Actually, you are pretty much wrong. During Reagan era, there were many talks about reduction in nuclear warfare, which ended in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INF_Treaty. And USSR would collapse anyway, because it just had poor socioeconomic system and agriculture; if you think your tax dollars for some weapons helped it, you are deadly wrong.
What he argues is either trivial or bullshit. I don't understand what he says, to be honest, so there are 3 possibilities:
1. He says that everybody needs to learn communicate. That's trivial. Everybody, even manual workers, need to communicate. You can excel, but if you cannot cooperate, you cannot work in modern society.
2. He says that communication, not other skills, is where real money/power is. This is also trivial. To scale beyond the abilities of a single person, you have to control other humans, and for that, you need people skills more than other specific skills.
3. He says that the U.S. economy in the future won't need any people with technical skills, only managers, as technical skills can be outsourced. This is bullshit, as the U.S. is going to experience the hard way in the upcoming years.
Doesn't help. Czech people are even worse than Americans in this regard, and still, we pay lot less in healthcare, and have only slightly less average life expectancy (I believe).
1 250 000 pages with "linux criticism" 2 470 000 pages with "mac criticism" 5 000 000 pages with "windows criticism"
If the numbers would correspond to market share, Linux would have 14% of the market. It doesn't, so it probably has more critics per unit of the market than Windows.
Yes, I would also welcome a longer interval, from 15 minutes up to an hour. It could also be good if you could, after another smaller interval, just force waiting e-mail to send immediately.
It would be good to have a head cooled off sometimes.
Funny, I am a (young) developer from the East you speak of (I am from Prague, working for an American company), and here it's exactly the opposite. The programmers here routinely make twice as much as doctors.
This only shows that free market or capitalism is never fair; it just is.
The point about not learning the body again holds thought; on the other hand, basic principles in IT stay the same, and I work in mainframes now, which is akin to archaeology sometimes.
I don't see any viable way to sequester CO2. The proponents of CO2 sequestration should prove their viability, not me.
I can't imagine storing it as a gas or compressed liquid on large scale. That's unrealistic. It's just too much of CO2. The storage tanks would have to be an order of magnitude larger than are oil reserves you are going to deplete. And you could have leaks, corrosion, you would have to support all these tanks infinitely. I don't have a proof, but it's just common sense. Instead of building all these large tanks, we could just pave a desert with solar cells, and be done, don't you think?
If you store it in some other form, for example, in CaCO3, you will need more energy to do that (in this particular case, you will need to obtain CaO from somewhere). Just like coral reefs that do this process in nature do.
Maybe Shell is going to built some plant to sequester CO2 as a demo and they get nice government paycheck for that. But it doesn't going to make dent into global warming, and that's the point.
Yes, but this is skewed market. If government subsidizes biofuels or carbon sequestration, they can be more profitable, even if they don't make any sense at all.
That's what I criticize - they will rely on marketing campaign to convince government they need these subsidies, and not decide on basis of rationality.
Say you use energy source like oil. The reason why you do it is because you are spending energy faster than what Sun (i.e. renewable resources - biomass, wind, solar) can currently provide.
How do you get energy for carbon sequestration then? If you get it from oil, you will need more energy to put carbon in the ground than you got from in the first place. If you get it from renewable resources, then you don't have enough energy to recover all the CO2 back, because if you had, you could just skip the oil entirely and use renewable resources directly.
Carbon sequestration is a fantasy. It fails the law of conservation of energy. Think about it.
The problem is, the economic viability of biofuels is questionable, and carbon sequestration definitely isn't viable from physics.
The problem isn't they chose to kill off technologies which are not promising, the problem is they chose to pursue those that are less energy efficient, if at all (and thus, unless they scam someone, less promising).
They expect they will market them to government or something, rather than solve ecological problems. That's why its wrong.
Well, eventually, people would have to exchange the trusted torrent root certificates directly (i.e. not over the network). And they could be filtered by the network.
