it definitely would be a problem for someone who has to work two jobs - they wouldn't have a few hours of free time each day, and thus would fail the 'if' clause and the rest of the comment would not pertain to them.
Do you seriously think that the code that you get from microsoft isn't compileable? What would the point be in that?
Trying to give the impression to be open, I suppose.
The company for which I work has coppies of various bits of MS source and we don't have any problems in compiling it.
Most bits of the code will indeed be compilable, otherwise you couldn't do anything useful with it, that's right. But I doubt that you will ever be able to compile a whole windows system from source (and use it on production systems). This means that shared source and open source aren't playing in the same league. If you don't use a system you compiled yourself, you will never be sure what code is running.
"Cursed is the ground on your account; and you shall suffer all your life as you win from it; thorns and thistles shall it bear for you...in the sweat of your brow you shall earn your bread till you return to the ground from which you were taken; for dust thou art; unto dust shalt thou return."
Now let me get this straight: You do want YET ANOTHER APPLE?
Alright! I can talk to people! Umm... you know, I can do that outside too...
But this "outside" is a very deprived and filtered place. If you wanted the same experience as slashdot at -1, you had to visit a very well equipped mental asylum. Anonymous trolls swinging in trees, crapping on blathering eggheads. That's the good stuff!
Incidently, I am no "gun nut" nor am I a reactionary conservative. I am a Constitutional Conservative and there is a world of difference.
The intention of my posting wasn't to attack your position - I don't think that such a discussion would be on topic. I asked if you assess weapons of information warfare as important and if you defend them with as fiercely as you defend the right to bear physical arms. Information warfare means for example: privacy and anonymity through encryption and effective methods to provide information channels that cannot be controlled by the government or other organizations (i.e. counter-propaganda). I ask this, because I think that propaganda and surveillance are important aspects of modern warfare.
There's no freedom being infringed upon when someone is told a lie.
You don't seem to have much trust in your right of free speech, anonymous. Why the fear, coward? Why don't you attach your name to your words and stand upright when you proclaim them? You are entitled to say them, you know.
In these times of wars and famine and poverty, I just can't help but being disgusted by the smugness of people who treat something as trivial as software so seriously. If you want to spend time lobbying, try working on important issues.
What is *your* problem, smug? Please explain me what makes you so self-important to condemn people who fight for freedoms they percieve as critical for our future? Especially when you concede that you did nothing for any cause at all.
I didn't participate, but I read the mailinglist of the organizers and saw a short video of the highlights. Naturally, estimations of the number of participants of demonstrations are never precise and may vary depending on the observer. But to my best knowledge the organizers talked about 300 people, which I feel is a realistic number.
So, at the end of the day. Be glad that you have the Right to Bear Arms and that the government has not taken away all of your avenues of resistance if the time ever comes that you need to fight your way out of situations in your own city or state or country.
I hope I don't start an offtopic flamewar, but do you really think that you would have a chance against any modern army, armed only with small arms and rifles? These people will come with tanks and even missiles if they really want to blow you away. Your arguments may have been valid some hundred years ago, but in our time I consider them as mostly illusionary. The government may have an interest in backing this illusion to distract you while they take away your real rights.
I can understand your desire to be independent of the big ant-hill that modern society has become, but I think you underestimate some of the problems associated with this.
Keep in mind: this is just my opinion, and you can have yours.
Meanwhile, on the left, advocates for the right to privacy, etc., usually lose their enthusiasm for those principles once they've used the advantages of those rights to gain power and want to maintain control, er, "enforce laws".
I think, the wish to maintain once gained control is a general trait of most of the human cultures (though there are certainly many enlightenend and balanced individuals in every population). So we need a form of government that makes it easy to replace its representatives peacefully and efficient, if they misuse their power, while on the same time it should be hard to change the general framework (e.g. decide to become a dictatorship). Democracy seems to be a relatively good implementation of this idea, but it works only if people can obtain information freely and discuss them freely, without fear of prosecution. These freedoms are threatened by the powerful propaganda machineries of TV and mass media, which report very selectively and biased, and by the attempts of governments worldwide to control the new channels of information and discussion that were made possible by the internet.
It is only natural that there will be increased monitoring, considering that the Internet could be used to hatch plans. Monitoring is necessary at least to a limited extent, but there should be a lot more checks and balances on making sure these are not used for Orwellian purposes.
I wonder what the right-wing people who praise the right to own guns as a means to overthrow an oppressive government do think about this. I disagree strongly with these people, but hadn't they to agree that the citizens would need weapons of information warfare, too? E.g. the right of absolute privacy through encryption to organize resistance against the government if this should be necessary?
I failed to see any reference to the poor getting poorer. Perhaps you could post a link? The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me.
The median... That can possibly mean that one person printed 7,830 billion dollar which another one earned, while 290 million people lived in caves and ate roots. So much for statistics.
