Seen the list of heavy metals and aromatic hydrocarbons released by the manufacture of a new video card? or the stuff that leaches out of the old one as it lies in the landfill?
Plus, sea creatures don't take fluorocarbons out of the air and turn them into pretty stone for our new buildings, after they are exhaled by the manufacturing process.
Yup, back when Pentium II 633 or so was the top end, I bought a lowly Pentium MMX 166 chip for the box I was building, because that chip was at the bottom of the price curve. That box still serves me well, and by ignoring tiny incremental improvements I've saved enough to buy an Athlon64 and the motherboard it needs, which should give me adequate performance into the next decade. I might even decide to do that. Then again, maybe not: the 166 is still quite good enough for most of what I do.
I'm not sitting there waiting for the box to do something anyway. So the old one takes 25ms. to reflow a document and the new one takes 15ms. -- like, I should notice?
*Big* jobs are run in the background. They'll let me know when they finish. Meanwhile they are running below interactive priority and stay out of my way.
But of course the only time to actually *throw away* the old gear is when it can no longer be repaired. That 486SX/433 system is still doing useful work, thankyouverymuch.
Not to mention the *other* IBM case. They have sued SCO right back, remember? After SCO vs. IBM, if there is anything left, it's IBM vs. SCO. Likely with a judgment against SCO to make 99% of IBM's case a matter of undisputed fact.
"You can't change the system without...changing the system." Taking energy out of the air causes unwanted things to happen, just as when putting energy into the air. Likewise massive adoption of tidal energy taps, hydroelectric dams, or use of biomass for energy production will alter the surroundings in some way, perhaps very unfortunately. We need to evaluate *any* energy system as carefully as we do the ones that are everybody's favorite targets.
If we as a species had any sense w.r.t. politicians, I'd say we should look into how we can use the side-effects constructively, to tune our global climate in response to e.g. minor changes in solar output (which we *know* happen from time to time) or atmospheric changes beyond our control (such as dust from massive volcanic eruptions). Maybe when humankind is older and (presumably) wiser.
Ah, but it's a little more complex than that. If life is just as you like it, you're being rewarded for managing things well and you'll make the effort to keep earning that reward.
The discouraging situation is when you see significant gains to be made but, no matter how hard you try, you don't get any change.
As for house cleaning, I do get a reward: I dislike living in a dirty house, and dirt makes the carpets wear out faster. And yes, you *can* die from living in filth, although malnutrition is usually needed to weaken your defenses first. Short of death, ask an asthmatic what he gets from keeping a clean house.
Lobbyist groups lie too. I can only think of one environmental advocate group that I know and trust, for example, and they never endorse candidates. About all I trust is documented facts (i.e. actual voting records) and things that two or three separate news organizations with different agendas can agree on.
And of course candidates don't lie *all* the time. Looking at when they lie and when they don't will tell you a lot about their real values.
You didn't find out whether you could get the service you wanted before you bought equipment that is dependent on it? Next you'll tell me you bought a laptop to run Linux without finding out whether there are drivers for the built-in modem and sound section.
I've tried the free dinner. I'd pay $10 *not* to have another one. A packet of pretzels and half a can of soda is really more than I need. It's just to keep you busy and clear your stuffy ears after altitude changes anyway.
Some of us idiots like that, although the store sells X for $10 more than some website, they don't tack on $20 in shipping and handling fees. Plus I get X *now*, and (as the overnight shippers are always telling me) faster is better.:-)
You waited three hours to talk to a salesman? That's 2'50" longer than I would have waited to do someone the favor of buying from him. There's lots of stores in this town and their stuff's all pretty much the same.
Eh, I never return a nondefective item, is that good enough? They probably still don't want me, though: if I didn't already know *exactly* what I want and how much I expect to pay for it, I wouldn't be in the store. The only time I listen to store clerks is when they are answering my questions, and if I had serious questions, well, I wouldn't be at Best Buy. (Not since I met the guy who told me that one TV set was heavier than the others because it had a 2-line comb filter.)
Anyway, I don't go there to game them; I go to a store because I want the product. Could I be promoted to a minor demon or dark-elf or something?
There's nothing wrong with an organization compiling objective statistics across all candidates on its pet issue. But if that organization then holds its own little election and announces that it endorses candidate X, it immediately loses any hope of further discussing that issue with people who are opposed to X for reasons which may be entirely unrelated to the organization's goals. If every member feels the same, okay, but let them express that private opinion individually in the only poll that counts.
I think that an organization seeking social change should endorse the change and avoid binding itself to personalities. Rank the personalities w.r.t. the change, yes, but don't get in bed with any of them. No candidate is one-dimensional, and you may find that you very much don't want to be bound to some of "his" positions.
