desktop market share of Linux jumped from 2.53 percent in July to 3.37 percent in August. There's no explanation for what accounted for this growth
Besides the unlikelihood of this statistic being accurate, I'll take a wind stab in the dark and say that windows 10 being a steaming pile of shit that people fucking hate more with every update might have something to do with it.
This reminds me of Reagan's fake star wars program that helped end the soviet union. The Chinese are chasing something that doesn't exist, and may never exist, with a commitment to billions of dollars worth of infrastructure spending that may never pay off.
My opinion of the hyperloop concept is based mostly on this critique by "thunderf00t" (youtube link): https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I think wilful ignorance and blind optimism fuels these things. Maybe they're a good thing, in that they show the general public why engineers "can't just" do this or that. Think of the history of the Concorde - that was actually quite simple from an engineering standpoint, yet it was a long way off from being practical, even decades later.
Last I checked homo sapiens sapiens was part of the animal world too, no?
I considered making this distinction but chose not to for the sake of brevity. In fact, even if I'd said "other animals, and plants", I'd be excluding archaea and bacteria. So, "all other forms of life"? Then some pedant would chide me for assuming that life only exists on Earth. You can't always be brief and correct at the same time.
It's enabled us to unwittingly explode in population - for what?
For our own benefit, what else?
I suppose anything that moves us further away from subsistence living is necessary for further advancement, and the green revolution did increase our quality of life more than it increased population growth.
We're doing what we've been the best at doing on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years, which is surviving at all costs. Yes, that has over the millenia meant that we've hunted many a species to extinction destroyed numerous others unwittingly, because despite being the smartest force on the planet we're still just very advanced apes and not omniscient, but what makes the position of the eco-misanthropes so unbearable to me is that they seem to assume we are.
No, you totally misunderstand my stance. I do consider humans part of nature, and see them as intelligent animals, I don't put their intelligence on a pedestal like you assume. I honestly don't give a shit about "mother earth"; I'm not a greenie, I don't think humans are "evil" - I just worry about the fate of people that come after us, and since there'll be so many more of them than there are living now, I think their fate is more important than ours. If our intelligence is just a part of us - and we are just a part of nature - why is it so distasteful to you for us to employ our higher brain functions to prevent greater suffering in the future? Why be so selfish and only demand that we employ our intelligence to improve our current living standards? That is the distinction that I see between yours and my attitudes.
Malthus was wrong saying that we couldn't help yourselves, we have.
I disagree that Manthus was wrong. We haven't hit that wall yet, but when we do (and assuming we do), the problem will be much greater in proportion to our environment. The human suffering will also be there, in much greater numbers. If you choose to believe that we will never hit that wall, then that's your opinion.
Had the fate of the species rested on men like you who see progress overall as a bad thing in aeons past, we'd have followed the Neanderthals a long, long time ago
Where did I say I was against progress? The green revolution doesn't encompass all human progress, it was improvements in agricultural output. Your argument does remain somewhat valid; the tale of one of the pharaohs rejecting some greek inventor's steam engine comes to mind. However if I were in a position of authority, I don't think I'd really stop the green revolution from happening, since I wouldn't know what the outcome would be. It certainly wouldn't have looked like a bad idea at the time.
You've put humans in a special category by assuming that even though we're overpopulated, we shouldn't be culled or have our population controlled somehow, when we see it necessary to do the same for animals in their own best interest. You say my stance is "essentially genocidal" - I'm more interested in the survival of the human race than the survival of the planet, but this is our spaceship; if we destroy it, we all die.
You wrote a really well thought out and eloquent reply to my post, but I'm not the gaia-loving mankind-hating boogieman you imagine. I don't want people to suffer or die starving just to save the pandas & whales, I'm just worried about our future, and it's not because of morals, it's pragmatism.
The Green Revolution only shifted the catastrophe from mankind to plants & animals. It's enabled us to unwittingly explode in population - for what? Does a person who was never born suffer for never having existed?
Artistic people are inherently left wing, and that's okay, as long as they remember that they're not philosophers or politicians, they're entertainers. I say they're inherently left wing - I think so because they tend to be open-minded, crave acceptance of others, and enjoy exploring new things. Anyhow, the SJW stink was heavy in Rogue One but didn't ruin it for me. If anyone who saw this movie and still says hollywood isn't making good movies at the moment, then I can't understand them. If you try to watch movies from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s you will gain more of an appreciation for how fucking well modern movies are made. Not just film noir, or action blockbuster, or spy thriller, or comedy, or sci fi; all of them. I'd say 95% of the 100 best films of all time were made in the last 10 years.
