And you totally missed my point. The foundation is supposed to be working to improve health and environment yet it invested in businesses that cause a lot of ill health and damages the environment.
Still missing the point. What Bill Gates does doesn't matter at all. If he masturbates after every donation or kills a newborn, was not part of this discussion. You people are so fanatic about Microsoft that you keep talking about them even if the subject is Google.
A internet advertising and search company investing on commodities is stupid.
What if Google buys the spectrum (or part of it) and leases it to Sprint on Google's terms, or otherwise uses this partnership to have Google supply the spectrum and Sprint supply the towers?
Then Google would be in the banking market (loans), not in the market of internet and communications innovations. Any kind of imposed profit larger than the market's average interest, and Sprint would be better off buying the band themselves.
If Google can put forth the cash for the spectrum, and Sprint can build on top of its network everything needed, you're talking about a powerhouse of wireless Internet and services across it.
If using that portion of the spectrum can be considered to Sprint as a good business plan, they'll just buy it themselves. This kind of license is not like a building or machinery: you're expected to make money from it while it lasts, because when it's over you're not holding valuable assets, just an old piece of paper that is no longe valid. That means that Google would probably need to lease their band for a higher amount than what it costed, wich would be a rip-off for Sprint.
Knowing Google, they would probably lease it for less than the original price, because they just need to keep making hot air instead of delivering actual profits.
It may not be that much to start with but selling access is another possible revenue stream. It could also open up more revenue streams.
I'm sorry, but "could be" is not enough to justify spending billions of dollars on a license. If you were running a company you would probably go bankrupt if you kept dealing with investments using that kind of logic. I think that, in fact, Google was trying to buy the band just to make the company a little bit more solid, just like when banks build giant office buildings to increase their risk ratings. The whole "make it open, please, please" B/S was just an attempt to close the deal at the minimum price.
What's next, Google buying oil refineries just because "they can"?
Bill Gates did, er his Bill And Mellisa Gates Foundation has.
Bill Gates or his foundation aren't public companies dedicated to internet searching. Your comment completely misses the point.
Good point. Even though Google might technically be able to win the bid, they don't have the same sort of traditional telecom assets as the other companies.
Yes, exactly. And not only assets such as towers and such, but also support and sales departments.
One off-the-cuff idea though: What if they're planning on doing something very non-traditional? For example, I could envision them trying to do something similar to FON, selling 700mhz Wifi routers to people with some kind of profit-sharing scheme.
Considering that the 2.4GHz band is already free and open, it would be pretty weird to buy another band for billions when all the project is trying to achieve is in the realms of complicated logistics. Buying this kind of spectrum license is necessary only when you want to operate your own, centralized (as in control), network.
The thing is: even with all those PhDs, Google still can't manage to find their "next thing". A workforce with high academic skills is great when you have important taks to be done, but not to determine those taks. And employees (without a good system to allow new products - look at MS and its billionaire employees) are not very good at innovation, as good ideas would render them into owners of their own speculative bubble, instead of mere employees.
That's why they're building giant datacenters and buying commodities. They need to invest their money on solid stuff, to avoid bursting like the average bubble. I think they're just trying to become more big and important, just like Microsoft did when they bought dial-up companies for MSN and a TV channel for MSNBC. When you have your fingers all around important stuff, it's hard to be dismissed like your average bursted dot-bubble.
When the whole "rip-you-off for adwords" scheme goes down, they will still be there, selling mobile access and renting datacenter space.
I'm not certain, but I think the relevant financial statistic for an auction is "Cash and Short Term Investments," which is what they could make readily available to use for bidding.
It's not just about that. I have enough "cash and short term investments" right here in my pocket to spend a couple hundred dollars buying a single expensive toolholder for a CNC machining center. But I don't have a hundred thousand dollar CNC machining center, no factory installations, no sales office and no consumer base.
It's never just about having money to buy stuff. You also need to make extra investments and assets to buy this kind of infrastructure. And they cost a lot of money.
Spending half of Google's money on airwaves would also mean opening thousands of new jobs, creating new departments and searching for customers. And the investors are not happy with the current situation of Google. "I will not innovate if I can just use the investor's money to buy commoditized stuff and partially-inovating trendy companies like YouTube" will really hurt Google in the long run. Yeah, ok, the new market of internet advertising might grow to dozens of billions of dollars a year. That's why Google is worth so much, because of a new market. Investing on telecom commodities is not why they have so much money, to create this kind of old-business infrastructure.
