That is some of the most absurd thinking I have ever heard. The fact that things improve and get better does not mean that things are bad as they are now. These new features are additions to an already great product. Linux as it is is already better than Windows, so the new features will make it better still. Notice as well, that each Windows realese always comes with a long list of improvements from the last version. The whole purpose of having new versions is to improve things and add new capability. Had this not been done you would still be at Linux 0.01 with the Minix FS, no graphics, really not much of anything people expect of a modern OS. Why dont you just go back to using MS-DOS if you dont want any modern features, and leave us alone. For most that would be miserable and most people want a powerful capable OS and do not want to use MS-DOS, and like to be able to have things like graphics, web browsers, 3D games, improved, more powerful facilities that make it easier to develop new applications, servers, etc.
When is BTRFS finally going to be declared stable and become default on major distros? Its features were needed years ago. The Copy on Write features are killer features that have been needed on Linux for years, such as to implement a filesystem level versioning, system restore an restore point feature and improved snapshot features. Ext4 is only a stop-gap and Ext is really starting to show its age.
PS it would also be a good idea to prohibit interbreeding between low IQ and high IQ racial groups and as well to prohibit interracial breeding altogether to preserve the various, unique and distinct racial groups. Technically, since it threatens to interfere with the ability of a racial group to regenerate its population and threatens the existance of racial groups, interracial breeding is genocide and is a threat to the diversity of distinct, unique, ancient races. Genocide is anything that threatens to destroy a racial group in whole or in part. A race is a closed breeding group which evolved over thousands of years of divergent evolution, which has unique and distinct genetic traits. Such a law would be anti-genocidal and would preserve all of humanities distinct and unique races into the future, assuring that they continue to exist. Since interracial breeding threatens to destroy our races, it is an expression of contempt, disregard and even hatred for our races, and should not be allowed. We ought to oppose anything that would pose a threat to or would cause a population decline of any distinct or unique racial group, including interracial breeding genocide.
Remember when America actually developed and MANUFACTURED its own technologies and was an industrial powerhouse? Those days are long gone, and this is the poisonous fruit of the Globalist traitors who have infiltrated the US government, in the globalist plot to destroy America. Are we really better off than we were in the 50s and 60s when the US still manufactured most of what it uses and globalisation was not common? If globalisation is so wonderful, why have the last 3 decades of globalisation produces a shrinking middle class, a stagnant economy that has not grown at all for the middle class in over 3 decades, to the point that a growing percentage of the US population now earns less than the Mininum wage of 1968, to that a massive percenrtage of the country is now on food stamps and this grows relentlessly? The US economy was growing by leaps and bounds in those two decades of the 50s and 60s, every year of those decades poverty declined, and the middle class was growing in the 50s and 60s. The middle class has not grown at all since the 70s, and there has been no reduction in poverty since the 70s. Ever since the offshoring of the US economy (read: gutting), there has been virtually no growth of the middle class in the country. Instead, the super rich have pocketed massive amounts of money by laying off American workers and replacing them with third world labor. I think its time to realize that globalisation is a scam and the perpetuators of this free trade snake oil are liars who have sold out this country and destroyed it. Further reprensible is the immigration invasion which is turning the US into Mexico North and is quite frankly a genocidal assault that is destroying the traditional identity of the United States. Studies have been done that Mexicans have a 20% lower IQ than European Americans and studies have shown that this is almost entirely due to genetics. This means that he average population IQ is declining because of the influx of low IQ racial groups and the country is basically being turned into a third world cesspit. We need to go back to what worked, what we had prior to the 70s, that is 1) very low levels of immigration that maintain the racial demographics of the country, exactly as it was in the 1924 Emergency Immigration Act (in effect 1924-1965), re-enacting this law and repealing the 1965 immigration law, and reflected in the countries first citizenship and naturalization law, the 1790 Naturalization Act which was signed by President George Washington and signed by the founding fathers themselves 2) Strong tariffs, favouring national industry and keeping manufacturing and industrial know how in country 3) recognize that manufacturing and blue collar professions are noble and worthwhile, abandon the absurd "everyone must go to college" mentality, and encourage more people to go into blue collar work, including by building a pipeline from high school into vocational/trade schools and apprenticeships for everything from trucking, car manufacture, to plumbing 4) encouraging a family values society with large families to encourage internal birth population growth, by incentivizing a high birth rate among the middle class through larger per child percentage income tax incentives for the middle class 5) cap export of foodstuffs to other countries in such a manner that allows maintainence of current population level in other countries but does not incentivize population growth in those countries, to allow for compensation of temporary decline in food production due to natural disasters, but prohibits an increase in exports due to population growth in those countries.
