Until then, you nuke advocates need to be shown for the selfish, short-sighted dumbshits that you are.
It's more the flaming ignoramuses who are the problem as their rigid anti-science stance keeps the light water reactors in operation. Yeah, you - you're responsible for Fukushima-type incidents by lending your political power to those who would seek to prevent progress.
the massive neutron flux just makes even more radioactive waste
That's not an actual problem - they absorb the neutrons with copper, and the half-life is about 40 years.
Light water reactors create 300,000 year waste. Humans cannot responsibly handle anything that hot - we do not have the technology to store it.
Of course if Gore/Clinton/Kerry/O'Leary hadn't ganged up to kill the Integral Fast Reactor project (too successful) we'd be transmuting that 300,000 year waste into 60 year waste by now, and we can handle that (and as a side-effect providing all the electric needs of the planet's population for seventy years just cleaning up the current waste).
Bush and Obama are just as complicit - Branson has trying to commercialize the technology for over three years and the current administration refuses to give him a meeting. They're all deeply corrupt and in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry and at the same time seeking to expand government power with fears of fossil fuel use. Any good solution solves two problems, and keeping IFR reactors from being built solves two very important problems for the corrupt and powerful.
I speak in the American format and write in the ISO format. To me they're the best of breed, one for spoken communication, one for written. But don't forget that we're surrounded by OCD-ish folks (like the GP) who are so crazy-obsessed with EvEnNeSs. I did that last one just to piss them off.
we really have to figure out how to automate more stuff
Part of this is Fedora adopting a devops platform. I like Puppet (mostly) but we could live with another if it were _the_ standard (I live with RPM for the same reason, "blech, but so what").
RPM and yum are 2/3 of the equation in the modern context. There are so many things in the ecosystem that could be done right with a distro-standard devops layer.
No, that's not the problem - easily refutable. Ep. IV followed a standard Campbell-esque narrative structure with Jungian archetypical characters while The Phantom Menace was a complete bloody mess of a story.
If the story is terrible and the characters are a confused bag of parts then the movie is going to suck. When you were born has very little bearing on such ancient principles.
can you point to the Wayland mailing list thread you posted about this? I'm not being [merely] snarky - I want to know if the developers helped identify the problem or not.
Per-window RDP is OK by me and then I'll tell everybody like the GP to shut it and complain about something else. But if it's just checked-in-but-broken then that's a different story.
No, the whole premise is a strawman argument. I mean, yeah, there are idiots and idiots who think they are experts, but nobody with any knowledge and wisdom believes that strong AI exists today.
If I want to host my own, I get VMware in my own datacenter. If I want to host in the cloud, I buy storage+compute from AWS.
And you get the usual proprietary issues from both. The promise of OpenStack is that you develop in house, then push it out to whatever commodity provider(s) meet your needs at the time, x number of times in y number of locations.
It's not entirely unlike how you can assume that most any popular PHP package will run on whatever hosting provider you choose, but at the machine level instead of the app level. All the usual caveats about standards apply.
Can you name me one unregulated free market that has ever existed?
China had a period of prolonged peace with barely a hint of any government, so that's probably going to be one of your best examples. If I remembered the less-famous notable Chinese philosophers I'd give you the name of the one who wrote about this, but alas... it was during the time when the Roman Empire was first ravaging the West. Maybe somebody else can fill in the proper nouns.
Under what theory of international law? This behavior is clearly bad and is the sort of thing a country has a right to be pissed off about, but there's no coherent, conventional theory that makes this an act of war.
Well, it's massive looting if you believe in imaginary property.
You understand the complaint is that they BOUGHT the congress, so they could have the tax code changed so they could legally shift their share of tax responsibility to others? So, while yes you are technically correct, you, and they, are so morally bankrupt I can't understand how you can live with yourself.
What actions are you taking to remove this kind of power from Congress?
Just since we're having a "no you're the hypocrite'" thread and all...
