about 10 or 15 yrs ago, at least in the bay area, people WERE afraid of the linux gpl. I worked at many places that avoided using linux code in their products and we used any form of bsd we could.
The success of Linux isn't because of it's users 10 or 15 years ago. It's because of its contributors 10 or 15 years ago (and today). And GPL attracts contributors while BSD push them into forking and keeping their local changes for themselves.
In a nutshell, this shows one reason why the iPhone (and iOS) are so popular.
Not really. Nexus phones are updated too. And taken individually, without the other Android devices, they are outsold by the iPhones.
People buying iPhones are the same people who bought iPods even when they weren't "smart" and didn't require updates.
Back in the Android 1.x and 2.x days, I agreed that updates were important. Every new release brang new essential features such as Exchange support, multi-touch display, WiFi thetering, front camera, etc.
But since Android 4.x, I can't think of a major OS feature that changed the way I use my phone and what I can do with it.
Smartphones do not improve at the same speed as 5 years ago. Buying a smartphone now, and being stuck on the same OS for 2-3 years before replacing it for a new one, isn't as bad as it once was.
Geeks will still prefer Nexus phones and updates, but for the average Joe, updates can be a nuisance as it can make their stuff no longer working.
I still think devices should be updated, at least for security reasons (even though most cell phones are behind giants NATs), but I understand that the average Joe doesn't see the benefit and therefore will continue to buy phones that will never be updated.
Anyone can start a business and become insanely successful, as in anyone can win the mega jackpot lottery. Only a few lucky business owners who start without seed money from inheritance actually make their share of the business grow to above 5 million dollars.
Only a few as in... 1 out of 100?
The family owned stores have large number of partners. Law and medical practices too have so many partners, the share of each partner would be less than two or three million.
And on top of that, they will have a fully paid house and other savings by 65.
It doesn't. In fact the US is a special case among developed nations.
But the real 99% (I am talking world-wide) are asking the same question about you and I, and the rest of the upper middle class of developed countries making the global 1%.
Buddy, I am not talking about everybody. I am talking about someone who earned at the top 1% of the income spectrum all his/her career. Even such a successful person won't accumulate enough to be in the top 1% by wealth after a life time of earning.
It depends on how much that person saves.
luck in birth are the only way to top 1% by wealth. This is a fundamental shift from the era of 1950 to 2000 when earned income without luck placed a person at the top 1%
Nothing changed. Luck in birth (as being born in a rich country) is still the most determining factor in one's standards of living. Whether a professional worker is part of the top 5% of his country instead of the top 1% is pretty much irrelevant noise in the global picture.
So what? Were you expecting to have less than 99% chances of not making it to the top 1%?
You speak as if being part of the top 1% was a right for any hard working person. A lot of hard working persons won't even make it to the top 20%.
You also speak as if inheriting was he only way. You are forgetting that you can start a business and be successful. Of course this is hard, otherwise everybody would be doing it.
There is no fundamental difference between the top 1% and the top 5% or the top 0.1%. There is no gap. It's a continuous spectrum of wealth.
I know. I just find it ironic to see people ranting against the top 1% (of their country) while they are themselves in the top 1% of the world. Especially since the same arguments can be used to rant against both of these groups. It's only a matter of perspective.
That being said, I am pretty sure a surgeon can save 5M$ through his lifetime in the US. But then again it depends how much he spends.
First, being part of the top 1% is not a right, and neither, by definition, a possibility for everyone. Next, the typical US surgeon or lawyer is in the top 1%. You only need about $780k in net worth to be in the top 1%. source: http://www.globalrichlist.com/...
Any professional with a good job will save more than that through his lifetime. Remember this number includes real estate value.
There is a lot of money to be made contiuing pollution and accelerating climate change. In fact it's the only reason why there are still so many deniers. Oil companies put a lot of money lobbying against the existence of man-made climate change.
What different approach? I don't care about Al Gore and fail to see why you even bring him to this thread. However I expect people investing in renewable resources/energy to make money as we fight climate change, and I don't see what's wrong with it.