What's next, Google buying oil refineries just because "they can"? I'd be pretty pissed off if the company holding my money (shares) started abusing it.
Firefox is passing a _VALID_ URL to the Window's URL handler, which is incorrectly parsing the URL.
Firefox is passing stuff from webpages directly to the operating system. That's bad design.
Firefox is not passing commands, Firefox is passing a URL, which Windows then runs as a command, instead of passing it as an argument to the program assigned to handle URLs of that scheme like it is supposed to (and like it does if you have IE 6 installed).
Firefox is calling the operating system with user-supplied data without checking if it's safe. That's stupid.
Since the URL's have the same effect if they are launched from the Windows Start menu
Well, what if sending an "format" command to Firefox have the same effect as if it was launched from the Windows Start Menu? The thing is: browsers should NOT allow malicious commands to go past its sandbox. Just "passing" commands to a third party IS insecure behaviour.
Firefox users should not play the blame shifting game, but think that their loved product is responsible for the concept of "everything I click and do without authorising any additional actions on this browser should be secure". Yeah, IE7 received a command from a local app that alows bad stuff to be done? But a lot of local actions allows bad stuff to be done, it's the browser who should be controlling this kind of thing.
That's the same thing as Firefox exectuing a link with "C:\Windows\System32\whatever.exe". It's not "windows's fault for opening it", it's firefox's fault for sending the command.
A browser should NOT redirect commands to external apps unless the security boundaries of that operation are well defined and respected.
Some people use it as a reason to get out on the weekend.
Which is, most of the time, pathetic. Seriously, this is not flamebait, but most (not all) people who need a LUG to attend to parties and interact with real people are the kind of people I really want to avoid. They're mostly egocentric and cocky, and most think they're uncomprehended geniuses, while they're just dumb people with a technical / scientific set of interests.
So it's not a good place even for technical conversations. Sometimes taking the kids to their soccer game will yield more intelligent conversations (with people that have jobs/interests in the same market) than being around a bunch of paranoid and self-appointed geniuses who will spend the entire day bashing the same enemies and agreeing with each other on mostly everything that's relevant (they do disagree on irrelevant topics). They mostly agree with each other all the time because they lack the psychological strenght and abilities necessary to make a point without fearing losing friends or being agressive.
It also never hurts to brush up on inter-personal skills at the same time.
You don't want to brush up this kind of skills with persons lacking that same set of qualities. It's counter-productive and most people end up as living stereotypes, because they "infect" each other with dorky group social styles. That's why some people suffer so much in high school: they end up in groups that in the long run turns them into WEIRD PEOPLE. And not just weird from a jock's perspective, but also considering a massive majority of society and also a massive majority of the "good part" (nice and smart people) of society.
Maybe they're having trouble because the best programmers know they can get hired anywhere they want and don't have the patience to deal with Google's ridiculously long and convoluted hiring process.
Exactly. When Google tried to recruit in my university (the best in South America and compared to - and partner of - the top ones at France and Germany), most people rushed to their public reunion, where they were confronted by smart-ass interviewing tactics. Most truly smart people got pissed off and went away, while book nerds (posers and such with no actual ability to solve problems and produce actual code, they're only able to solve assignments and exercises) willing to work for a dot-bomb all got hired.
One year later, half of the truly smart were already working at solid institutions (such as Siemens and others) and the other half was developing products and services for their own future companies. And the Google "winners" were stuck at null internship activities, because Google just wanted to stablish a presence here, not actually develop anything. What the hell, they don't develop almost anything at all (compared to the ABSURD AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT WORKFORCE THEY HAVE) even in the US.
How exactly are they different in terms of the carbon cycle?
Quantity, idiot, quantity.
Here's a crazy idea: name a reputable biologist who supports your position
What about NO? I don't give a crap about this subject. This is not my political agenda and it will never be. You braindead idiots can keep spending the rest of your lives agreeing with each other about this new global warming political trend, as I don't give a fuck about the hobbies of politicized retards.
And more: you can keep comparing the natural existance of plants with automobiles burning several gallons of CO2. I'm pretty sure you're enough of a retard to even consider that those two situations even belong to the same order of magnitude.