I find it funny how the US government accused Huawei and ZTE of building in backdoor access while engaging in the exact same practice.
It's not "funny", it's rational - as domestic people moved to Huawei equipment, they lost some of their ability to spy. Throw out a scare story, drive people back to the platforms with developed intercepts.
If you have to choose between a government with police powers over your body knowing what you say in private and one half way across the world where you don't go knowing the same things, which would you choose?
you would think anyone with a functioning brain would have learned from Prohibition
Oh, they learned it well. They learned about how many cops they could hire, how big of a buracracy they need, how many prisons are built and staffed, how the power balance turns against the "citizens" (and, amazingly, they even get other "citizens" to cheer them on) and how much easier it is to go after people for other prosecutions once you nail them for a vice.
The brain malfunction is among the people who don't see this as a War on the People.
What he would've deserved for that is a fair and impartial trial, with a verdict handed down in accordance with the law, and, if found guilty, a fair sentence (which, depending on your opinion on such matters, might include the death penalty).
And yet get ready for the chorus of people who will say we should have just had a hunter-killer drone in the sky to take this guy out rather than endanger the lives of officers.
Starting at about 1:30 the exhaust trail starts to waver a bit, and over the next fifteen seconds it becomes really wild (just before the craft disintegrates). You have to watch before that to compare.
I wonder how many bolts need to break to cause an engine to shear off or shake the thing apart?
If we're talking about clearing someone's meta data from the system that might be reasonable. But taking down articles people have written about you or blog posts... no. You don't have a right to silence other people.
People toss around the word "right" too casually. Narrowly constructed, a 'right' is only something that exists as a default state without outside interference. Imaging you're on a desert island -m, you have the right to say what you want, think what you want, protect yourself from threats, hold on to your belongings, stay safe, etc. It's when there's a group of people who want to shut you up, take your stuff and lock you in a cage that we have to write this stuff down and call them "rights". It gets worse if society believes that some men are justified in doing that stuff, so to settle the cognitive dissonance there requires a large structure.
But just as on that desert island there's nobody to grow food or gather food for you, if somebody declares that you have a "right to food" then they're selling you a line of goods (and watch your wallet) - what they really are saying is that they are going to grant you a privilege whereby they force somebody(ies) else to provide food to you. If there's one group of people ordering another group of people to give things to people, then it's never a right, only a privilege. They may call it a 'right' to confuse you, but you don't have to accept their newspeak.
Now then, when you do something in public/society, people notice. That creates information that just exists as objective truth - if somebody sees you walking around a park and writes down, "Tom walked across the park", that is information about you, but you don't own that information in any way. Now, maybe Tom was supposed to be at work, not walking across the park and he'd like for you to not have that information or tell anybody else about it. He could offer something to you to not tell anybody else about it, or even just ask you nicely, but you might find that gathering such information is more valuable to you than whatever Tom is offering, so you may or may not take Tom's deal. But Tom might also get a group of his buddies to gang up and threaten you with some kind of harm if you tell anybody else about it. The gang has granted Tom a privilege of having that information about him 'protected' from disclosure.
So, this is what the EU has done - said that if you have information about somebody, and they don't like that, then they can tell you to keep it to yourself, or the EU will beat you up (or some abstraction thereof). This is actually a pretty smart thing for the EU to do; governments thrive in low-information areas, imposing themselves to solve problems by dictate that could better be solved by all participants having access to more information. A company like Google has automated systems for gathering information and making it available to everybody, but to handle cases like this requires humans to discern what is going on, if the claims are legally valid, and then figuring out how to apply a heuristic to the data. This kind of EU ruling majorly affects Google's cost structure, and to the extent that Google is becoming an abstract competitor to the EU by solving the information problem, the EU benefits from hurting Google in this way. Since the EU also makes Tom happy, they win in two ways, and Tom will feel more likely to reward the EU since they've offered him this privilege.
