're the most secular of all of them, including the Turks. That whole region would be a lot more stable if the Kurds had their own nation, comprising parts of what is currently Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. Instead, we ally with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, both run by Islamists.
As someone who will never vote democrat, let me inform you all that Rubio wants to TRIPLE the number of H1B visas and wants to expand warrantless wiretapping from the CIA.
And these are two more reasons I'm a Bernie fan. He's against H1B visas too, and also against warrantless wiretapping.
Of course, Hillary is the opposite, which is why there's no way I'm voting for her.
Isn't Hillary the one who laughed at a rape victim? How much more misogynist can you get?
Seriously, if it comes down to Hillary vs. Trump, I'm voting Trump. I'd rather take my chances with that bombastic egomaniac than with a woman who's clearly a corrupt sociopath working for Wall Street.
Television is showing us content for free, so we put up with some unobstrusive ads that don't transmit diseases.
Speak for yourself. More and more of us aren't just "cutting the cord", we're not watching TV any more at all (except for stuff like Netflix which has no ads).
Actually, I think there's a difference. Trump is his own man; he might change his convictions readily as the situation changes, but he does things for his own reasons. Hillary only says things to appease people as she learns of their opinions in polls, but that has nothing to do with what she'll actually do in office, which is to further the agenda of her backers.
Hillary's a liar who's just telling you what you want to hear, and will do things for her own personal gain and for those people she truly works for. Trump may be telling you what you want to hear (we're not sure yet), but in office he's going to do whatever he thinks is a good idea (whether it is or not). He's not beholden to anyone except his own inflated ego. Personally I think he might not be that bad a President, because he won't be working for any special interests, he doesn't need more money, and I think he's doing this for his own fame and ego: he wants his name in the history books, and that probably includes actually doing (or attempting to do) a good job as President. Think about it: he's already got more money than he knows what to do with, he's got buildings with his name in gold on them, he's done some silly reality TV show stuff, what's left? If he can go down in history as the President that really turned America around, that'd really feed his ego. The question, of course, is if he's actually competent to do the job.
I completely disagree. It seems like a resounding success to me. It's proven that Windows users are such idiotic sheep that they'll put with any amount of abuse that MS decides to heap on them, whether it's spyware, forced advertising, a horrible UI designed to push them to buy a Windows Phone, etc. There's simply no limit to how far MS can push its users, as they've found out, so expect things to get much worse for them, and for them to continue to say things like "it's okay, all things told".
And that's why Trump is going to win. Hillary will win the DNC nomination one way or another (probably involving some dirty tricks on the part of the DNC's leadership with DWS), and all the Millenials and other Bernie voters will either sit out the election, write in Bernie's name, or vote for Trump out of spite. Combine that with Trump's huge polling numbers, and the distrust and disdain that so many Americans (esp. on the right) have for Hillary, and we can look forward to a Trump Presidency. And AFAIC, the corrupt DNC has only itself to blame for this fiasco.
The only reason Obama got elected in '08 is because he was popular with the younger crowd: they thought they finally had someone they could believe in, so they rallied behind him. This was 4 years after the DNC fielded wooden Kerry, who failed to excite them enough to bother to turn out and vote against another 4 years of GWB. Then Obama failed to perform as his voters expected, so he managed to squeak by in '12, mainly because Romney was such an uninspiring candidate. So you'd think the Dems would have learned their lesson that they need a candidate that resonates with the voters, and they've found exactly such a candidate with Bernie. He generates all the excitement with younger voters that Obama did, except this time he actually has a long political record to back up his progressive rhetoric; the younger voters have learned this time around not to get excited by mere words, but by actions. But instead of seizing this opportunity, the DNC is doing everything they can to shut down his campaign and push Hillary, a candidate that almost no one is excited by, and is obviously just a tool for Wall Street. So, just like Romney in '12 and Kerry in '04, or worse Dukakis in '88 (where he lost in a landslide), Hillary is probably going to lose this year because she just isn't a candidate who is going to make the Democrat voters want to bother going to the polls, which is a frequent problem with Dem voters as seen in every midterm election.
