The movie studios seem to have decided, so they must have done focus groups or something. It seems people just don't want to bother with anything not in easy to understand English with lots of pop culture references if possible.
Look at the hip-hop star redubbing of Volcano High, endless Shaolin Soccer rejigging and worst of all, the remake of Taxi.
When RH first announced Fedora it was made out to be a great community project, but in reality the community is barely involved. It's been so long that Ubuntu has come along and stated many of the same aims as Fedora (e.g. a core of supported stuff and then lots of packages maintained by third parties) and is already acheiving them where Fedora has failed to even integrate the fedora.us tree that inspired the whole project. Running a fedora box with multiple repositories is a serious pita because the various third party repositories will not work together to stay compatible. Meanwhile Ubuntu can whip anything they want in from Debian, and allow people to very easily submit and maintain packages. This *is* the single thing that will make or break Linux for end-users. They quite simply have to be able to get all the software they want without having to compile it. That means third parties have to be able to get their packages into distros easily, be they volunteers maintaining useful/interesting/new packages, software projects providing official packages directly to the distros, or ISVs supplying packages into seriously non-free trees (if the distro policies allow for it). I hope Fedora can acheive their aims, it would certainly do a lot for Red Hat's credability, not to mention accelerate their products. It would also create a more complete counterpart to Ubuntu.
To be fair you can do electrolysis with electricity from nuclear power, which isn't exactly clean, but it doesn't produce a shitload of CO2. This would be a reasonable solution to providing mobility to the world without massive carbon emission. It would be nice though if electric motors and batteries could improve enough to be viable, then we can skip the inefficient conversion to hydrogen step and charge up directly from the power station;)
Actually you make a good point, Sky is tending towards US style TV, which is hardly surprising when you look at the organisation it belongs to:( I ditched cable a few months ago for being crap though, so it's ok:)
We only pay for the BBC via taxes, which provides two channels on terrestrial analogue TV, about 7 on terrestrial digital and the same on satellite/cable. The rest of the broadcasters in this country are paid for by commercials, spread through the programs at ~15 minute intervals. They are far less intrusive than US ads and we never do things like run the credits, go to a break, come back to the show, break five minutes later, bit more show, ads, then roll the end credits;)
...we want to watch the shows on US tv at the same time, I don't want to wait a year or more for SG-1 to hit Channel 4 in the UK, so I download it each week via bittorrent. I've spotted the UK TV licence fee mentioned a couple of times elsewhere on the page - I do not resent paying my £9 a month for that, the BBC is without question the premier broadcasting organisation in the world and I believe I get excellent value for my money. If only the satellite/cable people could offer the same, I recently cancelled my cable subscription because they mostly just show rubbish;)
I'm sorry, but who exactly takes responsibility for the flaws in Microsoft software? They post patches and Red Hat post patches. Some might argue Red Hat is faster/better at it, but that's irrelevant. Read some Microsoft EULAs, they all disclaim all responsibility for the product just like Open Source licenses do. If your vital webserver crashes you *DO NOT* get to go and get a refund from Microsoft because it's bad, they'll offer to sell you support or give you a patch, just like Red Hat will. So, the jist of my point is, what the fuck are Microsoft talking about?!
if you're driving on a road you are not in private and nor can you reasonably expect much privacy. You're being seen by all the other drivers around/passing you, by traffic cameras, by speed cameras, by cctv cameras on surrounding buildings, by aircraft, people on bridges, satellites... We have too much cctv in the uk unfortunately, but covering the roads really well makes a lot of sense - if nothing else it means the police can be watching the streets at night for accidents or people in danger. If you want privacy, go somewhere private:)
As a brief addendum, I find it very strange to be agreeing with law enforcement over a privacy issue for once;)
There are rather a lot of internal combustion engines out there, it's lots of hundreds of millions. How much land will we need to grow all of that biomass to produce a sustainable, continuous yield?
How much energy will we need to support the growth? Pesticides and fertilisers are clearly going to be needed, but are both generally made from oil and natural gas, things we're supposed to be replacing because it's mostly going to get more expensive in the medium term and then keen on climbing until it runs out. So they are out and we are back to pre 1940s growth yields, requiring more land.
