> Do they it 'cos they see the benefits of open source or are they just anti-USian ? > Like the "evil NSA key windows backdoor" rubbish. > I doubt they would ditch Windows if it was produced by a company of their own.
And what if it would be that way?
As an european country I would find it hard to rely internal security soly on an american company. What if there is a bug, country XYZ can't do anything about it until some guy in the USA fixes it. Now what if the software would be used for something important? And what if we just would have diplomatic problems because of a embargo of product X? (maybe about cars, fuel, meat, who know what...)
It should be the same reason why we europeans or any other country can't use the GPS for anything important. (like i.e. steering the trains with it) Here the situation is quite obvious. GPS can be turned of with a switch in the USA. Yes GPS is useable as comfortable add-on but non USA countries can never rely on it. Thats why the EU is planning to do it's own positing system, not because it's better than GPS, but we will be able to rely on it.
Same goes for software, a non USA country can not safely use unexchangeable parts like microsoft products for anything important. It's always important to have at least two possible sources for a product, if not more. And windows fills this requirement not.
Okay for the non-geeks, why does OpenSource software fill this need? You still don't have more than one source, _but_ you get all the construction plans with the software, plus the right to actually use them. As a country in time of need you are able to fix possible problems yourself.
Well there was something similar, using a ground laser to bring up a rocket. The rocket has mounted solid burner on the back. (Like the modern booster which are used on the space shuttle or the ariane 5). Solid burner has a far better efficiency ratio than the convetional gas one based on hydrogen. However normally the problem with solid burner is that they aren't control able. A solid booster is ignited once, and then burns until it's empty so it can't be used to steer or stabilize. Thats a main reason why both space shuttles and arianes only use solid burner for extra burt, and rely basicly on the gas one, which can be turned on and off.
Now the idea is to mount a different kind of solid burner on the rocket, one that is self distinquishing, meaning as soon you take away a heat source it distinquishes. Now on ground you have a huge laser with a far edged focus, which can be used to burn the solid fuel, this laser can be turned on and off, and used to steer the rocket up into orbit.
I want to set the focus where to zoom in, not always in the center, like on a electronic street map. Now that would be something really revolutionary! Discover the whole universe while sitting at home drinking a beer.
Man don't spread FUD. With this kind of nonsense you're only hurting the things you want to support. We don't need any hobby warriors going around fucking people. ( If you write code, send bug reports, make div. art, etc. people appreciate it very much, if all you want or can do is ms bushing, find something better to do.
Yes thats true, I'm a pasionate Linux and KDE user for a year now, I have even wiped my windows partition 8 months ago. And I'm a full free software suporter.
But all these free everything, all business is bad assholes could only shut up, we don't need these weekend warriors who are bored and just grap something up to fight for. Anything.
Now some Linux distros come up join together and try to survive, and you cut in your own flesh! I know these people from face to face. They usually sit in front a screen. Always with a frown in their face, and complain about everything. everything. You can't make it right for them. I know one, he complained about the way I did something, I took the complain serious and changed the system. Then I hear him complaining again that the system has been changed. Argghhh!
See people complain against windows, micrsoft or anything. Now people just want to get a trademark, and as far I understood most importantly one sane way to organize the system V directory structure acroos distro's, and this asholes are complaining again.
You guys are not against microsoft, or for free software, or against the evil music industry, or verisign, or unisys, or patents. You're just against! Against to be against! Find a better meaning in life than flaming the good guys on slashdot for things you do not understand.
The natural numbers are god given. Everything else is human work.
And that's true, you can't proove or derive the natural numbers, but everything else is proove able and deriveable. Beginning with rational numbers up to things like PI, or imaginary i's.
IE is not free. It's bundeled with the windows OS. You pay for IE development when you buy windows, no matter if you need or plan to use IE at all.
Can I download IE to use in example in wine? No, thats not allowed. Additonaly from ms sites you cannot get a selfinstaller download at all. Everything are just upgrade packages.
Yes and how big is that virus that understands an EXT2 filesystem? A megabyte? Well that one will not be hard to spot, not to mention spreading times. On a 56k Modem it needs a hour to transfer itself.
