So, how many UN resolutions have the USA violated ? Or doesn't invading Iraq without UN sanction counts ? I don't like Saddam anymore than you guys do but, c'mon. Glass roof anyone ?
what I'm trying to get across: 90% of the population doesn't know what the DMCA or net neutrality are
Do you really think those are "the big issues" for 90% of the population ? That kind of stuff only affect us "few".
For the other 90%, the big issues is (un)employment, education, having money to pay the bills (because of their US$6/h job).
Yes, I agree most of them don't understand those issues either, but your examples sucks. If you think those are the big issues USA have right now, you really should take a reality check.
I live in Brazil, and the last HP notebook I've bought was built here in Brazil by Foxconn (if I recall, I don't have it here with me).
Making stuff in China is much cheaper than here in Brazil, but with you factor in transportation, import taxes etc, sometimes it is cheaper to build it somewhere else, even if you are still using contractors.
Ok, so they told him to revise his story to make them seem nicer or get the boot?
Maybe... sort of...
For starters, having watched the video, it was pretty clear to me that:
- There was only 1 lawyer - That he was not on the conference call (Tory and a producer were) - He said Discovery is sensitive to the topic, that is why THEY (Mythbuster's company) will never approach the subject
The way it was stated on the speech can be interpreted many ways. It is perfectly possible to understand that Beyond Productions was afraid of getting in trouble with Discovery over the subject, because if they did air it, it could give Discovery problems.
In any case, the fact of the matter is still true: they were bullied into not making a show about RFID. And I truly believe the only reason Discovery was not the one shooting that particular show down was because Beyond Productions shot it first.
One has to understand that TV companies like good shows because it brings good sponsors (and good money). Does anyone here think they air any kind of show for any other reasons other than money ? Being a company owner myself, I find that hard to believe.
I would even go a step further. People keep saying that JIT-based languages can be just as fast, but use a lot more memory. I don't know on their computers but, on line, allocating and deallocating memory takes time. Even if those languages "hide" all the allocation and addressing issues from the programmer, those still happen.
Would take alone make those languages "much" slower ? No. But it is another penny in the box.
The artists will still get their cut of "x% * number of downloads".
Somehow I doubt it. It would be just like RIAA to have a clause on their contract saying they don't have to pay the artists if it was not actually a sale that made them money. Meaning it won't cost them a penny.
Somehow I imagine the amount of work her lawyer(s) put into this was anything but trivial. As far as I'm concerned, this is a very well deserved compensation.
Not all lawyers are evil bastards..... Some are definitively not evil. If he is not a bastard, well, I'm not hiring him, so that part is fine.
I'm not a lawyer or anything or the sort, but I don't agree with your point.
OS X is a separated product. Sold separately. Isn't there a law in USA forbidding "matched sale" (as in: you can only buy this product if you also buy that second one) ? I know we have one of those here in Brazil.
Which is pretty much what the EULA's "can only be used on Apple hardware" amounts for, a matched sale.
So Apple decided to have OS X as a separated product, and now is complaining because it IS being treated as such. Or am I understanding this wrong ?
For reference, most of the deforestation in Brazil these days steam from 2 fronts: - Lumber - Soy and Sugar Cane plantations
Incorrect. It is either pasture for cattle, or producing grain for cattle
You are way behind your times. What you are saying was true back in the 80s, early 90s tops. It happened mostly on the "Pantanal" area, not Amazonia. So yes, it did affect some of the rain forest, but most of it happened on a very different ecosystem.
Also, the soy that is produced there is used in vast quantities for cattle in both South America and North America, primarily not for human consumption. This article (with no sources, so take it for what it's worth...just came up in a google search at the top) even claims that 99% of Argentinian soy is exported for foreign cattle feed.
This is entirely incorrect. Soy is never used to feed cattle in Brazil, and I doubt it is used (much) anywhere else. Maybe you mean corn ? That would be correct. But 99% of the soy produced in Brazil is indeed exported. Mostly to China and USA, if I'm not mistaken.
Yes, actually, it was the point - I must have been unclear. (...) So yes, the quantity of grain per cow is important.
Ok, this is an entirely different argument. Your last post makes a little more sense now, that you clarified it. What you mean is that we will be producing the grains any way but, instead of feeding the cattle, it should be used directly to feed people.
I won't argue with you that people should eat more grains and vegetables. But a 100% meet diet is just as bad as a 100% meet-free diet. There are important nutrients that only exist on meet. But you argued that the USA population eats too much meet. On that, I really can't comment. I know I, personally, eat as much meet as I can, and not enough vegetables.