I think the scheme is in principle possible, but probably very much impractical. You could perhaps create an order of magnitude more music, movies and videogames for the sheer cost of the setup required to negotiate all the encryption keys in the central government server.
In theory, they could attack encryption with man-in-the-middle during the key exchange. If the protocol is known, the middle man can simulate the other end node for both nodes, and give each one a different key, so they can still see the traffic.
Not only that, but also, businesses are control freaks and do not like their websites to be easily processed by machines. They could just open their databases as well.
It's quite simple really. During the Cold War, the communism was perceived as a real alternative to western capitalist societies (although it never was a real alternative). So the politicians were more careful to the needs of people.
With the fall of Iron Curtain, this alternative doesn't exist anymore. So they are trying to get more power, because they don't feel so restrained as before.
I call bullshit. There was a game Nether Earth on ZX Spectrum, which was real-time strategy game, and had all the concepts as Dune 2, and even more.
In the game, you could build your own robots, you needed to capture factories to get parts for the robots, and you could even send robots to a mission and they worked by themselves depending on the orders you gave them. All this in 48kB of memory in 1985.
I found Warcraft 2 (2D) a bit easier to play than Starcraft (isometric), but Starcraft looked a lot better. I didn't like the Warcraft 3 at all. Not only it looked worse than Starcraft because of jagged 3D graphics, but you also got to control the camera. And you know, I do want to control the strategic aspect of the game, not to fumble with the camera during the battle. It's just stupid micromanagement.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you are pretty much wrong. During Reagan era, there were many talks about reduction in nuclear warfare, which ended in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INF_Treaty. And USSR would collapse anyway, because it just had poor socioeconomic system and agriculture; if you think your tax dollars for some weapons helped it, you are deadly wrong.
What he argues is either trivial or bullshit. I don't understand what he says, to be honest, so there are 3 possibilities:
1. He says that everybody needs to learn communicate. That's trivial. Everybody, even manual workers, need to communicate. You can excel, but if you cannot cooperate, you cannot work in modern society.
2. He says that communication, not other skills, is where real money/power is. This is also trivial. To scale beyond the abilities of a single person, you have to control other humans, and for that, you need people skills more than other specific skills.
3. He says that the U.S. economy in the future won't need any people with technical skills, only managers, as technical skills can be outsourced. This is bullshit, as the U.S. is going to experience the hard way in the upcoming years.
Doesn't help. Czech people are even worse than Americans in this regard, and still, we pay lot less in healthcare, and have only slightly less average life expectancy (I believe).
I tried it now. The results:
1 250 000 pages with "linux criticism"
2 470 000 pages with "mac criticism"
5 000 000 pages with "windows criticism"
If the numbers would correspond to market share, Linux would have 14% of the market. It doesn't, so it probably has more critics per unit of the market than Windows.
Yes, I would also welcome a longer interval, from 15 minutes up to an hour. It could also be good if you could, after another smaller interval, just force waiting e-mail to send immediately.
It would be good to have a head cooled off sometimes.
Funny, I am a (young) developer from the East you speak of (I am from Prague, working for an American company), and here it's exactly the opposite. The programmers here routinely make twice as much as doctors.
This only shows that free market or capitalism is never fair; it just is.
The point about not learning the body again holds thought; on the other hand, basic principles in IT stay the same, and I work in mainframes now, which is akin to archaeology sometimes.
I don't see any viable way to sequester CO2. The proponents of CO2 sequestration should prove their viability, not me.
I can't imagine storing it as a gas or compressed liquid on large scale. That's unrealistic. It's just too much of CO2. The storage tanks would have to be an order of magnitude larger than are oil reserves you are going to deplete. And you could have leaks, corrosion, you would have to support all these tanks infinitely. I don't have a proof, but it's just common sense. Instead of building all these large tanks, we could just pave a desert with solar cells, and be done, don't you think?
