Wait, you're not wiggling out of this one. Answer this simple question:
How do you insure against the possibility of Tokyo going the way of Chernobyl?
Here's my attempt: Katrina cost 108 billion. About 1 million people were evacuated. So that gives us a cost of about 100K per person. So scaling that up to Tokyo size gives about 1 trillion USD to evacuate.
Except if it went the way of Chernobyl, it'd cost a lot more, because you can't just go back and repair the infrastructure. And I imagine it's harder to find room for 13 million people and to organize the whole thing. The logistics are mind boggling.
I'd say that this is the very lower bound. If 13 million people just lost their home, I think 1K USD for each is about the reasonable minimum to give them maybe a few months worth of food and housing very optimistically speaking, while still leaving them completely screwed.
So let's say some company decided to insure the powerplant for 1 trillion. Optimistically, a nuclear powerplant can be made for 5 billion (googling suggests the practice is more like 20). Let's say the insurance company calculates that at most they'll have to pay that in 100 years. That means that they have to charge at least 2 billion per year, and they'll want some profit, too.
Additionally, where do you get this idea that this will lead to cheap nuclear power? Such a deal will never, ever happen without regulations that are much more stringent than governments impose. Because you said it, companies can't print money like the government. Which means a sane company will make very, very sure that the above scenario won't happen. Which means that besides the 2 billion per year you'll get a mountain of regulations to comply with, inspections, and so on. Just like home insurance may require you to have a smoke alarm, powerplant insurance will require you to have reliable systems and procedures.
So, there's my ballpark. Now your turn. Don't give me bullshit about moral hazards and your opinion of the government, I don't care. Just explain how exactly insurance for all of Tokyo is supposed to work in your ideal world without government interferrence. Please produce some ballpark estimate of the cost of the powerplant, the amount of insurance purchased, and the yearly payments for it.
A billion dollars is tiny. Tokyo has 13 million habitants in it. A billion would amount to all of $75 per habitant. That's what, a couple days at a hotel? And of course such a number of available hotel rooms doesn't exist.
No, seriously, think about an insurance company really having to pay for Tokyo becoming unhabitable even for a few years. All those people will have lost their housing, therefore at the very least you need to get 13 million people a new place where to live.
I think the more likely result is that without government intervention there would be no nuclear power at all.
How exactly do you insure it? There's no defined bound to how much a disaster may cost, which means that any insurance company would be insane to accept. Earlier in the thread there was a mention of the possibility of having Tokyo evacuated. How do you see an insurance company covering that? And what would the insurance payments be?
Because cold fusion doesn't seem to be coming any time soon. If it's possible at all, it's a very long term investment, which this isn't.
Why can't I focus on geothermal?
In my understanding, there are no problems of this kind to solve in geothermal energy. Drilling is well developed, heat exchange too. There's no particular challenge in manufacturing that could make it a lot cheaper if solved. There's nothing much to throw money at.
And why 6? Why not 3? Shit why not 1? I mean, if there's no real metric for the demand other than "it would be cheaper" why not demand it be a lot cheaper?
RTFA. ""The overarching goal of the SunShot Initiative is reaching cost parity with baseload energy rates, estimated to be 6Â/kWh without economic support, which would pave the way for rapid and large-scale adoption of solar electricity across the United States."
While were at it why don't we demand that all cars get 1000mpg? Oh it can't be done with existing technology you say? You're just thinking inside the box! If you think outside the box then you'll see it's a reasonable demand
Because the result woudln't be something that can be driven on a real road. It would be a single ocupant tin can without AC or anything else.
My point is that being content with having the government mandating anything like this is dangerous. They wouldn't be mandating it if they planned to give you full control of it. If that was the plan, there'd be no need for a mandate, you'd just buy it if you want the functionality.
The money cannot disappear. There are 3 possible cases : Both people sync, there is no problem. Either one syncs, and the money's there. Both neglect to synchronize, and the money isn't transferred at all.
Then why have it in the first place, since you need to get online anyway?
Also, potential problem: Alice sends expensive widget to Bob. Bob pays offline. Bob then just in case he manages to get away with it, has an incentive not to sync. Then it all depends on Alice, so if for whatever reason she's unable to sync the transaction, Bob gets the widget, Alice gets nothing, and Bob can't really be blamed for much.
You do, you just only have access to other people's data on your machine in encrypted form (this is not even necessarily so, but presumably this is how they'll want it).
