What's a better reason than the actual owner of the site bitching about being indexed and quoted and so on? They wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on and the judge would dismiss it after a few sentences of reading, if he hadn't read about it previously.
Anyway, that's not the scam here, murdoch wants cash from google, and it is that simple. He can't make it from online ad revenue, he's stumped, got no clue at all, which really pisses him off being a past success and like that. It is annoying to him google can make money from ads and he can't, so he wants google to pay him for what he can't do. He knows google came up with a way to make a bundle from ad revenue, and he wants a piece of it. Just like ATT wants cash from google, even though google pays for their bandwith, and end users pay for their bandwith. ATT thinks there should be a third fee that google pays because they constitute a sum nice chunk of their traffic. Just "because" the ATT CEO hallucinated that this is his just dessert or something. No technical legal reason, just he wants a piece of google.
Newscorpse and ATT are *trolling for dollars*, that's all, based on no particular thing other than they want them and google has deep pockets.
I know it could be painful, but you have to make believe debase yourself to subhuman pure reptile brain level to grok how these predatory big phat CEOs think. One of their prime motivations is greed, pure greed outside the normal ken level greed. In their minds, if someone else has something, that is "wrong", because they should own and control everything, so therefore that other person must have stolen it from them. No matter how stupid that is, and how stupid it sounds to ordinary non predatory humans, those psychopaths who hit the top and stay there ruthlessly actually think that way and act out that way because they *believe* this way, it's a real mental sickness. It is just as real to them as anything else. Remember balmer sweating and spittle flying pounding his fist into his hand and growling about "they are taking food off my plate!"? That's just how they are.
The vast bulk of these sorts of insane human predators eventually get caught and do long jail times for crimes, but if they make it all the way to that billionaire owner class level they automatically become part of the new aristocracy class and their odd and criminal behaviors become acceptable again (to their peers, because they are all that way and it is normal at that level, and to the law, because "the law", like any other mercenary endeavor, follows the orders of that same psychopath class for the most part, because that's where their checks come from).
They think and act like rabid starving wolves all the time, that's all, just their nature. When they are small time, they get treated like common criminals, because they are, when they hit a certain size and power level, this changes officially and legally and they can get away with stuff all the time that ordinary people would get yanked for, or at least locked up for observation for, including bizarre illogical speech and threats and so on.
These are probably really dumb, but what the heck..
This theoretical tether eventually...they can't run the power up from the ground inside the tether, or maybe down from the geosynch anchor point that has some huge solar power array? Why does the power have to be beamed to the traveling module? Ya, I realize it is a huge distance, but seeing as how they are considering some carbon nanotube structure for the tether, and carbon nanotubes (some) can transmit electricity very efficiently as well (1,000 times better than copper according to some wiki thing I just read)...
And with that said, to counteract that, how the heck are they going to avoid lightning and static electricity and so on on *any* tether? Won't this aspect imperil any construction and use of this for a space elevator, has this been theoretically solved yet, or is it even a problem? (yes, this is all googleable, I would rather get a clear short synopsis from folks who know about this better)
Seeing as how this is speculation anyway, I'll have to step into his shoes and say if it was me, I'd use the veto pen and the bully pulpit. Every time they tried to be sneaky about stuff, or unreasonable, I'd just get on the toob and explain what is going on and name names and why the veto pen is coming out. I'd keep hammering home the point that you as an individual/family/business have to balance your books and just relying on credit forever is the surest way to bankruptcy and total collapse. I'd explain that it is impossible to printing press your way to wealth, no matter how many iterations of IOUs they tried to obfuscate and hide that fact, and trying to do it that way just will lead to nasty stuff like stagflation or hyperinflation. I'd tell the people they have been lied to, been manipulated for years and years, and that true government openness and honesty and reform is actually doable, but they had to do their part as well and lean on their congress people to adopt more reasonable and fiscally responsible and true Constiutional behavior.
In this economy, I think this would be an easy sell and any Congress people who didn't go along with it would get to the point they couldn't even go out in public wihout being surrounded by angry constituents. They'd get the hint after awhile.
...the wars (US involvement anyway) would be *over*, and the troops home.
Those ripoff investment banks would have been forced to eat their own capitalist dogfood and would have been allowed to go bankrupt,(no multi trillion dollar bailouts required) and the financial industry would have realized (like warren buffet has said out loud) that 95% of the derivatives market is pure snakeoil crap, they are "weapons of mass financial destruction". As in who cares if they want to play those games, but they should be allowed to fail when they get too greedy and too stupid. That's *real* capitalism, not this "socialism for billionaires, privatize the profits and socialize the risks and failures" nonsense they keep pushing now.
GM and Chrysler would have gone through normal bankruptcy, as they deserved, and there would be a ton of fresh blood and new ideas running those various factories by now and it would have also nailed Unions with a wakeup call that they need to get real on their economic demands and expectations, along with the stockholders. Something about mules and a club to get their attention comes to mind there.
We would have gotten a major shakeup with the Fed and their insane never ending boom and bust cycle whacko junk science currency theories, along with a vastly streamlined and more fair IRS federal tax structure, both seriously needed, as anyone who cares to look can plainly see they are "epic fail" right now.
And he would have repeatedly vetoed Congress's usual bloated, overly complex, pork laden and mostly out to lunch legislation that couldn't be paid for at all, even theoretically, or wasn't legal under the Constitution, stuff that the Federal government is not supposed to have control over. My guess is he would have outright closed down a lot of agencies as well, as not needed and not legal, and turned those aspects back over to the States where they belong.
And a lot of so ons there, whatever is legally possible at the executive branch level.
Certainly better than what we have received under both the Bush admin and now the Obama admin. Sure there would have been a rough transition period, to be expected when you are lancing boils and cutting away decades of pure rot and corruption.
Ron Paul is the one guy in both houses who *really* understands the Constitution, and that if it was REALLY followed, not just mumbled lip service but truly followed for the well thought out document and plan it was and is, things would be a lot better, as in "all your rights, all the time, and no fed gov tax and control freak big brother BS".
1. Build Hype.--so the number one reasons is as I thought, it is just market driven to be able to "sell" new shiny?
2. Developer Fatigue---they wouldn't be under any pressure at all that would result in fatigue, as I pointed out if it was only released when ready, not held to a drop dead date on the calendar. There is no one developer does every single thing here, they all work on their little niche aspects. If it was incremental, when this or that niche was deemed good enough for the release to the generic public (I leave alpha and beta testing out, most people don't do that really), they would do it then, irregardless of some arbitrary date on the calendar. I'm not a code guy, I am a farmer, you harvest and take to market (a release analogy) when it is ready, that's it, not on some date picked out of the air. Stuff takes what time it takes, that's it. You just can't make this or that thing grow past what it is capable of, and it is silly to harvest too early or too late. You use the goldilocks principle, only when things are "just right", whatever that is. Ya, still problems can occur, but creating additional problems on purpose, like insisting on an arbitrary date for your crop to be "done", doesn't make the other problems any better, just makes them worse all around.