Anyhow, my main point is that you will inevitably get left wing ideology embedded in entertainment and art, the correct course of action is for us to call out the ones who deign to patronise to us inferior folk and remind them that our interest in them only extends as far as they keep us entertained.
I can't tell, after skimming through TFA, whether they're actually handing foxconn any money, or just giving tax breaks to that amount. If the latter, then there's no money in the first place, it's $3 billion in taxes they would have if foxconn built its factory in their state and paid full taxes, which is something that would never have happened anyhow.
The obstacles facing a run-of-the-mill highway, tunnel, or bridge are great enough. Throw in untried and unfamiliar technology and you're asking for endless delays. Those delays aren't, however, facts of the natural world. They're human artifacts. They don't have to be there.
.. just like how the police aren't facts of the natural world, you don't need them! They just get in your way! Let's get rid of them!
This stinks of anti- net neutrality propaganda to me. Hyperloop is a complete non-issue, in that it will never work for technical reasons. People are emotional about it though, and what better a way to sway people away from "evil" government regulation than to say that it will take their shiny new hyperloop toy away from them.
People perceive threat wrong. They fear terrorist attacks and nuclear meltdowns but don't even know that smoking, heart disease and driving are considerably more likely to kill them.
You should take human (animal) behaviour as a given; it is not a moveable or changeable thing. We have more knowledge and access to education than anyone could absorb in a lifetime, yet people still do the same stupid shit they've always done. You should view the effect of threats on people as part of the threat. Ergo, it's not the actual fatalities that's the problem - it's the fear and doubt it places on so many people. Living in fear effects how people behave and everything else that flows from that. People know that there's a risk of dying from car crash, cancer, heart disease etc. but that's a risk they have accepted, and they are in control of their personal exposure to those risks. Terrorist attacks and nuclear meltdowns can happen at any time regardless of your personal risk management. The flow on effects of these two examples you gave are typically life altering for a large swathe of people. How many people have had their iPad stolen by the TSA? That's just some of the real cost of terrorism. How much arable land was lost in france and scandinavia after Chernobyl? How many hundreds of years will Fukushima go largely uninhabited?
When the Japanese can't even get it right, in this day and age, and it wipes out a huge swathe of their habitable land, people have good reason to fear nuclear power.
On the other hand, if people put the future of the earth and humankind before their personal interests, then yeah they would (or should) be all for nuclear power over fossil fuels. Given that nuclear meltdowns rid an area of humans, I'd say it's good for the planet in any case.
I just wish they'd spend some development time to actually improve the browser, rather than let it continue on the decline it's been engaging in for years now.
Yeah, *sigh*, SMH, tsk tsk, *smirks sagely*, they need to get off their asses and do some REAL work, instead of developing whole new programming languages to fix the security issues, rewriting the rendering engine from scratch, and publishing multi-process speedups only the other week.
Seriously though, these new tools probably took up 1% of their development time, and less that 1% of the binary size & memory footprint. Firefox got way way faster & more memory efficient only the other week, due to years of serious development work with the backend, which continues with an entirely new-from-scratch rendering engine. More than anyone else, they are pumping programmer hours into making their browser better in important and fundamental ways. How could you possibly imagine that a note-taking tool or file-sharing would take up any programmer effort at all? As for voice search, microsoft, apple and google are all trying to obviate one another with voice search built right into their respective OS's. You will be the exact guy who brays about firefox being irrelevant and featureless for not having built-in voice search like all its rivals in 2019.
There is no technology that mankind has so far invented that can do as much for individuals or mankind as a whole as CRISPR.
Here we have news of a huge breakthrough in human genetic engineering, and someone's deferring to a second rate sci fi fantasy hollywood movie for guidance.
Makes me wonder why we even bothered separating church from state so long ago.
Intel has held back the whole computing industry with their dual core i3 and lower desktop chips, and all their (non QM) laptop chips. Game developers have explicitly stated many times that they do not target quad core systems because that locks them out of a large part of the market with lower-end hardware. Intel has made a killing for many years due to their very refined manufacturing process and chip designs yielding high clock speeds, allowing them to get away with only 2 cores while still delivering decent performance. If they instead sold quad cores at lower clock speeds, software would be written to take advantage of those cores, and modern software would run much smoother and would scale much better with more than two cores. Hopefully with reasonably priced 4 core CPUs like the Ryzen 3 on the market, software developers will have the confidence to target 4 cores minimum, and we can finally (after so many years of sitting still and having our money glands milked by Intel) get some performance gains.