I won't have a single bit of that on my hardware. Anything that requires such a scheme is automatically "no go". If you have DRM, I don't want your product, and if you require a transaction of this kind, you'll have to find another buyer.
You can touch every last bit on your machine including those on the TPM, you just cannot read them (only erase + rewrite). You have full access on your machine and your say-so determines 100% if something happens or not. TPM simply means it'll be impossible/hard for you to lie about having done something.
That's not to my advantage, so I refuse to participate in such a thing, and especially to pay for anything that implements it.
1) you probably already have, do you have any American-made cpu produced in the last 2 years ?
Actually no, and I've intentionally passed on laptops with a TPM chip. TPM == no sale.
2) even if you don't care for it, the ability to offer trusted relationships with other entities is a very useful one
Good for them, but I'm not buying into it, especially into government mandates.
Ah, but why would the government mandate a lock and leave it up to you to do something with it?
There's no point in that. If you really want a TPM you can go and buy a computer with one, there's no need to globally impose having it on the entire population (which won't come for free, btw).
The only point in requiring it is that there's something for the government in it, and most likely not to your benefit. Even if you do want a TPM you should oppose the government's attempt to introduce it, because it will serve them, not you.
Paying my taxes, for example. If Windows crashing becomes a plausible excuse for not filing a return, the gov't is going to have a serious revenue problem on its hands.
Yeah, right. What they'll do is to send you a certified letter saying you have a week to pay your taxes, or else. You might be able to convince them a bit longer, but the excuse won't work indefinitely. If you don't pay, they'll just give you a big fine, in addition to forcefully collecting the owed tax from your bank account.
Surely such features are worth something ? Several linux companies are already using them.
Not to me. Why would I want it? If the bank likes it, it's profitable for them, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily profitable for me.
Offline payments also seem largely unnecessary given how the internet is increasingly available anywhere.
Also there are a lot of potential pitalls. If you transfer money to me offline, can the money disappear if the computers are never synchronized?
All it does is simply making sure that if you tell some company you're going to take good care of their data, you have to actually do it (or delete the data, you're perfectly at liberty to do that)
That is a perversion. There's no such thing as me keeping "their data". It's my data, and I should have full control over it. If they really have "their data", then it just stays on their servers, where it's fully their problem. I don't see why I suddenly guarantee its security for no advantage to myself.
I mean what do you have against this ? Other than "I want to pirate stuff" (which will still be perfectly possible, just slightly more involved).
Loss of control. My stuff is mine, period, and I don't have to give lenghty explanations of that. But no, it's not piracy. On my hardware, which I paid for, I should have absolute access to every single bit of it.
I will certainly not buy anything that implements such a scheme.
You sure? It would be straightforward enough to make those parts of the contract. If something of that is legally iffy, then just lobby until the right laws get passed.
And so instead of "unfair labor practices" you'd just have a breach of contract.
I don't get this stuff about unions. Isn't an union effectively a company?
Say, what if instead having an union the workers simply formed a company of contractors and did exactly the same collective negotiation in the same way?
I'm not saying New Orleans got flooded due to climate change, I'm saying it's an example of the kind of consequences that can be expected if the sea starts rising enough.
You can't just shrug it off with "oh well, sucks for the polar bears, but I don't care". You will very much care, because if things get off kilter enough, they won't be so polite as to keep the damage to places and things you don't care about.
We very much depend on the environment being inside some parameters. If the sea level rises too quickly, it can be virtually guaranteed that quite a few places won't adapt in time. The levees were underfunded for quite some time, btw.
According to the National Hurricane Cente, Katrina cost about $100 billion. That's not exactly cheap, especially in the current economy. If you think it'll get solved with more levees, those cost quite a bit of money as well, and need actually getting funded unlike the New Orleans ones.
And if you don't get affected directly, you'll get affected indirectly, because in the modern world economies are linked.
Reality can't be fooled. You can pretend you're not walking off a cliff all you want, but you're still going to fall right the moment you step over the edge.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the OP, but short sighted thinking is precisely what makes money on Wall Street. Poor people tend to live in the short term as well, as in "what am I going to eat TODAY?"
Poor people aren't that much of the problem. Most of the problem is caused by large businesses and powerplants.
Even in a city, you depend on the environment. It's not just about polar bears. It's also about crops, coastal cities, and illnesses, for instance.