Dude, there's more than 40 years left. Did you read anything I wrote?:)
What should I know what you wrote. Estimates are 40 years based on _current_ usage. Even today oil can no longer be as easy retrieved as it were. You can no longer just dig a hole in some desert and wait for it to sprinkle out. Most oil today has already to be lifted from middle and deep sea drilling islands. It's already far harder to get. From the inner european reserves. These are already used up. Look in austria here we had also some, as child I remember seeing the pumps when driving by the march feld. They are all gone today, it's just empty.
So earth will get lighter? Well, I suppose it will,
Well fine there you have a neat little side-effect, I would in example worry about.
It may be 10% using 90% of energy resources, but I'm sure its the other 90% doing most of the pollution and such.
Oh yes these bastards, first they nearly starve to death, have no or very bad medical treatments and then they dare to pollute "our" world. No from carbondioxid emmision view, it are 10% that boast out 90%.
Sure, its free, but you'll probably drop dead before you get to the front of the line.
Not dead even they know what a medical priority selection is.
You would think hydro-power is clean and such,
No if you had read my commenty you would know that I atmitted that there is no "clean and such" way. Everything has sideeffects. Just the side-effects of hyrdo powerplant are relative small. They are there, and if side effects can be reduced it should. Especially in example for fish we build here watter "ladders", the trouts can hop them to get past the dam.
or some other animal that nobody cares about
Oh just fuck you. This will be my last post on this discussion.
"ban whale hunting, but let the indians capture a whale"
Indians (or native americans) do not whale hunt. definitly.
I'll also never understand the way some people think...
Some of them have studied biology and do understand that a missing piece in a food chain can have dervasting effects. The species lower spreads as a plaque, while the species above in the chain may also die out, or get reduced, which again may be a piece missing in another food chain.
Some of them have also studied history and examples of how things happened as people used to treat the environment up to 20 years ago. river normalizing anyone? Wow now it floats stright and easy down. Nobody realizing that now nothing eats away the pollution in it. while in a natural bed a lot of orgnaisms live that help us balancing our pollution away again. just as an example.
birds. In fromer times we used to have far more birds, which quite naturally ate away the insects from our fields. As the last wood "islands" in the fields were replaced by more fields the birds vanished, and well farmers have to spray the fields to get rid of insects. birds were cheap and helped us. It is an animal we should care about.
Now because we're so nice and good, also just from a selfish standpoint.
It are 40 years that are left. And thats less than fusion scientists expect what they need. (they estimate 50 years at least)
Aside from the fact Helium is inert, the Earth's gravity is not strong enough to hold it, so any and ALL helium vented into the atmosphere will simply float off into space.
So earth will get lighter?
Nothing irritates me more than the global warming propaganda.
It ain't propaganda. There are definitive signs. For example birds are very sensitive on climate changes, they react on parts of degrees celsius. An their breeding habbits do shift. They have already shifted about 4 weeks. Yes this isn't a whole degree, but already a part of it.
Our glaciers here in austria do melt. They aren't that large anymore as they used to be. The timberline does move upward.
Back in the 70's scientists thought we were headed for another ice age. Now all of a sudden we are headed towards global warming?
Well this may sound confusing, but both can be true at the same time. One is just a phenomenon on a far larger time scaler than the other. We can move to an ice age, driven by a huge epoch clock. But as a local phenomenon we're wariming for the next century. It's like in autumn, you're moving towards winter, but there are days that get warmer.
And well before you say, hey that will compensate, we do not have much from the ice caps to freeze again in 5000 years, if they've melt in the next 50. My precious netherlands will have been washed away.
Since most every energy source is bad, and you offer no solution.
Sure, to use less energy. And note from humanity how many people do life in industry world? 10 percent? So it are 10% of people who use up 90% of energy resources.
This is like communism. Sounds good in theory, but never works in practice.
This is true, in part. A middle way has to be found. communism does not work, but the softer way, socialism does work. Same here.
But where in the hell are they getting all this paper to print the tickets, and fare-adjustment tickets, etc etc?