Globalisation and importation of cheap labor via immigration, benefits one group of people, the super rich. It is destroying the country for the rest of us, and as well is anti-diversity because it is destroying the unique qualities of countries.
I instantly recognized that this movie was a parody of the military industrial complex, when i first saw it, long ago. Instead of being something which is meant to appease those who love sitting around and watching the blood splatter, it makes fun of them.
Its not that i am the kind of person who things miliaries are unnecesary. I think that they are vitally necessary. I also view the concept of nations as being vital. This movie depicts the gung-ho type of people who would use propoganda and such to justify the invasion of the domains of the people of other countries for specious reasons.
I am aware of the justifications of Bush in the Iraq war. The problem was that people were responding by supporting a war to invade another country and collectively punish the people of that country, rather than what is the proper response which is to defend the borders of our own country and keep the foreign people out who do not belong here anyway. The problem could have been solved at our own borders and since this was feasible and adequate, it was totally unnecessary in any case to invade another country. My solution to the event of 9-11 is one that would involve no war, no loss of life, and is non-violent, and that means to simply stop letting muslims into the USA, who have their own countries already, who have absolutely no right to come here anyway, and for which there is a sound, solid moral philosophy as to why they should not come here, and the government actually has an obligation to not allow them to come here based on a sound, universal moral philosophy, as I will explain. Compared to the war, this is relatively non violent and kills no one, and is the responsibility of the government to do anyway from the get-go, and is what the US government has done for the most of its history, including under the 1924 Emergency Immigration Act which is the law that we need to have in place today. This really is the only correct response as it is merely defensive and is based entirely upon the sound philosophical and moral philosophy of the function of the government of a nation to protect the founding populations of said nation. The Muslims have their own countries already where they are plentiful. The Muslims already have their own country where they have their own culture and identity. Letting them into a country like the USA only threatens diversity by threatening the unique qualities of the USA, for instance. Immigration between racial-ethnic domains is anti diversity threatens to weaken or destroy the unique qualities of each country, and it is exactly why that form of immigration should not be allowed. Immigration from the USA from Europe was acceptable as the USA was founded as a Christian, European majority realm, and Europe to USA immigration did not alter that national identity or racial demographics of the United States, it was in constistency and continuity with the traditional founding demographics of the country and maintains the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the country. Immigration from other places is not comparable as immigration from say, Asia, is destroying the traditional, unique qualities of the United States as it was founded.
Let us consider a hypothetical. Lets say we took millions of Pakistanis and started to dump them into Japan. Overtime, Japan would start to look more and more like Pakistan and less and less like Japan. By reducing the uniqueness of Japan and the unique, distinct, independant qualities of its population, we would be destroying diversity. The Pakistanis and the Japanese each have their own unique cultures and identities in their own countries, uniqueness which developed because of territorial soveriegnty and exclusivity which allows the population of each respective country to develop independantly, of its own accord, in each its own divergent way. Moving large numbers of people from pakistan to Japan would violate the very things that make Japan unique and threatens to destroy diversity. Only stopping all such immigration can preserve the unique qualities and iden
There really is no "waste heat". The fact we would treat heat as waste shows a problem in our thinking because heat is a form of energy and isnt that what we are after. So use the waste heat itself to generate electricity. Have a closed water circulation system that converts the thermal energy into mechanical energy. The fact that the plant needs to have a resevoir of water to pull from does not interfere with colocating plants in the same general vicinity.
I think what we should do with nuclear is to establish 5 or so nuclear districts in the country about 20 by 20 square miles each and then locate all of the new nuclear plants inside those locations, and feed the output into the grid. This concentrates the risk of contamination in one area, its better to have all of the risk concentrated in a single area, rather than around a larger number of nuclear sites. This also makes things better for the nuclear regulators, these districts could house all of the nuclear regulators who would constantly monitor the sites for safety. Massive numbers of microreactors could also be stacked at these 5 nuclear districts. The nuclear sites should be located away from any urban areas, or prime agricultural lands.
I think in addition, thermal and concentrated solar technologies should be widely deployed. The big advantage of concentrated solar is you can focus light from a large area onto a very small but efficient piece of photovoltaic, the surface area of photovoltaics needed is reduced and thus the cost and the strain on materials.
Concentrated thermal reduces the need for expensive seminconductor manaufacturing since it involves a heat collector made of simple materials and can convert thermal heat into electricity with microturbines or sterling engines, or be used directly for hot water and mechanical energy.It also can be made of more abundant materials rather than the expensive rare earth metals of PV. Concentration is done with fresnel lenses or solar mirror dishes.
