In principal, I agree with you. But in this case, all that's required is that there is a relatively economical alternative to copper once copper becomes too expensive to use.
Maybe someone who is familiar with the economics of carbon nano-tubes being used in motor brushes could make an educated guess about the economics of replacing the motor's bulk conductor with a CNT-embedded material.
The last time I used a car, I had to hand crank it myself to start it. It was completely unacceptable!
a few replies later...
From the replies, I'm glad to hear this problem fixed, but approx. 70 years ago, it was a well-known limitation of cars.
Seriously, you make broad criticisms and then admit you really don't know the current state of things? How fair is that?
Next time, be honest about the last time you used the system, state your concerns about how the system behaved then, and then ask if your experience is still relevant.
In a hundred years, we'll have processed all that "waste" into fuel for modern reactors.
We have the technology now that we could, if politics didn't interfere, build reactors that fed their "waste" into secondary reactors who fed their "waste" into tertiary reactors. The resulting "waste" would be close enough to the background radiation that disposal is a non-issue (dare I say that we'd use it to make glow-in-the-dark watch hands and night sights for handguns?).
The nuclear issue is almost purely political at this point. Nuclear waste even more so.
It takes electricity to recycle the aluminum oxide, but you can supply that electricity with clean sources (solar, wind, etc). Even if you only use power from the grid, you'd do it at night when the power is cheapest which would bring the base-load power generation closer to the peak always a good thing since peak power is typically generated using the least efficient means we've got (oil and natural gas power plants).
An increase in the base-load would allow more efficient plants to be constructed. This reduces the cost of peak power for everyone.
What's the riskier proposition here: 1: Rule out the bad solutions and present the best solution given the requirements and assume that the requirements are accurate --OR-- 2: Give the complete list of alternatives to someone who can't distinguish between the alternatives
There's a reason why the people who give the best advice also give the shortest answers.
(1)...tells me that I should believe something because other people believe it (2)...isn't capable of discussing alternate theories (3)...is intolerant of other theories (4)...insults me for not accepting their theory
Basically, the more it looks like a religious issue, the more likely I am to be skeptical of it.
I do believe it's important to reduce our emissions and our consumption of "dirty" energy, and so one the one hand, I'm sympathetic to global warming since it would encourage people and governments to do things that I think they should be doing anyways. On the other hand, however, most proponents of the human-caused-global-warming theory fail at least 3 of the 4 criterion above.
If you want to convince me of something, the first thing that you need to do is demonstrate that you're capable of thinking critically about it. Only then can we actually discuss the issue.
These tactics will work to some extent, at least in the short term, but the market is, I think, wising up to how this game is played. Even the media has started asking questions rather than just regurgitating Microsoft's press releases.
Too bad the general public won't recognize it for what it is.
My wife, who doesn't give a damn about this sort of thing, was reading headlines over my shoulder and commented that it sounded like Microsoft was throwing a temper tantrum.
Volunteer resources have no opportunity cost if the volunteer wasn't already doing something for the community. This might be an opportunity to reach out to people who aren't already part of the community and bring them in. Law students, for example, might stand to learn a lot by participating in a project such as this.
Why not take some time to write a well reasoned response that you can send up the management chain and to the legal department. Point out how your company is currently benefiting from open source and how painful it would be to replace the open source currently in your infrastructure.
This is an opportunity to educate. Don't waste it.
They both do a pretty good job of hiding Linux from you.
Try them both and pick the one that feels the most comfortable to you. If you find that it lets you do everything you need, then there's no reason to learn Linux (unless you really want to).
Slashdot Mirror
In principal, I agree with you. But in this case, all that's required is that there is a relatively economical alternative to copper once copper becomes too expensive to use.
Maybe someone who is familiar with the economics of carbon nano-tubes being used in motor brushes could make an educated guess about the economics of replacing the motor's bulk conductor with a CNT-embedded material.
No, the BSD kernel is UNIX derived.
The whole point of GNU was to be free of AT&T's taint (hence the recursive acronym GNU = "GNU's Not Unix")
Car analogy:
The last time I used a car, I had to hand crank it myself to start it. It was completely unacceptable!
a few replies later...
From the replies, I'm glad to hear this problem fixed, but approx. 70 years ago, it was a well-known limitation of cars.
Seriously, you make broad criticisms and then admit you really don't know the current state of things? How fair is that?