Most people are basically honest players and they have very little incentive to ever challenge the information that Google makes available about them. But people who do bad things - they're going to take advantage of this ruling to try to cover their tracks (that a known pedophile is the first to use this law isn't surprising). This is how the lowering of information will harm EU society to the largest degree - forget about Googling whether that roofer is honest or not, you're only going to find positive results. Guess you'll need to call a government regulator instead - Tom can't get the gang to give up the information it has on Tom.
qt5 is very nice, but doing the whole thing in QML is going to be the major win (made feasible by qt5, naturally). I'd estimate it opens up the potential hacker pool by two orders of magnitude. Expect an explosion in community-driven KDE fixes and enhancements once the distros adopt this version.
I stopped using GNOME back when they caught mono, but between Unity and the direction of KDE, the endgame for heavy DE's on Open Source desktops is looking very clear. The mono thing was just an example of a flawed decision making process on that project, which has extended forward to today, with predictable results.
P.S. Slashdot - you've managed to break Plain Old Text mode after 15 years. I've got a manual BR after the quote above to fix rendering.
... and here I thought I'd just finished ripping my CD collection for the last time.
Thanks for the tip.:bittersweet:
FWIW, none of my CD's from the 80's had trouble ripping. 0/200 or so, but having them online and mounted via mp3fs makes syncing to the phone somewhat reasonable. Still trying to work out id3fs stacked on mp3fs or vice-versa for picking favs.
Slashdot Mirror
Figure out how to deal with the waste, then we can talk.
Dude, that was solved a quarter century ago.
Until then, you nuke advocates need to be shown for the selfish, short-sighted dumbshits that you are.
It's more the flaming ignoramuses who are the problem as their rigid anti-science stance keeps the light water reactors in operation. Yeah, you - you're responsible for Fukushima-type incidents by lending your political power to those who would seek to prevent progress.
the massive neutron flux just makes even more radioactive waste
That's not an actual problem - they absorb the neutrons with copper, and the half-life is about 40 years.
Light water reactors create 300,000 year waste. Humans cannot responsibly handle anything that hot - we do not have the technology to store it.
Of course if Gore/Clinton/Kerry/O'Leary hadn't ganged up to kill the Integral Fast Reactor project (too successful) we'd be transmuting that 300,000 year waste into 60 year waste by now, and we can handle that (and as a side-effect providing all the electric needs of the planet's population for seventy years just cleaning up the current waste).
Bush and Obama are just as complicit - Branson has trying to commercialize the technology for over three years and the current administration refuses to give him a meeting. They're all deeply corrupt and in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry and at the same time seeking to expand government power with fears of fossil fuel use. Any good solution solves two problems, and keeping IFR reactors from being built solves two very important problems for the corrupt and powerful.
I speak in the American format and write in the ISO format. To me they're the best of breed, one for spoken communication, one for written. But don't forget that we're surrounded by OCD-ish folks (like the GP) who are so crazy-obsessed with EvEnNeSs. I did that last one just to piss them off.
we really have to figure out how to automate more stuff
Part of this is Fedora adopting a devops platform. I like Puppet (mostly) but we could live with another if it were _the_ standard (I live with RPM for the same reason, "blech, but so what").
RPM and yum are 2/3 of the equation in the modern context. There are so many things in the ecosystem that could be done right with a distro-standard devops layer.
The problem is that they saw IV as a child.
No, that's not the problem - easily refutable. Ep. IV followed a standard Campbell-esque narrative structure with Jungian archetypical characters while The Phantom Menace was a complete bloody mess of a story.
If the story is terrible and the characters are a confused bag of parts then the movie is going to suck. When you were born has very little bearing on such ancient principles.
I tried using it with the freeRDP client
can you point to the Wayland mailing list thread you posted about this? I'm not being [merely] snarky - I want to know if the developers helped identify the problem or not.
Per-window RDP is OK by me and then I'll tell everybody like the GP to shut it and complain about something else. But if it's just checked-in-but-broken then that's a different story.