I've a month ticket. It's printed once in a month and is 1x2 inches in size. I think that amound of resources is okay for a month. The austrian trains drive by a water powerplant in salzburg. Yes it does take away a handfull of mountain brooks, but it has an good energy/damadge ratio.
Yes I think we should start rate powersources by their energy/damadge ratio.
a) So let's just continue to waste oil because there _might_ be possiblity to convert coal to oil? Nonsense. And second I'm quite happy oil is limited, with this the greenhouse effect and pollution is also limited.
b) Mr Fusion? Note quite as timelines are drawing out. doing fusion with winning energy is not an easy thing to do. yes fusion has been done, but the whole proces just ate energy. Secondly "clean fusion" is even further away. Current fusion uses heavy hydrogen, which gives also a radioactive results. clean fusion with normal hydrogen would be non radioactive, but requires even higher temperatures and pressures.
And again, think of the consequences massive fusion power generation can and will have. We will first reduce all heavy hydrogen from our oceans, will this have any effects on the biology? We don't know, honestly. We will have massive amounts of radioactive helium. What to do with this?
Then if clean fusion will be available we will use up normal water. Okay there is far more energy in water than in oil. But with increased resources also consumation will increase, dramatically, so in 500 years we might use up significant amounts of water.
Next we will exhaust quite some amounts of helium into our atmosphere, okay helium is a inert gas, so doesn't react so quickly, but what effects of high additional amounts of helium can have, we don't know. In example we didn't even think of the greenhouse effect carbondioxid may have some decades ago. We thought well 5% of our atmosphere already consists of it, what ill can 1 or 2 addiotonal percent do? Well melting of the ice cap, end of netherlends, north germany, new york, east and west american coast etc.
Honestly if we would be a sane race, we would consider using less energy. Not trusting on technology to find new resources. Every energy resource has it's troubles, some have more some have less, but there is not a single way to obtain energy cleanly. Obviously, because you're taking something away. The way you do can do more or less harm, but at least the harm of the missing will always stay. Tell me a single energy source without any negative effects? Barraging? destroys river flora, wind mills? Loud noisy, people don't like the moving shadows of them in their living rooms. Solar? Expensive production of the cells. Oil-Coal, limited resources, carbon dioxid, greenhouse effect. Nuclear, nuclear waste, we leave waste used just for now that will do trouble for 10 million years, so whats that worth. burning biological products, well thats at least one fair thing, as we reburn things that just have been grabbed out of the atmosphere. Atmosphere ain't getting better through this, but also ain't getting worser. If we wouldn't burn it, it would get better again.
I'm not saying everything is bad. There are some tradeoffs to do, but we have to keep in mind to set us a limit on what we want to take from earth, we're it's childs. A kid cannot take away all the last dishes from his dad and mum and let them starve, if we want to expand more we need to move on in the universe, and again this has time. It does not need to be in the next century, just give us another 1000 years, and maybe we will be space born.
However to your comment again, there will always be people that do like to tell people what they want to hear. Look at people like me who say, come on drive a little less around, we should all live a smaller live style, does anybody like me because of this? Guess No.
Running out of oil just means we have to move to nuclear.
Nuclear doesn't function well. It has been prooven. There are just too much side effects. Beginning of this centery we thought of the "atomic age", who calls this today? It's just showed to be quite nasty. I'm pretty sure the 20th century will later be called the "oil age". And fear this centeruy will the age of war about the oil remains.
And yes when destroying earth by buring oil stops functioning we will just move to the next level and create waste even far more devasting.
Is our live style worth all this? What gives us the right to burn all that oil? To dig up nuclear material and turn it into devasting waste? Can't we not just all live a little easier? isn't that an solution?
Humans discovered oil a centeruy ago. And we grew on this new resources quickly, just too quickly. Why does everything needs to develop so fast? Well maybe we aren't on mars this century. Maybe we will reach it in 500 years. Why not? Why is thinking of humanity targets in ages of hundret years so wrong?
Ok now think about it Einstein. Stuff that died one million minus ten years ago will turn into oil in ten years from now. Geddit? Geddit?