If you store it in some other form, for example, in CaCO3, you will need more energy to do that (in this particular case, you will need to obtain CaO from somewhere). Just like coral reefs that do this process in nature do.
Maybe Shell is going to built some plant to sequester CO2 as a demo and they get nice government paycheck for that. But it doesn't going to make dent into global warming, and that's the point.
Yes, but this is skewed market. If government subsidizes biofuels or carbon sequestration, they can be more profitable, even if they don't make any sense at all.
That's what I criticize - they will rely on marketing campaign to convince government they need these subsidies, and not decide on basis of rationality.
And here's why:
Say you use energy source like oil. The reason why you do it is because you are spending energy faster than what Sun (i.e. renewable resources - biomass, wind, solar) can currently provide.
How do you get energy for carbon sequestration then? If you get it from oil, you will need more energy to put carbon in the ground than you got from in the first place. If you get it from renewable resources, then you don't have enough energy to recover all the CO2 back, because if you had, you could just skip the oil entirely and use renewable resources directly.
Carbon sequestration is a fantasy. It fails the law of conservation of energy. Think about it.
The problem is, the economic viability of biofuels is questionable, and carbon sequestration definitely isn't viable from physics.
The problem isn't they chose to kill off technologies which are not promising, the problem is they chose to pursue those that are less energy efficient, if at all (and thus, unless they scam someone, less promising).
They expect they will market them to government or something, rather than solve ecological problems. That's why its wrong.
Maybe they should claim June 9th.
Or, everybody will become a criminal.
Well, eventually, people would have to exchange the trusted torrent root certificates directly (i.e. not over the network). And they could be filtered by the network.
I think the scheme is in principle possible, but probably very much impractical. You could perhaps create an order of magnitude more music, movies and videogames for the sheer cost of the setup required to negotiate all the encryption keys in the central government server.
In theory, they could attack encryption with man-in-the-middle during the key exchange. If the protocol is known, the middle man can simulate the other end node for both nodes, and give each one a different key, so they can still see the traffic.
I remember that a colleague was running Oracle on Linux in 2000, and it was about 30% faster on it than on Windows.
I think if someone would do a benchmark you suggested, MS would tear it to shreds with all their muscle.
Too bad you are also driven by fear, dear anonymous coward, because others should really mod up your insightful comment.
Maybe he thought that Windows took booting "easy".
Except of course in Wikipedia, the inscribed words are "BE BOLD!".
Rumor has it they are planning on doing this every month until everyone is in the top 50%.
I hope this guy doesn't write code.
I would much rather fix his code than had him as a manager.
I think assembly is atheism - its adherents simply believe that programming languages are not useful at all, and can live without it.
Not only that, but also, businesses are control freaks and do not like their websites to be easily processed by machines. They could just open their databases as well.
It's quite simple really. During the Cold War, the communism was perceived as a real alternative to western capitalist societies (although it never was a real alternative). So the politicians were more careful to the needs of people.
With the fall of Iron Curtain, this alternative doesn't exist anymore. So they are trying to get more power, because they don't feel so restrained as before.
I call bullshit. There was a game Nether Earth on ZX Spectrum, which was real-time strategy game, and had all the concepts as Dune 2, and even more.
In the game, you could build your own robots, you needed to capture factories to get parts for the robots, and you could even send robots to a mission and they worked by themselves depending on the orders you gave them. All this in 48kB of memory in 1985.
'death knell for the RIAA' is getting to be 'Year for Linux on the Desktop'.
So, in 2009?
I found Warcraft 2 (2D) a bit easier to play than Starcraft (isometric), but Starcraft looked a lot better. I didn't like the Warcraft 3 at all. Not only it looked worse than Starcraft because of jagged 3D graphics, but you also got to control the camera. And you know, I do want to control the strategic aspect of the game, not to fumble with the camera during the battle. It's just stupid micromanagement.