For instance, if coastal cities start getting flooded in New Orleans style, that's going to be pretty darn important, if only because dealing with the resulting mess is going to cost a lot of money, which will eventually come out of your pocket.
Also, even if wherever you are benefits, some other places will suffer, which will result in mass migrations to wherever you are. That will also have economical costs.
This is a classic case of what we call "Moving the goalposts" which is frankly ALL Linux users can do. It is NO different than if I said "The Kia is a nice car" and you replied "You can't fly to Italy in a Kia!" Well WTF does THAT have to do with anything?
Here, I'll spell it out, even make it bold so its easy, kay? here goes WE ARE TALKING ABOUT USERS not, in any particular order, hackers, crackers, admins, DBA, engineers, or the guy that wants an OS on his toaster, okay? Is that REALLY so fucking hard to follow?
What moving of goalposts? You said, and I quote, "hell I've never even met an admin that used start>>>run for program launching)". So I replied to that.
Do you HONESTLY believe that 90% of the fucking population use IPconfig? Because if so there is some penny stocks i think you should be interested in.
Very likely, yes. At some point in their lives I'm pretty sure every user will have at least one instance of losing network connection for whatever reason, and support is very likely to ask them to run ipconfig.
As for why you should remove it? simple because if your OS WORKS then it should function without it. I could remove CLI from Windows and OSX and guess what? the users would never know the difference and it would just keep happily chugging along. do that in Linux? It shits itself and dies hard and THAT is a fact. hell most of them won't even boot with Bash gone, another fact.
So? Bash is needed for shell scripts. Windows also needs a huge amount of stuff most people never invoke manually, like regsvr32 and gacutil, and would also break if it was removed. I'm pretty sure OS X has shell scripts in it somewhere, and needs whatever shell it uses to run those.
If you ever looked a bit under the hood, you'd see that Windows simple at all, and that there's plenty stuff that gets done and invoked behind the scenes. And yes, some Windows problem solutions involve very command line-ish actions like messing with registering DLLs and the registry editor.
If you want to use CLI? cool, I know guys that prefer bell bottoms. what do you and they have in common? Both like things that are NEVER COMING BACK IN STYLE EVAR. In fact the bell bottom guys have better odds of making a come back than Linux has on the desktop!
Your point being? I like it, so I use it. Your opinion is irrelevant.
Just be honest with yourselves is that SOOOO much to ask for? Accept the fact that if you refuse to give the consumer what they want they WILL ignore you,simple as that. Stop all this "Linux is ready for the desktop!" horseshit, which you KNOW is horseshit BTW, because there is no way in hell the 90% are gonna back to fiddly 70s era term bullshit, stop pretending that users use start>>>run to launch programs, or that Windows USERS, not admins, not DBAs, but users, actually give a fuck or even know where the fuck the CLI is on their OS, and accept that you will ALWAYS be last place, and frankly that is where you deserve to be.
Modern Linux distros don't require usage of it, though it's certainly still there if you want it.
Its REALLY simple, give the people what they want and they will buy your product, you don't do that. Instead you think you can get the world to go back to 70s terms, embrace CLI "Fixes" and forum dances, 6 month deathmarches and all the included driver borkage, and frankly it makes you look more than a little insane. Want share? KILL CLI DEAD.
Nope. CLI fixes are actually most convenient, because troubleshooting GUIs is such a monumental pain in the ass. You'd know it if you ever tried to explain somebody how to configure a network over the phone. Multiple OS versions with different UIs, different languages, people doing weird stuff like moving the taskbar to the side... it's an enormous pain in the ass. CLI is mu
The fucknuts in question actually was trying to argue that Windows users use start>>>run to launch all their programs and when pointed out that not only do users NEVER use start>>>run (hell I've never even met an admin that used start>>>run for program launching) but that as far as users are concerned there is NO CLI in Windows and I DARE anyone to prove me wrong. Do you HONESTLY think the majority of users use CLI in Windows?
Here, meet one.
Start/run/cmd/ipconfig is a very standard troubleshooting step. Usually the first thing I do when something network related is not working, and the first thing I ask the normal users to try to gather some information.
Let's see, also net start/net stop commands, telnet, netstat, arp, runas, regsvr32, msc just off the top of my head.