We do need to get away from this high that solar == photovoltaic. It is probably the case that thermal concentrated solar is cheaper, easier to manufacture, more practical, simpler, easier to maintain and repair, than expensive, complex, hard to fabricate PV. The obsession with PV and the ignoring of the concentrated thermal has for decades stymied progress that could have been made with larger deployment of thermal solar. A less expensive technology, even when less efficient, can produce more energy than a more expensive but more efficient technology, since you can buy more with the same money of the less expensive technology. With all of the space available on roofs, we should use that otherwise wasted space for solar collection. We should encourage power companies to install the solar panels on the roofs of customers, sharing with customers a percentage of the profit. Deserts are also ideal places for solar plants and most solar plants should be placed there due to high sun availability and the relatively low environmental impact.
Even with this, the cable running part is still a natural monopoly, the cost of the cable itself is still very significant. Many cities also contract out the installation and, in some cases, repair of their public utilties to private companies, or in some cases neighbouring governments, that do these sorts of things. Especially so with smaller cities which are too small to justify having alot of their own utilities equipment. Even larger cities are known to contract major construction projects while having their own maintanence in house.
Quite frankly, the honest truth is open source code is poorly documented. I have read both the Windows source code and the Linux source code for example, the source code comments in the Windows source code are far more descriptive about what the source code does. This really is important, because it makes it easier for new developers to get involved and quickly understand how the software is put together. There is a strange contradiction in open source projects in general, on one hand they claim to be all about independant developers getting involved, on the other hand they make it as difficult as possible for independant developers to get involved by refusing to document the systems make some open source projects impenetrable to outsiders.
I agree that this is psychopathic. I can see how this is very harmful for children to be involved in this. One of the warning signs of psychopathy is to abuse animals in a grotesque manner. That we would actually teach children to do this and to adopt red-flag behaviours of a psychopath is nuts. This is not swatting a roach on the floor, which kills it instantly and as quickly as possible, which we have all done. This is torturing and messing with a living thing for long periods of time. They are not the same thing.
Who knows, it probably didnt cost any more money to build than a more plain control room would. If that is the case, I don't know if it really makes a lot of sense to make a big uproar over it. As long as it doesnt cost any more, why not make it look neat?
You will have the option of using GCC, its in the packages system and you can easily install it. Clang is now the default, but of course GCC can still be used if you wish.
FreeBSD is a fully open source operating system, with source code everyone can read and freely share. it is a "Free Software" system. If you mean that it doesnt have a license that tells you that you cannot link FreeBSD code to code under other licenses, then yes you are correct about that, and FreeBSD has always been this way, being a BSD licensed OS, which is why many people choose to use it. FreeBSD already has a BSD licensed kernel and always has.
Since the FreeBSD Kernel is BSD licensed, it only makes sense to have the entire base toolchain BSD licensed as well. This is a big step in that direction. There is also a broader project to create BSD licensed versions of all of the core Unix utilities as well. Hopefully we will see this happen soon.
Whether or not the libraries for different capabilities are bundled under the same project heading or not is irrelevant as far as whether or not they are good. It does actually make it a lot easier to have a bundle of libraries that will work on all OSs, so you know that the entire environment will operate on every OS supported by the environment, rather than having to hunt down seperate libraries, some which will work OS X and not OS Y, others on OS Y but not OS X. I cant imagine why having to try to find 10 seperate libraries from different sources each with greatly varying degrees of cross platform support wiould be better than one bundle of libraries that works on the same list of platforms. It makes things much more complex. Why do you want to make writing a cross platform app more difficult if not impossible?
We also dont want to forget that the tablet thing is a fad of people trying to look like they are on star trek. But they are subjecting themselves to painful, difficult to use form factors to look cool because its the hip, in thing. I compare tablets and smartphones to high healed shoes and corsets, and mens leather business shoes, they do terrible things to the body and people subjected themselves to the pain of this to look fashionable, even though there were much more comfortable attire available. In fact they make themselves look like idiots. Il'll take my sneakers and my desktop computer any day over the tablet and business shoes.
To actually have cross platform support you must provide cross platform APIs for everything you can possibly need to do is a must, that includes audio, video, networking, video capture, recording, image acquisition devices, you name it. QT has to be much more than a GUI toolkit or you would be very limited with the kind of apps you can write with it in a cross platform way. Thats why the kitchen sink nature of it is a benefit not a drawback, you seem to base your condemnation on really nothing at all. QT need to be is designed that you can write an applications that can do anything and that it can run on anything, it can allow access to any kind of hardware or system interface in a cross platform way without an app having to worry about OS particularities. Instead of having app developers waste time reinventing the wheel creating another cross platform compatability layer for every app they write, it makes sense to create a common set of libraries that provide an OS independant API for accessing every concievable hardware and software feature on all platforms. QT should include the kitchen sink, so that apps can be cross platform. A video conferencing program, a recording studio program, a dekstop publishing program, a video editing program, a 3D opengl game, written for QT shouldbe able to run on Linux or Windows without a single line of code needing to be changed.