No, the whole premise is a strawman argument. I mean, yeah, there are idiots and idiots who think they are experts, but nobody with any knowledge and wisdom believes that strong AI exists today.
If I want to host my own, I get VMware in my own datacenter. If I want to host in the cloud, I buy storage+compute from AWS.
And you get the usual proprietary issues from both. The promise of OpenStack is that you develop in house, then push it out to whatever commodity provider(s) meet your needs at the time, x number of times in y number of locations.
It's not entirely unlike how you can assume that most any popular PHP package will run on whatever hosting provider you choose, but at the machine level instead of the app level. All the usual caveats about standards apply.
Can you name me one unregulated free market that has ever existed?
China had a period of prolonged peace with barely a hint of any government, so that's probably going to be one of your best examples. If I remembered the less-famous notable Chinese philosophers I'd give you the name of the one who wrote about this, but alas ... it was during the time when the Roman Empire was first ravaging the West. Maybe somebody else can fill in the proper nouns.
one has to look at the purpose of 'punishment'
Depends on your jurisdiction. Where I live (New Hampshire), our Constitution specifies reform as the purpose of prison, not punishment.
But it's not all going to melt, is it? That's the point.
I thought the point was to have the working poor in Middle America build Montgomery Burns a seawall for his seaside mansion?
people complain that I'm being "elitist" for wanting to read things
If you're hanging around with such complete idiots, maybe you *are* elite in comparison.
Under what theory of international law? This behavior is clearly bad and is the sort of thing a country has a right to be pissed off about, but there's no coherent, conventional theory that makes this an act of war.
Well, it's massive looting if you believe in imaginary property.
You understand the complaint is that they BOUGHT the congress, so they could have the tax code changed so they could legally shift their share of tax responsibility to others? So, while yes you are technically correct, you, and they, are so morally bankrupt I can't understand how you can live with yourself.
What actions are you taking to remove this kind of power from Congress?
Just since we're having a "no you're the hypocrite'" thread and all...
I find it funny how the US government accused Huawei and ZTE of building in backdoor access while engaging in the exact same practice.
It's not "funny", it's rational - as domestic people moved to Huawei equipment, they lost some of their ability to spy. Throw out a scare story, drive people back to the platforms with developed intercepts.
If you have to choose between a government with police powers over your body knowing what you say in private and one half way across the world where you don't go knowing the same things, which would you choose?
Alas, ignoring them doesn't actually get you in trouble.
Yeah, right.
Joseph Nacchio.
Three Felonies a Day.
you would think anyone with a functioning brain would have learned from Prohibition
Oh, they learned it well. They learned about how many cops they could hire, how big of a buracracy they need, how many prisons are built and staffed, how the power balance turns against the "citizens" (and, amazingly, they even get other "citizens" to cheer them on) and how much easier it is to go after people for other prosecutions once you nail them for a vice.
The brain malfunction is among the people who don't see this as a War on the People.
What he would've deserved for that is a fair and impartial trial, with a verdict handed down in accordance with the law, and, if found guilty, a fair sentence (which, depending on your opinion on such matters, might include the death penalty).
And yet get ready for the chorus of people who will say we should have just had a hunter-killer drone in the sky to take this guy out rather than endanger the lives of officers.
A chorus of voters.
Starting at about 1:30 the exhaust trail starts to waver a bit, and over the next fifteen seconds it becomes really wild (just before the craft disintegrates). You have to watch before that to compare.
I wonder how many bolts need to break to cause an engine to shear off or shake the thing apart?
Should the entire design industry shut down when Adobe has an issue?
Sure, that's a predictable consequence of any monoculture - the agile will survive. Or does somebody actually expect Adobe to be around in 100 years?
If we're talking about clearing someone's meta data from the system that might be reasonable. But taking down articles people have written about you or blog posts... no. You don't have a right to silence other people.