All this with a computer that is old enough to drink
Am I the only person who has no idea just what in the hell that is supposed to mean?
That means that this computer I loved so much years ago grew old and became a farting old drunkard who is jealous of my athlon workstation. I feel a little embarassed when I see him trying to keep up with the young generation. Now he got broadband. Drills new holes into his case. They are laughing behind his back. At night I hear him crying silently. I really breaks my heart.
I think the idea is that the CO2 in the nut shells was fixed by the tree during the growing season - so when they're burnt again, only the same amount of CO2 will be released.
You silently assume that all the carbon the nut is made of came from the atmosphere. Is this necessarily true? Trees are growing on top of dead trees.
Just compare it to a closed system in a box with a plant and a device burning it's seeds; the plant will consume the CO2 a lot slower than the device can produce it
What makes you believe that? Are you assuming that the plant produces seeds at a diminishing rate, or that burning a seed releases more carbon than was put into building it? Because something doesn't add up here.
There are two coupled systems: the solid biomass in the soil and the CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is transported in both directions at a *slow* rate. Decaying biomass releases a modest amount of carbon into the atmosphere, while most of it is recycled directly by plants and microorganisms. In the same way the plants absorb a modest amount of CO2 back from the atmosphere.
If we burn biomass then we accelerate the transfer of carbon into the atmosphere. The transport from the atmosphere to the solid biomass is mostly unaffected by this instantaneously (though a higher CO2 concentration may let plants grow faster).
So, in a short frame of time, burning biomass has the potential to increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. In the long run, the ecosystem will reach a new equilibrium. This equilibrium doesn't necessarily possess the same climatic properties of the equilibrium we experience today.
Slashdot Mirror
it definitely would be a problem for someone who has to work two jobs - they wouldn't have a few hours of free time each day, and thus would fail the 'if' clause and the rest of the comment would not pertain to them.
:)
You are from Vulcan, aren't you?
If you have access to the internet and >= 3 or 4 free hours a day
May be a problem for someone who is poor and has to have two jobs at a time.
if you plug someone in to the internet, they can learn about almost anything they want and in all probability be great at it - they just have to work.
May be true for computer sciences. It seems to work for India. But I'm not sure if this is true for most other professions, too.
Do you seriously think that the code that you get from microsoft isn't compileable? What would the point be in that?
Trying to give the impression to be open, I suppose.
The company for which I work has coppies of various bits of MS source and we don't have any problems in compiling it.
Most bits of the code will indeed be compilable, otherwise you couldn't do anything useful with it, that's right. But I doubt that you will ever be able to compile a whole windows system from source (and use it on production systems). This means that shared source and open source aren't playing in the same league. If you don't use a system you compiled yourself, you will never be sure what code is running.
Depending on the amount of source code provided you could ofcourse compile it and compare the resulting binaries.
Microsoft doesn't give you a compilable version of their code. That's the point.
I'd REALLY like one of those Mac G5's
Adam, this is what I told you 4000 years ago:
"Cursed is the ground on your account; and you shall suffer all your life as you win from it; thorns and thistles shall it bear for you...in the sweat of your brow you shall earn your bread till you return to the ground from which you were taken; for dust thou art; unto dust shalt thou return."
Now let me get this straight: You do want YET ANOTHER APPLE?
I am an angry God.
So better mod me up.
Will it make coffee?
If marketing thinks they can beat AMD this way, it surely will.
Although some minor specification details will change when they actually release it.
Let's propose RMS for the Nobel prize for peace!
Great idea. Wenn he wins, we could enjoy the single most intimidating speech of a Nobel Peace Prize winner ever.
Alright! I can talk to people! Umm... you know, I can do that outside too...
But this "outside" is a very deprived and filtered place. If you wanted the same experience as slashdot at -1, you had to visit a very well equipped mental asylum. Anonymous trolls swinging in trees, crapping on blathering eggheads. That's the good stuff!
Incidently, I am no "gun nut" nor am I a reactionary conservative. I am a Constitutional Conservative and there is a world of difference.
The intention of my posting wasn't to attack your position - I don't think that such a discussion would be on topic. I asked if you assess weapons of information warfare as important and if you defend them with as fiercely as you defend the right to bear physical arms. Information warfare means for example: privacy and anonymity through encryption and effective methods to provide information channels that cannot be controlled by the government or other organizations (i.e. counter-propaganda). I ask this, because I think that propaganda and surveillance are important aspects of modern warfare.
There's no freedom being infringed upon when someone is told a lie.
You don't seem to have much trust in your right of free speech, anonymous. Why the fear, coward? Why don't you attach your name to your words and stand upright when you proclaim them? You are entitled to say them, you know.
In a free, democractic society that's perfectly acceptable.