Why, thank you for completely discrediting yourself as a dishonest person. I did not bring the rainforests into this - that was brought in by others (you do realize you're not the only person in the thread, right?).
You do realize you are not the only person in the thread, right ?
I'm not sure then, given your attempt to trap me with such a silly thing, whether I should take your eat-the-vets thing serious.
You shouldn't, unless you want another post with the a "whoot" on it.
Vegetarians don't eat meat, but they do eat things like eggs and dairy. Vegans eat or drink any animal product.
I will take you missed a "don't" there. Tkx for the clarification.
Nice arguments. Lemme tackle them one by one (and ask for clarifications):
cattle are a very large producer of greenhouse gases
I was kind of expecting this argument. Regardless of the fact that when we eat them, they can't fart any longer, what do you propose ? We kill all of them ?
deforestation for grazing and feed production (see: rainforests of South America, or the majority of the US countryside).
For reference, most of the deforestation in Brazil these days steam from 2 fronts: - Lumber - Soy and Sugar Cane plantations
8-15lbs of grain per pound of produced beef. Cattle are a very inefficient method of food production; cut out the middle man, and even if people have to eat 3 times as many grains to make up for the lack of beef, we're still using 3-5 times less grain than had we fed it to a cow.
people eat about 2-5 times more meat, on average, than they "need" to (I use the word "need" loosely, I'm vegan and run 7 miles regularly, as well as work out).
Those are nice numbers, but they don't help making your case. The point is not which is more productive, but which is more environmentally unfriendly. (Which is why I'm not even bothering checking your numbers, and am just assuming they are right).
I read the link you provided and wasn't able to find a comparison between the two. Maybe I just missed it.
In any case, for anyone else that decides to provide arguments (you will be very much welcome), remember that we need to plant several different things to be able to do without cattle products. It is no use giving me rice as an example (low to no soil pollution), because we can't live on rice alone. Arguments using soy, corn and specially protein rich cultures are welcome. Please remember productivity is important.
As a side not, I'm not too knowledgeable on this whole vegan terminology. Do vegans eat cheese and drink milk ? If yes, we still need cattle.
But I saved this last part, since it has some humorous possibilities:
My wife is a veterinarian. Last night she was watching a bit about the growing shortage of ag vets, and how it is supposed to be almost epic in numbers in just over a decade. Well, if we stopped eating half a pound of meat a day on average per American (yes, that's the average) and instead ate a quarter pound...which is all that the USDA recommends, despite it being heavily biased to the beef industry...then there would be plenty of vets, and the remainder of places like the rainforests might survive a little bit longer
I agree. If we stopped eating veterinarians, we would have a lot more of those around.
Oh, I'm a Brazilian, btw. You know, there place were we actually have rain forests ? A place with MUCH lower pollution producing stuff than USA ? Please, clean your own backyard before trying to tell other people what to do with theirs. I find it particularly arrogant for an American to use the "rain forest" argument.
become vegan, or at least vegetarian (the cattle industry is extraordinarily destructive to the planet
Do you care to expand on that, please ?
I grew up in a farm, were we both had cattle and plantations. And plantations were much less environmentally friendly than raising the cattle.
For plantations we have all the chemicals that go into the soil, the mechanized harvesting etc. So unless you think we should only have "organic" farming, without mechanized harvesting (thus not even having enough food to keep a lot of people alive), I really don't see how you can say that "cattle industry" is more hazardous to planet.
(Yes, I'm really interested in your arguments here)
I agree with you that it will happen frequently. For "no one is going to use it" is far from the true.
We have a lot of computers pre-installed with Linux here (Brazil). And although several gets (pirated) copies of Windows installed, I know several others that continue to be used with nothing but Linux.
You can rest assured that, even if we don't have 2.8% of the new computers being used with Linux, the number is much larger than 0.1%. So we do have a real growth here, even if we can't trust the exact number (28 times).
Based on my personal experience (and that could be blatantly wrong), I would say that somewhere between 20% and 35% of those computers will continue running Linux.
And if we consider there is a lot more to opensource than Linux and GPL, I can't see why Microsoft can't continue attacking Linux while "embracing" opensource.
I know this is slashdot, and no one RTFA, but the analysis actually makes sense to me.
I'm sure a lot of people here were using opensource software before ever hearing about Linux (I know I was). A lot of people using opensource software on Windows these days. Which is interesting by itself.