Do you want a simple example of how fucking wrong you are? Plant something (absorbing CO2), let an animal eat it. Do you know what's the next step? Yes, it is SHITTING. Plain, old, shitting on the middle of the forest. It's organic matter, lots of it, with shitloads of little carbon atoms connected to the molecules, and most of them will never be turned to CO2, as they'll just compose a dry piece of FECES standing on the forest's floor. And any CO2 generated by any process that touches this "piece of shit" will be absorbed by plants inside the same ecosystem.
You think that, just like fuel burning, the end destination of all carbon molecules composing organic matter is CO2. That's so absurd that your attempts to talk about "science" sound more stupid than before.
With biofuels you don't have "shitting" and "animals getting more fat" and "leafs falling on the floor" and all other kinds of storage of trillions of carbon atoms composing untouched organic molecules. With biofuels you will simply transform most carbon atoms to CO2.
So the next time you have the opportunity of being around ANIMAL SHIT, you can think about how stupid you were when you compared burning fuels with the natural existence of plants. You can remember when you completely forgot that burning fuels is a process that converts carbon atoms inside molecules onto CO2, while forests and farms are places where EVERYTHING AROUND YOU is a big carbon storage, on the form of ORGANIC MATTER.
If we really think about what you said, if we think about your last-minute excuse, you just said that CO2 is the only final form of carbon in nature, that even plants end up being all CO2, just like fuels. Next time, take a look at the soil, it will be very interesting for you to find that the world is not as stupid as it sounds.
The planet is really screwed with all those plants ans animals releasing quantities of CO2 comparable to plain, old, fuel burning! And with retards like you, walking around with "science" all over your political speech, things are much worse.
Get it NOW? Biofuels release CO2 that would have been released anyway, when the plants got eaten by animals, decomposed by fungi and bacteria, etcetera.
Oh god, shut the fuck up. I'm tired of having a civilizated discussion with such a moron as you. You spent lots of post-reply sessions not getting the obvious, and now instead of thinking about the issue, you just tried to find a way to dodge the situation. Instead of rationalizing, you just added new items to your standard answer collection, right next to "but it's neutral!!!".
So what are you proposing saying then, idiot? That we should replace the ecosystem with shitloads of biofuel plantation, as "we're giving a better use to all this CO2 what was already being emitted anyway". Killing those stupid CO2-releasing animals? STOP BEING SO GODDAMNED STUPID. STOP TREATING BIOFUELS LIKE A RELIGION. STOP BEING AN IDIOT. It's even worse: your pathetic attempt to compare fuel burning and natural events is also extremely wrong, as you said "But forests and plains don't see much sequestration of carbon". Sure they do, MORON, they're a giant mass of life that arised from nowhere. The forest is a sequestration itself, with CO2 creation and absorption taking place at the same time, unless some idiot replaces all of that beautiful ecosystem (killing all animals and plants) with sugar cane, to profit from his stupid fixation with bio-fuels.
Comparing decomposition and other natural events to burning fuel inside an automobile is STUPID AS HELL. In fact, it just proved what I was thinking about you since the beginning: you're a bio-fuels fanboy, a zealot, an idiot compromised by the politics that surround this issue.
You see, this is the advantage of having a scientific education.
You don't have any scientific education at all. Nobody with a good scientific background would keep bulshitting "but it's neutral" without even thinking about the issue. You're just an idiot like people from PETA, Greenpeace and other groups of idiots, that thinks it's smart and above everyone else. Just a stupid son of a bitch who had the nerve of comparing fuel burning with animals eating plants, or even worse, with plants with a lifespan of decades, such as a tree.
1. Plants absorb CO2 from atmosphere.
2. Plants get turned into ethanol.
3. The ethanol get burned.
4. The CO2 (which came from the atmosphere in the first place) returns to atmosphere, resulting in no net-change in CO2 levels.
5. GOTO 1.
O RLY?
It's more like this:
0. a) Plants are already absorbing X tons / day of CO2 from atmosphere.
0. b) You go there and replace them with sugar cane or anything else, absorbing X tons / day of CO2.
0. c) You end up with a 0% net gain of CO2 absorption.
1. Some plants get turned into ethanol.
2. The ethanol gets burned, just like petrol.
3. The CO2 goes to atmosphere.
4. GOTO 1.
Unless you're destroying downtown NY to grow your plants, meaning that you are creating more green areas (which you are not), burning more fuel will always result in more CO2 concentration. I even divided the problem in two parts, to help you understand the obvious, but you completely failed to even think about the issue.