How much energy will it take to harvest and process the unimaginable amounts of corn needed just to fuel north america. The fundemental question is how much land and how much net total energy does it take to produce our daily and future equivalent biodiesel needs? I'm pretty sure physics prevents this from being very scalable because it's not a very efficient process.
Surely that means it can only ever work on a small, local scale? in which case our economy is going to be in trouble when the biodiesel price is high due to lack of supply and shipping truck companies are going out of business and families can't afford to live in the suburbs because biodiesel is too expensive to use enough a day to move a few tons of metal a hundred miles or more.
So diesel may not require any new infrastructure, but it will probably lead to the abandoning a lot of what we do have and can't be a graceful move. Oil and natural gas are just too cheap, very little else can be obtained in the same quantities - literally because stuff doesn't just spring up out of the ground anymore;)
You can buy civics in diesel, at least you can across the range here in the UK (and it only weighs 1.3 tons;). I'm not sure if this url will work, but it's on honda.co.uk if not: diesel civic
In another form. Hydrogen doesn't just occur naturally, it bonds with other atoms to make things like water and methane, two sources commonly used in the production of pure hydrogen. Extraction of hydrogen either way requires energy, so electricity. Oil provides a huge margin of energy output for the cost of harvesting it. Hydrogen production is going to have a hard time not actually in net total using more energy than it produces, which is bad news in a society/economy that always wants more energy. If you believe some energy think tanks we are at or near the peak production of oil and natural gas the planet can sustain, so in the not too distant future we are going to have a continuing decline of energy availablity and we may not be able to produce enough hydrogen to sustain anything like the demand there would be to maintain our current way of life. Nuclear is the only choice long-term at the moment because the energy output is way higher than the input. If nothing else, waste that decays naturally (albeit slowly and hazardously, but in pretty low volumes) from a reactor in a big concrete bunker makes me feel safer than pouring the remaining trillions of tons of carbon in the oil reserves into the atmosphere, because if you believe some climatologists we aren't a huge number of decades from pushing the atmosphere into a very different state, or that it's not our fault, but is going to happen anyway;)
So generally we are screwed and need to build lots of reactors so we can at least scoot around our rural village economies on a leccy scooter:)
I think we are going to have to disagree on this, especially if you're going to rant at me about IP not existing and then use the word "evil", which clearly doesn't exist.
Your view of how IP should not exist simply is not compatible with capitalist industry and we aren't going to have a revolution any time soon, so I suggest you get used to it;)
I take a very pragmatic view of licensing. I do believe it is a good thing, I have no problems with the creator of something putting whatever license they want on something. There are two reasons for this: a) they created it, b) I am not compelled to license it. Half Life 2 is hardly unique, there are many games you can buy and own outright (subject to whatever IP laws you have in your country, which you may not agree with). If Valve choose to make their system oppressively restrictive then people will simply stop using them and they won't get to put out any more crappy systems. I don't agree with much of the actual IP law that exists (e.g. lengths of copyrights) and I have many problems with the patent systems currently being distorted. I am not dogmatic though. In terms of the GPL specifically I think it's a perfectly good license. It has a very clear aim and it is pretty much unequivocal about it. I happen to agree with it and favour it, but I can do that without being incapable of seeing its limits and inapplicability to some situations. As an example I would lean towards publically funded projects using BSD style licenses so the public can use them as they see fit. I also obviously respect whatever license any author/publisher chooses to release their code under. Without some recoginition of IP and copyright you can't have a GPL; Nor does it attempt to do away with copyright or have any kind of "viral" properties. That is hubris. It is a simple agreement to share all of the code in a project under the same rules. If your IP can't take being GPL'd, don't link with GPL code - if you have IP worth protecting you can probably buy a license for some code that isn't GPLd, or if GPL is too restrictive you can probably find some BSD code, or write it yourself. A few idiots (I refer to the zealots who you have clearly crossed paths with) on forums really don't represent Linux and FOSS. If you believe in anything to the absolute exclusion of all else you are probably wrong;) I see FOSS as a fantastic boiling pot of ideas and strategies and goals that are all intersecting and some clump together (LAMP springs to mind) and thrive, others don't, and it tends to evolve good solutions, so there is a choice of good alternatives, not a monopoly of one person's ideals (be they Bill Gates', Linus Torvalds', Theo de Raadt's or even RMS') and efforts.