Next time, be honest about the last time you used the system, state your concerns about how the system behaved then, and then ask if your experience is still relevant.
No problem. Ribbons made of carbon nano-tubes perform better than copper anyways and are rapidly approaching price-parity with copper.
Soon, hopefully, copper will only be used in circuit boards. Copper as a bulk conductor won't last much longer.
This poll has a margin of error of +inf.
Actually, if the purpose of the poll was to determine your opinion, the margin of error is +/- 0%.
It's all in how you define your population.
RedHat offers patent indemnification from anyone. AFAIK, Novel only offers protection from Microsoft.
Seems like RedHat is the winner here.
But the gallium isn't consumed. You can reuse it over and over.
The majority of electricity used to smelt aluminum is hydroelectric.
So, unless you want to argue that the hydroelectric generation burns coal...
In a hundred years, we'll have processed all that "waste" into fuel for modern reactors.
We have the technology now that we could, if politics didn't interfere, build reactors that fed their "waste" into secondary reactors who fed their "waste" into tertiary reactors. The resulting "waste" would be close enough to the background radiation that disposal is a non-issue (dare I say that we'd use it to make glow-in-the-dark watch hands and night sights for handguns?).
The nuclear issue is almost purely political at this point. Nuclear waste even more so.
It takes electricity to recycle the aluminum oxide, but you can supply that electricity with clean sources (solar, wind, etc). Even if you only use power from the grid, you'd do it at night when the power is cheapest which would bring the base-load power generation closer to the peak always a good thing since peak power is typically generated using the least efficient means we've got (oil and natural gas power plants).
An increase in the base-load would allow more efficient plants to be constructed. This reduces the cost of peak power for everyone.
Not a bad side effect.
I can't imagine calling Rush Limbaugh a shock jock, though
Same tactics, different target audience.
Linux still isn't there
What, in your opinion, is missing?
Wait 'til he gets going!
Anyone aware of anything like that being planned by anybody?
Disable your extensions and see if crashing problem goes away.
Does it crash even if you start with a clean profile? (I think it's the -P option)
It is not my job as a critical thinker to determine if your position is correct.
It is to determine if your position makes sense.
If your position makes sense, then the correctness can be determined by examining
your premises/data.
What's the riskier proposition here:
1: Rule out the bad solutions and present the best solution given the requirements and assume that the requirements are accurate
--OR--
2: Give the complete list of alternatives to someone who can't distinguish between the alternatives
There's a reason why the people who give the best advice also give the shortest answers.
I am likely to be skeptical anytime someone...
(1)...tells me that I should believe something because other people believe it
(2)...isn't capable of discussing alternate theories
(3)...is intolerant of other theories
(4)...insults me for not accepting their theory
Basically, the more it looks like a religious issue, the more likely I am to be
skeptical of it.
I do believe it's important to reduce our emissions and our consumption of "dirty" energy,
and so one the one hand, I'm sympathetic to global warming since it would encourage people
and governments to do things that I think they should be doing anyways. On the other hand,
however, most proponents of the human-caused-global-warming theory fail at least 3 of the
4 criterion above.
If you want to convince me of something, the first thing that you need to do is demonstrate
that you're capable of thinking critically about it. Only then can we actually discuss the
issue.
These tactics will work to some extent, at least in the short term, but the market is, I think, wising up to how this game is played. Even the media has started asking questions rather than just regurgitating Microsoft's press releases.
I'm sort of expecting to see RedHat file a Lanham Act suit against Microsoft the way they did against SCO.
Heck, they could use the SCO lawsuit as a template.
Too bad the general public won't recognize it for what it is.
My wife, who doesn't give a damn about this sort of thing, was reading headlines over my shoulder and commented that it sounded like Microsoft was throwing a temper tantrum.
Volunteer resources have no opportunity cost if the volunteer wasn't already doing something for the community. This might be an opportunity to reach out to people who aren't already part of the community and bring them in. Law students, for example, might stand to learn a lot by participating in a project such as this.
The community can only benefit.
Why not take some time to write a well reasoned response that you can send up the management chain and to the legal department. Point out how your company is currently benefiting from open source and how painful it would be to replace the open source currently in your infrastructure.
This is an opportunity to educate. Don't waste it.
They both do a pretty good job of hiding Linux from you.
Try them both and pick the one that feels the most comfortable to you. If you find that it lets you do everything you need, then there's no reason to learn Linux (unless you really want to).