3. Support Cycles--the whole idea of cycles is eliminated with incremental, so I am not seeing the problem there. "Support" would go to what is released. You sign up, you accept that in advance. We *already* get and deal with updates on this that or the other, even within these six month "cycles", I've seen that with every distro I have ever used, and the default in business anyway is to have test boxes. And with an automatic "revert to past good working" feature, that works at the app/driver whatever level, all of it, you can "try before you really buy", or really commit all the way to the change. As to how long support for this or that would last, that is really still left up to thhe devs, how long they want to support some older version. This is how it is now anyway, either they do it, or you take it on. There's no change there, it would be up to the developers to say "we will only support and bug fix back two versions on our app, after that, upgrade or do it yourself". It is what we have now, I don't see how that would be different on an individual app basis with a distro that did incremental perpetual changes as opposed to some version number for the whole thing. So I'd have to call that a wash, a non issue with comparison.
4. Stability.---see all of the above. The way they are doing it now, the current default status quo of major all at once massive changes in "cycles", every six months or whatever like that, STILL results in major borkage, still results in "INstability", else this entire thread wouldn't exist, we wouldn't be discussing it at all if the cycle method worked all that well. Even in closed source, how many times have we heard "wait for service pack 1 before installing"? And service packs in themselves are just a fancy way to say "whichever this or that needed an incremental update to".
Drivers are in the kernel or as modules aren't they? We already get regular kernel updates for kernels, about the only time you have to reboot, and video kernel modules just need to restart X. You can jump around and do that now if you want. But those don't require an entire new distro version. And none of the apps require a new distro version. Near as I can see (again, I am in no way an expert), only a new file system change should absolutely require an entire new upgrade (like happened here with those who chose it, extension 3 to 4). But that certainly isn't all the time, not every six months it isn't.
Really, I am looking for more of a technical reason why the whole thing needs to be done at once, necessitating a ton of things to all be upgraded at the same time, leading to a lot of things that are close but no cigar, the subject of the whole article. It looks more just..dunno..politically driven or market-thinking driven than necessity driven. Whereas if it was incremental by design, only those apps/drivers/ whatever that really are ready get upgraded. Maybe it is all the shared libraries and linking, I just don't know...just mused on this over the years and never read an explanation for it.
And if it was incremental by design, you would only have to wait for your new hardware to be fully supported as long as it took the devs to do it and test it, 12 months is just another artificial time limit. I would prefer, "exactly when they are ready", whatever that time period happens to be. And if the design had an automatic revert to last good working state, then you'd have a relatively painless way to fix any accidental whoopsies that occur. Give you a chance to really tryout this or that new incremental upgrade "thing", to see if it works for you or not, before a full committment and it wipes/replaces the old stuff fully then.
I also noticed in the article thread that Arch linux http://www.archlinux.org/about/ does in fact use a "rolling release" incremental upgrade system, install once and that's it. So, technically it IS possible like I thought, so now I am wondering why they do it but no one else (?) does it that way?
..including the last question, complete with minor typo. The submission asks for your experience upgrading.
For me, my upgrade went completely smooth. I first skimmed through the forum, realized most of the problems people were having were outside of my concern, as I don't quad boot from a natted raided clouded server with 4 dimensional desktop effects resonating off my skypedTivo relay home robotic automation system from the wirleless AP off my moonbounce pringles can home media center rig..so I just adjusted the one thing I needed for insurance, switched to the nv driver instead of the nvidia blob, and the upgrade went fine. Took a long time on my almost broadband (we'll call it "hey, better than freaking dialup and cheaper!). but the net upgrade method worked just fine.
The distro is bleeding edge or close to it..if you choose it to be and demand a lot of exotic action from it.(apparently, my guess skimming around those forums and generally speaking).
Really, most of the problems appear to revolve around the *need* for eyecandy and wiggly windows and whooshing around the desktop. Skip the eyecandy, it might work better. Run some cheap ethernet cable under the carpet at the wall edge, eliminate a lot of other problems.
KISS still works. You want bleeding edge, you'll get cut once in awhile. For what people pay for it, they sure can bitch a lot.
HOWEVER, I totally agree with you on six month release cycles, or even further, WTF is it with "release cycles" anyway? It really has gotten to the point that that is ridiculous, it is a worthy goal of sorts, but impractical. Now seven years is way too long, but once a year instead of twice, then a very concerted effort on bug fixing for a long time before development starts on the next generation, might work better. I just think modern linux distros are way too complex and have so many programs and libraries, that come with them etc that it is just impractical to try and maintain that pace. It is an arbitrary and artificial number picked out of the ether for some esoteric but flawed reason.
Maybe they should put it to a vote on the ubuntu forums?
OR, my major point, just try to work out minor perpetual upgrading instead of all at once? Install once, that's it, no need to reinstall the whole thing ever, ever, ever again. I would prefer that latter method if possible from a user's standpoint. I am not a dev, I don't know if this is possible, but seems like it should be. The kernel can be upgraded and is. Individual programs and libraries and so on are. Whole desktop environments can be. uhh..not much left. Maybe, don't know..
So why isn't the perpetual slow upgrade then the way to do it, why have a whole new "version" all the time anyway? That part I never understood. There must be a reason, I just really don't know what it is. Just slop over thinking from the closed source world where they need an excuse to dun you again for another wad of ca$h every few years or something?
Really. After all this time I still see all these other posts where people *just don't get it* on why being connected to the net, or why being able to give kids hundreds of textbooks on a little machine, etc, isn't valuable. The folks here in the US who live rural get the same routine, from apparently the same sort of people, "why should they need or want broadband way out there" etc. It's like, if you aren't already rich (by entire world standards), live in a heavily urban area, and have all the toys and gadgets and gizmos and technology you can want, that you are supposed to remain stuck at the "send them bags of food then forget about it" levels forever. "Oh look Buffy, how quaint, those cute little backward natives are playing on a computer. Why, there are still goats walking in the street, this is unacceptable though, they should be stripped of those time wasting machines that they couldn't possibly understand or make intelligent use of, and made to go back the way they were!"
Really, it sounds just like that to me sometimes.
I find it rather patronizing/condescending and jingoistic (in a broad sense) and really quite naive of those people to keep thinking that. Access to the net and having access to a computer are just a wonderful thing for *everyone*, you at least get a shot at doing something useful with it, like your examples, it doesn't matter where they are. And for kids in some poor area, it just might give them a little hope, some fun, some education, and who knows from there, but to feel part of the 21st century has to be enabling to a large degree, even if the rest of your life is more rough than not..
..in the finest of slashdot traditions "It's Apple's OS, they developed it, spend years and millions of $$$ making it - why shouldn't they be allowed to say what machines can and can't run it?"
Because it's complete bullshit, that's why.