Ubuntu is trying to make the installer as simple as possible for the average user. The power user will know how to set a root password after installation anyways. At first I felt it was awkward too but I now like the idea. The installer should never force you to make a choice that can easily be postponed after the installation without any consequence.
I develop electronics. We try to avoid components where there is no second source as much as possible. There is nothing wrong with using a single vendor, as long as you can easily switch to another one. That's the main problem with iPads. The cost to switch to another tablet manufacturer is too high. We call that vendor lock-in.
If they used any other tablet, they could easily switch from one hardware manufacturer to another while keeping the same software. Therefore they would be in a much better position.
Except that without taxes and regulations, Tesla wouldn't be successful and electric cars will never become mainstream, or at least it will be too late. Gas is taxed this favors electric cars. Car makers are regulated to push them towards selling more fuel-efficient vehicules. And coal will continue to be cheaper than nuclear. I agree we *can* solve the problem with technology. But that doesn't mean it will happen automatically, especially if we do not internalize the costs of pollution.
Also it is true that 1998 was a hot year. If the temperatures were not rising, we should expect lower temperatures after the outlier 1998, isn't it? But the record of 1998 was beaten in 2005, 2010 and 2014. So it's not true that there hasn't been any warming since then.
You know that the planet could be warming because of man-made CO2 emissions while at the same time cooling because of natural causes, which could result in flat temperatures for 18 years, right?
2014 is the warmest year ever recorded.
Slashdot Mirror
about 10 or 15 yrs ago, at least in the bay area, people WERE afraid of the linux gpl. I worked at many places that avoided using linux code in their products and we used any form of bsd we could.
The success of Linux isn't because of it's users 10 or 15 years ago. It's because of its contributors 10 or 15 years ago (and today). And GPL attracts contributors while BSD push them into forking and keeping their local changes for themselves.
In a nutshell, this shows one reason why the iPhone (and iOS) are so popular.
Not really. Nexus phones are updated too. And taken individually, without the other Android devices, they are outsold by the iPhones.
People buying iPhones are the same people who bought iPods even when they weren't "smart" and didn't require updates.
Back in the Android 1.x and 2.x days, I agreed that updates were important. Every new release brang new essential features such as Exchange support, multi-touch display, WiFi thetering, front camera, etc.
But since Android 4.x, I can't think of a major OS feature that changed the way I use my phone and what I can do with it.
Smartphones do not improve at the same speed as 5 years ago. Buying a smartphone now, and being stuck on the same OS for 2-3 years before replacing it for a new one, isn't as bad as it once was.
Geeks will still prefer Nexus phones and updates, but for the average Joe, updates can be a nuisance as it can make their stuff no longer working.
I still think devices should be updated, at least for security reasons (even though most cell phones are behind giants NATs), but I understand that the average Joe doesn't see the benefit and therefore will continue to buy phones that will never be updated.
Anyone can start a business and become insanely successful, as in anyone can win the mega jackpot lottery. Only a few lucky business owners who start without seed money from inheritance actually make their share of the business grow to above 5 million dollars.
Only a few as in... 1 out of 100?
The family owned stores have large number of partners. Law and medical practices too have so many partners, the share of each partner would be less than two or three million.
And on top of that, they will have a fully paid house and other savings by 65.
It doesn't. In fact the US is a special case among developed nations.
But the real 99% (I am talking world-wide) are asking the same question about you and I, and the rest of the upper middle class of developed countries making the global 1%.
Buddy, I am not talking about everybody. I am talking about someone who earned at the top 1% of the income spectrum all his/her career. Even such a successful person won't accumulate enough to be in the top 1% by wealth after a life time of earning.
It depends on how much that person saves.
luck in birth are the only way to top 1% by wealth. This is a fundamental shift from the era of 1950 to 2000 when earned income without luck placed a person at the top 1%
Nothing changed. Luck in birth (as being born in a rich country) is still the most determining factor in one's standards of living. Whether a professional worker is part of the top 5% of his country instead of the top 1% is pretty much irrelevant noise in the global picture.