I will repeat for you: it does NOT matter that you are burning fuel from plants that absorbed CO2, because you already had plants in your farm, doing the EXACT same thing, before you started to grow sugar cane / whatever. So keeping the same CO2 levels in the atmosphere will never be possible while burning MORE fuel, unless you create MORE GREEN AREAS.
That's not hard to understand, dude. Think about sinks and sources and where does bio-fuels will change emission and absorption figures.
Now let's go back to petrol:
0. You still have X tons / day of plant CO2 absorption.
1. Petroleum is pumped from underground.
2. Petroleum gets burned, releasing CO2, just like bio-fuels.
3. GOTO 1.
Seriously, THINK ABOUT THE ISSUE INSTEAD OF JUST DISMISSING WITHOUT SPENDING EVEN FIVE SECONDS CONSIDERING IT.
If I understand correctly, then it does not matter that much what plants you grow, or at least you have a lot wider selection of suitable plants.
Sure, if cellulose is all the processing system needs, then you're right, they can just rotate the crops (plant something different every single time), to avoid exaustion of specific soil nutrients, and keep going.
However using organic methods and permaculture these chemical inputs won't be needed.
Sure they won't, but additional millions of acres (and also millions of immigrants) will be necessary for those methods. The agro-industry doesn't avoid organic methods them because they're just plain evil, they avoid it because it's not the best option available.
Now, if you harvest the plants, put the biomass through ethanol or biodiesel creation process, and return the residue to the soil, then nothing is removed from the soil, so you can keep the production up indefinitely without extra fertilizers (as long as sun is shining, (rain)water is available, and there's CO2 in the atmosphere).
It doesn't work like that. At least not with sugar cane. The "residue" does not return from the tanks intact. It will return as a different substance than you had before processing, which already was a different substance than you had in the soil. They're not just bags of atoms, they're complex molecules, processed by the plant's cells (after extracting it from the soil) and the factory's processes (after extracting the fuel).
So it's not as simple as putting it back. And you don't want to throw away precious and expensive sugar. =]
Step 1: limit the use of petroleum.
Result: CO2 levels stop rising so quickly. This will at least give the biosphere a bit more time to adapt, and provides a longer window of time in which to research more long-term solutions. After all, the supply of petroleum IS finite, and it would be nice to stretch it out until we've also found ways to make our favourite plastics from cheap, renewable sources.
I think you mean "limit the use of fuels". Using petroleum will increase CO2 level as much as using biofuels. As I said an I'll repeat it again: both are CO2 emitters and growing biofuel where you alredy had plants in the first place will not make a difference.
Step 2: start using biofuels, to provide a mobile source of energy for vehicles. The global population is expected to peak, so the global demand for vehicle fuels should also peak. Almost everything else can just run on electricity -- but for now, vehicles need hydrocarbons.
Result: we (you, technically, since I live in a nation with an oil surplus and don't drive anyway) no longer have to pay huge amounts of cash to countries that hate us. Fuel prices are somewhat more stable, because there are many different feedstocks that can be used. CO2 emissions don't increase as a result of this, because biofuels are carbon neutral.
You're just playing with words here. Your usage of the word "neutral" is quasi-religious and doesn't mean anything at all. You think that saying "neutral" exempts you from explaining (and thinking about) lots of stuff. Someone told you it's "neutral" and that's it for you, problem solved.
If "the global demand for vehicle fuels" is growing, CO2 emissions will continue to grow no matter what kind of fuel you are using. As I said before: think about CO2 SOURCES and CO2 SINKS. What matters in real life are the RESULTS, not empty words.
The amount of carbon sinks is not affected by the use of biofuels (remove plant to grow another plant = null result), while the amount of sources is affected by the amount of carbon-emitting fuels burned, dino or bio, it doesn't matter. So more cars = more CO2, no matter what fuel you are using.
And while petroleum it's just something that we currently remove from underground caves, mass agriculture is extremely environment-agressive and increasing througput (we will now need food AND fuel from farms) always means some extra forest destruction. So the most important thing is to think about results, as needed in the real world, not playing with the word "neutral" or believing anything people tell you about.
So you alternatives you had to offer are: use less fuel, go nuclear and stop using islamic oil. Nothing new.
As a member of society and a writer of free software, I most certainly consider it my fight to protect the freedom of other members of this society.
The freedom of every member of this society? Every single one? Even murderes, rapists and thiefs? Who decides what freedoms are important? You? Stallman?
The phone owners fight is mine, just as the Tivo owners, the Xbox owners or the future computer owners, or we will eventually find ourselves very alone with little equipment on which to exercise those freedoms we've fought so hard for.