First, Trump is not a republican, he's just campaigning on their ticket (like Bernie on the Dem side, he was an Independent before this campaign) because he's figured out how to "take direct control of the zombie horde".
Fiorina was a failure; she didn't get anywhere with her campaign. Carson is soon to follow. Cain didn't get far either. None of them held office. Nor has Trump.
The actual Republicans, the ones who actually succeed in holding office, are nothing like what you're describing. They're long-time politicians, and they certainly have political careers. There have been a few exceptions lately with the Tea Party, but that's pretty recent.
So you need to look at *real* Republicans like Jeb Bush, Kasich, Rubio, etc. Those represent the Republican Party. and they're all career politicians. The ones like Carson and Fiorina are just a side-show, some yahoos trying to turn their non-political experience into a shot at political fame but mostly falling flat on their faces. Trump stands a real chance at subverting the GOP political process, and I think that's been his plan all along, but that is not at all typical of GOP politicians.
You have a valid point, however I contend that anyone who's been paying any attention over the past 30 years or so should have known that Microsoft is infamous for abusing its customers and its monopoly position; they even had a giant court case about it in the late 90s. So it should have come as no surprise that MS would have abused its customers even more by force-"upgrading" them to Win10.
No, if you install Windows 10 on your machine, then you're ceding control of your machine to MS. And as far as I'm concerned, if you willingly use Windows, you have absolutely no right to complain about MS's business practices or what they do with your private data or if they bombard you with advertising. You made your bed, now you get to lie in it.
However, the good thing about Linux is that alternative DEs do exist and you can pretty easily use a distro with one of those instead. KDE hasn't fallen for the tablet hype, and as you mentioned there's Cinnamon, MATE, and Trinity, and there's also XCFE and Lxde.
Stop following the crowd with the Gnome3 and Unity BS; use a distro with one of the above non-tabletified UIs instead.
Bernie has a political career that spans decades now, and he's been entirely consistent. And unlike Hillary, he doesn't have a lot of questionable ethical actions in his past. You can think he's unrealistic or overly idealistic if you want (which doesn't really matter; the President can only pass the laws that Congress puts on his desk anyway), but if you think he's less trustworthy than Hillary, you're either an idiot or a shill.
Exactly. It's not like you're presented with a wide range of choices at the voting booth; the anti-corporate, anti-TPP candidates have a very difficult time getting anywhere. It's utterly amazing that Bernie and Trump are doing as well as they have (both are anti-TPP), but the establishment on both sides is doing everything it can to shut them down and make sure one of their chosen ones, Bush, Rubio, or Hillary, is guaranteed the election. (Of course, after the establishment gave him $100 million to spend on his campaign, Bush finally threw in the towel recently.)
Even if an anti-TPP candidate wins the Presidency, he'll still have to contend with a Congress full of corporate tools.
Slashdot Mirror
Then it sounds like he's wasting his time with the simulation. We don't have enough data to actually do any kind of reasonable simulation.
Oh please, this is a load of crap. A politician like Hillary does not fulfill the will of the majority of voters: she tells the voters what they want to hear, then after she gets elected, she does something completely different. That's exactly what many people complained about with Obama. What makes you think Hillary will actually do what the voters want, rather than what Wall Street wants?
What's important is if anyone is going to sue over it. The only people who can sure are those who have standing. Arguably, Linus himself has the most standing, and his position is the pragmatic one: he doesn't mind modules linking to the kernel, though they can't declare themselves GPL and use the GPL-only interfaces if they're not. He's even given Nvidia the middle finger in one interview because he wasn't a big fan of their proprietary route, but he's never talked about suing them or causing any legal problems, and since then from what I've read they've actually helped out with the Nouveau drivers some.