So what? Were you expecting to have less than 99% chances of not making it to the top 1%?
You speak as if being part of the top 1% was a right for any hard working person. A lot of hard working persons won't even make it to the top 20%.
You also speak as if inheriting was he only way. You are forgetting that you can start a business and be successful. Of course this is hard, otherwise everybody would be doing it.
There is no fundamental difference between the top 1% and the top 5% or the top 0.1%. There is no gap. It's a continuous spectrum of wealth.
I know. I just find it ironic to see people ranting against the top 1% (of their country) while they are themselves in the top 1% of the world. Especially since the same arguments can be used to rant against both of these groups. It's only a matter of perspective.
That being said, I am pretty sure a surgeon can save 5M$ through his lifetime in the US. But then again it depends how much he spends.
More like the 0.00000001% helping the 0.01%. Regular 1%er don't send their kids to $28,750/year schools.
First, being part of the top 1% is not a right, and neither, by definition, a possibility for everyone.
Next, the typical US surgeon or lawyer is in the top 1%. You only need about $780k in net worth to be in the top 1%. source: http://www.globalrichlist.com/...
Any professional with a good job will save more than that through his lifetime. Remember this number includes real estate value.
There is a lot of money to be made contiuing pollution and accelerating climate change. In fact it's the only reason why there are still so many deniers. Oil companies put a lot of money lobbying against the existence of man-made climate change.
If you base your idea on climate change on how one side acts, you are getting it wrong.
Then he could have said "man-made climate change is real, but we should focus on XYZ because it is more important".
What different approach? I don't care about Al Gore and fail to see why you even bring him to this thread. However I expect people investing in renewable resources/energy to make money as we fight climate change, and I don't see what's wrong with it.
I wish liberals would abandon the "climate change" mantra
So you are saying you are one of those deniers? Otherwise why would you want climate change to be abandoned?
Ubuntu is trying to make the installer as simple as possible for the average user. The power user will know how to set a root password after installation anyways. At first I felt it was awkward too but I now like the idea. The installer should never force you to make a choice that can easily be postponed after the installation without any consequence.
As far as I can tell, there is no root account I could log into directly
Yeah, it should come with a default password such as "admin" as well as a SSH server enabled by default so that I can just ssh root@myIPAddress.
Very true. Was Debian 8.0 even announced on Slashdot?
You are right. Two vendors. They have a single vendor for hardware (Apple) and a single vendor for software (IBM). So they are vendor locked-in twice.
I develop electronics. We try to avoid components where there is no second source as much as possible. There is nothing wrong with using a single vendor, as long as you can easily switch to another one. That's the main problem with iPads. The cost to switch to another tablet manufacturer is too high. We call that vendor lock-in. If they used any other tablet, they could easily switch from one hardware manufacturer to another while keeping the same software. Therefore they would be in a much better position.
Yep. Single vendor solution. What could possibly go wrong?
Except that without taxes and regulations, Tesla wouldn't be successful and electric cars will never become mainstream, or at least it will be too late. Gas is taxed this favors electric cars. Car makers are regulated to push them towards selling more fuel-efficient vehicules. And coal will continue to be cheaper than nuclear. I agree we *can* solve the problem with technology. But that doesn't mean it will happen automatically, especially if we do not internalize the costs of pollution.
Also it is true that 1998 was a hot year. If the temperatures were not rising, we should expect lower temperatures after the outlier 1998, isn't it? But the record of 1998 was beaten in 2005, 2010 and 2014. So it's not true that there hasn't been any warming since then.
You know that the planet could be warming because of man-made CO2 emissions while at the same time cooling because of natural causes, which could result in flat temperatures for 18 years, right? 2014 is the warmest year ever recorded.
The World Meteorological Organisation seems to disagree with your non-backed claim. http://uk.reuters.com/article/...