But, given the population and the cost of geriatric medicine to the economy, is extending human life that much of a good idea?
Exactly what I came to say. There's a point where eternal rest is more enjoyable than continued existence, as many inform older people exclaim. If we legalised euthanasia, and allowed people to choose to die peacefully rather than go through another round of chemotherapy or whatever, there'd be a shit ton of money freed up to spend on people whose quality of life is worth investing in.
It illustrates the broader effects of the internet age - silly names for public infrastructure are the tip of the iceberg. You could also argue that extremism (of varying types) is a symptom of the internet age, for the same reason: society behaves very differently in aggregate when we don't have to put our faces to our opinions. So yes this article belongs on slashdot.
The headline reads "Apple Flies Top Privacy Executives Into Australia To Lobby Against Proposed Encryption Laws", which means "Apple Flies Top Privacy Executives Into Australia To Lobby Against Proposed Encryption Laws" in English. They are flying top privacy executives into Australia to lobby against proposed encryption laws, so the headline is correct.
Aren't these the sort of things Redhat makes so much money solving for large organisations? Or do Redhat not do desktop support?
In any case, there are big companies that offer enterprise support for Linux and I'm not seeing any mention of Munich considering that as an option.
If their reasoning is that they don't want someone else holding their dicks for them while they pee, well that just works against Windows more than it does Linux.
Not sure if you meant to say that the difference between an IQ of 100 and 105 is minor, but if so, I disagree. This could, if the average of a population, mean the difference between democracy and despotism; at the individual, it could easily mean the difference between a $100k+ salary and homelessness.
Slashdot Mirror
desktop market share of Linux jumped from 2.53 percent in July to 3.37 percent in August. There's no explanation for what accounted for this growth
Besides the unlikelihood of this statistic being accurate, I'll take a wind stab in the dark and say that windows 10 being a steaming pile of shit that people fucking hate more with every update might have something to do with it.
This reminds me of Reagan's fake star wars program that helped end the soviet union. The Chinese are chasing something that doesn't exist, and may never exist, with a commitment to billions of dollars worth of infrastructure spending that may never pay off.
My opinion of the hyperloop concept is based mostly on this critique by "thunderf00t" (youtube link):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I think wilful ignorance and blind optimism fuels these things. Maybe they're a good thing, in that they show the general public why engineers "can't just" do this or that. Think of the history of the Concorde - that was actually quite simple from an engineering standpoint, yet it was a long way off from being practical, even decades later.
tl;dr: Well, that's like, your opinion man.
Last I checked homo sapiens sapiens was part of the animal world too, no?
I considered making this distinction but chose not to for the sake of brevity. In fact, even if I'd said "other animals, and plants", I'd be excluding archaea and bacteria. So, "all other forms of life"? Then some pedant would chide me for assuming that life only exists on Earth. You can't always be brief and correct at the same time.
It's enabled us to unwittingly explode in population - for what?
For our own benefit, what else?
I suppose anything that moves us further away from subsistence living is necessary for further advancement, and the green revolution did increase our quality of life more than it increased population growth.
We're doing what we've been the best at doing on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years, which is surviving at all costs. Yes, that has over the millenia meant that we've hunted many a species to extinction destroyed numerous others unwittingly, because despite being the smartest force on the planet we're still just very advanced apes and not omniscient, but what makes the position of the eco-misanthropes so unbearable to me is that they seem to assume we are.
No, you totally misunderstand my stance. I do consider humans part of nature, and see them as intelligent animals, I don't put their intelligence on a pedestal like you assume. I honestly don't give a shit about "mother earth"; I'm not a greenie, I don't think humans are "evil" - I just worry about the fate of people that come after us, and since there'll be so many more of them than there are living now, I think their fate is more important than ours. If our intelligence is just a part of us - and we are just a part of nature - why is it so distasteful to you for us to employ our higher brain functions to prevent greater suffering in the future? Why be so selfish and only demand that we employ our intelligence to improve our current living standards? That is the distinction that I see between yours and my attitudes.
Malthus was wrong saying that we couldn't help yourselves, we have.