Consider this, for most people (non-geeks), Windows is free (they get it "free" with their new Dell, whatever). If, after that, they can have all the software they need also for free (Firefox, Openoffice.org etc), why would they want to migrate to Linux ? (yes, I know all the technical arguments).
As long as Microsoft keep pushing windows through OEM, they can even up its price to recover their loss on the, let say, Office segment.
There are many possible scenarios here that don't involve MS-Linux.
I find this a little troubling. I mean, how much certain do they need to be ? Reasonably ? How much is that ? If the police is "reasonably" certain a kidnapping victim is inside a house, and his life is at risk, should they chance knocking at the wrong door ? Of course, they are not excused for coming in with gun blazing, but breaking the door down ?
It is very hard to draw a line and, these days, the system seems to protect the criminals more than anything else. And I'm talking about real criminals here. Those that put other people lives at risk (kidnappers etc). I'm also NOT talking about fear based decisions (the whole reason behind all the terrorism bullcrap). Being afraid is not reason to stuck your brain up your ass.
I'm not a cop or any kind of law enforcement person, but it constantly amazed me the amount of red tape they have to deal it just to cover their own asses. Because everyone will assume, from the beginning, they are wrong, abusing they authority and so on and so forth. Sometimes they are but, more often then not, they are just trying to do the right thing.
I know I'm babbling here, but I'm really at a loss. The more we try to fix the system, the worst it gets.
You sarcasm got me a bit confused. I'm not sure if you are agreeing or not with me, if you are just expanding the criticism, or if you are agreeing with RIAA (and others) on the 'just fair' basis.
I don't think the stupidity of one part justify that of the other. We have "file-sharing" and we have "piracy". Saying one is the other is just as ridiculous as saying DRM. Or breaking the red book(?) standard for CDs. Or saying "Fuck RIAA" (oh, that so help... a lot...).
Humm, we are doomed, aren't we ? Idiocracy at its worst.
Slashdot Mirror
So, how many UN resolutions have the USA violated ? Or doesn't invading Iraq without UN sanction counts ?
I don't like Saddam anymore than you guys do but, c'mon. Glass roof anyone ?
Seriously, Iraq was a real threat and needed to be dealt with.
I can imagine Saddam talking to one of his generals and saying: Seriously, USA is a real threat and needs to be dealth with.
what I'm trying to get across: 90% of the population doesn't know what the DMCA or net neutrality are
Do you really think those are "the big issues" for 90% of the population ? That kind of stuff only affect us "few".
For the other 90%, the big issues is (un)employment, education, having money to pay the bills (because of their US$6/h job).
Yes, I agree most of them don't understand those issues either, but your examples sucks. If you think those are the big issues USA have right now, you really should take a reality check.
HP seems to agree with you.
I live in Brazil, and the last HP notebook I've bought was built here in Brazil by Foxconn (if I recall, I don't have it here with me).
Making stuff in China is much cheaper than here in Brazil, but with you factor in transportation, import taxes etc, sometimes it is cheaper to build it somewhere else, even if you are still using contractors.
remember Shoemaker-Levy 9?
REMEMBER Shoemaker-Levy 9 ? Dude, get a life! Geez.
Ok, so they told him to revise his story to make them seem nicer or get the boot?
Maybe ... sort of ...
For starters, having watched the video, it was pretty clear to me that:
- There was only 1 lawyer
- That he was not on the conference call (Tory and a producer were)
- He said Discovery is sensitive to the topic, that is why THEY (Mythbuster's company) will never approach the subject
The way it was stated on the speech can be interpreted many ways. It is perfectly possible to understand that Beyond Productions was afraid of getting in trouble with Discovery over the subject, because if they did air it, it could give Discovery problems.
In any case, the fact of the matter is still true: they were bullied into not making a show about RFID. And I truly believe the only reason Discovery was not the one shooting that particular show down was because Beyond Productions shot it first.
One has to understand that TV companies like good shows because it brings good sponsors (and good money). Does anyone here think they air any kind of show for any other reasons other than money ? Being a company owner myself, I find that hard to believe.
63 comments in and still no one has made an "it's dead, Jim" joke? What happened to the slashdot I used to know?!
We are all waiting for netcraft to confirm it ...
Parent comment is correct.
Certification (Oracle, Dell, HPQ etc) is one of the major reasons to choose RHEL. Otherwise, I just use CentOS.
I've met Harald once. If VIA got him, they are definitively serious about this.