You're right on the stealing point though, I did think about rewording that, but I was already waffling (again). I agree that it is technically not stealing, it is copyright infringement although I would hope that could be expressed as "theft of IP", but that's a silly little argument that isn't worth our time. Either way they are going against the wishes of Valve for how their creation should interact with the public, which is at best unfair and at worst illegal.
Err, no. My comment about wanting "something for nothing" refers to people wanting to avoid paying for something they are supposed to *pay* for.
I was patronizing indeed, I think it was pretty clear my original post was clearly directed at the expense of idiots who tried to *steal* (ie get "something for nothing") Half Life 2. People who abide by the FOSS licenses are getting a very good deal and should be encouraged.
The developers of my OS didn't ask me for money, they said I could have it for Free (beer and speech). I have paid for Linux distros in the past though, I also buy commercial software for it, influence decisions at work to put money into it, I report bugs, submit the odd patch, help people on mailing lists, forums and IRC. I was also a journalist on the largest UK PC mag writing Linux workshops for over a year. Don't get up on any kind of high horse about me freeloading please. Even if a FOSS user does *nothing* to give back, the software is still free by the developer's choice and therefore *nobody* has the right to bitch about that user. Sure it would be nice if they helped out, but that's it.
Also, I am sitting 12 inches away from an old copy of Half Life (my second purchased copy, actually). As soon as the new Cedega is out my money is gonna be going on that and HL2.
I am not a self appointed moralist, I am just laughing at people who are idiots. They are idiots because they chose to try and circumvent paying Valve for their hard work.
If you despise Valve, don't play their games. It's that simple. I don't license Windows XP because it doesn't meet my needs, so don't give me any shit about that either. That leaves you with no points left. Care to try again? Sorry to be rude, but you are being an ass.
I notice this is >1000 comments already, I blatantly can't be bothered to read them and I'm surprised you can, but there we go. Apologies if this has been hammered out a bunch of times already;)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I find this terribly amusing. People hear about a sneaky crack or a leaked code or whatever and just blithely slap it onto their PC to try and get that special angle almost nobody else did (except the other 19,999 suckers). The result? they lose any Steam supported games they actually have bought. That sucks and is arguably a bit naughty of Valve, but this is a powerful message to send right at the start of something that will be running for a while (I expect Steam will catch the eye of a lot of games company marketroids. Of course rather than use it they'll write their own, but nm).
So, while I sit here and chuckle at the boneheads who thought they could get something for nothing, I shall also rue not being able to play HL2 or CS:S yet because Cedega isn't out for another couple of weeks.
Actually, I also want to poke fun at the people who are downloading hacked versions of HL2. The particularly amusing part being that they have to download hack patches *every time* steam updates part of itself. AHAHAHA. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?;)
I've been thinking that this problem should be approached from the other end. Realistically, what Connectiva are doing is going to lead to a machine becoming a serious mess of libraries from different sources and it's blatantly not going to work very well. What I'd like to see is software released in such a way that it can be automatically converted into whatever package your system supports. This is less immediately useful for end users, but will ultimately make the end packaging format irrelevant, letting more distros spend less time doing their own packaging and concentrating on improving integration and so on. I believe efforts have been made in this direction , but I have no idea about their scope or uptake.
It doesn't make any sense and the author clearly has no idea what a fork/branch/patchset is, or has explained it very badly. Also, it would be a good thing if Linux had branches or at least config sets that target it at the different areas is exists in (e.g. the kernel config already has a section for removing things not needed by embedded kernels).
Both SG-1 and Atlantis are doing seasons of about 20 episodes. They do split it into two half seasons of 10 or 11 though. That's still not 4 though. Where does 4 come from?;)
Slashdot Mirror
The movie studios seem to have decided, so they must have done focus groups or something. It seems people just don't want to bother with anything not in easy to understand English with lots of pop culture references if possible.
Look at the hip-hop star redubbing of Volcano High, endless Shaolin Soccer rejigging and worst of all, the remake of Taxi.