You confuse freedom of speech with the freedom to tell lies. The latter is not acceptable because it infringes the freedom of other people.
In these times of wars and famine and poverty, I just can't help but being disgusted by the smugness of people who treat something as trivial as software so seriously. If you want to spend time lobbying, try working on important issues.
What is *your* problem, smug? Please explain me what makes you so self-important to condemn people who fight for freedoms they percieve as critical for our future? Especially when you concede that you did nothing for any cause at all.
I didn't participate, but I read the mailinglist of the organizers and saw a short video of the highlights. Naturally, estimations of the number of participants of demonstrations are never precise and may vary depending on the observer. But to my best knowledge the organizers talked about 300 people, which I feel is a realistic number.
In Vienna 400 demonstrated.
This number seems to rise every time I read about it.
Let's keep it at reasonable 300, because this is the official estimation of the organizers.
Seems to be a good example of a disruptive technology
Expect carrier pigeons crashing into your cell phone.
So, at the end of the day. Be glad that you have the Right to Bear Arms and
that the government has not taken away all of your avenues of resistance if
the time ever comes that you need to fight your way out of situations in your
own city or state or country.
I hope I don't start an offtopic flamewar, but do you really think that you would have a chance against any modern army, armed only with small arms and rifles? These people will come with tanks and even missiles if they really want to blow you away. Your arguments may have been valid some hundred years ago, but in our time I consider them as mostly illusionary. The government may have an interest in backing this illusion to distract you while they take away your real rights.
I can understand your desire to be independent of the big ant-hill that modern society has become, but I think you underestimate some of the problems associated with this.
Keep in mind: this is just my opinion, and you can have yours.
Meanwhile, on the left, advocates for the right to privacy, etc., usually lose their enthusiasm for those principles once they've used the advantages of those rights to gain power and want to maintain control, er, "enforce laws".
I think, the wish to maintain once gained control is a general trait of most of the human cultures (though there are certainly many enlightenend and balanced individuals in every population). So we need a form of government that makes it easy to replace its representatives peacefully and efficient, if they misuse their power, while on the same time it should be hard to change the general framework (e.g. decide to become a dictatorship). Democracy seems to be a relatively good implementation of this idea, but it works only if people can obtain information freely and discuss them freely, without fear of prosecution. These freedoms are threatened by the powerful propaganda machineries of TV and mass media, which report very selectively and biased, and by the attempts of governments worldwide to control the new channels of information and discussion that were made possible by the internet.
It is only natural that there will be increased monitoring, considering that the Internet could be used to hatch plans. Monitoring is necessary at least to a limited extent, but there should be a lot more checks and balances on making sure these are not used for Orwellian purposes.
I wonder what the right-wing people who praise the right to own guns as a means to overthrow an oppressive government do think about this. I disagree strongly with these people, but hadn't they to agree that the citizens would need weapons of information warfare, too? E.g. the right of absolute privacy through encryption to organize resistance against the government if this should be necessary?
No, you're thinking of the mean.
You're right. My dictionary tricked me. I'd better used a technical one.
I failed to see any reference to the poor getting poorer. Perhaps you could post a link? The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me.
The median... That can possibly mean that one person printed 7,830 billion dollar which another one earned, while 290 million people lived in caves and ate roots. So much for statistics.
Virtually all the carbon in plant material, including nutshells, is absorbed directly from the atmosphere by the plant.
The validity of my argument depends entirely on whether this is true or not. I found no good reference, but I think you are right.
So you only get the single release resulting from shortening the cycle, no continuous net flow of carbon to the atmosphere.
I tend to agree with that now.
That means that this computer I loved so much years ago grew old and became a farting old drunkard who is jealous of my athlon workstation. I feel a little embarassed when I see him trying to keep up with the young generation. Now he got broadband. Drills new holes into his case. They are laughing behind his back. At night I hear him crying silently. I really breaks my heart.
I think the idea is that the CO2 in the nut shells was fixed by the tree during the growing season - so when they're burnt again, only the same amount of CO2 will be released.
You silently assume that all the carbon the nut is made of came from the atmosphere. Is this necessarily true? Trees are growing on top of dead trees.
There are two coupled systems: the solid biomass in the soil and the CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is transported in both directions at a *slow* rate. Decaying biomass releases a modest amount of carbon into the atmosphere, while most of it is recycled directly by plants and microorganisms. In the same way the plants absorb a modest amount of CO2 back from the atmosphere.
If we burn biomass then we accelerate the transfer of carbon into the atmosphere. The transport from the atmosphere to the solid biomass is mostly unaffected by this instantaneously (though a higher CO2 concentration may let plants grow faster).
So, in a short frame of time, burning biomass has the potential to increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. In the long run, the ecosystem will reach a new equilibrium. This equilibrium doesn't necessarily possess the same climatic properties of the equilibrium we experience today.