Every single fight is also yours? What about white supremacists? Fanatic Islamists?
The thing is: the real world needs focused efforts in order to achieve good results. Good as in "the best as possible", not as in "good enough". Inserting random political issues on your software license is counter-productive and it's also dangerous: most people (including Stallman) doesn't know the difference between "crossing boundaries just to help the humanity" and "forcing my views onto others, because they're not visionaries like me so they are not able to know what's good for them".
No it's not. I put my code specifically under the GPL with the exact intentions that the code remain free and to further promote the freedom of everyone to do what they wish with that code.
To do anything they wish with your code? Even use it inside a closed-source product? Sure not, your license restricts that, because it focuses on a specific kind of source-code usage, as its authors considered that those specific distribution constraints were a good mechanism to promote their goals. Just like the license can restrict the usage of the source code, it can also restrict itself to a single subject.
Sure, "fighting to protect the freedom of other members of this society" is very important, but you don't black rights activism inserted onto your license. You want to focus, and you also want to keep some nasty political stuff out of the way.
The FSF and GPL has always been about denying distributors the right to take power over others.
The Free SOFTWARE Foundation has always been about Software, or at least pretented to be.
This is a natural evolution of that.
Sure it is natural. Most human fsck-ups are natural. The thing is: most good things in life are not natural, they need us to be rational, they need planing instead of just acting "natural". Living in caves, without the need of having a job, raising kids or any other "enslaving responsabilities" it's not very nice, because without those unnatural aspects of life, all other good things are not achievable at all.
Buying a piece of hardware and not being able to control it is bad? Sure it is. But contaminating a software license with this kind of political cause is the same as acting like a cave-man. When a software license (or society's laws) on your hands, you need better self-control and also need to be more rational, you need to make "ideological sacrifices" and let go of some stuff, because you're thinking about the big picture, thinking like a smart grown-up, not like a kid full of desires.
If distributors of software want to screw their customers or other recipients of code, they can do that, but if they do, they can damn well keep their hands off mine. I'm not helping them. Nor is any code I write.
Sure, but "screw" under what context? What about traffic? Do bad-driving distributors deserve your code? Do black distributors also deserve it? What about republicans? Do they deserve it too?
In theory, the place where you are growing corn or sugar cane was already occupied by CO2-absorbing plants, either natural ones or food-destined ones. If we remove natural forest to plant sugar cane / corn, it's even worse: we're destroying stuff just to get fuel, instead of just taking it from the underground."
I would argue that that depends on what you do with the farm, if it is sustainable farm, then I believe you would still be overall neutral.
The error to me comes from people see forests as oxygen sources, which I believe is false, for example I believe that the rainforests are in fact a carbon neutral piece of land.
Yes, forests are not oxygen sources, as most of the produced oxygen is consumed by the local ecosystem, with lots of animals and other oxygen-consuming members, like fungus, bacteria and stuff. But that was not my point, though. Bio-fuel advocates are always talking about how the "carbon cycle" is what makes bio-fuels the only "eco-friendly" solution available. That's not true.
Yes, corn and sugar cane do absorb CO2, but (repeating it for the Nth time) the plants that were there before also did the same thing. So bio-fuels are only a different method of creating CO2-emitting fuels. They are not a solution to global warming and they are not helping the environment at all, as you'll be dumping shitloads of fertilizer on the soil and using more land than the usual (growing just food).
Eco-activists had decades to brainwash the masses and now everyone hates oil companies and believe that oil is bad just for being oil. But taking fuel out of underground caves is much better than destroying the environment by growing it with fertilizers and destroying forests.
It's impossible (and stupid, or ill-motivated) to help defeating global warming by hating Nuclear (Greenpeace and others) and promoting bio-fuels. Most people will fall for the useless "carbon neutral" argument because they will not think about the net effect of using bio-fuels, they care only about politics and feel-good decisions, not about the real world.
The thing is, I really believe Greenpeace and others are promoting bio-fuels, while complaining about CO2 emissions, just because they think that it's much better to get fuel from somewhere else than from the big corps that they all hate, because of (revenge against) everything that happened in the past. Some of them do that while knowing what they're doing, while the rest does not really think much about anything they defend, as long as it's against the establishment.
But the GPL has always been about that fight and that political agenda. This is from GPL version 2: "the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users" (emphasis mine). If you don't agree with that, and you don't want to fight the phone owner's fight, then the GPL was probably the wrong license for you to choose to begin with, because that is what the GPL was always about.