Of course, since the commandline sucks so badly on Windows more advanced usage is limited, but there you go. What little there is comes handy sometimes. But I will bet my last fucking dollar that EVERY Linux user DOES use CLI, how do I know this? it is simple, THEY HAVE NO CHOICE. They really don't. I have yet to have a single Linux user have the balls to take they Hairyfeet challenge, which is simply remove the CLI from the OS for just ONE year. That's all. If Linux can function without CLI, surely losing it a year won't be a great hardship?
Why would I want to remove it? That's stupid. Some things are more comfortable on a CLI, and some on a GUI. I could do stuff like mass search/replace in a hundred files in a GUI, but then I'd need to find a specialized program for that, or mind numbingly do one at a time in a text editor.
But you see THERE is the lie they so desperately want to hide, THERE is the ugly truth like Dorian and the painting they try to hide from the light. The TRUTH is this: Linux will not run without CLI and all your snarky remarks, all the lies and bullshit will NOT change this simple fact.
Who's hiding anything? I use Linux in good part because it has a good CLI
THIS is why you have no share, THIS is why you gain no traction, THIS is why the ONLY time Linux has gained ANY share was when Google simply stole it and told the community to go suck cock. What is Android? Why its all GUI, NO CLI, all clicky clicky easy, and it sells? Well surprise surprise, who would have fucking thought. Oh right, that would be me who has been saying that FOR A FUCKING DECADE NOW.
And I'm supposed to care why exactly? I use whatever I like best, market share is irrelevant. I have a CLI on my phone btw (Nokia N900), android is too locked down for my liking.
1. Nobody uses Ni-Cad anymore. It's poisonous and low capacity, the only point in still using it is very high current applications, and even there people mostly use Li-Ion/LiPo these days. Modern usage is very limited.
2. The memory effect was something observed in satellites, which have extremely regular charge and discharge patterns for years on end. You're not going to do the same thing to your mp3 player. It's also specific to one kind of Ni-Cad and not all of them.
3. What you can cure with a deep discharge is voltage depression, which is caused by overcharging. It's not a form of maintenance, as it damages the battery. It's a fix for something that shouldn't have happened in the first place. Get a good charger instead.
No, you shouldn't with any kind of modern battery.
Li-Ion doesn't like full discharges, and in fact the internal circuitry should make it impossible. Lead-acid will very quickly become unusable if left fully discharged. And for battery packs, full discharge risks cell reversal, which causes damage.
The only case where you should still do that is when there is some sort of internal statistics being kept of how long the battery is estimated to last, which is out of sync with the actual battery.
That's not for any sort of cleaning though. It's just for fixing incorrect estimations of remaining battery time, which causes devices to turn off too soon, or have them fail to shut down nicely before the battery runs out.
Catholics seem to be convinced that religion makes them better people, and that without religion there is no morality.
I in turn, take delight in pointing out how the Church, which by that logic should be a paragon of virtue when compared to the rest of the society, is actually behaving as a force of evil. Not just by accident, but entirely intentionally, with policies that protect criminals, and obstruct investigations, handed down from the highest positions in the organization.
You don't get to have it both ways. If you're going to claim that religion is a way to morality, it better be. Otherwise be ready to be mercilessly criticised when that fails to hold up.
Sex abuse doesn't know any boundaries and exist everywhere.
True. But the church is special in being aware of it and trying to hide it and obstruct investigations. That is rightfully denounced.
The reason the church kept it a secret was because of their doctrine of forgiveness and a verry recent conclusion that these people who do sex crimes is actually an illness. So if the priest confessed of his sin the church gives him a clean bill of health and let's them go on. Not because of a plot but because they believe if you confess your sins god will forgive you of those sins, and the policy that the priest who does the confession will not tell anyone else, no matter what. Now you can argue this doctrine, however it isn't part of a coverup it is just following their beliefs.
That's a load of bullshit. In neither the US, UK, nor Ireland does the church make the law. If the law says you have to report it, you have to report it regardless of what your religion says.
Additionally, regardless of any law, this is plain immoral, as it causes great harm to the victims in exchange to protecting a few people that don't deserve it.
Well, if it's enough with just having it swing back and forth, you could just limit things to the extreme left/extreme right positions. That's easy, and shouldn't produce any hum, though it might look a bit odd when starting. Maybe limiting the voltage or current would work for fixing that.
No blog or anything like that. However, I will be making a journal when I get to work on the project.
Long-pile fur, custom shaved, either glued or stitched to a body-fitting suit. Headmask will be as fitting as possible, gonna need some excess length to make a nape/wire shroud. Gonna have the guitar plug directly into the suit and broadcast via wireless transmitter. Purely a show/performance suit.