I disagree that Manthus was wrong. We haven't hit that wall yet, but when we do (and assuming we do), the problem will be much greater in proportion to our environment. The human suffering will also be there, in much greater numbers. If you choose to believe that we will never hit that wall, then that's your opinion.
Had the fate of the species rested on men like you who see progress overall as a bad thing in aeons past, we'd have followed the Neanderthals a long, long time ago
Where did I say I was against progress? The green revolution doesn't encompass all human progress, it was improvements in agricultural output. Your argument does remain somewhat valid; the tale of one of the pharaohs rejecting some greek inventor's steam engine comes to mind. However if I were in a position of authority, I don't think I'd really stop the green revolution from happening, since I wouldn't know what the outcome would be. It certainly wouldn't have looked like a bad idea at the time.
You've put humans in a special category by assuming that even though we're overpopulated, we shouldn't be culled or have our population controlled somehow, when we see it necessary to do the same for animals in their own best interest. You say my stance is "essentially genocidal" - I'm more interested in the survival of the human race than the survival of the planet, but this is our spaceship; if we destroy it, we all die.
You wrote a really well thought out and eloquent reply to my post, but I'm not the gaia-loving mankind-hating boogieman you imagine. I don't want people to suffer or die starving just to save the pandas & whales, I'm just worried about our future, and it's not because of morals, it's pragmatism.
The Green Revolution only shifted the catastrophe from mankind to plants & animals. It's enabled us to unwittingly explode in population - for what? Does a person who was never born suffer for never having existed?
Artistic people are inherently left wing, and that's okay, as long as they remember that they're not philosophers or politicians, they're entertainers. I say they're inherently left wing - I think so because they tend to be open-minded, crave acceptance of others, and enjoy exploring new things.
Anyhow, the SJW stink was heavy in Rogue One but didn't ruin it for me. If anyone who saw this movie and still says hollywood isn't making good movies at the moment, then I can't understand them. If you try to watch movies from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s you will gain more of an appreciation for how fucking well modern movies are made. Not just film noir, or action blockbuster, or spy thriller, or comedy, or sci fi; all of them. I'd say 95% of the 100 best films of all time were made in the last 10 years.
Anyhow, my main point is that you will inevitably get left wing ideology embedded in entertainment and art, the correct course of action is for us to call out the ones who deign to patronise to us inferior folk and remind them that our interest in them only extends as far as they keep us entertained.
I can't tell, after skimming through TFA, whether they're actually handing foxconn any money, or just giving tax breaks to that amount. If the latter, then there's no money in the first place, it's $3 billion in taxes they would have if foxconn built its factory in their state and paid full taxes, which is something that would never have happened anyhow.
I could probably get programming work done like this, with the addition of a simple "FUCK OFF" sign sticky-taped to the back of my chair.
The obstacles facing a run-of-the-mill highway, tunnel, or bridge are great enough. Throw in untried and unfamiliar technology and you're asking for endless delays. Those delays aren't, however, facts of the natural world. They're human artifacts. They don't have to be there.
.. just like how the police aren't facts of the natural world, you don't need them! They just get in your way! Let's get rid of them!
This stinks of anti- net neutrality propaganda to me. Hyperloop is a complete non-issue, in that it will never work for technical reasons. People are emotional about it though, and what better a way to sway people away from "evil" government regulation than to say that it will take their shiny new hyperloop toy away from them.
People perceive threat wrong. They fear terrorist attacks and nuclear meltdowns but don't even know that smoking, heart disease and driving are considerably more likely to kill them.
You should take human (animal) behaviour as a given; it is not a moveable or changeable thing. We have more knowledge and access to education than anyone could absorb in a lifetime, yet people still do the same stupid shit they've always done. You should view the effect of threats on people as part of the threat. Ergo, it's not the actual fatalities that's the problem - it's the fear and doubt it places on so many people. Living in fear effects how people behave and everything else that flows from that. People know that there's a risk of dying from car crash, cancer, heart disease etc. but that's a risk they have accepted, and they are in control of their personal exposure to those risks.
Terrorist attacks and nuclear meltdowns can happen at any time regardless of your personal risk management. The flow on effects of these two examples you gave are typically life altering for a large swathe of people. How many people have had their iPad stolen by the TSA? That's just some of the real cost of terrorism. How much arable land was lost in france and scandinavia after Chernobyl? How many hundreds of years will Fukushima go largely uninhabited?
When the Japanese can't even get it right, in this day and age, and it wipes out a huge swathe of their habitable land, people have good reason to fear nuclear power.