The GPL version you quoted is specific to software and it has nothing to do with "the power of doing anything I want with my own hardware" but just about having access to source code.
Slashdot Mirror
A internet advertising and search company investing on commodities is stupid.
If using that portion of the spectrum can be considered to Sprint as a good business plan, they'll just buy it themselves. This kind of license is not like a building or machinery: you're expected to make money from it while it lasts, because when it's over you're not holding valuable assets, just an old piece of paper that is no longe valid. That means that Google would probably need to lease their band for a higher amount than what it costed, wich would be a rip-off for Sprint.
Knowing Google, they would probably lease it for less than the original price, because they just need to keep making hot air instead of delivering actual profits.
The thing is: even with all those PhDs, Google still can't manage to find their "next thing". A workforce with high academic skills is great when you have important taks to be done, but not to determine those taks. And employees (without a good system to allow new products - look at MS and its billionaire employees) are not very good at innovation, as good ideas would render them into owners of their own speculative bubble, instead of mere employees.
That's why they're building giant datacenters and buying commodities. They need to invest their money on solid stuff, to avoid bursting like the average bubble. I think they're just trying to become more big and important, just like Microsoft did when they bought dial-up companies for MSN and a TV channel for MSNBC. When you have your fingers all around important stuff, it's hard to be dismissed like your average bursted dot-bubble.
When the whole "rip-you-off for adwords" scheme goes down, they will still be there, selling mobile access and renting datacenter space.
It's never just about having money to buy stuff. You also need to make extra investments and assets to buy this kind of infrastructure. And they cost a lot of money.
Spending half of Google's money on airwaves would also mean opening thousands of new jobs, creating new departments and searching for customers. And the investors are not happy with the current situation of Google. "I will not innovate if I can just use the investor's money to buy commoditized stuff and partially-inovating trendy companies like YouTube" will really hurt Google in the long run. Yeah, ok, the new market of internet advertising might grow to dozens of billions of dollars a year. That's why Google is worth so much, because of a new market. Investing on telecom commodities is not why they have so much money, to create this kind of old-business infrastructure.
What's next, Google buying oil refineries just because "they can"? I'd be pretty pissed off if the company holding my money (shares) started abusing it.
BEST
JOKE
EVER
Firefox users should not play the blame shifting game, but think that their loved product is responsible for the concept of "everything I click and do without authorising any additional actions on this browser should be secure". Yeah, IE7 received a command from a local app that alows bad stuff to be done? But a lot of local actions allows bad stuff to be done, it's the browser who should be controlling this kind of thing.
That's the same thing as Firefox exectuing a link with "C:\Windows\System32\whatever.exe". It's not "windows's fault for opening it", it's firefox's fault for sending the command.
A browser should NOT redirect commands to external apps unless the security boundaries of that operation are well defined and respected.
So it's not a good place even for technical conversations. Sometimes taking the kids to their soccer game will yield more intelligent conversations (with people that have jobs/interests in the same market) than being around a bunch of paranoid and self-appointed geniuses who will spend the entire day bashing the same enemies and agreeing with each other on mostly everything that's relevant (they do disagree on irrelevant topics). They mostly agree with each other all the time because they lack the psychological strenght and abilities necessary to make a point without fearing losing friends or being agressive.
One year later, half of the truly smart were already working at solid institutions (such as Siemens and others) and the other half was developing products and services for their own future companies. And the Google "winners" were stuck at null internship activities, because Google just wanted to stablish a presence here, not actually develop anything. What the hell, they don't develop almost anything at all (compared to the ABSURD AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT WORKFORCE THEY HAVE) even in the US.
Btw: I was already stupid enough to keep discussing with someone who calls other people "communists" and say "I bet you're a christian!".
But comparing burning fuels to the natural existance of plants, omg, that was stupid as hell.
I won't keep discussing with someone who compared burning fuels to the natural existence of plants.
What about NO? I don't give a crap about this subject. This is not my political agenda and it will never be. You braindead idiots can keep spending the rest of your lives agreeing with each other about this new global warming political trend, as I don't give a fuck about the hobbies of politicized retards.
And more: you can keep comparing the natural existance of plants with automobiles burning several gallons of CO2. I'm pretty sure you're enough of a retard to even consider that those two situations even belong to the same order of magnitude.