That sounds awesome. Great to see people do interesting things like that.
The bitch, the absolute BITCH, will be getting the tails controlled. That might be linked to another movement or general movement direction.
Yeah, that sounds complicated. Maybe servomotors or voice coils ripped from a hard disk? They'd probably be too weak to do anything too dramatic, but it might work by building up some momentum. Voice coils are really tricky to position precisely (as far as I gather it takes a signal with a rapidly switching polarity with an imbalance in the right direction), but just back and forth is easy, and they're quiet.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, you're not wiggling out of this one. Answer this simple question:
How do you insure against the possibility of Tokyo going the way of Chernobyl?
Here's my attempt: Katrina cost 108 billion. About 1 million people were evacuated. So that gives us a cost of about 100K per person. So scaling that up to Tokyo size gives about 1 trillion USD to evacuate.
Except if it went the way of Chernobyl, it'd cost a lot more, because you can't just go back and repair the infrastructure. And I imagine it's harder to find room for 13 million people and to organize the whole thing. The logistics are mind boggling.
I'd say that this is the very lower bound. If 13 million people just lost their home, I think 1K USD for each is about the reasonable minimum to give them maybe a few months worth of food and housing very optimistically speaking, while still leaving them completely screwed.
So let's say some company decided to insure the powerplant for 1 trillion. Optimistically, a nuclear powerplant can be made for 5 billion (googling suggests the practice is more like 20). Let's say the insurance company calculates that at most they'll have to pay that in 100 years. That means that they have to charge at least 2 billion per year, and they'll want some profit, too.
Additionally, where do you get this idea that this will lead to cheap nuclear power? Such a deal will never, ever happen without regulations that are much more stringent than governments impose. Because you said it, companies can't print money like the government. Which means a sane company will make very, very sure that the above scenario won't happen. Which means that besides the 2 billion per year you'll get a mountain of regulations to comply with, inspections, and so on. Just like home insurance may require you to have a smoke alarm, powerplant insurance will require you to have reliable systems and procedures.
So, there's my ballpark. Now your turn. Don't give me bullshit about moral hazards and your opinion of the government, I don't care. Just explain how exactly insurance for all of Tokyo is supposed to work in your ideal world without government interferrence. Please produce some ballpark estimate of the cost of the powerplant, the amount of insurance purchased, and the yearly payments for it.
A billion dollars is tiny. Tokyo has 13 million habitants in it. A billion would amount to all of $75 per habitant. That's what, a couple days at a hotel? And of course such a number of available hotel rooms doesn't exist.
No, seriously, think about an insurance company really having to pay for Tokyo becoming unhabitable even for a few years. All those people will have lost their housing, therefore at the very least you need to get 13 million people a new place where to live.
I think the more likely result is that without government intervention there would be no nuclear power at all.
How exactly do you insure it? There's no defined bound to how much a disaster may cost, which means that any insurance company would be insane to accept. Earlier in the thread there was a mention of the possibility of having Tokyo evacuated. How do you see an insurance company covering that? And what would the insurance payments be?
Because cold fusion doesn't seem to be coming any time soon. If it's possible at all, it's a very long term investment, which this isn't.
In my understanding, there are no problems of this kind to solve in geothermal energy. Drilling is well developed, heat exchange too. There's no particular challenge in manufacturing that could make it a lot cheaper if solved. There's nothing much to throw money at.
RTFA. ""The overarching goal of the SunShot Initiative is reaching cost parity with baseload energy rates, estimated to be 6Â/kWh without economic support, which would pave the way for rapid and large-scale adoption of solar electricity across the United States."
Because the result woudln't be something that can be driven on a real road. It would be a single ocupant tin can without AC or anything else.
My point is that being content with having the government mandating anything like this is dangerous. They wouldn't be mandating it if they planned to give you full control of it. If that was the plan, there'd be no need for a mandate, you'd just buy it if you want the functionality.
I'm not seeing the examples
Then why have it in the first place, since you need to get online anyway?
Also, potential problem: Alice sends expensive widget to Bob. Bob pays offline. Bob then just in case he manages to get away with it, has an incentive not to sync. Then it all depends on Alice, so if for whatever reason she's unable to sync the transaction, Bob gets the widget, Alice gets nothing, and Bob can't really be blamed for much.