Here's the/. traditional analogy, so you can see how stupid it is. Right now today there's a huge enthusiast aftermarket industry and hobby developing electric vehicles from existing gas engine vehicles. Conversions. Because it's cool and a lot of folks want them. You can get kits and plans, or entire turnkey built vehicles, based off of ford rangers or chevy s-10s for example, those are common.
What apple is doing would be the same as if ford or chevy "didn't allow" unauthorized use of their "product" by modifying it to be something the end user customer really wanted, but that the original OEM doesn't provide. So, Ford and Chevy should be allowed to dictate that? After all, thousands of man hours of research and development and expensive manufacturing costs and so on, all went into their product. Well, the car companies freaking tried years and years ago to make it that way, they didn't even want to have after market replacement parts "allowed" because it "violated their precious". They wanted you locked into factory dealer prices for parts and labor. The courts said that was bullshit (in legalese of course, too bad they can't just speak plainly) shot them down on that, but for some reason so far the courts seem to think software is just so darn special it needs it's own "class", copyrights AND patents with the added bonus of NO WARRANTIES required, then you get the EULA treatment on top of that.
I think that's pure bullshit as well. It's "legal", but still bullshit.
OK, another one, how about some novel, with a full copyright, the author spends all this time in "development work", sitting in front of a keyboard, (sound familiar?) then the publisher has to "manufacture copies" for the end users, so then, they decide to force you to agree to some "End User Reading License". Only YOU may read that book, you may not lend it to another person because only YOUR eyeballs are "licensed to read it and make a copy in memory". The only "authorized copy" in anyone's brain "allowed" by the agreement is the first purchaser, if he was to lend it, OMG, the second person would then have an unauthorized brain copy in memory that he didn't pay for nor was allowed to make.
So what say you, the above examples should be legal as well, end user vehicle modding not allowed, end user reading and sharing the copy not allowed? Or would that be bullshit. I vote bullshit.
The law may technically be on apple's side right now, but that still doesn't make it right, it's bullshit.
There's been any number of "laws on the books" that were complete bullshit, and sometimes they stick there way past when they should be changed. In that case, only mass adoption of saying "Fuck you, jerks, that's bullshit!" works. This usually involves "interesting times", but such is human history made of, sport!
Now alcohol prohibition was on the books way before my time, and it only got changed when enough of the population just went "this is just bullshit" and drank anyway. Smoking the naughty naughty is that way today. Proly get changed..eventually,because the law is bullshit.
Now later on, when I was a younger dude, we had still a lot of civil rights issues to get sorted out, in one instance the "law" was taking its sweet time since the emancipation was a century previous. So, what happened is enough people got together and went "fuck you, that's bullshit!" and defied their "laws", me included. "Illegal"? Sure it was..sort of. Technically it wasn't, but technically it was..it was a clusterfuck because of conflicting "laws". You'd go someplace and blah blah "wasn't allowed", there were "restrictions" on some people that didn't apply to others. It was "on the books" though. Except over here it wa
Where has that been hiding? Where were they during the buildup to the iraq invasion, covering all the WMD non stories, that they were pushing after getting "the real info" from out of the government's lie-hole? Parrots, not journalists, the safe way, no boat rocking, no fact checking. Where was all this "fact checking" going on, the post, the ny times, where? Where has been the useful coverage of the economic situation, where were the *good articles*, with the real skinny, main stream traditional news, regurgitating Whitehouse and Fed and Treasury press releases, or places like matt taibbi's stuff in the rolling stone, and dr. housing bubble blog and so on? Why can't they investigate government COMPLETE BS statistics on the economy, and you have to go to shadowstats instead to get it de obfuscated? Where has the real news of war come from, those "embedded" reporters? Ha! How about black box voting? Main stream news..not a peep, it took blackbox voting dog org and brad blog and places like that to get some notice and action going out there, you sure as hell didn't see abcnbccbswallstreethjournalnewyorktimeswapo nonsense bringing it up, and that is sort of *important* in an alleged free democracy. Where the hell is their coverage of sibel edmonds rather *interesting* tale?
One million examples there, tends to indicate a "trend"
Blow dried blowhards. They know where their check comes from and what they can say or not.
Naw, let the controlled establishment propaganda arm of government/ big money interests (the same exact thing) crash and burn, they DESERVE it. They deserved it years ago, as pointed out by an insider journalist a long ago, who grew disillusioned working for the mainstream press and switched to being independent and working for the then new labor movement:
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
In that list, I tried blue flops before, (a two floppy distro, with an enhanced graphical Links browser) it worked fine on an old mostly broken pentium 1 laptop with 16 megs RAM that I was given. It says in the notes minimum requirement is 16 megs or 8 with swap, and a 386, has Ethernet card drivers and a text editor and some other stuff. I know I was able to get online with it and surf reasonably.
Well, I'd do it by telling all these folks with digital products that because it is SO cheap now to make copies, so cheap and so easy, that society has made an historical breakthrough in eliminating "want" and scarcity in an entire class of products, with this digital replicator technology, which is in the "public good" because our "arts and sciences" made a TREMENDOUS leap forward when this happened in the gestalt; that they either get real and charge a sane fair price, such as perhaps a full 100% markup over bandwith costs for transfer and no more, and make their money on just much larger and legal mass volume sales then, because there is no scarcity now, or that they lose all copyright protections and it goes into public domain instantly if they attempt blatant price gouging by charging 100,000% markup or similar, like they do now, or try to.
Charging folding dollars for a few cents worth of download bandwith is nuts, it's a ripoff and a dangerous precedent for the future as tangible replicators get developed.
Now, if they did that, adopted rules that really reflect advances in technology, then society could still get strict then on really cheap people who wouldn't even pay that now really small and much more fair price as well. I think "cracking down" then would be justified.
What they are doing is trying to maintain the completely junk science totally debunkable viewpoint that these digital copies are a "scarce resource", like they were with wax cylinders and vinyl and plastic tape holder conraptions or even a simple spinning plastic disk, when they are not.
They should NOT be allowed to charge those huge sums for digital copies. Yes, this would require some serious paradigm shifting of the copyright laws, but those copyright laws are all man made, artificial constructs first designed for a much earlier age with primitive technology, and they are not a natural law, and as such, we-society as we-could and should adopt and change the laws as technological circumstances change.
Blatant price gouging and relegating digital technology into the past, locking it down and carving in stone some huge no longer necessary markup for these products is no more than enforced legal Luddism and is abhorrent to the true advancement of the arts and sciences "in the public good" when they insist on such ludicrous prices. It is NOT in the public good for them to get away with that.
The law just shouldn't treat them the same as truly scarce tangible copies which have much higher production and distribution costs. Times have changed, and oh ya they changed copyright law-for the worse, not the better.
BTW Mr. AC, your post was not a troll, it was a legit and honest question. Mods, please fix that.