The shame.
not being an extremely simple organism in a very stable environment, I'm going to rate your chances of making 16 million years about zero ;)
frozen for 32,000 years and springs back to life. yippee ;)
Try being alive for 16 million years!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4291571.stm
When RH first announced Fedora it was made out to be a great community project, but in reality the community is barely involved. It's been so long that Ubuntu has come along and stated many of the same aims as Fedora (e.g. a core of supported stuff and then lots of packages maintained by third parties) and is already acheiving them where Fedora has failed to even integrate the fedora.us tree that inspired the whole project. Running a fedora box with multiple repositories is a serious pita because the various third party repositories will not work together to stay compatible.
Meanwhile Ubuntu can whip anything they want in from Debian, and allow people to very easily submit and maintain packages.
This *is* the single thing that will make or break Linux for end-users. They quite simply have to be able to get all the software they want without having to compile it. That means third parties have to be able to get their packages into distros easily, be they volunteers maintaining useful/interesting/new packages, software projects providing official packages directly to the distros, or ISVs supplying packages into seriously non-free trees (if the distro policies allow for it).
I hope Fedora can acheive their aims, it would certainly do a lot for Red Hat's credability, not to mention accelerate their products. It would also create a more complete counterpart to Ubuntu.
To be fair you can do electrolysis with electricity from nuclear power, which isn't exactly clean, but it doesn't produce a shitload of CO2. This would be a reasonable solution to providing mobility to the world without massive carbon emission. It would be nice though if electric motors and batteries could improve enough to be viable, then we can skip the inefficient conversion to hydrogen step and charge up directly from the power station ;)
Actually you make a good point, Sky is tending towards US style TV, which is hardly surprising when you look at the organisation it belongs to :( :)
I ditched cable a few months ago for being crap though, so it's ok
We only pay for the BBC via taxes, which provides two channels on terrestrial analogue TV, about 7 on terrestrial digital and the same on satellite/cable. ;)
The rest of the broadcasters in this country are paid for by commercials, spread through the programs at ~15 minute intervals. They are far less intrusive than US ads and we never do things like run the credits, go to a break, come back to the show, break five minutes later, bit more show, ads, then roll the end credits
...we want to watch the shows on US tv at the same time, I don't want to wait a year or more for SG-1 to hit Channel 4 in the UK, so I download it each week via bittorrent. ;)
I've spotted the UK TV licence fee mentioned a couple of times elsewhere on the page - I do not resent paying my £9 a month for that, the BBC is without question the premier broadcasting organisation in the world and I believe I get excellent value for my money. If only the satellite/cable people could offer the same, I recently cancelled my cable subscription because they mostly just show rubbish
I'm sorry, but who exactly takes responsibility for the flaws in Microsoft software?
They post patches and Red Hat post patches. Some might argue Red Hat is faster/better at it, but that's irrelevant.
Read some Microsoft EULAs, they all disclaim all responsibility for the product just like Open Source licenses do. If your vital webserver crashes you *DO NOT* get to go and get a refund from Microsoft because it's bad, they'll offer to sell you support or give you a patch, just like Red Hat will.
So, the jist of my point is, what the fuck are Microsoft talking about?!
if you're driving on a road you are not in private and nor can you reasonably expect much privacy. :)
;)
You're being seen by all the other drivers around/passing you, by traffic cameras, by speed cameras, by cctv cameras on surrounding buildings, by aircraft, people on bridges, satellites...
We have too much cctv in the uk unfortunately, but covering the roads really well makes a lot of sense - if nothing else it means the police can be watching the streets at night for accidents or people in danger.
If you want privacy, go somewhere private
As a brief addendum, I find it very strange to be agreeing with law enforcement over a privacy issue for once
I agree with much of what you are saying, but it still sounds like two corpses arguing over who had the nicer death ;)
If the state of the local LUG is anything to go by, not very many ;)
"a neglected unix is far safer than..."
;)
what does that mean? only a few serious exploits compared to dozens? That may be the case, but a naughty person only needs one to root you
'fraid not, I'm from sunny Brighton :)
but I don't really see much counterpoint. Anyone have URLs for where this has been discussed in some more depth?