As a voter, BTW, I usually have an immediate *negative* reaction to *any* institutional endorsements. They always seem shallow and manipulative. The best you can hope for, with me, is that I'll be able to make myself just ignore the endorsement altogether.
Mmmm, I think I disagree. I'd say the problem is that the major parties have so perfected the art of being all things to all men that the electorate perceive no clear choice, no chance to make the changes they want to make. We spend loads of energy and money on undecidables because we've seen that nobody dependent on the parties is willing to work for universal understanding and, if not consensus, at least acceptance. The parties are too focused on winning to give much attention to governing.
I think my countrymen would like to be better, but have seen that the movers and shakers don't care and won't budge, and *will* succeed in distracting us with controversies that they can create and control. It'll probably go on that way until someone decides he's not going to play the other man's game and breaks the stalemate by upending the board.
...a time when I would have given a lot for a URL that *didn't* lead to Abu Ghraib pictures. Not because I didn't want to believe, but because I was convinced and didn't need to roil my stomach further.
Don't push candidates, or parties; push issues. If hundreds of millions of voters discovered a reason to care about Open Source, they'd figure out which candidates would further their interests in that sphere all by themselves.
I tend to think participation in the voting reflects the degree to which a society believes that the candidates actually intend to change anything the voters really care about. Are the political organizations anywhere else so open in their belief that the process is not about leadership or improving the lives of the citizens, but merely pushing the other guys out and increasing their own headcount?
The majority of internet infrastructure being based on open source software has zero impact, because only a handful know it and even fewer understand why that makes a difference they should care about. Plenty of people understand "go, Donkeys! beat Elephant Tech!" Especially since Donky U. and Elephant Tech spend oodles of money and effort promoting that view of the process.
If you want to change the values of the masses, you have to succeed in explaining why your values have a place in their lives.
Yes. Will the party bosses allow it to happen to them? No way. Bottom-up politics is going to have to create itself *from the bottom up* until it is powerful enough to toss the top onto the scrap heap of history.
(And a generation later the most effective bottom-uppers will be the bad guys at the top and become the targets of a new generation of bottom-uppers.)
Slashdot Mirror
Seen the list of heavy metals and aromatic hydrocarbons released by the manufacture of a new video card? or the stuff that leaches out of the old one as it lies in the landfill?
Plus, sea creatures don't take fluorocarbons out of the air and turn them into pretty stone for our new buildings, after they are exhaled by the manufacturing process.
Yup, back when Pentium II 633 or so was the top end, I bought a lowly Pentium MMX 166 chip for the box I was building, because that chip was at the bottom of the price curve. That box still serves me well, and by ignoring tiny incremental improvements I've saved enough to buy an Athlon64 and the motherboard it needs, which should give me adequate performance into the next decade. I might even decide to do that. Then again, maybe not: the 166 is still quite good enough for most of what I do.
I'm not sitting there waiting for the box to do something anyway. So the old one takes 25ms. to reflow a document and the new one takes 15ms. -- like, I should notice?
*Big* jobs are run in the background. They'll let me know when they finish. Meanwhile they are running below interactive priority and stay out of my way.
"...if you want to play the latest and greatest."
Bingo. GCC is my favorite game. It blows *all* the others away!
But of course the only time to actually *throw away* the old gear is when it can no longer be repaired. That 486SX/433 system is still doing useful work, thankyouverymuch.
Not to mention the *other* IBM case. They have sued SCO right back, remember? After SCO vs. IBM, if there is anything left, it's IBM vs. SCO. Likely with a judgment against SCO to make 99% of IBM's case a matter of undisputed fact.
More like he already got the $3.00 and in a few months he won't have to pay any of it back. :-}
"You can't change the system without...changing the system." Taking energy out of the air causes unwanted things to happen, just as when putting energy into the air. Likewise massive adoption of tidal energy taps, hydroelectric dams, or use of biomass for energy production will alter the surroundings in some way, perhaps very unfortunately. We need to evaluate *any* energy system as carefully as we do the ones that are everybody's favorite targets.
If we as a species had any sense w.r.t. politicians, I'd say we should look into how we can use the side-effects constructively, to tune our global climate in response to e.g. minor changes in solar output (which we *know* happen from time to time) or atmospheric changes beyond our control (such as dust from massive volcanic eruptions). Maybe when humankind is older and (presumably) wiser.
Ah, but it's a little more complex than that. If life is just as you like it, you're being rewarded for managing things well and you'll make the effort to keep earning that reward.
The discouraging situation is when you see significant gains to be made but, no matter how hard you try, you don't get any change.
As for house cleaning, I do get a reward: I dislike living in a dirty house, and dirt makes the carpets wear out faster. And yes, you *can* die from living in filth, although malnutrition is usually needed to weaken your defenses first. Short of death, ask an asthmatic what he gets from keeping a clean house.