OK, I was referring to the ICE plus electric kind. They do make an alternative, the hydraulic hybrid boost (and/or complete hydraulic drive), that is already out there in some city delivery trucks and buses. It captures braking force and pressures it, then it adds the boost needed to get going again from a stop. Does it loads cheaper than the electric "regenerative braking" version. Now these sorts of hybrids I can see being useful in a number of scenarios, heck, most vehicles could use it. That's really the big waste in stop and go urban driving, all that starting and stopping inertia. It's fairly efficient in recovery, easily as good as or superior to the electric kind, also easier for the manufacturers to get into, hydraulic and air brakes are by far and away the most common now anyway. Some info, various ideas, random google selection
As to the electric generator trailer and the electric vehicle, pretty much doable today at a normal entry level ICE vehicle budget. They make kits now to convert real common vehicles (as in by used and cheap to start the project with), like ford rangers or chevy s-10s (some sedans but I forget which ones now they recommend, I am in favor of smaller pickups over sedans for electric vehicles, they can haul the weight better and still have useable cargo and room space). One just needs then a normal landscaper type lightweight steel mesh framed trailer, the kind you see people towing that have a riding lawnmower on them and a few tools, etc, home depot or wherever special, relatively cheap, the generator, can be cheap to expensive, just a judgement call there, some u-bolts to clamp the thing down over the balance point on the trailer axle, add a starter battery on the nose for the down weight needed for attachment, and maybe some additional fuel tank action, etc then sill room for cargo. Probably need to make your own jumper cable thing, not that hard, to connect to the vehicle charge point. Now I am *guessing*, but I would bet you could just about get real close to a new prius price, and have pure electric instead with the genny trailer doing it this way.
You are basically just trading the cash you would have put into an advanced battery system, that is *still* limited, into a more affordable generator system for the once in awhile long trip, and then just having a modest battery system instead. Which also has the benefit of as battery tech advances, you can buy into it easier and cheaper, because you just don't need that many batteries total.
I even noted around a six (to ten) grand NEV modular hybrid type thing that could be assembled completely in one trip at my local home depot before. Not exactly a commuter experience, but you can see the potential there is real close now to this being affordable, the vehicle itself just needs to be a little more realistically a car, say add five more grand to it to get it out of the NEV class, then do the trailer idea with it.
Someone up above provided it, and I have said this for years as well: the solution right now for extended range with the electric vehicle, for the occasional longer trip, until batteries or ultracaps get a lot better, is the "modular hybrid" approach, just like this
Problem solved, no need to worry about long recharge scenarios or that tarded battery swap out idea. And just a ton of suburban guys who commute and *could* do that in an electric car with even just a 50 mile range, also want (and buy today) a home generator for the occasional use when the power goes out, so this is double plus good there. And for city boys with no garage who live in apartments, who want an electric, these genny trailers could be *rented* for that trip to grannys.
The only thing I would do different with those trailers is make them a scosh bigger with some additional cargo room for that long trip, for your luggage and camping gear or whatever.
One of the really big expenses for adoption of the all electric at a more normal non millionaire pricing level is the insane battery prices. Reduce the needs from a 30 grand battery pack to 5 grand (something like that), be content with just a 50 mile day to day range, with the genny option, bought or rented, and the actual car can be made loads cheaper, and smallish gas gennys just aren't all that expensive (especially if they were to become common for this purpose and mass produced), and most likely only being used half a dozen times a year they would last a really long time.
I think on board hybrids are a dead end, that's just too much weight and complexity having to haul around two different styles of drivetrains all the time on the same axles. All electric + the modular "makes it a hybrid" genny trailer is the way to go.
In Europe I think they are outright banning incandescents shortly. Then what? You can't just have no light in all those places you just said were inappropriate.
Well, I just checked, yes the ban went into effect last month (this is a pro-ban link)
Merchants are allowed to close out remaining incandescent lightbulb inventory and that's it.
I therefore predicteth a robust and lucrative underground black market economy with incandescents in euro-peon-land, just because CFLs don't cut the mustard quite good enough yet for all applications, as you pointed out some examples thereof, and others have noted that they find them severely lacking for this or that reason.
Well, you want ketchup or mayo on that sammich? Whoops, sorry we *only* have ketchup, by law....
I just don't like the CFLs, the ones I have tried anyway. I'm down to one in the wellhouse and that's it, I removed the ones I had installed throughout the house, thinking I was being a good boy and all, and went back to cheap incandescents that are suitable for purpose. I found the CFLs won't light up a room from the ceiling, looks like twilight to me and defeats the whole purpose of having an overhead light, I can't use them for reading, the color and intensity are way off sitting next to a normal table lamp with one of those things in there, and for close work, forget it, I have to throw on a headlamp anyway then so what's the point?
I will hold out for cheaper/better LEDs instead,(I already have some portable battery operated ones I use now, mostly during the frequent power outages here in colonialized and exploited third world rural merika, and like them a lot, and they are just bargain basement el cheapo ten buck chinese camping lamps and they work just great, same batts for a few years now) and in the meantime, conserve energy in other areas/me thinks about a rainy day nap right now;)
Their-government-science and economic rules are HARMFUL, wasteful, they do not work and haven't worked for so long now that it has resulted in vast loss of sea creatures, it has resulted in LESS fish in the sea, not more, and higher prices for what seafood we get, and long range it has near destroyed the fishing industry. It's been way more bureaucratic insane bull than not. It is not "science" at all.
The biggest single positive change they can do is recognize the HARD SCIENCE,(and this is an exact example of where a simple law change would really work) completely verifiable, repeatable, absolutely zero debate, not opinion, real fact, real data, that fishing with nets results in a "variety" catch in multi hundreds of thousands of fishing trips a year, all over the planet, and it should NOT be illegal to bring that catch in and sell it. In fact it should be near required, and sort it out at the docks and fishhouses better.
All of the fish with airbladders die from the bends when you haul them up, but official pseudo science regulations *make believe this doesn't happen*, that if you "throw them back" they go on their merry fish way. They just don't.. Please see my reply here as well, my direct observations as a commercial shrimper before, and this was decades ago and the-governments- are still enforcing "throw it all back in except the target fish" and it is still utter complete rubbish junk science.
There is simply no way possible at all to have some sort of artificial intelligence driven nets (or "longline" rigs) that only catch one single target species of a correct size and gender, or any other ridiculous notion like that. They can try and regulate that into existence all day long, using as many laws and words as possible, and it still will not change reality.
And there is just example after example of this sort of insane regulatory mindset that has infested governments and well meaning but totally naive enviro orgs where reality doesn't even come close to their theories. The freakin spotted owl crap is another prime example there of total Agenda 21 style driven rubbish junk science that caused huge loss of jobs and incomes, and did *nothing* at all whatsoever to either increase or decrease the spotted owl populations. It has been proven without any doubt at all that they do not absolutely require virgin old growth forest, they find nests in barns and second growth forests, and that the main reason their numbers were in decline is because of competition from other more aggressive owl species.