People toss around the word "right" too casually. Narrowly constructed, a 'right' is only something that exists as a default state without outside interference. Imaging you're on a desert island -m, you have the right to say what you want, think what you want, protect yourself from threats, hold on to your belongings, stay safe, etc. It's when there's a group of people who want to shut you up, take your stuff and lock you in a cage that we have to write this stuff down and call them "rights". It gets worse if society believes that some men are justified in doing that stuff, so to settle the cognitive dissonance there requires a large structure.
But just as on that desert island there's nobody to grow food or gather food for you, if somebody declares that you have a "right to food" then they're selling you a line of goods (and watch your wallet) - what they really are saying is that they are going to grant you a privilege whereby they force somebody(ies) else to provide food to you. If there's one group of people ordering another group of people to give things to people, then it's never a right, only a privilege. They may call it a 'right' to confuse you, but you don't have to accept their newspeak.
Now then, when you do something in public/society, people notice. That creates information that just exists as objective truth - if somebody sees you walking around a park and writes down, "Tom walked across the park", that is information about you, but you don't own that information in any way. Now, maybe Tom was supposed to be at work, not walking across the park and he'd like for you to not have that information or tell anybody else about it. He could offer something to you to not tell anybody else about it, or even just ask you nicely, but you might find that gathering such information is more valuable to you than whatever Tom is offering, so you may or may not take Tom's deal. But Tom might also get a group of his buddies to gang up and threaten you with some kind of harm if you tell anybody else about it. The gang has granted Tom a privilege of having that information about him 'protected' from disclosure.
So, this is what the EU has done - said that if you have information about somebody, and they don't like that, then they can tell you to keep it to yourself, or the EU will beat you up (or some abstraction thereof). This is actually a pretty smart thing for the EU to do; governments thrive in low-information areas, imposing themselves to solve problems by dictate that could better be solved by all participants having access to more information. A company like Google has automated systems for gathering information and making it available to everybody, but to handle cases like this requires humans to discern what is going on, if the claims are legally valid, and then figuring out how to apply a heuristic to the data. This kind of EU ruling majorly affects Google's cost structure, and to the extent that Google is becoming an abstract competitor to the EU by solving the information problem, the EU benefits from hurting Google in this way. Since the EU also makes Tom happy, they win in two ways, and Tom will feel more likely to reward the EU since they've offered him this privilege.
Most people are basically honest players and they have very little incentive to ever challenge the information that Google makes available about them. But people who do bad things - they're going to take advantage of this ruling to try to cover their tracks (that a known pedophile is the first to use this law isn't surprising). This is how the lowering of information will harm EU society to the largest degree - forget about Googling whether that roofer is honest or not, you're only going to find positive results. Guess you'll need to call a government regulator instead - Tom can't get the gang to give up the information it has on Tom.
quantum nano transmitters
I sell a room air filter that removes quantum nano transmitters. $300 special this month - contact me.
Surely, KDE have got this badly wrong.
qt5 is very nice, but doing the whole thing in QML is going to be the major win (made feasible by qt5, naturally). I'd estimate it opens up the potential hacker pool by two orders of magnitude. Expect an explosion in community-driven KDE fixes and enhancements once the distros adopt this version.
I stopped using GNOME back when they caught mono, but between Unity and the direction of KDE, the endgame for heavy DE's on Open Source desktops is looking very clear. The mono thing was just an example of a flawed decision making process on that project, which has extended forward to today, with predictable results.
P.S. Slashdot - you've managed to break Plain Old Text mode after 15 years. I've got a manual BR after the quote above to fix rendering.
Are we licensing music? Truly? Then if I show that I bought this album in 1985 am I licensed to download the song?
You have a license to that particular collection of bits that is no longer available for purchase. Cake/eating it.
... and here I thought I'd just finished ripping my CD collection for the last time.
Thanks for the tip. :bittersweet:
FWIW, none of my CD's from the 80's had trouble ripping. 0/200 or so, but having them online and mounted via mp3fs makes syncing to the phone somewhat reasonable. Still trying to work out id3fs stacked on mp3fs or vice-versa for picking favs.