The issue isn't going to be ruled on in court until someone with standing sues over it. And if they haven't done so by now with Nvidia and AMD, I don't see why they'd start now. They'd only be hurting the cause for Linux proliferation. Having more software working in Linux is a good thing for the users. The only people who are against this are the extremists, and none of them seem to do any kernel work. So they can whine all they want, but no one cares, and they'll be laughed out of court if they try to bring a lawsuit.
What the hell are you talking about?
We have precisely one data point for a planet with life on it: it's called Earth.
This model says that Earth doesn't exist. Therefore, the model is wrong.
Is this really that hard to understand?
If that's the case, the question then becomes can we use that information to avoid doing that ourselves?
The US Presidential elections prove that the answer to that question is "no".
All this speculation is pretty silly IMO, because you're trying to draw conclusions about possible civilizations far more advanced than ours, using a ridiculously small and limited amount of data from a civilization that hasn't even really left its own planet yet, except for a few primitive robotic probes within its system and one manned mission to its nearby moon for rock collecting. We haven't even visited our nearest neighboring system.
We have no idea how many habitable planets are out there, because we can't even detect them. All the exoplanets we've seen have been big and very close to their stars, because that's what our limited technology allows us to see. We would not be able to see an Earth in orbit around Alpha Centauri, much less a much farther star. 20 years ago, we didn't even know definitively about any exoplanets at all, but when we developed the capability of seeing "hot Jupiters" suddenly we started seeing hundreds of them. Most likely, there's an enormous number of Earth-sized planets out there, we just can't see them yet.
The search for radio waves is dumb. We don't even use high-powered radio waves any more, we only did for a very brief time, and radio is very hard to detect over large distances due to the Inverse Square Law. The whole SETI search seems to be based on the silly idea that ETs are out there, working their asses off to build the biggest radio transmitters they possibly can and then devoting all their energy to powering them, just so they can point these transmitters at us to send us a signal. We don't do that, so why do we assume anyone else is going to?
The megastructure thing is pretty silly too: a Dyson sphere (or better yet, a Dyson swarm which is much more realistic) wouldn't be easily detectable by us because it'd be blocking all the star's light, and would only be detectable by IR radiation. Are we even actively looking for such things? And would we be able to detect them?
Honestly, even if there were a Star Trek TNG-level civilization out there in the Delta Quadrant, we wouldn't be able to see it. It's too far away, and we wouldn't be able to detect their technology. There's a lack of signs of civilizations because we do not have the capability of seeing them, and we haven't put that much effort into looking, and certainly not into leaving our star system to check out neighboring systems. It's a lot like living on an island and concluding there's no other civilization out there because you haven't seen any come visit you, when you haven't even bothered building a boat and looking for yourself.
Actually, you don't need to make up crazy analogies about worms and apples and beans here. Just look at how the Nvidia proprietary kernel modules are shipped, and how they've been shipped for over a decade now. Nvidia's driver also links to the kernel as a dynamically-loaded module (nvidia.ko). Is anyone complaining? Outside of a few extremists, no.
This situation with ZFS is no different than the situation with Nvidia.
No one is combining Linux + ZFS into a single binary. Ubuntu has already said, over and over, that ZFS will be a separate kernel module (zfs.ko).
This is no different from how Nvidia drivers are distributed, and Nvidia's drivers are completely proprietary. They've been distributing them this way for well over a decade now.
The "astrophysicist" came up with a model which says that Earth doesn't exist.
Obviously, his model is plainly wrong. Why should I believe his simulation results when his simulation can't even get the one data point we *do* know about right?
Wrong about Bernie: how do you think Obama got elected? He energized the young people and they turned out in droves to vote for him.
Of course, then Obama turned out to be a big disappointment to him, as he was just a lot of hype, and then you saw a lot of non-voting as you noted from that crowd, because other Dem candidates just didn't excite them. However, Bernie is exciting them now, and unlike Obama, Bernie actually has a long political career that backs his rhetoric, and has done a lot more than just being a "community organizer" and a short-tern Senator voting mostly "present".
Bernie could easily get elected, but only if the DNC allows him to win the nomination. They don't look like they want to do that, because they want corrupt Hillary instead and are willing to do just about anything to get her there.