Not saying all regulations are bad, of course not, I'd be the first to admit that and am in favor of true scoience based regs, but tons of them are so far into being counter productive as opposed to the stated goals that you have to wonder what other purpose is behind them,* because they have nothing to do with hard science or legitimate best practices, even though their words may claim they do.
*Well, I don't winder at all about it, I'll leave it for "debate", but in the past when I was "in the movement" I have heard personally dot org enviro so called leaders and organizers bragging and discussing "off the record" about their long range political power goals, which are pretty disgusting totalitarian crap and have little to do with saving the environment and a lot to do with having a major global two class society with masters-order givers, and serfs-order takers who have been herded into selected mega cities by overlapping and ridiculous laws that make rural living about impossible, even when they use normal "left wing" styled soothing words and noises.
I no longer would work with or be affiliated with most of the large "enviro" orgs out there, even though I am fairly and honestly "green" myself, and walk my talk with my lifestyle choices, nor do I trust any of their tame politicians who go along with that nonsense, including the upcoming co2 cap and trade world new wall
Yes, just way way WAY too much bullcrap comes out of the one world all humans are evil and must be controlled agenda driven "watermelon" side of the environmental movement. The public facing green with the solid red core. Been seeing it for years, main reason I stopped joining and participating in the more mainstream big enviro orgs. To me, the ones that do the best job are the ones lead by sportsmen, like trout unlimited and ducks unlimited, etc. Just those two orgs do more for nature, good science and a good environment inside the US, without bankrupting anyone or forcing people out of work or any of that other rank stuff that happens, then all the other more well known big orgs like the sierra club and WWF combined. So, when I see a chance to expound a little here on something I know about, I do so.
Another one that almost caught me in the beginning was climate change. Yes, the climate changes, and always will, sometimes faster sometimes slower. Yes, humans pollute and can be wasteful and we sure can be smarter about how we go about things. I am all for cleaner environment, alternative energy (own my own solar panels and windcharger, unlike 99.99% of self professed enviros out there, grow a lot of our own food organically here, don't use GM seeds, heat with natural wood instead of fossil fuels, etc) and etc, but as soon as I heard the first faint whisperings of a new trillion dollar a year wall street scam skimming effort called "cap and trade", the stealth negatax on the productive middleclass, I knew 3/4ths or better of the crap we would see "academically" and from government officials and NWO connected think tanks/foundations after that point would be garden fertilizer of the more natural kind. And it has been.
Which really is a shame, really, a crying shame, because we COULD do a lot better with some more sane and not based on junk science policies,like pushing superinsulation-real energy conservation, and telecommuting over physical commuting for office jobs, as the top priority over taxed this or that or expensive new centralized powerplants of any kind, or offering 100% tax credits for new solar installs, anything better over "cap and trade", but they are bound and determined to come up with another huge ripoff scam now that they got busted with their mortgage frauds pants down around their ankles and needed bailing out to cover their bad derivatives bets. I mean, can't folks read the news and see where all this economic ripoff crap comes from in the first place?
So that's the next boondoggle and pocket picking conjob, sold to people with the slickest possible PR and propaganda money can buy to save the planet, tax yourselves out of existence and into perpetual and muyltugenerational serfdom so that the billionaires can become multi billionaires. And they'll get legions of followers to cheer on this mass lameness. Freakin sad really.
There's an old adage that is almost always true, "follow the money". You do that, it eventually leads right back to the same posse of crooks and thieves in DC and on wall street, just never fails.
Over there where you are, have you gotten nailed with any of their "rewilding" wolves yet? We don't have that yet here,(they keep trying but no dice for them yet) but just the coyotes and wild dogs are bad enough.
Well, go do your own googling then and find out about modern game management, it's out there. I am a rural person and long time outdoorsman, like well over half a century worth now, this is just freeking as common of knowledge in our "community" as starbucks charges multiple dollars per cup of coffee is in yours. I mean, geez loweez, just go to some magazine stand that has a lot of "multicultural diversity" in the selections, they have entire magazines devoted to JUST whitetail deer hunting and *herd management*. Now, besides the articles, just look at the ads in that magazine. This isn't "opinion", this is established practice and business.
This is old hat well established science here and is already a *pretty large industry*. A business, not just some wild theory. If that ain't enough for a "debunking" I don't know what else could qualify. All these folks are not in the hobby and sport and business of making less deer, and smaller deer.
As to basic biology, the birds and bees.. That's second grade at the latest stuff, at least the basics. Taking big bucks, mature many year old game animals, does NOT remove the genes he carries from the herd, they are already out there in tons of baby and older deer from that buck gettin' lucky numerous times before. He ain't "saving himself" for later, for Ms. Doe "right", he's already done his buck-best in that regard, and they duke it out between the big bucks over who gets first dibs and who gets sloppy seconds. This period is called "the rut". The bigger tougher ones win. This means the bigger tougher buck-genes get a much better shot at being passed down into the herd. Like I said, basic biology.
Want some more odd facts about deer in the US? There are MORE whitetail deer NOW, 2009, then there were when the pilgrims first landed,by a huge factor, and for a couple hundred years after that time. Want to know why? It's because there is more dense cover now, less climax forests but more second or later growth, plus more ag area so they can munch on like corn and soybeans, etc, which means LOTS more for them to eat of a higher nutritional density, many more places to hide and yard up, and now we have better game management as well. We are getting more deer now, and overall larger deer, *even with robust hunting pressure*.
The very lowest period of time for whitetail populations in US history was immediately after the beginning of the great depression, when hunting pressure shot through the roof because people were starving because the wallstreet pirates had borked the economy, so hunting pressure increased well past the point that the authorities could handle. It got so bad for the deer population, that in some areas, such as my state of Georgia, they estimate only a few hundred head were left statewide, total, before things started getting better, and now the herd size is back up just great, and the individual animal size is back up as well. Very similar to my Zimbabwe comments, just we didn't have a big civil war going on then (unfortunately in my view, we should have sorted out those scumbag ripoff "elitists" the traditional way back then and been done with it));.heh.... Very similar in some ways, borked economy, ag plummeted, hunting increased from necessity, etc. Anyway, water under the dam now. Or maybe coming soon again, who knows....
It all has to do with whether or not the local economy is intact or not, if local agriculture is able to work and make some money and not be destroyed from warfare or other retarded big business and big government normal tom foolery, then responsible game management. No game management (the agenda 21, Gaia, "rewilding" junk science theory), means the herds get overly large for their area and start croaking from diseases and malnutrition, and then the natural predators, who's numbers have now increased go through the same thing, lose food, so they croak from malnutrition, a boom bust never ending cycle). No game mana
Junk science in that article, easily debunked, at least as pertains big game animals, and I will include whitetails here. And this is how. You can't even GET to a big buck to harvest until he is an adult for several years after he hits breeding age, so he has passed on his big buck genes numerous times. I mean really, this is simple biology.
