#1 is acceptable, #3 less so. #2, however, is unforgivable and warrants a call to support and cursing. #4 is just a sign that you're completely retarded and should be fired, along with your supervisor.
1995 U.S. sues Microsoft 2000 U.S. drops suit 2003 U.S. uses Microsoft software exclusively 2005 U.S. forces citizens to use MS software to access government sites you are here 2012 U.S. forces everyone to use MS software to access the internet 2018 U.S. implants citizens with microchip running MS software 2020 U.S. uses MS software/implants to read your thoughts 2030 U.S. uses MS software/implants to control your actions
You're right, uneconomical isn't very clear. Linux obviously is economical. In fact, Lloyds wouldn't be selling insurance for it if it weren't.
But there are plenty of things that are economical, yet don't happen due to risks that can't be budgeted. How do you budget for terrorist attacks, for instance?
It's perfectly economical to erect a windmill in your backyard and generate your own power. But if the windmill fails, you have to very quickly purchase a new one, or go without power. So most people will happily pay (extra even) for someone else to take that risk. If one windmill fails in a wind farm somewhere, it doesn't affect anyone. If one fails in your backyard, producing your own power may have just become uneconomical.
The real question is whether or not Apple has the right to enforce the types of files that it allows on its iPods. (I think that they do, but then again, I'm not comfortable with the idea that people can tell me what I can and cannot do with my own hardware...)
Ha. See what a joke the "property" analogy of computer hacking is? Now we're to the point that fuzzy-minded nitwits think that my iPod is actually Apple's, and that they can prevent me from "hacking" it to put whatever the hell I want to on it.
That whole line of legal reasoning is flawed and always has been. "Hacking" is not "breaking and entering," it's communication, more analogous to speech. Whether speech rises to the level of "breaking and entering" or not depends on whether there's some actual physical action involved to trespass actual physical property that you don't own.
WHen you link, you create a copy in RAM, and thus copyright applies.
Yes, but if interoperability and use are absolute defenses against copyright infringement, then none of that matters.
I'm sure Real made plenty of copies of their ipod firmware as they were hacking it. And I'm sure the people who hacked the Lexmark cartridges made copies of whatever (Lexmark logo or whatever) they were sued over.
a 6ft dish putting out 3KW is worth over 100W per sqft.
100W per sq. ft. is the maximum amount of energy that strikes the Earth at the equator, with no clouds. Other locations will be less.
On top of that, a steam turbine (and any heat engine) is limited by the Carnot efficiency, which, theoretically, can reach 50%. A steam turbine can't theoretically be any more efficient than a stirling engine.
Incident sunlight is ideally around 1000 Watts/Square Meter. This is almost 100 Watts/Square Foot. The best solar cells have efficiencies of 20%. That means 20 Watts/Square Foot for solar cells.
These dishes are 37 Feet wide, 1075 Square Feet total. The article cites 25,000 Watts per unit. That's 23 Watts/Square Foot.
I would expect there's no backup. Energy demand peaks when the sun is shining and everyone turns on their air conditioners. Power companies are falling over themselves trying to either lessen peak demand or supply it more cheaply. Solar is a natural fit.
It's not at all difficult to migrate from SCO. It's just that SCO thrives on the types of customers that have little or no in-house support, and change at a snail's pace. If any of them are still using SCO, it's only because it still works for them. There's no compelling reason to change.
When your IT budget is close to zero, any cost is seen as a huge burden. In reality, moving from SCO is as easy as moving from any other UNIX. It's far, far easier than migrating off of, say, Windows.
These days, SCO is nothing more than crappy hardware support, a bunch of GNU utilities, and actual 3rd party applications vendors. And most of those 3rd party vendors do a great job of being cross-platform.
I don't care what anyone says. There wasn't an ounce of science anywhere near this movie. It was pure philosophy. Oh, and a healthy dose of religion. This movie did more damage to science than good.
Indiana Jones
Close, but really an action movie. Nazis and hokey religious objects aside, not exactly the type of "science" the Pentagon is interested in.
Jurassic Park
Also, mostly action. But includes some basic biological concepts. This could be the best example of the bunch.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Hmm, computers, space ships. We're getting close. Too bad it was made over 35 years ago. Surely the irony is not lost on us that this movie was supposed to represent reality as of 2001. Pointing at it in 2005 as an example of recent movies that promote science should carry some sort of penalty.
Billy is actually accused of blowing up his school and those popular kids playing with the football.
Furthermore, those kids go on to either play football professionally, or instead join the Army, sometimes both. Parades are given in their honor, not Billy's.