Are you sure? I ain't. Note that oil is only created in special circuimstances, that do not occour daily, or in each earth decade. Okay maybe there will be oil again, but that doesn't mean that this is on a regular basis, maybe just if we pass another earth phase, it will be refreshed, maybe it is in another 10.000 years. Maybe the conditions for oil created 1 million years ago from today for oil where not there.
Also for those calculators, look at the earth how many years took it to generate the oil reserves as they were 100 years ago, where we ~ started to harvest it. How old is earth? 4 million years? 10? 1000? I don't know of hand.
However how long does humanity take to completly empty the resources 150 years.
So we have 150 against 1.000.000 years, thats not a good rate.
Not the end of world, but the end of oil is the end of civilisation as we know it. We will "just" be thrown back aprox. to ~1800.
However it might be the end of world. Imagine if no oil would be there it isn't that a proble. Nothing to war over. However if there are only a few oil reserves remaining it will be ultimative war around them. Know that the one who owns the remaining reserves can quit easily konquer. If you're fighting jets are the only ones that are able to fly, while the whole first world is in chaos because nobody can drive anymore to work it will be a simple toss over.
Our childs just have to get used to "lower" livestyle than we do. Traveling 100 miles will be an adventure again. Work maybe 1 mile ahead etc.
Maybe a earth without oil will be a better earth after all.
I think oil prediction is now on 40 years. It were 50 years 15 years ago. Okay it isn't that accurate but oil is decreasing. I'm 24 years old, and I estimate that I'll see the beginnings of the end of oil. There will be huge wars for the few remaining resources, I will tell you.
I know how this feels, recently I've switched to a dvorak keyboard. Well vocal misspelling is quite repretive now, as against the advices I'm typing QWERTY also sometimes. (dvorak at work, qwerty at home)
However if I set my NIC IP to the some address as the TFTP server, from where will the modem of my neighbour load it's config file down? It are 50/50 chanches that it takes my config file, from where should the modem now which PC on the cable-"lan" side is from the Service Provider, and which spoofes from the ISP? If a lot of people together are spoofing the ISP's TFTP server with an unlimited DOCSIS file, chances are good for everybody to run unlimited.
Well actually my cable modem doesn't belong to me, it's leased and owned by the serive provider. Which holds true for I guess 99% of people.
Second just something belongs to me daesn't mean I can do everything _with_ it I want. I can do everything _to_ it, but thats a differnt thing (and also not always true (i.e. animals))
Look I've a hammer here, so can I do everything with it I want to? (i.e. hammering your windows?)
Well for exactly the LJ4 I know exactly, as I've seen the "brother device" from canon. I serviced HP printers some years ago as an intern. If you wouldn't see the logo on the outside, you could hardly differencate the printers by looking upon them.
However the GPL is just a hack upon copyright rules. It only _allows_ you certain additional rights if you wouldn't have them by default, like copying, distrebutiong, changing, integerating. It doesn't restrict you in any way you would be otherwise allowed (like i.e. microsoft EULA's). If I've the copyright myself on a code, I don't need the GPL and am not bound to it.
You can release code as GPL and but are not bound by it yourself. However if you take back contributions, you get them per default only under the GPL allownesses, that means if you integrate them then you are bound to the GPL; as you don't have the copyright of the contributions, except of course you aquire a copyright transfer from the contributor.
Everything clear? The GPL does not require everyhing to be always open, that's FUD, often spread by people who don't really understand the license in detail. (al`a gpl is bad, and as soon you use it anywhere, you must open everything, nonsense!)
Under the GPL, once you submit code, you are basically waiving any ability to take the code in whole or in part for use in a future software product whether it be commercial or a different license (ie. cardware, artistic license, BSD license, etc..).
Wrong, the code _you_ did soly for yourself you can do with whatever you want. The GPL only allows some certain rights for others to you use your code. You of course have any rights on your own code you want. The GPL has to respected if you want to take over other peoples code (merged with yours) as you need the extra rights the GPL allows to do this at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that cells of your body don't live long, you are a new, reborn person, every N years.
N == 7
Yes thats biologically correct, every 7 years you are a complete new person.. (Every Cell has been replicated).
> Do they it 'cos they see the benefits of open source or are they just anti-USian ?
> Like the "evil NSA key windows backdoor" rubbish.