In addition, it isn't just big bucks taken anyway, most hunters will take a large one if possible, a smaller one just for eats, then an even smaller doe during doe season to keep herd size manageable. Medium sized ones are frequently ignored, to let them grow a few more seasons. This is *very* common practice, even moreso with private deer clubs who lease land and go even beyond state regs. This is true scientific herd management now where the private sector is even better at it than the public sector. Modern deer herd management is very good at maintaining both larger and healthier animals for the most part. It is in their *interest* to do so, and a lot of time, money and effort goes into it.
Now maybe this isn't the case in "anything goes" places like Africa during some local tribe versus tribe war and anything that moves is taken for eats, but modern hunting science and management *where it is practiced legitimately* has resulted in decent game animals. And no, I don't want to hear that they manage their herds there in africa, they TRY to manage their herds there, and there's a big difference between "do" and "try", like yoda sez. It's anarchy warzone there more often than not, and basically unlimited poaching going on, "bushmeat", and the killing of animals for that ludicrous ivory trade and so on for rich farts, so of course herd size and individual size will start to drop then.
So you really can't paint with too broad a brush, it really matters which areas you are talking about and which species. In places where it is pure sport, and it is intelligently managed and patrolled, the herds are getting better barring any killer multi year drought, in places that have unregulated market hunting, combined with local warfare so much less legit agriculture is done, where the people get insane desperate and just want anything at all to eat, yes, smaller.
Prime example, Zimbabwe. Regulated sport hunting combined with good quality agriculture, back when it was Rhodesia, worked (I will leave the political element out, just concentrate on animals, wild game and domestic, and food supply now), after the revolution, with no credible management other than the victors went bonkers and looted whatever they could and killed off the farmers and so on, the whole nation collapsed. They used to export ag, bigtime, breadbasket of Africa, plus had outstanding big game hunting, now they have *neither* and are a global laughingstock and their people starve.
I used to work shrimpers and this is exactly what happens, and it was dumb then and dumb now. It was *illegal* to keep any of the good fish, at least that is what I was told back then and how I understood the practice to come about, they were trying to "regulate" the fisheries, plus the shrimpers themselves only wanted the one thing in the iceholds anyway, to facilitate unloading and also because most of them are contract shrimpers. So it was a double rule to "just keep the gulf shrimp". Huge schools of sharks follow the boats and eat the stuff that goes back over through the scuppers.(this also served as a handy protip why it was a good idea to pay attention and not accidentally fall over, your chances of getting picked back up immediately are between zero and no way most of the time)
Now we used to eat what we wanted onboard, whatever you wanted to pick out that ya caught, my favorite by far is cobia, but come close to getting back into port, whatever we had that wasn't shrimp, over the side. Now this was a long time ago now, maybe the law/practice has changed, but it sure was retarded back then, thousands of dollars worth and plenty of good tasting calories more or less wasted, *per trip*. I'm talking real decent grouper and snapper, etc, all sorts of stuff. I don't recall catching any dolphins, but we'd see a lot, they follow the boats around as well to eat bycatch. Any of the fish with airbladders would just croak anyway when you hauled them up, that part was really dumb that they made it illegal or against the rules to keep them. Hell, we didn't even keep all the shrimp! We'd toss back over the rock shrimp and just keep the gulf shrimp, and the rock shrimp are twice as good, way more a lobster flavor to them. That I think was more from preserving them, they just don't last as long on ice and we did two week trips. We sure did eat a lot of them though.
Anyway, I think that dumb law (like I said, if it was a law) and practice did more to wipe out good edible species in the gulf than the "legitimate" catch did, commercial or sportfishing.
The *coolest* thing we caught, IMO, was two giant manta rays, just way way cool. Hugegigantoramous. They didn't croak but it was a bear to get them back over the side.
Slashdot Mirror
Here are some of the possibles
state police infiltrating peace groups
news of demos at the national D and R conventions
http://indymedia.us/or/syndicated/2008/7.shtml
You have to scroll down to july 25th to see all of them, those look the most likely though
On that date? What was the big scary story to them?
What's a better reason than the actual owner of the site bitching about being indexed and quoted and so on? They wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on and the judge would dismiss it after a few sentences of reading, if he hadn't read about it previously.
Anyway, that's not the scam here, murdoch wants cash from google, and it is that simple. He can't make it from online ad revenue, he's stumped, got no clue at all, which really pisses him off being a past success and like that. It is annoying to him google can make money from ads and he can't, so he wants google to pay him for what he can't do. He knows google came up with a way to make a bundle from ad revenue, and he wants a piece of it. Just like ATT wants cash from google, even though google pays for their bandwith, and end users pay for their bandwith. ATT thinks there should be a third fee that google pays because they constitute a sum nice chunk of their traffic. Just "because" the ATT CEO hallucinated that this is his just dessert or something. No technical legal reason, just he wants a piece of google.
Newscorpse and ATT are *trolling for dollars*, that's all, based on no particular thing other than they want them and google has deep pockets.
I know it could be painful, but you have to make believe debase yourself to subhuman pure reptile brain level to grok how these predatory big phat CEOs think. One of their prime motivations is greed, pure greed outside the normal ken level greed. In their minds, if someone else has something, that is "wrong", because they should own and control everything, so therefore that other person must have stolen it from them. No matter how stupid that is, and how stupid it sounds to ordinary non predatory humans, those psychopaths who hit the top and stay there ruthlessly actually think that way and act out that way because they *believe* this way, it's a real mental sickness. It is just as real to them as anything else. Remember balmer sweating and spittle flying pounding his fist into his hand and growling about "they are taking food off my plate!"? That's just how they are.
The vast bulk of these sorts of insane human predators eventually get caught and do long jail times for crimes, but if they make it all the way to that billionaire owner class level they automatically become part of the new aristocracy class and their odd and criminal behaviors become acceptable again (to their peers, because they are all that way and it is normal at that level, and to the law, because "the law", like any other mercenary endeavor, follows the orders of that same psychopath class for the most part, because that's where their checks come from).
They think and act like rabid starving wolves all the time, that's all, just their nature. When they are small time, they get treated like common criminals, because they are, when they hit a certain size and power level, this changes officially and legally and they can get away with stuff all the time that ordinary people would get yanked for, or at least locked up for observation for, including bizarre illogical speech and threats and so on.
These are probably really dumb, but what the heck..
This theoretical tether eventually...they can't run the power up from the ground inside the tether, or maybe down from the geosynch anchor point that has some huge solar power array? Why does the power have to be beamed to the traveling module? Ya, I realize it is a huge distance, but seeing as how they are considering some carbon nanotube structure for the tether, and carbon nanotubes (some) can transmit electricity very efficiently as well (1,000 times better than copper according to some wiki thing I just read)...
