But, the Catalonian separatists are not interested in matters of law, which just means that, if they break away, no one will trust them, because Catalonia will effectively be a banana republic without rule of law.
Funny. I think that having a constitution that forbids any part to organize a referendum on independence can only happen in a banana republic. It seems it's also possible in Europe.
We kind of have some experience with this in Canada... the problem will be the separatists who want full autonomy (fine) will not care if they drag non-separatists with them (not fine)
WTF is that supposed to mean? but it is fine to drag Quebec separatists into Canada? That there should be one country for every citizen in Canada?
And if you magically get all that sorted out, there's still the endless bickering over how to divide up Spain - borders, debt share, citizenship rights, trade agreements, government pensions... every single item on the list (including bajillions of items I've likely overlooked) has the potential to bring the two sides to civil war.
Catalonia was ready to discuss all that peacefully. Spain isn't.
Ignoring a self declared independent region when they have ignored the high court's ruling of their actions against the constitution of the land is not likely to make the situation better.
How can they get their independence while respecting Spain's constitution at the same time? That's right, they can't. It's a trap. Spain's constitution could even be amended so that every citizen has a veto right on any secession, while their at it.
The problem is not the referendum or the result, it's the Spanish constitution. Whetter we support Catalonia's cause or not.
Very few countries explicitly allows parts to secede. People's self-determination right is more important than any country's constitution. In the end, what matters is if other countries recognize the new country or not. That's Catalonia's main problem right now. Because otherwise, they have every democratic right to be independent.
And yes, all democracies not recognizing Catalonia should be ashamed.
What proper process? They tried to talk with Spain for years to organize a referendum that both sides would be happy with. Spain always refused. There is no way out. The "proper process" you talk about is to ask Spain to agree with Catalonia to leave. With that logic, we should bring back the USA into the UK and ask the UK if it's ok for the USA to leave.
Small European countries seems to prove you wrong. There isn't that much economies of scale when a country get larger than a few millions. And the added bureaucracy offset any gain. Scandinavian countries are doing just fine with low population. Even smaller countries such as Luxembourg are doing fine, but we could argue it's only artificial since they are stealing companies from their neighbors.
I agree that they should try to join the EU however, and they want it. Spain will obviously oppose, if it ever gets there.
Renewable are becoming cheaper every day. And cheap oil and gas, with Obama's stricter regulations, made coal useless. That's why coal plants are shutting down. Not because customers don't want to buy electricity from coal. Most US customers will still buy whatever is the cheapest, so it doesn't matter if Amazon and Google wants to run 100% on renewable. As long as the demand for green electricity is below the current production, the effect is minimal. 15% of the electricity is green in the US. What's the share of Google and Amazon combined? 0.1%?
Let's imagine a planet with 10 people. All 10 of them produce the same utility ($1 each per year) and emit the same amount of CO2 yearly (1 ton). One day, two of them have a good idea and can produce more utility which allows them to double their utility output to $2. They live in larger houses and get big cars. So by your logic, they should have the right to emit twice as much CO2. The previous emissions were 10 tons, but now that raised to 12. Are you saying a 20% increase in CO2 is acceptable? The Earth doesn't care about your utility. The other solution is to get the other 8 to reduce their emissions. But why should they care if 2 of their neighbors increased their utility? It doesn't even benefit them. Why should they have to sacrifice?
Let say one of the 8 now decide to work and consume less. By doing so, he manages to reduce his utility by 50, while reducing his CO2 output by 0.25 ton. By your logic, you'd blame that person, because his productivity per unit of emission is now worse than the other 9, even though he actually contributed to a better environment, which benefit everyone.
And you call that the economic aspect of the issue? I couldn't disagree more.
So when Amazon or Google buy 1 GW of green power, that is 1 GW less that coal power plants are making in revenue.