> I doubt they would ditch Windows if it was produced by a company of their own.
And what if it would be that way?
As an european country I would find it hard to rely internal security soly on an american company. What if there is a bug, country XYZ can't do anything about it until some guy in the USA fixes it. Now what if the software would be used for something important? And what if we just would have diplomatic problems because of a embargo of product X? (maybe about cars, fuel, meat, who know what...)
It should be the same reason why we europeans or any other country can't use the GPS for anything important. (like i.e. steering the trains with it)
Here the situation is quite obvious. GPS can be turned of with a switch in the USA. Yes GPS is useable as comfortable add-on but non USA countries can never rely on it. Thats why the EU is planning to do it's own positing system, not because it's better than GPS, but we will be able to rely on it.
Same goes for software, a non USA country can not safely use unexchangeable parts like microsoft products for anything important. It's always important to have at least two possible sources for a product, if not more. And windows fills this requirement not.
Okay for the non-geeks, why does OpenSource software fill this need? You still don't have more than one source, _but_ you get all the construction plans with the software, plus the right to actually use them. As a country in time of need you are able to fix possible problems yourself.
Well there was something similar, using a ground laser to bring up a rocket. The rocket has mounted solid burner on the back. (Like the modern booster which are used on the space shuttle or the ariane 5). Solid burner has a far better efficiency ratio than the convetional gas one based on hydrogen. However normally the problem with solid burner is that they aren't control able. A solid booster is ignited once, and then burns until it's empty so it can't be used to steer or stabilize. Thats a main reason why both space shuttles and arianes only use solid burner for extra burt, and rely basicly on the gas one, which can be turned on and off.
Now the idea is to mount a different kind of solid burner on the rocket, one that is self distinquishing, meaning as soon you take away a heat source it distinquishes. Now on ground you have a huge laser with a far edged focus, which can be used to burn the solid fuel, this laser can be turned on and off, and used to steer the rocket up into orbit.
I want to set the focus where to zoom in, not always in the center, like on a electronic street map. Now that would be something really revolutionary! Discover the whole universe while sitting at home drinking a beer.
Man don't spread FUD. With this kind of nonsense you're only hurting the things you want to support. We don't need any hobby warriors going around fucking people. ( If you write code, send bug reports, make div. art, etc. people appreciate it very much,
if all you want or can do is ms bushing, find something better to do.
Cross platform, thats what mozilla is able to, what IE ca't. You can use Mozilla on windows, unix, linux, and the MAC!.
Archiving such is not an easy thing to do.
I'm very happy to have good a decend browser on linux.
Yes thats true, I'm a pasionate Linux and KDE user for a year now, I have even wiped my windows partition 8 months ago. And I'm a full free software suporter.
But all these free everything, all business is bad assholes could only shut up, we don't need these weekend warriors who are bored and just grap something up to fight for. Anything.
Now some Linux distros come up join together and try to survive, and you cut in your own flesh! I know these people from face to face. They usually sit in front a screen. Always with a frown in their face, and complain about everything. everything. You can't make it right for them. I know one, he complained about the way I did something, I took the complain serious and changed the system. Then I hear him complaining again that the system has been changed. Argghhh!
See people complain against windows, micrsoft or anything. Now people just want to get a trademark, and as far I understood most importantly one sane way to organize the system V directory structure acroos distro's, and this asholes are complaining again.
You guys are not against microsoft, or for free software, or against the evil music industry, or verisign, or unisys, or patents. You're just against! Against to be against! Find a better meaning in life than flaming the good guys on slashdot for things you do not understand.
Some famous mathematican once said:
The natural numbers are god given. Everything else is human work.
And that's true, you can't proove or derive the natural numbers, but everything else is proove able and deriveable. Beginning with rational numbers up to things like PI, or imaginary i's.
IE is not free. It's bundeled with the windows OS. You pay for IE development when you buy windows, no matter if you need or plan to use IE at all.
Can I download IE to use in example in wine? No, thats not allowed. Additonaly from ms sites you cannot get a selfinstaller download at all. Everything are just upgrade packages.