There are rather a lot of internal combustion engines out there, it's lots of hundreds of millions. How much land will we need to grow all of that biomass to produce a sustainable, continuous yield? ;) ;). I'm not sure if this url will work, but it's on honda.co.uk if not: diesel civic
How much energy will we need to support the growth? Pesticides and fertilisers are clearly going to be needed, but are both generally made from oil and natural gas, things we're supposed to be replacing because it's mostly going to get more expensive in the medium term and then keen on climbing until it runs out. So they are out and we are back to pre 1940s growth yields, requiring more land.
How much energy will it take to harvest and process the unimaginable amounts of corn needed just to fuel north america. The fundemental question is how much land and how much net total energy does it take to produce our daily and future equivalent biodiesel needs? I'm pretty sure physics prevents this from being very scalable because it's not a very efficient process. Surely that means it can only ever work on a small, local scale? in which case our economy is going to be in trouble when the biodiesel price is high due to lack of supply and shipping truck companies are going out of business and families can't afford to live in the suburbs because biodiesel is too expensive to use enough a day to move a few tons of metal a hundred miles or more. So diesel may not require any new infrastructure, but it will probably lead to the abandoning a lot of what we do have and can't be a graceful move. Oil and natural gas are just too cheap, very little else can be obtained in the same quantities - literally because stuff doesn't just spring up out of the ground anymore
You can buy civics in diesel, at least you can across the range here in the UK (and it only weighs 1.3 tons
In another form. Hydrogen doesn't just occur naturally, it bonds with other atoms to make things like water and methane, two sources commonly used in the production of pure hydrogen. ;)
:)
Extraction of hydrogen either way requires energy, so electricity. Oil provides a huge margin of energy output for the cost of harvesting it. Hydrogen production is going to have a hard time not actually in net total using more energy than it produces, which is bad news in a society/economy that always wants more energy.
If you believe some energy think tanks we are at or near the peak production of oil and natural gas the planet can sustain, so in the not too distant future we are going to have a continuing decline of energy availablity and we may not be able to produce enough hydrogen to sustain anything like the demand there would be to maintain our current way of life.
Nuclear is the only choice long-term at the moment because the energy output is way higher than the input. If nothing else, waste that decays naturally (albeit slowly and hazardously, but in pretty low volumes) from a reactor in a big concrete bunker makes me feel safer than pouring the remaining trillions of tons of carbon in the oil reserves into the atmosphere, because if you believe some climatologists we aren't a huge number of decades from pushing the atmosphere into a very different state, or that it's not our fault, but is going to happen anyway
So generally we are screwed and need to build lots of reactors so we can at least scoot around our rural village economies on a leccy scooter
I think we are going to have to disagree on this, especially if you're going to rant at me about IP not existing and then use the word "evil", which clearly doesn't exist.
;)
Your view of how IP should not exist simply is not compatible with capitalist industry and we aren't going to have a revolution any time soon, so I suggest you get used to it
I take a very pragmatic view of licensing. I do believe it is a good thing, I have no problems with the creator of something putting whatever license they want on something. There are two reasons for this: a) they created it, b) I am not compelled to license it. Half Life 2 is hardly unique, there are many games you can buy and own outright (subject to whatever IP laws you have in your country, which you may not agree with). If Valve choose to make their system oppressively restrictive then people will simply stop using them and they won't get to put out any more crappy systems. ;)
I don't agree with much of the actual IP law that exists (e.g. lengths of copyrights) and I have many problems with the patent systems currently being distorted. I am not dogmatic though.
In terms of the GPL specifically I think it's a perfectly good license. It has a very clear aim and it is pretty much unequivocal about it. I happen to agree with it and favour it, but I can do that without being incapable of seeing its limits and inapplicability to some situations.
As an example I would lean towards publically funded projects using BSD style licenses so the public can use them as they see fit. I also obviously respect whatever license any author/publisher chooses to release their code under.
Without some recoginition of IP and copyright you can't have a GPL; Nor does it attempt to do away with copyright or have any kind of "viral" properties. That is hubris. It is a simple agreement to share all of the code in a project under the same rules. If your IP can't take being GPL'd, don't link with GPL code - if you have IP worth protecting you can probably buy a license for some code that isn't GPLd, or if GPL is too restrictive you can probably find some BSD code, or write it yourself.