I won't have a single bit of that on my hardware. Anything that requires such a scheme is automatically "no go". If you have DRM, I don't want your product, and if you require a transaction of this kind, you'll have to find another buyer.
That's not to my advantage, so I refuse to participate in such a thing, and especially to pay for anything that implements it.
Actually no, and I've intentionally passed on laptops with a TPM chip. TPM == no sale.
Good for them, but I'm not buying into it, especially into government mandates.
Ah, but why would the government mandate a lock and leave it up to you to do something with it?
There's no point in that. If you really want a TPM you can go and buy a computer with one, there's no need to globally impose having it on the entire population (which won't come for free, btw).
The only point in requiring it is that there's something for the government in it, and most likely not to your benefit. Even if you do want a TPM you should oppose the government's attempt to introduce it, because it will serve them, not you.
Yeah, right. What they'll do is to send you a certified letter saying you have a week to pay your taxes, or else. You might be able to convince them a bit longer, but the excuse won't work indefinitely. If you don't pay, they'll just give you a big fine, in addition to forcefully collecting the owed tax from your bank account.
Not to me. Why would I want it? If the bank likes it, it's profitable for them, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily profitable for me.
Offline payments also seem largely unnecessary given how the internet is increasingly available anywhere.
Also there are a lot of potential pitalls. If you transfer money to me offline, can the money disappear if the computers are never synchronized?
That is a perversion. There's no such thing as me keeping "their data". It's my data, and I should have full control over it. If they really have "their data", then it just stays on their servers, where it's fully their problem. I don't see why I suddenly guarantee its security for no advantage to myself.
Loss of control. My stuff is mine, period, and I don't have to give lenghty explanations of that. But no, it's not piracy. On my hardware, which I paid for, I should have absolute access to every single bit of it.
I will certainly not buy anything that implements such a scheme.
You sure? It would be straightforward enough to make those parts of the contract. If something of that is legally iffy, then just lobby until the right laws get passed.
And so instead of "unfair labor practices" you'd just have a breach of contract.
I don't get this stuff about unions. Isn't an union effectively a company?
Say, what if instead having an union the workers simply formed a company of contractors and did exactly the same collective negotiation in the same way?
That's not a rebuttal, that's just an ad hominem.
I'm not saying New Orleans got flooded due to climate change, I'm saying it's an example of the kind of consequences that can be expected if the sea starts rising enough.
You can't just shrug it off with "oh well, sucks for the polar bears, but I don't care". You will very much care, because if things get off kilter enough, they won't be so polite as to keep the damage to places and things you don't care about.
We very much depend on the environment being inside some parameters. If the sea level rises too quickly, it can be virtually guaranteed that quite a few places won't adapt in time. The levees were underfunded for quite some time, btw.
According to the National Hurricane Cente, Katrina cost about $100 billion. That's not exactly cheap, especially in the current economy. If you think it'll get solved with more levees, those cost quite a bit of money as well, and need actually getting funded unlike the New Orleans ones.
And if you don't get affected directly, you'll get affected indirectly, because in the modern world economies are linked.
Reality can't be fooled. You can pretend you're not walking off a cliff all you want, but you're still going to fall right the moment you step over the edge.
Poor people aren't that much of the problem. Most of the problem is caused by large businesses and powerplants.
That's shortsighted thinking.
Even in a city, you depend on the environment. It's not just about polar bears. It's also about crops, coastal cities, and illnesses, for instance.
For instance, if coastal cities start getting flooded in New Orleans style, that's going to be pretty darn important, if only because dealing with the resulting mess is going to cost a lot of money, which will eventually come out of your pocket.
Also, even if wherever you are benefits, some other places will suffer, which will result in mass migrations to wherever you are. That will also have economical costs.
What moving of goalposts? You said, and I quote, "hell I've never even met an admin that used start>>>run for program launching)". So I replied to that.
Very likely, yes. At some point in their lives I'm pretty sure every user will have at least one instance of losing network connection for whatever reason, and support is very likely to ask them to run ipconfig.
So? Bash is needed for shell scripts. Windows also needs a huge amount of stuff most people never invoke manually, like regsvr32 and gacutil, and would also break if it was removed. I'm pretty sure OS X has shell scripts in it somewhere, and needs whatever shell it uses to run those.