If he's lucky, Billy will get a plea bargain that lets him join a government lab and design weapons of mass destruction. Years later, Billy is featured in documentaries that blame him for the death of millions of innocent people.
if these Republicans support the death penalty, they do not understand redemption or divine love and exact revenge rather than dispense justice. Their own religion indicts them.
Last I checked, it wasn't the church executing people for crimes. It's the state. And, for all intents and purposes, US states are agnostic. They execute murderers 1) as an example and 2) because at one point it actually was cheaper than housing them for life.
Indicting them for these reasons is a futile effort. Pointing out that they tend to fuck it all up and murder innocent people would be a better strategy.
Also, you're missing the fact that most Republicans would rather be Jews than Christians. Baptists teach straight out of the old testament. Revelations, of course, is also a popular subject. But all that crap about Jesus and redempion and forgiveness, they skip right over. And, let's face it, it's not like "their religion" in the form of the Bible makes any clear, non-contradictory statements on the matter, or most matters.
if some other person requires a continuous blood transfusion from me for their survival, I and I alone will decide whether they will get it.
Yes, that's all well and good. But, what if you kidnap a person, and lock them up. They are now dependent upon you for sustinence. It's all well and good for you to deny sustinence at your will. But what about now? Are you innocent of murder even though guilty of kidnapping?
Even worse, what if you were born attached at the hip to someone, and separating you would kill that other person? Do you have a right to be separated?
Ah, but, again, this is not contradictory. It merely appears so due to lack of seeing the entire picture.
People who subscribe to such beliefs often view the man as inherently powerful, and the worman as inherently powerless. Thus, to seek balance, they wish to restrict the man's power by subjecting him to intrusion and empower women by protecting them from it.
No, same thing. "Intellectual property" as we know it (restrictions on copying, DRM, etc) is also about forcing others to be charitable. That, for example, the GPL is a blatantly obvious example of this doesn't mean that all other forms of intellectual property aren't based on the same principles.
The recipient of intellectual "property" is expected, without basis in natural law, to contribute to the upkeep of the author by respecting his "rights" over the property now in posession of the recipient.
Now, one could argue that humans have a natural tendency to patronize. Both voluntary and organized support of religious institutions goes back thousands of years. Tithing is widely practiced, even in a non-religious sense in some (socialist) countries in the form of taxes on blank media. It could be argued that "intellectual property" is merely the secularization of this natural tendency.
Also, the exchange of intellectual "property" is not a contract. Contracts imply tangible exchange of property, and equal control on the part of both parties. A copy of a work is naturally beyond the continued control of the original author. Once intellectual property has been exchanged, for the original author to claim control over copies has no basis in natural law.
In fact, the entire concept of intellectual property is nothing more than the abstraction of the "right" to property from the property itself. It's an "escape", a la The Matrix. This concept extends to all forms of goods and services. Exchange of property "rights" is no longer implied unless explicitly granted. When you buy a stick of gum, you haven't purchased the right to eat it unless specifically told. Purchasing a good or service doesn't grant the right to complain about it. Renting a house doesn't mean you can paint it. In fact, without this abstraction, property rental wouldn't be possible at all, for good or bad.
stems from the socialist inklings in the hearts of the Good People (TM). This is to say that people who have interest in others tend to share - or at least want to share - information with them. Now, before you go off flaming me, not being a Socialist (captialized) doesn't make you bad.
I believe the word you are looking for here is "charitable". Socialism is more concerned with forcing others to be charitable, which is yet another of those "contradictory ideas" we're discussing.
It's perfectly possible to be charitable and non-socialist.
Furthermore, it's perfectly possible to share information out of your own self-interest.
He who receives an idea from me receives instruction for himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me. -Thomas Jefferson
Take the uniform off and then do whatever you please.
And I assume you'll be paying me to change at work?
I can't stand companies that require uniforms to begin with, but fuck you if you think I'm going to waste an hour every day driving home to change before doing anything on my own fucking time.
There is a small yet vocal group of idiots who have convinced themselves that hubs have lower latency than switches. Good luck trying to convince them otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
#1 is acceptable, #3 less so. #2, however, is unforgivable and warrants a call to support and cursing. #4 is just a sign that you're completely retarded and should be fired, along with your supervisor.
What's worse, is that they issue those requirements while they use Linux.
They might not say it, but moz/firefox works as well.