Only if they can't shift that electricity production towards others, less regarding, customers. Otherwise, they do not lose a dime in revenue. That was my original point. Currently there are way too much customers in the USA who don't care about green energy and would choose coal instead of solar even to save 1% on their bill.
That's totally incorrect. You're only focusing on emissions (a byproduct of consumption), without considering utility. You aren't considering what was achieved using the energy obtained by each unit of per-capita greenhouse gas emission!
It's a feature, not a bug. Even if we double the utility (GDP, GNP, whatever) of the planet, we can't double our CO2 emissions.
I would also point out that if we double the population of the planet, we can't double our CO2 emissions and this is also true. So the CO2 per capita metric is only valid as long as the population of the planet remains the same. When the population increase, the CO2 per capita of all countries should be reduced too, but you get the idea.
Now, rich countries with high GDP per capita should be free to buy emissions credit from poorer countries emitting a lot less per capita. Let's let the market decide what is the most efficient way to use CO2. But we can't let the market decide what level of CO2 is sustainable for the planet.
You stop prematurely, and thus totally miss out on the economic aspect of this issue.
I am pretty sure we both understand the economic aspect of this issue. The problem is, you can't face the consequences, which are that rich countries, in which we probably both live, have to reduce CO2 emissions by a wide margin.
What happens when Amazon or Google buy 1 GW of green power, does a coal plant gets shut down? No. What happen is that the typical home customer has its share of green power reduced from say, 4% to 3%. The production remains the same. What matters is the total emissions of the country, divided by its population. The US continue to be one of the worst.
You should read your comment again. You clearly make a distinction between closed (generally requires approvals...) and open (nothing from management).
Companies can (and do) distribute software they are not even aware of. It doesn't matter if the software is open or closed source at this point. Many closed source software are free. And a company can have an open source policy (whatever that means) and still not even be aware* they distribute a particular software. Just because you have a policy doesn't mean it's perfect, let alone effective.
So the problem isn't the lack of policy towards open source. The problem is lack of policy towards security updates, and the general "if ain't broken" mentality that goes with it. Software is often working just fine (not broken) but has major security flaws. From a management perspective, it's not always worth it to pay some people to keep track of the available updates for all software, and do the required testing when an update is applied.
Just take smartphones. Many of them are never going to be patched for the recent WPA flaw. It wouldn't be different if they used a proprietary software instead of wpa_supplicant. The phone is already sold, and they aren't going to make any extra money in the short term by patching it. The fix is available, it's only a matter of deploying it. The lack of an open source policy has nothing to do with it.
*Some developer/sysadmin is probably aware but management isn't.
OK so now you admit that this has nothing to do with the code being open vs closed source.
The next step is to realize it has nothing to do with free vs paid either. If you buy a software once, you may not update it, even if there is a new version, especially if the new version requires paying again.
The problem is not lack of policy towards OSS. The problem is lack of policy towards security updates. The security update was available for Equifax. They didn't get the updated software. It has nothing to do with OSS.
Nothing to do with open source. A closed source, but free (as in beer) software would get the same problem. Plus if there is a vulnerability, the in-house team won't be able to fix it.
I don't think companies without any open source policy have a policy on this either.
How is it any different for closed source software? What if that proprietary software haven't been updated in years? Surely if there is no update, there is no security risk, right?
Exactly. But some people get offended when someone else get [INSERT SHOW XYZ] instead of Netflix. As if they should be able to get all shows for that price. Some people are literally asking to be rapped and they don't even know it.
are idiots. Netflix's business model is to be a dominant player, if not a monopoly. In a few years, they'll rise prices and if they do win their monopoly status, prices will be just as bad as cable.
Slashdot Mirror
There are tons of ways to do this in a legal way.
No, there isn't. Spain doesn't allow it.
But, the Catalonian separatists are not interested in matters of law, which just means that, if they break away, no one will trust them, because Catalonia will effectively be a banana republic without rule of law.
Funny. I think that having a constitution that forbids any part to organize a referendum on independence can only happen in a banana republic. It seems it's also possible in Europe.