And with that said, to counteract that, how the heck are they going to avoid lightning and static electricity and so on on *any* tether? Won't this aspect imperil any construction and use of this for a space elevator, has this been theoretically solved yet, or is it even a problem? (yes, this is all googleable, I would rather get a clear short synopsis from folks who know about this better)
Seeing as how this is speculation anyway, I'll have to step into his shoes and say if it was me, I'd use the veto pen and the bully pulpit. Every time they tried to be sneaky about stuff, or unreasonable, I'd just get on the toob and explain what is going on and name names and why the veto pen is coming out. I'd keep hammering home the point that you as an individual/family/business have to balance your books and just relying on credit forever is the surest way to bankruptcy and total collapse. I'd explain that it is impossible to printing press your way to wealth, no matter how many iterations of IOUs they tried to obfuscate and hide that fact, and trying to do it that way just will lead to nasty stuff like stagflation or hyperinflation. I'd tell the people they have been lied to, been manipulated for years and years, and that true government openness and honesty and reform is actually doable, but they had to do their part as well and lean on their congress people to adopt more reasonable and fiscally responsible and true Constiutional behavior.
In this economy, I think this would be an easy sell and any Congress people who didn't go along with it would get to the point they couldn't even go out in public wihout being surrounded by angry constituents. They'd get the hint after awhile.
...the wars (US involvement anyway) would be *over*, and the troops home.
Those ripoff investment banks would have been forced to eat their own capitalist dogfood and would have been allowed to go bankrupt,(no multi trillion dollar bailouts required) and the financial industry would have realized (like warren buffet has said out loud) that 95% of the derivatives market is pure snakeoil crap, they are "weapons of mass financial destruction". As in who cares if they want to play those games, but they should be allowed to fail when they get too greedy and too stupid. That's *real* capitalism, not this "socialism for billionaires, privatize the profits and socialize the risks and failures" nonsense they keep pushing now.
GM and Chrysler would have gone through normal bankruptcy, as they deserved, and there would be a ton of fresh blood and new ideas running those various factories by now and it would have also nailed Unions with a wakeup call that they need to get real on their economic demands and expectations, along with the stockholders. Something about mules and a club to get their attention comes to mind there.
We would have gotten a major shakeup with the Fed and their insane never ending boom and bust cycle whacko junk science currency theories, along with a vastly streamlined and more fair IRS federal tax structure, both seriously needed, as anyone who cares to look can plainly see they are "epic fail" right now.
And he would have repeatedly vetoed Congress's usual bloated, overly complex, pork laden and mostly out to lunch legislation that couldn't be paid for at all, even theoretically, or wasn't legal under the Constitution, stuff that the Federal government is not supposed to have control over. My guess is he would have outright closed down a lot of agencies as well, as not needed and not legal, and turned those aspects back over to the States where they belong.
And a lot of so ons there, whatever is legally possible at the executive branch level.
Certainly better than what we have received under both the Bush admin and now the Obama admin. Sure there would have been a rough transition period, to be expected when you are lancing boils and cutting away decades of pure rot and corruption.
Ron Paul is the one guy in both houses who *really* understands the Constitution, and that if it was REALLY followed, not just mumbled lip service but truly followed for the well thought out document and plan it was and is, things would be a lot better, as in "all your rights, all the time, and no fed gov tax and control freak big brother BS".
Yes, thanks, I found that out elsewhere in the thread yesterday and used it in a reply up above.
1. Build Hype.--so the number one reasons is as I thought, it is just market driven to be able to "sell" new shiny?
2. Developer Fatigue---they wouldn't be under any pressure at all that would result in fatigue, as I pointed out if it was only released when ready, not held to a drop dead date on the calendar. There is no one developer does every single thing here, they all work on their little niche aspects. If it was incremental, when this or that niche was deemed good enough for the release to the generic public (I leave alpha and beta testing out, most people don't do that really), they would do it then, irregardless of some arbitrary date on the calendar. I'm not a code guy, I am a farmer, you harvest and take to market (a release analogy) when it is ready, that's it, not on some date picked out of the air. Stuff takes what time it takes, that's it. You just can't make this or that thing grow past what it is capable of, and it is silly to harvest too early or too late. You use the goldilocks principle, only when things are "just right", whatever that is. Ya, still problems can occur, but creating additional problems on purpose, like insisting on an arbitrary date for your crop to be "done", doesn't make the other problems any better, just makes them worse all around.
3. Support Cycles--the whole idea of cycles is eliminated with incremental, so I am not seeing the problem there. "Support" would go to what is released. You sign up, you accept that in advance. We *already* get and deal with updates on this that or the other, even within these six month "cycles", I've seen that with every distro I have ever used, and the default in business anyway is to have test boxes. And with an automatic "revert to past good working" feature, that works at the app/driver whatever level, all of it, you can "try before you really buy", or really commit all the way to the change. As to how long support for this or that would last, that is really still left up to thhe devs, how long they want to support some older version. This is how it is now anyway, either they do it, or you take it on. There's no change there, it would be up to the developers to say "we will only support and bug fix back two versions on our app, after that, upgrade or do it yourself". It is what we have now, I don't see how that would be different on an individual app basis with a distro that did incremental perpetual changes as opposed to some version number for the whole thing. So I'd have to call that a wash, a non issue with comparison.
4. Stability.---see all of the above. The way they are doing it now, the current default status quo of major all at once massive changes in "cycles", every six months or whatever like that, STILL results in major borkage, still results in "INstability", else this entire thread wouldn't exist, we wouldn't be discussing it at all if the cycle method worked all that well. Even in closed source, how many times have we heard "wait for service pack 1 before installing"? And service packs in themselves are just a fancy way to say "whichever this or that needed an incremental update to".
Do you add a little text there when it detects ie6 and encourage people to upgrade to something newer?
Drivers are in the kernel or as modules aren't they? We already get regular kernel updates for kernels, about the only time you have to reboot, and video kernel modules just need to restart X. You can jump around and do that now if you want. But those don't require an entire new distro version. And none of the apps require a new distro version. Near as I can see (again, I am in no way an expert), only a new file system change should absolutely require an entire new upgrade (like happened here with those who chose it, extension 3 to 4). But that certainly isn't all the time, not every six months it isn't.
Really, I am looking for more of a technical reason why the whole thing needs to be done at once, necessitating a ton of things to all be upgraded at the same time, leading to a lot of things that are close but no cigar, the subject of the whole article. It looks more just..dunno..politically driven or market-thinking driven than necessity driven. Whereas if it was incremental by design, only those apps/drivers/ whatever that really are ready get upgraded. Maybe it is all the shared libraries and linking, I just don't know...just mused on this over the years and never read an explanation for it.
And if it was incremental by design, you would only have to wait for your new hardware to be fully supported as long as it took the devs to do it and test it, 12 months is just another artificial time limit. I would prefer, "exactly when they are ready", whatever that time period happens to be. And if the design had an automatic revert to last good working state, then you'd have a relatively painless way to fix any accidental whoopsies that occur. Give you a chance to really tryout this or that new incremental upgrade "thing", to see if it works for you or not, before a full committment and it wipes/replaces the old stuff fully then.