Lobbyist groups lie too. I can only think of one environmental advocate group that I know and trust, for example, and they never endorse candidates. About all I trust is documented facts (i.e. actual voting records) and things that two or three separate news organizations with different agendas can agree on.
And of course candidates don't lie *all* the time. Looking at when they lie and when they don't will tell you a lot about their real values.
You didn't find out whether you could get the service you wanted before you bought equipment that is dependent on it? Next you'll tell me you bought a laptop to run Linux without finding out whether there are drivers for the built-in modem and sound section.
Oh, wait....
I've tried the free dinner. I'd pay $10 *not* to have another one. A packet of pretzels and half a can of soda is really more than I need. It's just to keep you busy and clear your stuffy ears after altitude changes anyway.
Some of us idiots like that, although the store sells X for $10 more than some website, they don't tack on $20 in shipping and handling fees. Plus I get X *now*, and (as the overnight shippers are always telling me) faster is better. :-)
You waited three hours to talk to a salesman? That's 2'50" longer than I would have waited to do someone the favor of buying from him. There's lots of stores in this town and their stuff's all pretty much the same.
So they put a $200 anti-theft gizmo on to protect a $100 cart. This makes sense.
Eh, I never return a nondefective item, is that good enough? They probably still don't want me, though: if I didn't already know *exactly* what I want and how much I expect to pay for it, I wouldn't be in the store. The only time I listen to store clerks is when they are answering my questions, and if I had serious questions, well, I wouldn't be at Best Buy. (Not since I met the guy who told me that one TV set was heavier than the others because it had a 2-line comb filter.)
Anyway, I don't go there to game them; I go to a store because I want the product. Could I be promoted to a minor demon or dark-elf or something?
You mean, they should all get together and make themselves equal in size? :-)
Or was that meant to be, "commence?"
ObOnTopicComment: Yes, Firefox is darned good. You should try it.
There's nothing wrong with an organization compiling objective statistics across all candidates on its pet issue. But if that organization then holds its own little election and announces that it endorses candidate X, it immediately loses any hope of further discussing that issue with people who are opposed to X for reasons which may be entirely unrelated to the organization's goals. If every member feels the same, okay, but let them express that private opinion individually in the only poll that counts.
I think that an organization seeking social change should endorse the change and avoid binding itself to personalities. Rank the personalities w.r.t. the change, yes, but don't get in bed with any of them. No candidate is one-dimensional, and you may find that you very much don't want to be bound to some of "his" positions.
As a voter, BTW, I usually have an immediate *negative* reaction to *any* institutional endorsements. They always seem shallow and manipulative. The best you can hope for, with me, is that I'll be able to make myself just ignore the endorsement altogether.
Maybe the Chadian voters have more to win by preferring one leader over another. Behavior which is not rewarded, diminishes.
Mmmm, I think I disagree. I'd say the problem is that the major parties have so perfected the art of being all things to all men that the electorate perceive no clear choice, no chance to make the changes they want to make. We spend loads of energy and money on undecidables because we've seen that nobody dependent on the parties is willing to work for universal understanding and, if not consensus, at least acceptance. The parties are too focused on winning to give much attention to governing.
I think my countrymen would like to be better, but have seen that the movers and shakers don't care and won't budge, and *will* succeed in distracting us with controversies that they can create and control. It'll probably go on that way until someone decides he's not going to play the other man's game and breaks the stalemate by upending the board.
...a time when I would have given a lot for a URL that *didn't* lead to Abu Ghraib pictures. Not because I didn't want to believe, but because I was convinced and didn't need to roil my stomach further.
I suspect the problem was that all that technology was used to more effectively preach to the choir.
Don't push candidates, or parties; push issues. If hundreds of millions of voters discovered a reason to care about Open Source, they'd figure out which candidates would further their interests in that sphere all by themselves.
I tend to think participation in the voting reflects the degree to which a society believes that the candidates actually intend to change anything the voters really care about. Are the political organizations anywhere else so open in their belief that the process is not about leadership or improving the lives of the citizens, but merely pushing the other guys out and increasing their own headcount?
The majority of internet infrastructure being based on open source software has zero impact, because only a handful know it and even fewer understand why that makes a difference they should care about. Plenty of people understand "go, Donkeys! beat Elephant Tech!" Especially since Donky U. and Elephant Tech spend oodles of money and effort promoting that view of the process.
If you want to change the values of the masses, you have to succeed in explaining why your values have a place in their lives.
Yes. Will the party bosses allow it to happen to them? No way. Bottom-up politics is going to have to create itself *from the bottom up* until it is powerful enough to toss the top onto the scrap heap of history.
(And a generation later the most effective bottom-uppers will be the bad guys at the top and become the targets of a new generation of bottom-uppers.)