You're being too kind. Gnome is dead and nothing save throwing out Gnome 3 and going back to a taskbar and start menu model will bring it back. Why not add back all configuration options? The problem is that when you say some that just leads to the problem we have now, someone deciding they dont like an option and forcing their ideology on others. Why not just let users decide? give them them options. They can seperate the options into advanced and regular screens, this allows the advanced options to be provided without any sort of a claim that can be made that they confuse people. The best thing that can be done is to get people like Havoc Pennington away from software projects. Basically the Gnome 3 people are a bunch of jerks. Let the project die and teach them a lesson. There are many much more sane UIs available like MATE.
They do run the Linux kernel, but thats it, its not really a Linux OS, there is no similarity with what you would call an real Linux desktop system. Android has its own userland that usually tend to be locked down and designed to control the user, it provides none of the control to the user that a real Linux OS provides. Just because you have a Linux kernel in there, does not mean that the userland running on top of it is not a locked down, inflexible piece of junk thats designed to take away your freedom and get you hooked into the NSA monitored cloud. I would say a real Linux system has the full Linux/Unix userland, Android has its own userland which is designed to create a black box device that takes away freedom by controlling the user.
PS. you will also be able to run a rootless X server in addition to a rooted or fullscreen X server as well depending on what you need. You can have a full X window desktop with an X window manager, you can have that run within a window on wayland, the rootless X server would run individual X applications within wayland. X isnt going anywhere.
X will not be replaced by Wayland. X is going to be moved onto the Wayland architecture and is going to be a user of the Wayland architecture. If you wanted to have a X desktop you will be able to run a fullscreen X server on top of Wayland, and you would never know that Wayland was there.
Even a laptop is subpar to a desktop , to have the best ergonomics you need to be able to seperately position the monitor and the keyboard, you need a desktop PC for the best ergonomics . Remember back in the 90s the concerns over RSIs and the trends towards ergonomic keyboards for desktop computers? all of that was well advised. Why people now want to actually trade in their comfortable ergonomic desktop system for something that is much more painful and contortionist to use, for a 4 inch screen and try to subject themselves to the pain of using vastly inferior IO devices and a cramped tablet form factor that there is no way that this can come close to the comfort of a desktop setup, vastly inferior to a desktop is beyond me. It seems like they have gone the other direction Away from ergonomics now, to lets make it popular to use torturious form factors with the tablets and the laptops are simply an ergonomic disaster that are hard to use and actually are painful. You also do not want the EMF emissions from the main electronics of the motherboard and the power supply so close to your body so you want all of that positioned a distance away. We are probably going to see an epidemic of cancers caused by handheld tablets and brain cancer from smartphones in a few decades. Brain cancers can be slow moving and may not become noticeable for decades. Then you have the cloud nonsense which really is an attempt to get people to store their lives in the cloud so it can be data mined by the NSA.
Thats a joke right? Windows 8 is a total useability disaster for most desktop users and I know many who throw up their arms in despair. Its a train wreck. The desktop and mobile form factors require completely different user interface models. The taskbar and start menu works best and is simply the most practical for a desktop. On a mobile device you are dealing with a small screen, no (real) keyboard, no mouse, an imprecise touch pointing interface that has less precise pointing accuracy that a mouse, none of these are limitations found on a desktop system, so hence a different UI might be needed for a mobile because of the severe limitations, but make no sense on a desktop where limitations do not exist. I cannot see mobile devices being anything more than a niche device for use when on the go because of these very reasons, the devices are extremely inefficient for actual content creation, anything more than a few one liner messages. These are acceptable limitations when you are walking down a sidewalk or on a subway, but they are absurd when you are at a desk at work where a desktop machine would be far, far better and in that case the confined nature of the mobile device is pointless, you have plenty of space on your desk for full desktop input output devices for a much better computing experience. If mobile devices came first,and the desktop came later, we would be talking about how the mobile device was going extinct because the desktop can offer much more computing power, a 100 times larger screen, a full size keyboard a real mouse, much better than trying to work on a 3" chiclet keyboard. Are people really going to walk into a store and say "I want to trade in my 20" monitor, my full size keyboard and my mouse for a 3" screen, with a chiclet keyboard and 1/30th the power". This i going backwards. Mobile devices are niche products and people will suffer from greatly reduced productivity and user experience if they try to use them in lieu of a real full featured desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
a kernel update should never, ever break the user space. period.