Do you want a simple example of how fucking wrong you are? Plant something (absorbing CO2), let an animal eat it. Do you know what's the next step? Yes, it is SHITTING. Plain, old, shitting on the middle of the forest. It's organic matter, lots of it, with shitloads of little carbon atoms connected to the molecules, and most of them will never be turned to CO2, as they'll just compose a dry piece of FECES standing on the forest's floor. And any CO2 generated by any process that touches this "piece of shit" will be absorbed by plants inside the same ecosystem.
You think that, just like fuel burning, the end destination of all carbon molecules composing organic matter is CO2. That's so absurd that your attempts to talk about "science" sound more stupid than before.
With biofuels you don't have "shitting" and "animals getting more fat" and "leafs falling on the floor" and all other kinds of storage of trillions of carbon atoms composing untouched organic molecules. With biofuels you will simply transform most carbon atoms to CO2.
So the next time you have the opportunity of being around ANIMAL SHIT, you can think about how stupid you were when you compared burning fuels with the natural existence of plants. You can remember when you completely forgot that burning fuels is a process that converts carbon atoms inside molecules onto CO2, while forests and farms are places where EVERYTHING AROUND YOU is a big carbon storage, on the form of ORGANIC MATTER.
If we really think about what you said, if we think about your last-minute excuse, you just said that CO2 is the only final form of carbon in nature, that even plants end up being all CO2, just like fuels. Next time, take a look at the soil, it will be very interesting for you to find that the world is not as stupid as it sounds.
The planet is really screwed with all those plants ans animals releasing quantities of CO2 comparable to plain, old, fuel burning! And with retards like you, walking around with "science" all over your political speech, things are much worse.
So what are you proposing saying then, idiot? That we should replace the ecosystem with shitloads of biofuel plantation, as "we're giving a better use to all this CO2 what was already being emitted anyway". Killing those stupid CO2-releasing animals? STOP BEING SO GODDAMNED STUPID. STOP TREATING BIOFUELS LIKE A RELIGION. STOP BEING AN IDIOT. It's even worse: your pathetic attempt to compare fuel burning and natural events is also extremely wrong, as you said "But forests and plains don't see much sequestration of carbon". Sure they do, MORON, they're a giant mass of life that arised from nowhere. The forest is a sequestration itself, with CO2 creation and absorption taking place at the same time, unless some idiot replaces all of that beautiful ecosystem (killing all animals and plants) with sugar cane, to profit from his stupid fixation with bio-fuels.
Comparing decomposition and other natural events to burning fuel inside an automobile is STUPID AS HELL. In fact, it just proved what I was thinking about you since the beginning: you're a bio-fuels fanboy, a zealot, an idiot compromised by the politics that surround this issue.
You don't have any scientific education at all. Nobody with a good scientific background would keep bulshitting "but it's neutral" without even thinking about the issue. You're just an idiot like people from PETA, Greenpeace and other groups of idiots, that thinks it's smart and above everyone else. Just a stupid son of a bitch who had the nerve of comparing fuel burning with animals eating plants, or even worse, with plants with a lifespan of decades, such as a tree.
It's more like this:
0. a) Plants are already absorbing X tons / day of CO2 from atmosphere.
0. b) You go there and replace them with sugar cane or anything else, absorbing X tons / day of CO2.
0. c) You end up with a 0% net gain of CO2 absorption.
1. Some plants get turned into ethanol.
2. The ethanol gets burned, just like petrol.
3. The CO2 goes to atmosphere.
4. GOTO 1.
Unless you're destroying downtown NY to grow your plants, meaning that you are creating more green areas (which you are not), burning more fuel will always result in more CO2 concentration. I even divided the problem in two parts, to help you understand the obvious, but you completely failed to even think about the issue.
I will repeat for you: it does NOT matter that you are burning fuel from plants that absorbed CO2, because you already had plants in your farm, doing the EXACT same thing, before you started to grow sugar cane / whatever. So keeping the same CO2 levels in the atmosphere will never be possible while burning MORE fuel, unless you create MORE GREEN AREAS.
That's not hard to understand, dude. Think about sinks and sources and where does bio-fuels will change emission and absorption figures.
Now let's go back to petrol:
0. You still have X tons / day of plant CO2 absorption.
1. Petroleum is pumped from underground.
2. Petroleum gets burned, releasing CO2, just like bio-fuels.
3. GOTO 1.
Seriously, THINK ABOUT THE ISSUE INSTEAD OF JUST DISMISSING WITHOUT SPENDING EVEN FIVE SECONDS CONSIDERING IT.