On the other hand, if people put the future of the earth and humankind before their personal interests, then yeah they would (or should) be all for nuclear power over fossil fuels. Given that nuclear meltdowns rid an area of humans, I'd say it's good for the planet in any case.
I just wish they'd spend some development time to actually improve the browser, rather than let it continue on the decline it's been engaging in for years now.
Yeah, *sigh*, SMH, tsk tsk, *smirks sagely*, they need to get off their asses and do some REAL work, instead of developing whole new programming languages to fix the security issues, rewriting the rendering engine from scratch, and publishing multi-process speedups only the other week.
Seriously though, these new tools probably took up 1% of their development time, and less that 1% of the binary size & memory footprint. Firefox got way way faster & more memory efficient only the other week, due to years of serious development work with the backend, which continues with an entirely new-from-scratch rendering engine. More than anyone else, they are pumping programmer hours into making their browser better in important and fundamental ways. How could you possibly imagine that a note-taking tool or file-sharing would take up any programmer effort at all? As for voice search, microsoft, apple and google are all trying to obviate one another with voice search built right into their respective OS's. You will be the exact guy who brays about firefox being irrelevant and featureless for not having built-in voice search like all its rivals in 2019.
There is no technology that mankind has so far invented that can do as much for individuals or mankind as a whole as CRISPR.
Here we have news of a huge breakthrough in human genetic engineering, and someone's deferring to a second rate sci fi fantasy hollywood movie for guidance.
Makes me wonder why we even bothered separating church from state so long ago.
Intel has held back the whole computing industry with their dual core i3 and lower desktop chips, and all their (non QM) laptop chips. Game developers have explicitly stated many times that they do not target quad core systems because that locks them out of a large part of the market with lower-end hardware. Intel has made a killing for many years due to their very refined manufacturing process and chip designs yielding high clock speeds, allowing them to get away with only 2 cores while still delivering decent performance. If they instead sold quad cores at lower clock speeds, software would be written to take advantage of those cores, and modern software would run much smoother and would scale much better with more than two cores.
Hopefully with reasonably priced 4 core CPUs like the Ryzen 3 on the market, software developers will have the confidence to target 4 cores minimum, and we can finally (after so many years of sitting still and having our money glands milked by Intel) get some performance gains.
But, given the population and the cost of geriatric medicine to the economy, is extending human life that much of a good idea?
Exactly what I came to say. There's a point where eternal rest is more enjoyable than continued existence, as many inform older people exclaim. If we legalised euthanasia, and allowed people to choose to die peacefully rather than go through another round of chemotherapy or whatever, there'd be a shit ton of money freed up to spend on people whose quality of life is worth investing in.
Yeah China we know it's you, stop expanding into other nations' waters damnit.
Weigh yourself, then weigh yourself holding the dog. Can i have my nobel prize now?
It illustrates the broader effects of the internet age - silly names for public infrastructure are the tip of the iceberg. You could also argue that extremism (of varying types) is a symptom of the internet age, for the same reason: society behaves very differently in aggregate when we don't have to put our faces to our opinions. So yes this article belongs on slashdot.
The headline reads "Apple Flies Top Privacy Executives Into Australia To Lobby Against Proposed Encryption Laws", which means "Apple Flies Top Privacy Executives Into Australia To Lobby Against Proposed Encryption Laws" in English. They are flying top privacy executives into Australia to lobby against proposed encryption laws, so the headline is correct.
the rapists are always hard at work, but their work will never be done.
I think when they said "worth" they meant "valued at". The combined worth of apps to the global economy is in the negative.
Nokia? Smartphone? The?
Nokias were _feature_ phones so blackberry kinda did have 100% of the smartphone market IIRC.
Aren't these the sort of things Redhat makes so much money solving for large organisations? Or do Redhat not do desktop support?
In any case, there are big companies that offer enterprise support for Linux and I'm not seeing any mention of Munich considering that as an option.
If their reasoning is that they don't want someone else holding their dicks for them while they pee, well that just works against Windows more than it does Linux.
Gilbert Gottfried's rendition is the best. "Ooh that sweat!"
Leto II is my all time favourite fictional character. He's the definition of a truly selfless hero.
Not sure if you meant to say that the difference between an IQ of 100 and 105 is minor, but if so, I disagree. This could, if the average of a population, mean the difference between democracy and despotism; at the individual, it could easily mean the difference between a $100k+ salary and homelessness.