That is some of the most absurd thinking I have ever heard. The fact that things improve and get better does not mean that things are bad as they are now. These new features are additions to an already great product. Linux as it is is already better than Windows, so the new features will make it better still. Notice as well, that each Windows realese always comes with a long list of improvements from the last version. The whole purpose of having new versions is to improve things and add new capability. Had this not been done you would still be at Linux 0.01 with the Minix FS, no graphics, really not much of anything people expect of a modern OS. Why dont you just go back to using MS-DOS if you dont want any modern features, and leave us alone. For most that would be miserable and most people want a powerful capable OS and do not want to use MS-DOS, and like to be able to have things like graphics, web browsers, 3D games, improved, more powerful facilities that make it easier to develop new applications, servers, etc.
When is BTRFS finally going to be declared stable and become default on major distros? Its features were needed years ago. The Copy on Write features are killer features that have been needed on Linux for years, such as to implement a filesystem level versioning, system restore an restore point feature and improved snapshot features. Ext4 is only a stop-gap and Ext is really starting to show its age.
PS it would also be a good idea to prohibit interbreeding between low IQ and high IQ racial groups and as well to prohibit interracial breeding altogether to preserve the various, unique and distinct racial groups. Technically, since it threatens to interfere with the ability of a racial group to regenerate its population and threatens the existance of racial groups, interracial breeding is genocide and is a threat to the diversity of distinct, unique, ancient races. Genocide is anything that threatens to destroy a racial group in whole or in part. A race is a closed breeding group which evolved over thousands of years of divergent evolution, which has unique and distinct genetic traits. Such a law would be anti-genocidal and would preserve all of humanities distinct and unique races into the future, assuring that they continue to exist. Since interracial breeding threatens to destroy our races, it is an expression of contempt, disregard and even hatred for our races, and should not be allowed. We ought to oppose anything that would pose a threat to or would cause a population decline of any distinct or unique racial group, including interracial breeding genocide.
Remember when America actually developed and MANUFACTURED its own technologies and was an industrial powerhouse? Those days are long gone, and this is the poisonous fruit of the Globalist traitors who have infiltrated the US government, in the globalist plot to destroy America. Are we really better off than we were in the 50s and 60s when the US still manufactured most of what it uses and globalisation was not common? If globalisation is so wonderful, why have the last 3 decades of globalisation produces a shrinking middle class, a stagnant economy that has not grown at all for the middle class in over 3 decades, to the point that a growing percentage of the US population now earns less than the Mininum wage of 1968, to that a massive percenrtage of the country is now on food stamps and this grows relentlessly? The US economy was growing by leaps and bounds in those two decades of the 50s and 60s, every year of those decades poverty declined, and the middle class was growing in the 50s and 60s. The middle class has not grown at all since the 70s, and there has been no reduction in poverty since the 70s. Ever since the offshoring of the US economy (read: gutting), there has been virtually no growth of the middle class in the country. Instead, the super rich have pocketed massive amounts of money by laying off American workers and replacing them with third world labor. I think its time to realize that globalisation is a scam and the perpetuators of this free trade snake oil are liars who have sold out this country and destroyed it. Further reprensible is the immigration invasion which is turning the US into Mexico North and is quite frankly a genocidal assault that is destroying the traditional identity of the United States. Studies have been done that Mexicans have a 20% lower IQ than European Americans and studies have shown that this is almost entirely due to genetics. This means that he average population IQ is declining because of the influx of low IQ racial groups and the country is basically being turned into a third world cesspit. We need to go back to what worked, what we had prior to the 70s, that is 1) very low levels of immigration that maintain the racial demographics of the country, exactly as it was in the 1924 Emergency Immigration Act (in effect 1924-1965), re-enacting this law and repealing the 1965 immigration law, and reflected in the countries first citizenship and naturalization law, the 1790 Naturalization Act which was signed by President George Washington and signed by the founding fathers themselves 2) Strong tariffs, favouring national industry and keeping manufacturing and industrial know how in country 3) recognize that manufacturing and blue collar professions are noble and worthwhile, abandon the absurd "everyone must go to college" mentality, and encourage more people to go into blue collar work, including by building a pipeline from high school into vocational/trade schools and apprenticeships for everything from trucking, car manufacture, to plumbing 4) encouraging a family values society with large families to encourage internal birth population growth, by incentivizing a high birth rate among the middle class through larger per child percentage income tax incentives for the middle class 5) cap export of foodstuffs to other countries in such a manner that allows maintainence of current population level in other countries but does not incentivize population growth in those countries, to allow for compensation of temporary decline in food production due to natural disasters, but prohibits an increase in exports due to population growth in those countries.