A few idiots (I refer to the zealots who you have clearly crossed paths with) on forums really don't represent Linux and FOSS. If you believe in anything to the absolute exclusion of all else you are probably wrong
I see FOSS as a fantastic boiling pot of ideas and strategies and goals that are all intersecting and some clump together (LAMP springs to mind) and thrive, others don't, and it tends to evolve good solutions, so there is a choice of good alternatives, not a monopoly of one person's ideals (be they Bill Gates', Linus Torvalds', Theo de Raadt's or even RMS') and efforts.
You're right on the stealing point though, I did think about rewording that, but I was already waffling (again). I agree that it is technically not stealing, it is copyright infringement although I would hope that could be expressed as "theft of IP", but that's a silly little argument that isn't worth our time. Either way they are going against the wishes of Valve for how their creation should interact with the public, which is at best unfair and at worst illegal.
Err, no. My comment about wanting "something for nothing" refers to people wanting to avoid paying for something they are supposed to *pay* for.
I was patronizing indeed, I think it was pretty clear my original post was clearly directed at the expense of idiots who tried to *steal* (ie get "something for nothing") Half Life 2. People who abide by the FOSS licenses are getting a very good deal and should be encouraged.
The developers of my OS didn't ask me for money, they said I could have it for Free (beer and speech). I have paid for Linux distros in the past though, I also buy commercial software for it, influence decisions at work to put money into it, I report bugs, submit the odd patch, help people on mailing lists, forums and IRC. I was also a journalist on the largest UK PC mag writing Linux workshops for over a year. Don't get up on any kind of high horse about me freeloading please.
Even if a FOSS user does *nothing* to give back, the software is still free by the developer's choice and therefore *nobody* has the right to bitch about that user. Sure it would be nice if they helped out, but that's it.
Also, I am sitting 12 inches away from an old copy of Half Life (my second purchased copy, actually). As soon as the new Cedega is out my money is gonna be going on that and HL2.
I am not a self appointed moralist, I am just laughing at people who are idiots. They are idiots because they chose to try and circumvent paying Valve for their hard work.
If you despise Valve, don't play their games. It's that simple. I don't license Windows XP because it doesn't meet my needs, so don't give me any shit about that either. That leaves you with no points left. Care to try again? Sorry to be rude, but you are being an ass.
Cheers,
I notice this is >1000 comments already, I blatantly can't be bothered to read them and I'm surprised you can, but there we go. Apologies if this has been hammered out a bunch of times already ;)
;)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I find this terribly amusing. People hear about a sneaky crack or a leaked code or whatever and just blithely slap it onto their PC to try and get that special angle almost nobody else did (except the other 19,999 suckers). The result? they lose any Steam supported games they actually have bought. That sucks and is arguably a bit naughty of Valve, but this is a powerful message to send right at the start of something that will be running for a while (I expect Steam will catch the eye of a lot of games company marketroids. Of course rather than use it they'll write their own, but nm).
So, while I sit here and chuckle at the boneheads who thought they could get something for nothing, I shall also rue not being able to play HL2 or CS:S yet because Cedega isn't out for another couple of weeks.
Actually, I also want to poke fun at the people who are downloading hacked versions of HL2. The particularly amusing part being that they have to download hack patches *every time* steam updates part of itself. AHAHAHA. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
I've been thinking that this problem should be approached from the other end.
Realistically, what Connectiva are doing is going to lead to a machine becoming a serious mess of libraries from different sources and it's blatantly not going to work very well.
What I'd like to see is software released in such a way that it can be automatically converted into whatever package your system supports. This is less immediately useful for end users, but will ultimately make the end packaging format irrelevant, letting more distros spend less time doing their own packaging and concentrating on improving integration and so on.
I believe efforts have been made in this direction , but I have no idea about their scope or uptake.
It doesn't make any sense and the author clearly has no idea what a fork/branch/patchset is, or has explained it very badly.
Also, it would be a good thing if Linux had branches or at least config sets that target it at the different areas is exists in (e.g. the kernel config already has a section for removing things not needed by embedded kernels).
more?
;)
Both SG-1 and Atlantis are doing seasons of about 20 episodes. They do split it into two half seasons of 10 or 11 though.
That's still not 4 though. Where does 4 come from?