We kind of have some experience with this in Canada... the problem will be the separatists who want full autonomy (fine) will not care if they drag non-separatists with them (not fine)
WTF is that supposed to mean? but it is fine to drag Quebec separatists into Canada?
That there should be one country for every citizen in Canada?
And if you magically get all that sorted out, there's still the endless bickering over how to divide up Spain - borders, debt share, citizenship rights, trade agreements, government pensions... every single item on the list (including bajillions of items I've likely overlooked) has the potential to bring the two sides to civil war.
Catalonia was ready to discuss all that peacefully. Spain isn't.
Ignoring a self declared independent region when they have ignored the high court's ruling of their actions against the constitution of the land is not likely to make the situation better.
How can they get their independence while respecting Spain's constitution at the same time? That's right, they can't. It's a trap.
Spain's constitution could even be amended so that every citizen has a veto right on any secession, while their at it.
The problem is not the referendum or the result, it's the Spanish constitution. Whetter we support Catalonia's cause or not.
Very few countries explicitly allows parts to secede.
People's self-determination right is more important than any country's constitution. In the end, what matters is if other countries recognize the new country or not. That's Catalonia's main problem right now. Because otherwise, they have every democratic right to be independent.
And yes, all democracies not recognizing Catalonia should be ashamed.
They knew proper process
What proper process? They tried to talk with Spain for years to organize a referendum that both sides would be happy with. Spain always refused.
There is no way out. The "proper process" you talk about is to ask Spain to agree with Catalonia to leave. With that logic, we should bring back the USA into the UK and ask the UK if it's ok for the USA to leave.
Small European countries seems to prove you wrong. There isn't that much economies of scale when a country get larger than a few millions. And the added bureaucracy offset any gain.
Scandinavian countries are doing just fine with low population. Even smaller countries such as Luxembourg are doing fine, but we could argue it's only artificial since they are stealing companies from their neighbors.
I agree that they should try to join the EU however, and they want it. Spain will obviously oppose, if it ever gets there.
Why would you trust the hardware switch anymore than the software switch? In both cases you have to trust the vendor.
who were you replying to?
Not only we need to go inside, but we need to guess how much it's going to cost to fill the tank.
Renewable are becoming cheaper every day. And cheap oil and gas, with Obama's stricter regulations, made coal useless. That's why coal plants are shutting down. Not because customers don't want to buy electricity from coal. Most US customers will still buy whatever is the cheapest, so it doesn't matter if Amazon and Google wants to run 100% on renewable. As long as the demand for green electricity is below the current production, the effect is minimal.
15% of the electricity is green in the US. What's the share of Google and Amazon combined? 0.1%?
It depends where you live. In Quebec it's something like 98% hydro.
Maybe they'd be building them anyway.
Just think about it another way:
Let's imagine a planet with 10 people. All 10 of them produce the same utility ($1 each per year) and emit the same amount of CO2 yearly (1 ton).
One day, two of them have a good idea and can produce more utility which allows them to double their utility output to $2. They live in larger houses and get big cars.
So by your logic, they should have the right to emit twice as much CO2. The previous emissions were 10 tons, but now that raised to 12.
Are you saying a 20% increase in CO2 is acceptable? The Earth doesn't care about your utility. The other solution is to get the other 8 to reduce their emissions. But why should they care if 2 of their neighbors increased their utility? It doesn't even benefit them. Why should they have to sacrifice?
Let say one of the 8 now decide to work and consume less. By doing so, he manages to reduce his utility by 50, while reducing his CO2 output by 0.25 ton. By your logic, you'd blame that person, because his productivity per unit of emission is now worse than the other 9, even though he actually contributed to a better environment, which benefit everyone.
And you call that the economic aspect of the issue? I couldn't disagree more.
So when Amazon or Google buy 1 GW of green power, that is 1 GW less that coal power plants are making in revenue.