Globalisation and importation of cheap labor via immigration, benefits one group of people, the super rich. It is destroying the country for the rest of us, and as well is anti-diversity because it is destroying the unique qualities of countries.
I instantly recognized that this movie was a parody of the military industrial complex, when i first saw it, long ago. Instead of being something which is meant to appease those who love sitting around and watching the blood splatter, it makes fun of them.
Its not that i am the kind of person who things miliaries are unnecesary. I think that they are vitally necessary. I also view the concept of nations as being vital. This movie depicts the gung-ho type of people who would use propoganda and such to justify the invasion of the domains of the people of other countries for specious reasons.
I am aware of the justifications of Bush in the Iraq war. The problem was that people were responding by supporting a war to invade another country and collectively punish the people of that country, rather than what is the proper response which is to defend the borders of our own country and keep the foreign people out who do not belong here anyway. The problem could have been solved at our own borders and since this was feasible and adequate, it was totally unnecessary in any case to invade another country. My solution to the event of 9-11 is one that would involve no war, no loss of life, and is non-violent, and that means to simply stop letting muslims into the USA, who have their own countries already, who have absolutely no right to come here anyway, and for which there is a sound, solid moral philosophy as to why they should not come here, and the government actually has an obligation to not allow them to come here based on a sound, universal moral philosophy, as I will explain. Compared to the war, this is relatively non violent and kills no one, and is the responsibility of the government to do anyway from the get-go, and is what the US government has done for the most of its history, including under the 1924 Emergency Immigration Act which is the law that we need to have in place today. This really is the only correct response as it is merely defensive and is based entirely upon the sound philosophical and moral philosophy of the function of the government of a nation to protect the founding populations of said nation. The Muslims have their own countries already where they are plentiful. The Muslims already have their own country where they have their own culture and identity. Letting them into a country like the USA only threatens diversity by threatening the unique qualities of the USA, for instance. Immigration between racial-ethnic domains is anti diversity threatens to weaken or destroy the unique qualities of each country, and it is exactly why that form of immigration should not be allowed. Immigration from the USA from Europe was acceptable as the USA was founded as a Christian, European majority realm, and Europe to USA immigration did not alter that national identity or racial demographics of the United States, it was in constistency and continuity with the traditional founding demographics of the country and maintains the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the country. Immigration from other places is not comparable as immigration from say, Asia, is destroying the traditional, unique qualities of the United States as it was founded.
Let us consider a hypothetical. Lets say we took millions of Pakistanis and started to dump them into Japan. Overtime, Japan would start to look more and more like Pakistan and less and less like Japan. By reducing the uniqueness of Japan and the unique, distinct, independant qualities of its population, we would be destroying diversity. The Pakistanis and the Japanese each have their own unique cultures and identities in their own countries, uniqueness which developed because of territorial soveriegnty and exclusivity which allows the population of each respective country to develop independantly, of its own accord, in each its own divergent way. Moving large numbers of people from pakistan to Japan would violate the very things that make Japan unique and threatens to destroy diversity. Only stopping all such immigration can preserve the unique qualities and iden
There really is no "waste heat". The fact we would treat heat as waste shows a problem in our thinking because heat is a form of energy and isnt that what we are after. So use the waste heat itself to generate electricity. Have a closed water circulation system that converts the thermal energy into mechanical energy. The fact that the plant needs to have a resevoir of water to pull from does not interfere with colocating plants in the same general vicinity.
I think what we should do with nuclear is to establish 5 or so nuclear districts in the country about 20 by 20 square miles each and then locate all of the new nuclear plants inside those locations, and feed the output into the grid. This concentrates the risk of contamination in one area, its better to have all of the risk concentrated in a single area, rather than around a larger number of nuclear sites. This also makes things better for the nuclear regulators, these districts could house all of the nuclear regulators who would constantly monitor the sites for safety. Massive numbers of microreactors could also be stacked at these 5 nuclear districts. The nuclear sites should be located away from any urban areas, or prime agricultural lands.
I think in addition, thermal and concentrated solar technologies should be widely deployed. The big advantage of concentrated solar is you can focus light from a large area onto a very small but efficient piece of photovoltaic, the surface area of photovoltaics needed is reduced and thus the cost and the strain on materials.
Concentrated thermal reduces the need for expensive seminconductor manaufacturing since it involves a heat collector made of simple materials and can convert thermal heat into electricity with microturbines or sterling engines, or be used directly for hot water and mechanical energy.It also can be made of more abundant materials rather than the expensive rare earth metals of PV. Concentration is done with fresnel lenses or solar mirror dishes.