And on foreign policy, Rubio is another adventurer who wants to ally w/ 'Sunni Arabs'. Never mind that Sunni Arabs are the backbone of both al Qaeda & ISIS. Fact is we don't have a dog in those fights - they're ALL our enemies, and our only role there should be to defang them.
I disagree. You're right that the Sunnis are the worst of the lot (and the backbone of ISIS), however they're not all our enemies. I don't really see how the Shias are our enemies at all; the "allahuakbar" ones all seem to be Sunnis. And if we ally with anyone over there, it should be the Kurds: they're the most secular of all of them, including the Turks. That whole region would be a lot more stable if the Kurds had their own nation, comprising parts of what is currently Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. Instead, we ally with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, both run by Islamists.
As someone who will never vote democrat, let me inform you all that Rubio wants to TRIPLE the number of H1B visas and wants to expand warrantless wiretapping from the CIA.
And these are two more reasons I'm a Bernie fan. He's against H1B visas too, and also against warrantless wiretapping.
Of course, Hillary is the opposite, which is why there's no way I'm voting for her.
- He is a misogynist of the first order
Isn't Hillary the one who laughed at a rape victim? How much more misogynist can you get?
Seriously, if it comes down to Hillary vs. Trump, I'm voting Trump. I'd rather take my chances with that bombastic egomaniac than with a woman who's clearly a corrupt sociopath working for Wall Street.
I think he's asking about what happens if Bernie dies *before* he's elected, but *after* he's nominated.
I would assume that Hillary would then become the Dem nominee by default.
Television is showing us content for free, so we put up with some unobstrusive ads that don't transmit diseases.
Speak for yourself. More and more of us aren't just "cutting the cord", we're not watching TV any more at all (except for stuff like Netflix which has no ads).
Actually, I think there's a difference. Trump is his own man; he might change his convictions readily as the situation changes, but he does things for his own reasons. Hillary only says things to appease people as she learns of their opinions in polls, but that has nothing to do with what she'll actually do in office, which is to further the agenda of her backers.
Hillary's a liar who's just telling you what you want to hear, and will do things for her own personal gain and for those people she truly works for. Trump may be telling you what you want to hear (we're not sure yet), but in office he's going to do whatever he thinks is a good idea (whether it is or not). He's not beholden to anyone except his own inflated ego. Personally I think he might not be that bad a President, because he won't be working for any special interests, he doesn't need more money, and I think he's doing this for his own fame and ego: he wants his name in the history books, and that probably includes actually doing (or attempting to do) a good job as President. Think about it: he's already got more money than he knows what to do with, he's got buildings with his name in gold on them, he's done some silly reality TV show stuff, what's left? If he can go down in history as the President that really turned America around, that'd really feed his ego. The question, of course, is if he's actually competent to do the job.
Windows 10 is, at best, a complete disaster.
I completely disagree. It seems like a resounding success to me. It's proven that Windows users are such idiotic sheep that they'll put with any amount of abuse that MS decides to heap on them, whether it's spyware, forced advertising, a horrible UI designed to push them to buy a Windows Phone, etc. There's simply no limit to how far MS can push its users, as they've found out, so expect things to get much worse for them, and for them to continue to say things like "it's okay, all things told".
And that's why Trump is going to win. Hillary will win the DNC nomination one way or another (probably involving some dirty tricks on the part of the DNC's leadership with DWS), and all the Millenials and other Bernie voters will either sit out the election, write in Bernie's name, or vote for Trump out of spite. Combine that with Trump's huge polling numbers, and the distrust and disdain that so many Americans (esp. on the right) have for Hillary, and we can look forward to a Trump Presidency. And AFAIC, the corrupt DNC has only itself to blame for this fiasco.