If you ever looked a bit under the hood, you'd see that Windows simple at all, and that there's plenty stuff that gets done and invoked behind the scenes. And yes, some Windows problem solutions involve very command line-ish actions like messing with registering DLLs and the registry editor.
Your point being? I like it, so I use it. Your opinion is irrelevant.
Modern Linux distros don't require usage of it, though it's certainly still there if you want it.
Nope. CLI fixes are actually most convenient, because troubleshooting GUIs is such a monumental pain in the ass. You'd know it if you ever tried to explain somebody how to configure a network over the phone. Multiple OS versions with different UIs, different languages, people doing weird stuff like moving the taskbar to the side... it's an enormous pain in the ass. CLI is mu
I find the "keep the electrons moving" language suspicious. Not like they'll get rusty.
Here, meet one.
Start/run/cmd/ipconfig is a very standard troubleshooting step. Usually the first thing I do when something network related is not working, and the first thing I ask the normal users to try to gather some information.
Let's see, also net start/net stop commands, telnet, netstat, arp, runas, regsvr32, msc just off the top of my head.
Why would I want to remove it? That's stupid. Some things are more comfortable on a CLI, and some on a GUI. I could do stuff like mass search/replace in a hundred files in a GUI, but then I'd need to find a specialized program for that, or mind numbingly do one at a time in a text editor.
Who's hiding anything? I use Linux in good part because it has a good CLI
And I'm supposed to care why exactly? I use whatever I like best, market share is irrelevant. I have a CLI on my phone btw (Nokia N900), android is too locked down for my liking.
A few things:
1. Nobody uses Ni-Cad anymore. It's poisonous and low capacity, the only point in still using it is very high current applications, and even there people mostly use Li-Ion/LiPo these days. Modern usage is very limited.
2. The memory effect was something observed in satellites, which have extremely regular charge and discharge patterns for years on end. You're not going to do the same thing to your mp3 player. It's also specific to one kind of Ni-Cad and not all of them.
3. What you can cure with a deep discharge is voltage depression, which is caused by overcharging. It's not a form of maintenance, as it damages the battery. It's a fix for something that shouldn't have happened in the first place. Get a good charger instead.
Man, you have issues. You should consider finding a good therapist, that much anger can't be good.
No, you shouldn't with any kind of modern battery.
Li-Ion doesn't like full discharges, and in fact the internal circuitry should make it impossible. Lead-acid will very quickly become unusable if left fully discharged. And for battery packs, full discharge risks cell reversal, which causes damage.
The only case where you should still do that is when there is some sort of internal statistics being kept of how long the battery is estimated to last, which is out of sync with the actual battery.
That's not for any sort of cleaning though. It's just for fixing incorrect estimations of remaining battery time, which causes devices to turn off too soon, or have them fail to shut down nicely before the battery runs out.
Catholics seem to be convinced that religion makes them better people, and that without religion there is no morality.
I in turn, take delight in pointing out how the Church, which by that logic should be a paragon of virtue when compared to the rest of the society, is actually behaving as a force of evil. Not just by accident, but entirely intentionally, with policies that protect criminals, and obstruct investigations, handed down from the highest positions in the organization.
You don't get to have it both ways. If you're going to claim that religion is a way to morality, it better be. Otherwise be ready to be mercilessly criticised when that fails to hold up.
True. But the church is special in being aware of it and trying to hide it and obstruct investigations. That is rightfully denounced.
That's a load of bullshit. In neither the US, UK, nor Ireland does the church make the law. If the law says you have to report it, you have to report it regardless of what your religion says.
Additionally, regardless of any law, this is plain immoral, as it causes great harm to the victims in exchange to protecting a few people that don't deserve it.
Well, if it's enough with just having it swing back and forth, you could just limit things to the extreme left/extreme right positions. That's easy, and shouldn't produce any hum, though it might look a bit odd when starting. Maybe limiting the voltage or current would work for fixing that.
That sounds awesome. Great to see people do interesting things like that.
I only heard of one other person doing anything of the sort.
Yeah, that sounds complicated. Maybe servomotors or voice coils ripped from a hard disk? They'd probably be too weak to do anything too dramatic, but it might work by building up some momentum. Voice coils are really tricky to position precisely (as far as I gather it takes a signal with a rapidly switching polarity with an imbalance in the right direction), but just back and forth is easy, and they're quiet.
Cool, got a blog or anything or that?
Alternatively, post a journal. Sounds interesting, I'd like to see what comes out of it.