We do need to get away from this high that solar == photovoltaic. It is probably the case that thermal concentrated solar is cheaper, easier to manufacture, more practical, simpler, easier to maintain and repair, than expensive, complex, hard to fabricate PV. The obsession with PV and the ignoring of the concentrated thermal has for decades stymied progress that could have been made with larger deployment of thermal solar. A less expensive technology, even when less efficient, can produce more energy than a more expensive but more efficient technology, since you can buy more with the same money of the less expensive technology. With all of the space available on roofs, we should use that otherwise wasted space for solar collection. We should encourage power companies to install the solar panels on the roofs of customers, sharing with customers a percentage of the profit. Deserts are also ideal places for solar plants and most solar plants should be placed there due to high sun availability and the relatively low environmental impact.
Even with this, the cable running part is still a natural monopoly, the cost of the cable itself is still very significant. Many cities also contract out the installation and, in some cases, repair of their public utilties to private companies, or in some cases neighbouring governments, that do these sorts of things. Especially so with smaller cities which are too small to justify having alot of their own utilities equipment. Even larger cities are known to contract major construction projects while having their own maintanence in house.
Quite frankly, the honest truth is open source code is poorly documented. I have read both the Windows source code and the Linux source code for example, the source code comments in the Windows source code are far more descriptive about what the source code does. This really is important, because it makes it easier for new developers to get involved and quickly understand how the software is put together. There is a strange contradiction in open source projects in general, on one hand they claim to be all about independant developers getting involved, on the other hand they make it as difficult as possible for independant developers to get involved by refusing to document the systems make some open source projects impenetrable to outsiders.
I agree that this is psychopathic. I can see how this is very harmful for children to be involved in this. One of the warning signs of psychopathy is to abuse animals in a grotesque manner. That we would actually teach children to do this and to adopt red-flag behaviours of a psychopath is nuts. This is not swatting a roach on the floor, which kills it instantly and as quickly as possible, which we have all done. This is torturing and messing with a living thing for long periods of time. They are not the same thing.
Who knows, it probably didnt cost any more money to build than a more plain control room would. If that is the case, I don't know if it really makes a lot of sense to make a big uproar over it. As long as it doesnt cost any more, why not make it look neat?
You will have the option of using GCC, its in the packages system and you can easily install it. Clang is now the default, but of course GCC can still be used if you wish.
FreeBSD is a fully open source operating system, with source code everyone can read and freely share. it is a "Free Software" system. If you mean that it doesnt have a license that tells you that you cannot link FreeBSD code to code under other licenses, then yes you are correct about that, and FreeBSD has always been this way, being a BSD licensed OS, which is why many people choose to use it. FreeBSD already has a BSD licensed kernel and always has.
Since the FreeBSD Kernel is BSD licensed, it only makes sense to have the entire base toolchain BSD licensed as well. This is a big step in that direction. There is also a broader project to create BSD licensed versions of all of the core Unix utilities as well. Hopefully we will see this happen soon.
Whether or not the libraries for different capabilities are bundled under the same project heading or not is irrelevant as far as whether or not they are good. It does actually make it a lot easier to have a bundle of libraries that will work on all OSs, so you know that the entire environment will operate on every OS supported by the environment, rather than having to hunt down seperate libraries, some which will work OS X and not OS Y, others on OS Y but not OS X. I cant imagine why having to try to find 10 seperate libraries from different sources each with greatly varying degrees of cross platform support wiould be better than one bundle of libraries that works on the same list of platforms. It makes things much more complex. Why do you want to make writing a cross platform app more difficult if not impossible?
We also dont want to forget that the tablet thing is a fad of people trying to look like they are on star trek. But they are subjecting themselves to painful, difficult to use form factors to look cool because its the hip, in thing. I compare tablets and smartphones to high healed shoes and corsets, and mens leather business shoes, they do terrible things to the body and people subjected themselves to the pain of this to look fashionable, even though there were much more comfortable attire available. In fact they make themselves look like idiots. Il'll take my sneakers and my desktop computer any day over the tablet and business shoes.
To actually have cross platform support you must provide cross platform APIs for everything you can possibly need to do is a must, that includes audio, video, networking, video capture, recording, image acquisition devices, you name it. QT has to be much more than a GUI toolkit or you would be very limited with the kind of apps you can write with it in a cross platform way. Thats why the kitchen sink nature of it is a benefit not a drawback, you seem to base your condemnation on really nothing at all. QT need to be is designed that you can write an applications that can do anything and that it can run on anything, it can allow access to any kind of hardware or system interface in a cross platform way without an app having to worry about OS particularities. Instead of having app developers waste time reinventing the wheel creating another cross platform compatability layer for every app they write, it makes sense to create a common set of libraries that provide an OS independant API for accessing every concievable hardware and software feature on all platforms. QT should include the kitchen sink, so that apps can be cross platform. A video conferencing program, a recording studio program, a dekstop publishing program, a video editing program, a 3D opengl game, written for QT shouldbe able to run on Linux or Windows without a single line of code needing to be changed.