EOD.
So it's not as simple as putting it back. And you don't want to throw away precious and expensive sugar. =]
If "the global demand for vehicle fuels" is growing, CO2 emissions will continue to grow no matter what kind of fuel you are using. As I said before: think about CO2 SOURCES and CO2 SINKS. What matters in real life are the RESULTS, not empty words.
The amount of carbon sinks is not affected by the use of biofuels (remove plant to grow another plant = null result), while the amount of sources is affected by the amount of carbon-emitting fuels burned, dino or bio, it doesn't matter. So more cars = more CO2, no matter what fuel you are using.
And while petroleum it's just something that we currently remove from underground caves, mass agriculture is extremely environment-agressive and increasing througput (we will now need food AND fuel from farms) always means some extra forest destruction. So the most important thing is to think about results, as needed in the real world, not playing with the word "neutral" or believing anything people tell you about.
So you alternatives you had to offer are: use less fuel, go nuclear and stop using islamic oil. Nothing new.
Every single fight is also yours? What about white supremacists? Fanatic Islamists?
The thing is: the real world needs focused efforts in order to achieve good results. Good as in "the best as possible", not as in "good enough". Inserting random political issues on your software license is counter-productive and it's also dangerous: most people (including Stallman) doesn't know the difference between "crossing boundaries just to help the humanity" and "forcing my views onto others, because they're not visionaries like me so they are not able to know what's good for them".
To do anything they wish with your code? Even use it inside a closed-source product? Sure not, your license restricts that, because it focuses on a specific kind of source-code usage, as its authors considered that those specific distribution constraints were a good mechanism to promote their goals. Just like the license can restrict the usage of the source code, it can also restrict itself to a single subject.
Sure, "fighting to protect the freedom of other members of this society" is very important, but you don't black rights activism inserted onto your license. You want to focus, and you also want to keep some nasty political stuff out of the way.
The Free SOFTWARE Foundation has always been about Software, or at least pretented to be.
Sure it is natural. Most human fsck-ups are natural. The thing is: most good things in life are not natural, they need us to be rational, they need planing instead of just acting "natural". Living in caves, without the need of having a job, raising kids or any other "enslaving responsabilities" it's not very nice, because without those unnatural aspects of life, all other good things are not achievable at all.
Buying a piece of hardware and not being able to control it is bad? Sure it is. But contaminating a software license with this kind of political cause is the same as acting like a cave-man. When a software license (or society's laws) on your hands, you need better self-control and also need to be more rational, you need to make "ideological sacrifices" and let go of some stuff, because you're thinking about the big picture, thinking like a smart grown-up, not like a kid full of desires.
Sure, but "screw" under what context? What about traffic? Do bad-driving distributors deserve your code? Do black distributors also deserve it? What about republicans? Do they deserve it too?
See, we need focus.
Yes, forests are not oxygen sources, as most of the produced oxygen is consumed by the local ecosystem, with lots of animals and other oxygen-consuming members, like fungus, bacteria and stuff. But that was not my point, though. Bio-fuel advocates are always talking about how the "carbon cycle" is what makes bio-fuels the only "eco-friendly" solution available. That's not true.
Yes, corn and sugar cane do absorb CO2, but (repeating it for the Nth time) the plants that were there before also did the same thing. So bio-fuels are only a different method of creating CO2-emitting fuels. They are not a solution to global warming and they are not helping the environment at all, as you'll be dumping shitloads of fertilizer on the soil and using more land than the usual (growing just food).
Eco-activists had decades to brainwash the masses and now everyone hates oil companies and believe that oil is bad just for being oil. But taking fuel out of underground caves is much better than destroying the environment by growing it with fertilizers and destroying forests.
It's impossible (and stupid, or ill-motivated) to help defeating global warming by hating Nuclear (Greenpeace and others) and promoting bio-fuels. Most people will fall for the useless "carbon neutral" argument because they will not think about the net effect of using bio-fuels, they care only about politics and feel-good decisions, not about the real world.
The thing is, I really believe Greenpeace and others are promoting bio-fuels, while complaining about CO2 emissions, just because they think that it's much better to get fuel from somewhere else than from the big corps that they all hate, because of (revenge against) everything that happened in the past. Some of them do that while knowing what they're doing, while the rest does not really think much about anything they defend, as long as it's against the establishment.