1995 U.S. sues Microsoft
2000 U.S. drops suit
2003 U.S. uses Microsoft software exclusively
2005 U.S. forces citizens to use MS software to access government sites
you are here
2012 U.S. forces everyone to use MS software to access the internet
2018 U.S. implants citizens with microchip running MS software
2020 U.S. uses MS software/implants to read your thoughts
2030 U.S. uses MS software/implants to control your actions
You're right, uneconomical isn't very clear. Linux obviously is economical. In fact, Lloyds wouldn't be selling insurance for it if it weren't.
But there are plenty of things that are economical, yet don't happen due to risks that can't be budgeted. How do you budget for terrorist attacks, for instance?
It's perfectly economical to erect a windmill in your backyard and generate your own power. But if the windmill fails, you have to very quickly purchase a new one, or go without power. So most people will happily pay (extra even) for someone else to take that risk. If one windmill fails in a wind farm somewhere, it doesn't affect anyone. If one fails in your backyard, producing your own power may have just become uneconomical.
The real question is whether or not Apple has the right to enforce the types of files that it allows on its iPods. (I think that they do, but then again, I'm not comfortable with the idea that people can tell me what I can and cannot do with my own hardware...)
Ha. See what a joke the "property" analogy of computer hacking is? Now we're to the point that fuzzy-minded nitwits think that my iPod is actually Apple's, and that they can prevent me from "hacking" it to put whatever the hell I want to on it.
That whole line of legal reasoning is flawed and always has been. "Hacking" is not "breaking and entering," it's communication, more analogous to speech. Whether speech rises to the level of "breaking and entering" or not depends on whether there's some actual physical action involved to trespass actual physical property that you don't own.
WHen you link, you create a copy in RAM, and thus copyright applies.
Yes, but if interoperability and use are absolute defenses against copyright infringement, then none of that matters.
I'm sure Real made plenty of copies of their ipod firmware as they were hacking it. And I'm sure the people who hacked the Lexmark cartridges made copies of whatever (Lexmark logo or whatever) they were sued over.
a 6ft dish putting out 3KW is worth over 100W per sqft.
100W per sq. ft. is the maximum amount of energy that strikes the Earth at the equator, with no clouds. Other locations will be less.
On top of that, a steam turbine (and any heat engine) is limited by the Carnot efficiency, which, theoretically, can reach 50%. A steam turbine can't theoretically be any more efficient than a stirling engine.
Solar cells are not more efficient.
Incident sunlight is ideally around 1000 Watts/Square Meter. This is almost 100 Watts/Square Foot. The best solar cells have efficiencies of 20%. That means 20 Watts/Square Foot for solar cells.
These dishes are 37 Feet wide, 1075 Square Feet total. The article cites 25,000 Watts per unit. That's 23 Watts/Square Foot.
I would expect there's no backup. Energy demand peaks when the sun is shining and everyone turns on their air conditioners. Power companies are falling over themselves trying to either lessen peak demand or supply it more cheaply. Solar is a natural fit.
Not a coincidence. But not what you think.
They were probably waiting to see if there would be subsidies. Now that there aren't, they went ahead.
In this case, the prospect of subsidies probably delayed the implementation of solar power.
I'm not surprised stirlings are finally profitable.
But those giant dishes look expensive and complicated.
Doesn't anybody have a way to make large parabolic reflectors cheaply? Or isn't there a way to do away with the tracking devices?
and its difficult to migrate off of the platform
It's not at all difficult to migrate from SCO. It's just that SCO thrives on the types of customers that have little or no in-house support, and change at a snail's pace. If any of them are still using SCO, it's only because it still works for them. There's no compelling reason to change.
When your IT budget is close to zero, any cost is seen as a huge burden. In reality, moving from SCO is as easy as moving from any other UNIX. It's far, far easier than migrating off of, say, Windows.
These days, SCO is nothing more than crappy hardware support, a bunch of GNU utilities, and actual 3rd party applications vendors. And most of those 3rd party vendors do a great job of being cross-platform.
It's "I didn't get to go to college because I refused to sign up for the draft" bitterness. Dipshit.
Vista:
Something far off, that looks spectacular from a distance.
But, when you get there, it's mostly just a barren wasteland unfit for habitat.
That's somewhat debatable.
Contact
I don't care what anyone says. There wasn't an ounce of science anywhere near this movie. It was pure philosophy. Oh, and a healthy dose of religion. This movie did more damage to science than good.
Indiana Jones
Close, but really an action movie. Nazis and hokey religious objects aside, not exactly the type of "science" the Pentagon is interested in.