The only reason Obama got elected in '08 is because he was popular with the younger crowd: they thought they finally had someone they could believe in, so they rallied behind him. This was 4 years after the DNC fielded wooden Kerry, who failed to excite them enough to bother to turn out and vote against another 4 years of GWB. Then Obama failed to perform as his voters expected, so he managed to squeak by in '12, mainly because Romney was such an uninspiring candidate. So you'd think the Dems would have learned their lesson that they need a candidate that resonates with the voters, and they've found exactly such a candidate with Bernie. He generates all the excitement with younger voters that Obama did, except this time he actually has a long political record to back up his progressive rhetoric; the younger voters have learned this time around not to get excited by mere words, but by actions. But instead of seizing this opportunity, the DNC is doing everything they can to shut down his campaign and push Hillary, a candidate that almost no one is excited by, and is obviously just a tool for Wall Street. So, just like Romney in '12 and Kerry in '04, or worse Dukakis in '88 (where he lost in a landslide), Hillary is probably going to lose this year because she just isn't a candidate who is going to make the Democrat voters want to bother going to the polls, which is a frequent problem with Dem voters as seen in every midterm election.
Wow, this is some seriously distorted analysis.
First, Trump is not a republican, he's just campaigning on their ticket (like Bernie on the Dem side, he was an Independent before this campaign) because he's figured out how to "take direct control of the zombie horde".
Fiorina was a failure; she didn't get anywhere with her campaign. Carson is soon to follow. Cain didn't get far either. None of them held office. Nor has Trump.
The actual Republicans, the ones who actually succeed in holding office, are nothing like what you're describing. They're long-time politicians, and they certainly have political careers. There have been a few exceptions lately with the Tea Party, but that's pretty recent.
So you need to look at *real* Republicans like Jeb Bush, Kasich, Rubio, etc. Those represent the Republican Party. and they're all career politicians. The ones like Carson and Fiorina are just a side-show, some yahoos trying to turn their non-political experience into a shot at political fame but mostly falling flat on their faces. Trump stands a real chance at subverting the GOP political process, and I think that's been his plan all along, but that is not at all typical of GOP politicians.
You have a valid point, however I contend that anyone who's been paying any attention over the past 30 years or so should have known that Microsoft is infamous for abusing its customers and its monopoly position; they even had a giant court case about it in the late 90s. So it should have come as no surprise that MS would have abused its customers even more by force-"upgrading" them to Win10.
No, if you install Windows 10 on your machine, then you're ceding control of your machine to MS. And as far as I'm concerned, if you willingly use Windows, you have absolutely no right to complain about MS's business practices or what they do with your private data or if they bombard you with advertising. You made your bed, now you get to lie in it.
Unfortunately, this is completely true.
However, the good thing about Linux is that alternative DEs do exist and you can pretty easily use a distro with one of those instead. KDE hasn't fallen for the tablet hype, and as you mentioned there's Cinnamon, MATE, and Trinity, and there's also XCFE and Lxde.
Stop following the crowd with the Gnome3 and Unity BS; use a distro with one of the above non-tabletified UIs instead.
-1 Stupid.
Bernie has a political career that spans decades now, and he's been entirely consistent. And unlike Hillary, he doesn't have a lot of questionable ethical actions in his past. You can think he's unrealistic or overly idealistic if you want (which doesn't really matter; the President can only pass the laws that Congress puts on his desk anyway), but if you think he's less trustworthy than Hillary, you're either an idiot or a shill.
This is exactly what I was going to say. Since they're being forced out of business, they should stick it to The Man and open-source their code.
Exactly. It's not like you're presented with a wide range of choices at the voting booth; the anti-corporate, anti-TPP candidates have a very difficult time getting anywhere. It's utterly amazing that Bernie and Trump are doing as well as they have (both are anti-TPP), but the establishment on both sides is doing everything it can to shut them down and make sure one of their chosen ones, Bush, Rubio, or Hillary, is guaranteed the election. (Of course, after the establishment gave him $100 million to spend on his campaign, Bush finally threw in the towel recently.)
Even if an anti-TPP candidate wins the Presidency, he'll still have to contend with a Congress full of corporate tools.