You're being too kind. Gnome is dead and nothing save throwing out Gnome 3 and going back to a taskbar and start menu model will bring it back. Why not add back all configuration options? The problem is that when you say some that just leads to the problem we have now, someone deciding they dont like an option and forcing their ideology on others. Why not just let users decide? give them them options. They can seperate the options into advanced and regular screens, this allows the advanced options to be provided without any sort of a claim that can be made that they confuse people. The best thing that can be done is to get people like Havoc Pennington away from software projects. Basically the Gnome 3 people are a bunch of jerks. Let the project die and teach them a lesson. There are many much more sane UIs available like MATE.
They do run the Linux kernel, but thats it, its not really a Linux OS, there is no similarity with what you would call an real Linux desktop system. Android has its own userland that usually tend to be locked down and designed to control the user, it provides none of the control to the user that a real Linux OS provides. Just because you have a Linux kernel in there, does not mean that the userland running on top of it is not a locked down, inflexible piece of junk thats designed to take away your freedom and get you hooked into the NSA monitored cloud. I would say a real Linux system has the full Linux/Unix userland, Android has its own userland which is designed to create a black box device that takes away freedom by controlling the user.
I could not agree more. Someone please mod this up.
PS. you will also be able to run a rootless X server in addition to a rooted or fullscreen X server as well depending on what you need. You can have a full X window desktop with an X window manager, you can have that run within a window on wayland, the rootless X server would run individual X applications within wayland. X isnt going anywhere.
X will not be replaced by Wayland. X is going to be moved onto the Wayland architecture and is going to be a user of the Wayland architecture. If you wanted to have a X desktop you will be able to run a fullscreen X server on top of Wayland, and you would never know that Wayland was there.
Even a laptop is subpar to a desktop , to have the best ergonomics you need to be able to seperately position the monitor and the keyboard, you need a desktop PC for the best ergonomics . Remember back in the 90s the concerns over RSIs and the trends towards ergonomic keyboards for desktop computers? all of that was well advised. Why people now want to actually trade in their comfortable ergonomic desktop system for something that is much more painful and contortionist to use, for a 4 inch screen and try to subject themselves to the pain of using vastly inferior IO devices and a cramped tablet form factor that there is no way that this can come close to the comfort of a desktop setup, vastly inferior to a desktop is beyond me. It seems like they have gone the other direction Away from ergonomics now, to lets make it popular to use torturious form factors with the tablets and the laptops are simply an ergonomic disaster that are hard to use and actually are painful. You also do not want the EMF emissions from the main electronics of the motherboard and the power supply so close to your body so you want all of that positioned a distance away. We are probably going to see an epidemic of cancers caused by handheld tablets and brain cancer from smartphones in a few decades. Brain cancers can be slow moving and may not become noticeable for decades. Then you have the cloud nonsense which really is an attempt to get people to store their lives in the cloud so it can be data mined by the NSA.
Thats a joke right? Windows 8 is a total useability disaster for most desktop users and I know many who throw up their arms in despair. Its a train wreck. The desktop and mobile form factors require completely different user interface models. The taskbar and start menu works best and is simply the most practical for a desktop. On a mobile device you are dealing with a small screen, no (real) keyboard, no mouse, an imprecise touch pointing interface that has less precise pointing accuracy that a mouse, none of these are limitations found on a desktop system, so hence a different UI might be needed for a mobile because of the severe limitations, but make no sense on a desktop where limitations do not exist. I cannot see mobile devices being anything more than a niche device for use when on the go because of these very reasons, the devices are extremely inefficient for actual content creation, anything more than a few one liner messages. These are acceptable limitations when you are walking down a sidewalk or on a subway, but they are absurd when you are at a desk at work where a desktop machine would be far, far better and in that case the confined nature of the mobile device is pointless, you have plenty of space on your desk for full desktop input output devices for a much better computing experience. If mobile devices came first,and the desktop came later, we would be talking about how the mobile device was going extinct because the desktop can offer much more computing power, a 100 times larger screen, a full size keyboard a real mouse, much better than trying to work on a 3" chiclet keyboard. Are people really going to walk into a store and say "I want to trade in my 20" monitor, my full size keyboard and my mouse for a 3" screen, with a chiclet keyboard and 1/30th the power". This i going backwards. Mobile devices are niche products and people will suffer from greatly reduced productivity and user experience if they try to use them in lieu of a real full featured desktop.