Your interface to your device is physical, not neural. I guess the definition of cyborg is whatever it is going to be, but a guy swinging a hammer isn't a cyborg, and you just happen to be swinging this hammer with some muscles inside your eye.
I guess I could have said "have a stated policy of scheming...".
I'm not really all that certain that a government should be completely non-interventionist (comparing any sort of centralized system to Russia seems to indicate a non-intervention stance). On the other hand, given that I think inflation will be rampant in the U.S. over the next 10 years, I can't really claim that I think the Fed is doing a good job at the moment.
Or the public needs to adjust their mindset. Individual lives are worth a great deal to individuals, but as a society, we could burn hundreds of thousands of people a year trying to launch them into space and hardly notice. It would probably pay not to invest quite so heavily in those individuals.
Note that we currently burn tens of thousands of people a year driving around in cars, essentially unnoticed.
Why the arbitrary period? If they get 20 bugs in October and 10 in November, fixing 15 a month will work out fine (and be cheaper than having the resources available to deal with their worst months).
So a bunch of people are concerned that Google has too much information and will combine their databases in ways that are hostile to users, and a bunch of other people are concerned that Google isn't doing a good enough job combining their databases?
Perhaps it is a social network thing; people who interact in the real world with several people who have an account on a particular site are a lot more likely to setup an account.
Isn't it essentially impossible to eradicate something from Sourceforge? The final check-in to version control can be a non working mess, but it is always possible to step back to the last working version, correct (finding that version might be a pain...)?
You say, somewhere above in the thread, that people adopt open source because of cost. I don't think this is the case. I think they adopt if because of quality and value. I think this is the case for all software (That is, when using a computer saves $15,000 over not using a computer, $1,000 or even $10,000 of licensing costs will not impede the decision). So projects like the Linux kernel, Apache, Perl, Python, etc., are adopted because they deliver a great deal of value, not simply because they are cheaper than the alternatives.
In that context, OSS is a development model, not a cost model, and any decision to use software is going to include examination of the quality of the software and the quality of the support available for the software, and so on. Grouping software by the license it happens to be available under is a false argument (because no one would buy proprietary software that came with shitty support).
Recycling should be done where it is profitable, and probably in some instances where it is cheap (high volume waste, toxic material, stuff like that). No sane person will dispute this.
Extracting energy at a profit and reducing the operational costs of trash disposal are both good reasons to incinerate trash. No sane person will dispute this.
The fact remains that the chief problem with landfills is not that there is not space for them, it is that no one wants one build anywhere near where they live. This is completely reasonable, but it is also completely different than not having enough land to build them.
Think of the trash as coal and the plasma arc as the infrastructure required to pull the coal out of the ground, haul it to the plant and crush it.
It is at least possible for the process to actually net energy (without any of it being, your word, "free", it is actually "trapped" in the trash). It is also entirely possible that it is an energy sink. I'm glad these guys are building and tinkering to find out, rather than assuming it won't work.
Landfills are mostly a NIMBY problem. Around here, the county landfills are barely accepting enough trash to offer competitive prices and they consume much less than a square mile of land (that can eventually be reclaimed for certain uses).
It is certainly a different issue for places like New York City, but still, the actual use of land is not 'lots and lots'.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, there is no coal, tar sands or natural gas. And solar technology has stagnated for the last 50 years. And nuclear is clearly unsafe.
Your interface to your device is physical, not neural. I guess the definition of cyborg is whatever it is going to be, but a guy swinging a hammer isn't a cyborg, and you just happen to be swinging this hammer with some muscles inside your eye.
Wherever you go, there you are.
I thought gentoo died in a fire. Did this not happen?
I guess I could have said "have a stated policy of scheming...".
I'm not really all that certain that a government should be completely non-interventionist (comparing any sort of centralized system to Russia seems to indicate a non-intervention stance). On the other hand, given that I think inflation will be rampant in the U.S. over the next 10 years, I can't really claim that I think the Fed is doing a good job at the moment.
Does it happen often that 'humor challenged' individuals fail to get your 'jokes'?
Or the public needs to adjust their mindset. Individual lives are worth a great deal to individuals, but as a society, we could burn hundreds of thousands of people a year trying to launch them into space and hardly notice. It would probably pay not to invest quite so heavily in those individuals.
Note that we currently burn tens of thousands of people a year driving around in cars, essentially unnoticed.
Inflation, by shrinking the nominal cost of labor, lowers debt burden.
This is why central banks scheme to cause low levels of inflation.
They are trying to make sure that God kills enough kittens to stave off the eventual cat invasion.
Why the arbitrary period? If they get 20 bugs in October and 10 in November, fixing 15 a month will work out fine (and be cheaper than having the resources available to deal with their worst months).
Until teh Google reads this thread and cancels his account.
So a bunch of people are concerned that Google has too much information and will combine their databases in ways that are hostile to users, and a bunch of other people are concerned that Google isn't doing a good enough job combining their databases?
What if he gets pregnant in prison?
I wasn't trying to answer your question, I was pointing out that your absolute denial is a delusion.
Perhaps it is a social network thing; people who interact in the real world with several people who have an account on a particular site are a lot more likely to setup an account.
Not the same thing as what the other guy posted, but some people really are morons:
http://www.google.com/search?q=vegan+baby+dies
I think you are underestimating religion.
Isn't it essentially impossible to eradicate something from Sourceforge? The final check-in to version control can be a non working mess, but it is always possible to step back to the last working version, correct (finding that version might be a pain...)?
You say, somewhere above in the thread, that people adopt open source because of cost. I don't think this is the case. I think they adopt if because of quality and value. I think this is the case for all software (That is, when using a computer saves $15,000 over not using a computer, $1,000 or even $10,000 of licensing costs will not impede the decision). So projects like the Linux kernel, Apache, Perl, Python, etc., are adopted because they deliver a great deal of value, not simply because they are cheaper than the alternatives.
In that context, OSS is a development model, not a cost model, and any decision to use software is going to include examination of the quality of the software and the quality of the support available for the software, and so on. Grouping software by the license it happens to be available under is a false argument (because no one would buy proprietary software that came with shitty support).
Redhat has a solution to this problem. If you want guaranteed access to their time, you pay for it.
Seems like a pretty good idea.
Whinefield.
Recycling should be done where it is profitable, and probably in some instances where it is cheap (high volume waste, toxic material, stuff like that). No sane person will dispute this.
Extracting energy at a profit and reducing the operational costs of trash disposal are both good reasons to incinerate trash. No sane person will dispute this.
The fact remains that the chief problem with landfills is not that there is not space for them, it is that no one wants one build anywhere near where they live. This is completely reasonable, but it is also completely different than not having enough land to build them.
Think of the trash as coal and the plasma arc as the infrastructure required to pull the coal out of the ground, haul it to the plant and crush it.
It is at least possible for the process to actually net energy (without any of it being, your word, "free", it is actually "trapped" in the trash). It is also entirely possible that it is an energy sink. I'm glad these guys are building and tinkering to find out, rather than assuming it won't work.
Landfills are mostly a NIMBY problem. Around here, the county landfills are barely accepting enough trash to offer competitive prices and they consume much less than a square mile of land (that can eventually be reclaimed for certain uses).
It is certainly a different issue for places like New York City, but still, the actual use of land is not 'lots and lots'.
Your made up argument is awesome.