Yes and how big is that virus that understands an EXT2 filesystem? A megabyte? Well that one will not be hard to spot, not to mention spreading times. On a 56k Modem it needs a hour to transfer itself.
Dude, there's more than 40 years left. Did you read anything I wrote? :)
What should I know what you wrote. Estimates are 40 years based on _current_ usage. Even today oil can no longer be as easy retrieved as it were. You can no longer just dig a hole in some desert and wait for it to sprinkle out. Most oil today has already to be lifted from middle and deep sea drilling islands. It's already far harder to get. From the inner european reserves. These are already used up. Look in austria here we had also some, as child I remember seeing the pumps when driving by the march feld. They are all gone today, it's just empty.
So earth will get lighter?
Well, I suppose it will,
Well fine there you have a neat little side-effect, I would in example worry about.
It may be 10% using 90% of energy resources, but I'm sure its the other 90% doing most of the pollution and such.
Oh yes these bastards, first they nearly starve to death, have no or very bad medical treatments and then they dare to pollute "our" world. No from carbondioxid emmision view, it are 10% that boast out 90%.
Sure, its free, but you'll probably drop dead before you get to the front of the line.
Not dead even they know what a medical priority selection is.
You would think hydro-power is clean and such,
No if you had read my commenty you would know that I atmitted that there is no "clean and such" way. Everything has sideeffects. Just the side-effects of hyrdo powerplant are relative small. They are there, and if side effects can be reduced it should. Especially in example for fish we build here watter "ladders", the trouts can hop them to get past the dam.
or some other animal that nobody cares about
Oh just fuck you. This will be my last post on this discussion.
"ban whale hunting, but let the indians capture a whale"
Indians (or native americans) do not whale hunt. definitly.
I'll also never understand the way some people think...
Some of them have studied biology and do understand that a missing piece in a food chain can have dervasting effects. The species lower spreads as a plaque, while the species above in the chain may also die out, or get reduced, which again may be a piece missing in another food chain.
Some of them have also studied history and examples of how things happened as people used to treat the environment up to 20 years ago. river normalizing anyone? Wow now it floats stright and easy down. Nobody realizing that now nothing eats away the pollution in it. while in a natural bed a lot of orgnaisms live that help us balancing our pollution away again. just as an example.
birds. In fromer times we used to have far more birds, which quite naturally ate away the insects from our fields. As the last wood "islands" in the fields were replaced by more fields the birds vanished, and well farmers have to spray the fields to get rid of insects. birds were cheap and helped us. It is an animal we should care about.
Now because we're so nice and good, also just from a selfish standpoint.
Assuming we have 100-300 years of oil left,
It are 40 years that are left. And thats less than fusion scientists expect what they need. (they estimate 50 years at least)
Aside from the fact Helium is inert, the Earth's gravity is not strong enough to hold it, so any and ALL helium vented into the atmosphere will simply float off into space.
So earth will get lighter?
Nothing irritates me more than the global warming propaganda.
It ain't propaganda. There are definitive signs. For example birds are very sensitive on climate changes, they react on parts of degrees celsius. An their breeding habbits do shift. They have already shifted about 4 weeks. Yes this isn't a whole degree, but already a part of it.
Our glaciers here in austria do melt. They aren't that large anymore as they used to be. The timberline does move upward.
Back in the 70's scientists thought we were headed for another ice age. Now all of a sudden we are headed towards global warming?
Well this may sound confusing, but both can be true at the same time. One is just a phenomenon on a far larger time scaler than the other. We can move to an ice age, driven by a huge epoch clock. But as a local phenomenon we're wariming for the next century. It's like in autumn, you're moving towards winter, but there are days that get warmer.
And well before you say, hey that will compensate, we do not have much from the ice caps to freeze again in 5000 years, if they've melt in the next 50. My precious netherlands will have been washed away.
Since most every energy source is bad, and you offer no solution.
Sure, to use less energy. And note from humanity how many people do life in industry world? 10 percent? So it are 10% of people who use up 90% of energy resources.
This is like communism. Sounds good in theory, but never works in practice.
This is true, in part. A middle way has to be found. communism does not work, but the softer way, socialism does work. Same here.
But where in the hell are they getting all this paper to print the tickets, and fare-adjustment tickets, etc etc?