Not only he is a very intelligent person, with deep knowledge of Linux internals, he is also a very strong OSS advocate.
One of the things Microsoft does very well is maintain backwards compatibility.
You are kidding, right ? Didn't some people had issues with the latest versions of MSWord not opening files from old versions ?
I would even go a step further. People keep saying that JIT-based languages can be just as fast, but use a lot more memory. I don't know on their computers but, on line, allocating and deallocating memory takes time. Even if those languages "hide" all the allocation and addressing issues from the programmer, those still happen.
Would take alone make those languages "much" slower ? No. But it is another penny in the box.
We had some of it on Neverwinter Nights, as well as some more on one of the expansions (Hordes of the Underdark, I think).
This is anything bug a new concept.
The artists will still get their cut of "x% * number of downloads".
Somehow I doubt it. It would be just like RIAA to have a clause on their contract saying they don't have to pay the artists if it was not actually a sale that made them money. Meaning it won't cost them a penny.
If the RIAA gets beheaded this will indeed be a David and Goliath story in all respects! As it is, the RIAA is just stoned.
As far as I can see, they were stoned from the start.
Somehow I imagine the amount of work her lawyer(s) put into this was anything but trivial. As far as I'm concerned, this is a very well deserved compensation.
Not all lawyers are evil bastards ..... Some are definitively not evil. If he is not a bastard, well, I'm not hiring him, so that part is fine.
I'm not a lawyer or anything or the sort, but I don't agree with your point.
OS X is a separated product. Sold separately. Isn't there a law in USA forbidding "matched sale" (as in: you can only buy this product if you also buy that second one) ? I know we have one of those here in Brazil.
Which is pretty much what the EULA's "can only be used on Apple hardware" amounts for, a matched sale.
So Apple decided to have OS X as a separated product, and now is complaining because it IS being treated as such. Or am I understanding this wrong ?
Same thing here. English is mu second language, and I only had to stop once to recheck a single word while reading.
However, I did notice I was paying more attention (making more effort, maybe?) while reading it than I usually do.
For reference, most of the deforestation in Brazil these days steam from 2 fronts: - Lumber - Soy and Sugar Cane plantations
Incorrect. It is either pasture for cattle, or producing grain for cattle
You are way behind your times. What you are saying was true back in the 80s, early 90s tops. It happened mostly on the "Pantanal" area, not Amazonia. So yes, it did affect some of the rain forest, but most of it happened on a very different ecosystem.
Also, the soy that is produced there is used in vast quantities for cattle in both South America and North America, primarily not for human consumption. This article (with no sources, so take it for what it's worth...just came up in a google search at the top) even claims that 99% of Argentinian soy is exported for foreign cattle feed.
This is entirely incorrect. Soy is never used to feed cattle in Brazil, and I doubt it is used (much) anywhere else. Maybe you mean corn ? That would be correct. But 99% of the soy produced in Brazil is indeed exported. Mostly to China and USA, if I'm not mistaken.
Yes, actually, it was the point - I must have been unclear. (...) So yes, the quantity of grain per cow is important.
Ok, this is an entirely different argument. Your last post makes a little more sense now, that you clarified it. What you mean is that we will be producing the grains any way but, instead of feeding the cattle, it should be used directly to feed people.
I won't argue with you that people should eat more grains and vegetables. But a 100% meet diet is just as bad as a 100% meet-free diet. There are important nutrients that only exist on meet. But you argued that the USA population eats too much meet. On that, I really can't comment. I know I, personally, eat as much meet as I can, and not enough vegetables.
Why, thank you for completely discrediting yourself as a dishonest person. I did not bring the rainforests into this - that was brought in by others (you do realize you're not the only person in the thread, right?).
You do realize you are not the only person in the thread, right ?
I'm not sure then, given your attempt to trap me with such a silly thing, whether I should take your eat-the-vets thing serious.
You shouldn't, unless you want another post with the a "whoot" on it.
Vegetarians don't eat meat, but they do eat things like eggs and dairy. Vegans eat or drink any animal product.
I will take you missed a "don't" there. Tkx for the clarification.
Nice arguments. Lemme tackle them one by one (and ask for clarifications):
I was kind of expecting this argument. Regardless of the fact that when we eat them, they can't fart any longer, what do you propose ? We kill all of them ?
For reference, most of the deforestation in Brazil these days steam from 2 fronts:
- Lumber
- Soy and Sugar Cane plantations
Those are nice numbers, but they don't help making your case. The point is not which is more productive, but which is more environmentally unfriendly. (Which is why I'm not even bothering checking your numbers, and am just assuming they are right).