Jurassic Park
Also, mostly action. But includes some basic biological concepts. This could be the best example of the bunch.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Hmm, computers, space ships. We're getting close. Too bad it was made over 35 years ago. Surely the irony is not lost on us that this movie was supposed to represent reality as of 2001. Pointing at it in 2005 as an example of recent movies that promote science should carry some sort of penalty.
Billy is actually accused of blowing up his school and those popular kids playing with the football.
Furthermore, those kids go on to either play football professionally, or instead join the Army, sometimes both. Parades are given in their honor, not Billy's.
If he's lucky, Billy will get a plea bargain that lets him join a government lab and design weapons of mass destruction. Years later, Billy is featured in documentaries that blame him for the death of millions of innocent people.
if these Republicans support the death penalty, they do not understand redemption or divine love and exact revenge rather than dispense justice. Their own religion indicts them.
Last I checked, it wasn't the church executing people for crimes. It's the state. And, for all intents and purposes, US states are agnostic. They execute murderers 1) as an example and 2) because at one point it actually was cheaper than housing them for life.
Indicting them for these reasons is a futile effort. Pointing out that they tend to fuck it all up and murder innocent people would be a better strategy.
Also, you're missing the fact that most Republicans would rather be Jews than Christians. Baptists teach straight out of the old testament. Revelations, of course, is also a popular subject. But all that crap about Jesus and redempion and forgiveness, they skip right over. And, let's face it, it's not like "their religion" in the form of the Bible makes any clear, non-contradictory statements on the matter, or most matters.
if some other person requires a continuous blood transfusion from me for their survival, I and I alone will decide whether they will get it.
Yes, that's all well and good. But, what if you kidnap a person, and lock them up. They are now dependent upon you for sustinence. It's all well and good for you to deny sustinence at your will. But what about now? Are you innocent of murder even though guilty of kidnapping?
Even worse, what if you were born attached at the hip to someone, and separating you would kill that other person? Do you have a right to be separated?
Ah, but, again, this is not contradictory. It merely appears so due to lack of seeing the entire picture.
People who subscribe to such beliefs often view the man as inherently powerful, and the worman as inherently powerless. Thus, to seek balance, they wish to restrict the man's power by subjecting him to intrusion and empower women by protecting them from it.
No, same thing. "Intellectual property" as we know it (restrictions on copying, DRM, etc) is also about forcing others to be charitable. That, for example, the GPL is a blatantly obvious example of this doesn't mean that all other forms of intellectual property aren't based on the same principles.
The recipient of intellectual "property" is expected, without basis in natural law, to contribute to the upkeep of the author by respecting his "rights" over the property now in posession of the recipient.
Now, one could argue that humans have a natural tendency to patronize. Both voluntary and organized support of religious institutions goes back thousands of years. Tithing is widely practiced, even in a non-religious sense in some (socialist) countries in the form of taxes on blank media. It could be argued that "intellectual property" is merely the secularization of this natural tendency.
Also, the exchange of intellectual "property" is not a contract. Contracts imply tangible exchange of property, and equal control on the part of both parties. A copy of a work is naturally beyond the continued control of the original author. Once intellectual property has been exchanged, for the original author to claim control over copies has no basis in natural law.
In fact, the entire concept of intellectual property is nothing more than the abstraction of the "right" to property from the property itself. It's an "escape", a la The Matrix. This concept extends to all forms of goods and services. Exchange of property "rights" is no longer implied unless explicitly granted. When you buy a stick of gum, you haven't purchased the right to eat it unless specifically told. Purchasing a good or service doesn't grant the right to complain about it. Renting a house doesn't mean you can paint it. In fact, without this abstraction, property rental wouldn't be possible at all, for good or bad.
stems from the socialist inklings in the hearts of the Good People (TM). This is to say that people who have interest in others tend to share - or at least want to share - information with them. Now, before you go off flaming me, not being a Socialist (captialized) doesn't make you bad.
I believe the word you are looking for here is "charitable". Socialism is more concerned with forcing others to be charitable, which is yet another of those "contradictory ideas" we're discussing.
It's perfectly possible to be charitable and non-socialist.
Furthermore, it's perfectly possible to share information out of your own self-interest.
He who receives an idea from me receives instruction for himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me. -Thomas Jefferson
Looks good to me.
Whew! Flamwar averted.
Take the uniform off and then do whatever you please.
And I assume you'll be paying me to change at work?
I can't stand companies that require uniforms to begin with, but fuck you if you think I'm going to waste an hour every day driving home to change before doing anything on my own fucking time.
There is a small yet vocal group of idiots who have convinced themselves that hubs have lower latency than switches. Good luck trying to convince them otherwise.