I've a month ticket. It's printed once in a month and is 1x2 inches in size. I think that amound of resources is okay for a month. The austrian trains drive by a water powerplant in salzburg. Yes it does take away a handfull of mountain brooks, but it has an good energy/damadge ratio.
Yes I think we should start rate powersources by their energy/damadge ratio.
a) So let's just continue to waste oil because there _might_ be possiblity to convert coal to oil? Nonsense. And second I'm quite happy oil is limited, with this the greenhouse effect and pollution is also limited.
b) Mr Fusion? Note quite as timelines are drawing out. doing fusion with winning energy is not an easy thing to do. yes fusion has been done, but the whole proces just ate energy. Secondly "clean fusion" is even further away. Current fusion uses heavy hydrogen, which gives also a radioactive results. clean fusion with normal hydrogen would be non radioactive, but requires even higher temperatures and pressures.
And again, think of the consequences massive fusion power generation can and will have. We will first reduce all heavy hydrogen from our oceans, will this have any effects on the biology? We don't know, honestly. We will have massive amounts of radioactive helium. What to do with this?
Then if clean fusion will be available we will use up normal water. Okay there is far more energy in water than in oil. But with increased resources also consumation will increase, dramatically, so in 500 years we might use up significant amounts of water.
Next we will exhaust quite some amounts of helium into our atmosphere, okay helium is a inert gas, so doesn't react so quickly, but what effects of high additional amounts of helium can have, we don't know. In example we didn't even think of the greenhouse effect carbondioxid may have some decades ago. We thought well 5% of our atmosphere already consists of it, what ill can 1 or 2 addiotonal percent do? Well melting of the ice cap, end of netherlends, north germany, new york, east and west american coast etc.
Honestly if we would be a sane race, we would consider using less energy. Not trusting on technology to find new resources. Every energy resource has it's troubles, some have more some have less, but there is not a single way to obtain energy cleanly. Obviously, because you're taking something away. The way you do can do more or less harm, but at least the harm of the missing will always stay. Tell me a single energy source without any negative effects? Barraging? destroys river flora, wind mills? Loud noisy, people don't like the moving shadows of them in their living rooms. Solar? Expensive production of the cells. Oil-Coal, limited resources, carbon dioxid, greenhouse effect. Nuclear, nuclear waste, we leave waste used just for now that will do trouble for 10 million years, so whats that worth. burning biological products, well thats at least one fair thing, as we reburn things that just have been grabbed out of the atmosphere. Atmosphere ain't getting better through this, but also ain't getting worser. If we wouldn't burn it, it would get better again.
I'm not saying everything is bad. There are some tradeoffs to do, but we have to keep in mind to set us a limit on what we want to take from earth, we're it's childs. A kid cannot take away all the last dishes from his dad and mum and let them starve, if we want to expand more we need to move on in the universe, and again this has time. It does not need to be in the next century, just give us another 1000 years, and maybe we will be space born.
However to your comment again, there will always be people that do like to tell people what they want to hear. Look at people like me who say, come on drive a little less around, we should all live a smaller live style, does anybody like me because of this? Guess No.
Running out of oil just means we have to move to nuclear.
Nuclear doesn't function well. It has been prooven. There are just too much side effects. Beginning of this centery we thought of the "atomic age", who calls this today? It's just showed to be quite nasty. I'm pretty sure the 20th century will later be called the "oil age". And fear this centeruy will the age of war about the oil remains.
And yes when destroying earth by buring oil stops functioning we will just move to the next level and create waste even far more devasting.
Is our live style worth all this? What gives us the right to burn all that oil? To dig up nuclear material and turn it into devasting waste? Can't we not just all live a little easier? isn't that an solution?
Humans discovered oil a centeruy ago. And we grew on this new resources quickly, just too quickly. Why does everything needs to develop so fast? Well maybe we aren't on mars this century. Maybe we will reach it in 500 years. Why not? Why is thinking of humanity targets in ages of hundret years so wrong?
If you look long into a noise, and want to see a turky, you'll see a turky.
Ok now think about it Einstein. Stuff that died one million minus ten years ago will turn into oil in ten years from now. Geddit? Geddit?