I read the link you provided and wasn't able to find a comparison between the two. Maybe I just missed it.
In any case, for anyone else that decides to provide arguments (you will be very much welcome), remember that we need to plant several different things to be able to do without cattle products. It is no use giving me rice as an example (low to no soil pollution), because we can't live on rice alone. Arguments using soy, corn and specially protein rich cultures are welcome. Please remember productivity is important.
As a side not, I'm not too knowledgeable on this whole vegan terminology. Do vegans eat cheese and drink milk ? If yes, we still need cattle.
But I saved this last part, since it has some humorous possibilities:
I agree. If we stopped eating veterinarians, we would have a lot more of those around.
Oh, I'm a Brazilian, btw. You know, there place were we actually have rain forests ? A place with MUCH lower pollution producing stuff than USA ? Please, clean your own backyard before trying to tell other people what to do with theirs. I find it particularly arrogant for an American to use the "rain forest" argument.
Do you care to expand on that, please ?
I grew up in a farm, were we both had cattle and plantations. And plantations were much less environmentally friendly than raising the cattle.
For plantations we have all the chemicals that go into the soil, the mechanized harvesting etc. So unless you think we should only have "organic" farming, without mechanized harvesting (thus not even having enough food to keep a lot of people alive), I really don't see how you can say that "cattle industry" is more hazardous to planet.
(Yes, I'm really interested in your arguments here)
No. Just people who can't use quotations on slashdot, including their new text AFTER the quoted part, not inside it.
I agree with you that it will happen frequently. For "no one is going to use it" is far from the true.
We have a lot of computers pre-installed with Linux here (Brazil). And although several gets (pirated) copies of Windows installed, I know several others that continue to be used with nothing but Linux.
You can rest assured that, even if we don't have 2.8% of the new computers being used with Linux, the number is much larger than 0.1%. So we do have a real growth here, even if we can't trust the exact number (28 times).
Based on my personal experience (and that could be blatantly wrong), I would say that somewhere between 20% and 35% of those computers will continue running Linux.
And if we consider there is a lot more to opensource than Linux and GPL, I can't see why Microsoft can't continue attacking Linux while "embracing" opensource.
I know this is slashdot, and no one RTFA, but the analysis actually makes sense to me.
I'm sure a lot of people here were using opensource software before ever hearing about Linux (I know I was). A lot of people using opensource software on Windows these days. Which is interesting by itself.
Consider this, for most people (non-geeks), Windows is free (they get it "free" with their new Dell, whatever). If, after that, they can have all the software they need also for free (Firefox, Openoffice.org etc), why would they want to migrate to Linux ? (yes, I know all the technical arguments).
As long as Microsoft keep pushing windows through OEM, they can even up its price to recover their loss on the, let say, Office segment.
There are many possible scenarios here that don't involve MS-Linux.
I find this a little troubling.
I mean, how much certain do they need to be ? Reasonably ? How much is that ?
If the police is "reasonably" certain a kidnapping victim is inside a house, and his life is at risk, should they chance knocking at the wrong door ? Of course, they are not excused for coming in with gun blazing, but breaking the door down ?
It is very hard to draw a line and, these days, the system seems to protect the criminals more than anything else. And I'm talking about real criminals here. Those that put other people lives at risk (kidnappers etc). I'm also NOT talking about fear based decisions (the whole reason behind all the terrorism bullcrap). Being afraid is not reason to stuck your brain up your ass.
I'm not a cop or any kind of law enforcement person, but it constantly amazed me the amount of red tape they have to deal it just to cover their own asses. Because everyone will assume, from the beginning, they are wrong, abusing they authority and so on and so forth. Sometimes they are but, more often then not, they are just trying to do the right thing.
I know I'm babbling here, but I'm really at a loss. The more we try to fix the system, the worst it gets.
You sarcasm got me a bit confused. I'm not sure if you are agreeing or not with me, if you are just expanding the criticism, or if you are agreeing with RIAA (and others) on the 'just fair' basis.
I don't think the stupidity of one part justify that of the other. We have "file-sharing" and we have "piracy". Saying one is the other is just as ridiculous as saying DRM. Or breaking the red book(?) standard for CDs. Or saying "Fuck RIAA" (oh, that so help ... a lot ...).
Humm, we are doomed, aren't we ? Idiocracy at its worst.