Only if they can't shift that electricity production towards others, less regarding, customers.
Otherwise, they do not lose a dime in revenue. That was my original point. Currently there are way too much customers in the USA who don't care about green energy and would choose coal instead of solar even to save 1% on their bill.
That's totally incorrect. You're only focusing on emissions (a byproduct of consumption), without considering utility. You aren't considering what was achieved using the energy obtained by each unit of per-capita greenhouse gas emission!
It's a feature, not a bug.
Even if we double the utility (GDP, GNP, whatever) of the planet, we can't double our CO2 emissions.
I would also point out that if we double the population of the planet, we can't double our CO2 emissions and this is also true. So the CO2 per capita metric is only valid as long as the population of the planet remains the same. When the population increase, the CO2 per capita of all countries should be reduced too, but you get the idea.
Now, rich countries with high GDP per capita should be free to buy emissions credit from poorer countries emitting a lot less per capita. Let's let the market decide what is the most efficient way to use CO2. But we can't let the market decide what level of CO2 is sustainable for the planet.
You stop prematurely, and thus totally miss out on the economic aspect of this issue.
I am pretty sure we both understand the economic aspect of this issue. The problem is, you can't face the consequences, which are that rich countries, in which we probably both live, have to reduce CO2 emissions by a wide margin.
What happens when Amazon or Google buy 1 GW of green power, does a coal plant gets shut down? No. What happen is that the typical home customer has its share of green power reduced from say, 4% to 3%. The production remains the same. What matters is the total emissions of the country, divided by its population. The US continue to be one of the worst.
You should read your comment again. You clearly make a distinction between closed (generally requires approvals...) and open (nothing from management).
Companies can (and do) distribute software they are not even aware of. It doesn't matter if the software is open or closed source at this point. Many closed source software are free.
And a company can have an open source policy (whatever that means) and still not even be aware* they distribute a particular software. Just because you have a policy doesn't mean it's perfect, let alone effective.
So the problem isn't the lack of policy towards open source. The problem is lack of policy towards security updates, and the general "if ain't broken" mentality that goes with it. Software is often working just fine (not broken) but has major security flaws. From a management perspective, it's not always worth it to pay some people to keep track of the available updates for all software, and do the required testing when an update is applied.
Just take smartphones. Many of them are never going to be patched for the recent WPA flaw. It wouldn't be different if they used a proprietary software instead of wpa_supplicant. The phone is already sold, and they aren't going to make any extra money in the short term by patching it. The fix is available, it's only a matter of deploying it. The lack of an open source policy has nothing to do with it.
*Some developer/sysadmin is probably aware but management isn't.
OK so now you admit that this has nothing to do with the code being open vs closed source.
The next step is to realize it has nothing to do with free vs paid either. If you buy a software once, you may not update it, even if there is a new version, especially if the new version requires paying again.
The problem is not lack of policy towards OSS. The problem is lack of policy towards security updates. The security update was available for Equifax. They didn't get the updated software. It has nothing to do with OSS.
Nothing to do with open source. A closed source, but free (as in beer) software would get the same problem. Plus if there is a vulnerability, the in-house team won't be able to fix it.
I don't think companies without any open source policy have a policy on this either.
yeah, so basically if that commercial software company don't send you any notice, you can safely assume you are secure, right?
How is it any different for closed source software? What if that proprietary software haven't been updated in years? Surely if there is no update, there is no security risk, right?
There is. But some people wish there isn't. All those who complain because Netflix doesn't have show XYZ because it was "stolen" by competitor ABC.
Exactly. But some people get offended when someone else get [INSERT SHOW XYZ] instead of Netflix. As if they should be able to get all shows for that price.
Some people are literally asking to be rapped and they don't even know it.
are idiots. Netflix's business model is to be a dominant player, if not a monopoly. In a few years, they'll rise prices and if they do win their monopoly status, prices will be just as bad as cable.
there are plenty of hipster outside the US, yes.