Are you sure? I ain't. Note that oil is only created in special circuimstances, that do not occour daily, or in each earth decade. Okay maybe there will be oil again, but that doesn't mean that this is on a regular basis, maybe just if we pass another earth phase, it will be refreshed, maybe it is in another 10.000 years. Maybe the conditions for oil created 1 million years ago from today for oil where not there.
Also for those calculators, look at the earth how many years took it to generate the oil reserves as they were 100 years ago, where we ~ started to harvest it. How old is earth? 4 million years? 10? 1000? I don't know of hand.
However how long does humanity take to completly empty the resources 150 years.
So we have 150 against 1.000.000 years, thats not a good rate.
Not the end of world, but the end of oil is the end of civilisation as we know it. We will "just" be thrown back aprox. to ~1800.
However it might be the end of world. Imagine if no oil would be there it isn't that a proble. Nothing
to war over. However if there are only a few oil reserves remaining it will be ultimative war around them. Know that the one who owns the remaining reserves can quit easily konquer. If you're fighting jets are the only ones that are able to fly, while the whole first world is in chaos because nobody can drive anymore to work it will be a simple toss over.
Our childs just have to get used to "lower" livestyle than we do. Traveling 100 miles will be an adventure again. Work maybe 1 mile ahead etc.
Maybe a earth without oil will be a better earth after all.
I think oil prediction is now on 40 years. It were 50 years 15 years ago. Okay it isn't that accurate but oil is decreasing. I'm 24 years old, and I estimate that I'll see the beginnings of the end of oil. There will be huge wars for the few remaining resources, I will tell you.
I know how this feels, recently I've switched to a dvorak keyboard. Well vocal misspelling is quite repretive now, as against the advices I'm typing QWERTY also sometimes. (dvorak at work, qwerty at home)
up, down, strage, charm, bottom (beauty), and top (truth).
The third is called strange.
However if I set my NIC IP to the some address as the TFTP server, from where will the modem of my neighbour load it's config file down? It are 50/50 chanches that it takes my config file, from where should the modem now which PC on the cable-"lan" side is from the Service Provider, and which spoofes from the ISP? If a lot of people together are spoofing the ISP's TFTP server with an unlimited DOCSIS file, chances are good for everybody to run unlimited.
Well actually my cable modem doesn't belong to me, it's leased and owned by the serive provider. Which holds true for I guess 99% of people.
Second just something belongs to me daesn't mean I can do everything _with_ it I want. I can do everything _to_ it, but thats a differnt thing (and also not always true (i.e. animals))
Look I've a hammer here, so can I do everything with it I want to? (i.e. hammering your windows?)
Well for exactly the LJ4 I know exactly, as I've seen the "brother device" from canon. I serviced HP printers some years ago as an intern. If you wouldn't see the logo on the outside, you could hardly differencate the printers by looking upon them.
However the GPL is just a hack upon copyright rules. It only _allows_ you certain additional rights if you wouldn't have them by default, like copying, distrebutiong, changing, integerating. It doesn't restrict you in any way you would be otherwise allowed (like i.e. microsoft EULA's). If I've the copyright myself on a code, I don't need the GPL and am not bound to it.
You can release code as GPL and but are not bound by it yourself. However if you take back contributions, you get them per default only under the GPL allownesses, that means if you integrate them then you are bound to the GPL; as you don't have the copyright of the contributions, except of course you aquire a copyright transfer from the contributor.
Everything clear? The GPL does not require everyhing to be always open, that's FUD, often spread by people who don't really understand the license in detail. (al`a gpl is bad, and as soon you use it anywhere, you must open everything, nonsense!)
Under the GPL, once you submit code, you are basically waiving any ability to take the code in whole or in part for use in a future software product whether it be commercial or a different license (ie. cardware, artistic license, BSD license, etc..).
Wrong, the code _you_ did soly for yourself you can do with whatever you want. The GPL only allows some certain rights for others to you use your code. You of course have any rights on your own code you want. The GPL has to respected if you want to take over other peoples code (merged with yours) as you need the extra rights the GPL allows to do this at all.