I also noticed in the article thread that Arch linux http://www.archlinux.org/about/ does in fact use a "rolling release" incremental upgrade system, install once and that's it. So, technically it IS possible like I thought, so now I am wondering why they do it but no one else (?) does it that way?
..including the last question, complete with minor typo. The submission asks for your experience upgrading.
For me, my upgrade went completely smooth. I first skimmed through the forum, realized most of the problems people were having were outside of my concern, as I don't quad boot from a natted raided clouded server with 4 dimensional desktop effects resonating off my skypedTivo relay home robotic automation system from the wirleless AP off my moonbounce pringles can home media center rig..so I just adjusted the one thing I needed for insurance, switched to the nv driver instead of the nvidia blob, and the upgrade went fine. Took a long time on my almost broadband (we'll call it "hey, better than freaking dialup and cheaper!). but the net upgrade method worked just fine.
The distro is bleeding edge or close to it..if you choose it to be and demand a lot of exotic action from it.(apparently, my guess skimming around those forums and generally speaking).
Really, most of the problems appear to revolve around the *need* for eyecandy and wiggly windows and whooshing around the desktop. Skip the eyecandy, it might work better. Run some cheap ethernet cable under the carpet at the wall edge, eliminate a lot of other problems.
KISS still works. You want bleeding edge, you'll get cut once in awhile. For what people pay for it, they sure can bitch a lot.
HOWEVER, I totally agree with you on six month release cycles, or even further, WTF is it with "release cycles" anyway? It really has gotten to the point that that is ridiculous, it is a worthy goal of sorts, but impractical. Now seven years is way too long, but once a year instead of twice, then a very concerted effort on bug fixing for a long time before development starts on the next generation, might work better. I just think modern linux distros are way too complex and have so many programs and libraries, that come with them etc that it is just impractical to try and maintain that pace. It is an arbitrary and artificial number picked out of the ether for some esoteric but flawed reason.
Maybe they should put it to a vote on the ubuntu forums?
OR, my major point, just try to work out minor perpetual upgrading instead of all at once? Install once, that's it, no need to reinstall the whole thing ever, ever, ever again. I would prefer that latter method if possible from a user's standpoint. I am not a dev, I don't know if this is possible, but seems like it should be. The kernel can be upgraded and is. Individual programs and libraries and so on are. Whole desktop environments can be. uhh..not much left. Maybe, don't know..
So why isn't the perpetual slow upgrade then the way to do it, why have a whole new "version" all the time anyway? That part I never understood. There must be a reason, I just really don't know what it is. Just slop over thinking from the closed source world where they need an excuse to dun you again for another wad of ca$h every few years or something?
Really. After all this time I still see all these other posts where people *just don't get it* on why being connected to the net, or why being able to give kids hundreds of textbooks on a little machine, etc, isn't valuable. The folks here in the US who live rural get the same routine, from apparently the same sort of people, "why should they need or want broadband way out there" etc. It's like, if you aren't already rich (by entire world standards), live in a heavily urban area, and have all the toys and gadgets and gizmos and technology you can want, that you are supposed to remain stuck at the "send them bags of food then forget about it" levels forever. "Oh look Buffy, how quaint, those cute little backward natives are playing on a computer. Why, there are still goats walking in the street, this is unacceptable though, they should be stripped of those time wasting machines that they couldn't possibly understand or make intelligent use of, and made to go back the way they were!"
Really, it sounds just like that to me sometimes.
I find it rather patronizing/condescending and jingoistic (in a broad sense) and really quite naive of those people to keep thinking that. Access to the net and having access to a computer are just a wonderful thing for *everyone*, you at least get a shot at doing something useful with it, like your examples, it doesn't matter where they are. And for kids in some poor area, it just might give them a little hope, some fun, some education, and who knows from there, but to feel part of the 21st century has to be enabling to a large degree, even if the rest of your life is more rough than not..
..in the finest of slashdot traditions "It's Apple's OS, they developed it, spend years and millions of $$$ making it - why shouldn't they be allowed to say what machines can and can't run it?"
Because it's complete bullshit, that's why.
Here's the /. traditional analogy, so you can see how stupid it is. Right now today there's a huge enthusiast aftermarket industry and hobby developing electric vehicles from existing gas engine vehicles. Conversions. Because it's cool and a lot of folks want them. You can get kits and plans, or entire turnkey built vehicles, based off of ford rangers or chevy s-10s for example, those are common.
What apple is doing would be the same as if ford or chevy "didn't allow" unauthorized use of their "product" by modifying it to be something the end user customer really wanted, but that the original OEM doesn't provide. So, Ford and Chevy should be allowed to dictate that? After all, thousands of man hours of research and development and expensive manufacturing costs and so on, all went into their product. Well, the car companies freaking tried years and years ago to make it that way, they didn't even want to have after market replacement parts "allowed" because it "violated their precious". They wanted you locked into factory dealer prices for parts and labor. The courts said that was bullshit (in legalese of course, too bad they can't just speak plainly) shot them down on that, but for some reason so far the courts seem to think software is just so darn special it needs it's own "class", copyrights AND patents with the added bonus of NO WARRANTIES required, then you get the EULA treatment on top of that.
I think that's pure bullshit as well. It's "legal", but still bullshit.
OK, another one, how about some novel, with a full copyright, the author spends all this time in "development work", sitting in front of a keyboard, (sound familiar?) then the publisher has to "manufacture copies" for the end users, so then, they decide to force you to agree to some "End User Reading License". Only YOU may read that book, you may not lend it to another person because only YOUR eyeballs are "licensed to read it and make a copy in memory". The only "authorized copy" in anyone's brain "allowed" by the agreement is the first purchaser, if he was to lend it, OMG, the second person would then have an unauthorized brain copy in memory that he didn't pay for nor was allowed to make.
So what say you, the above examples should be legal as well, end user vehicle modding not allowed, end user reading and sharing the copy not allowed? Or would that be bullshit. I vote bullshit.
The law may technically be on apple's side right now, but that still doesn't make it right, it's bullshit.
There's been any number of "laws on the books" that were complete bullshit, and sometimes they stick there way past when they should be changed. In that case, only mass adoption of saying "Fuck you, jerks, that's bullshit!" works. This usually involves "interesting times", but such is human history made of, sport!
Now alcohol prohibition was on the books way before my time, and it only got changed when enough of the population just went "this is just bullshit" and drank anyway. Smoking the naughty naughty is that way today. Proly get changed..eventually,because the law is bullshit.
Now later on, when I was a younger dude, we had still a lot of civil rights issues to get sorted out, in one instance the "law" was taking its sweet time since the emancipation was a century previous. So, what happened is enough people got together and went "fuck you, that's bullshit!" and defied their "laws", me included. "Illegal"? Sure it was..sort of. Technically it wasn't, but technically it was..it was a clusterfuck because of conflicting "laws". You'd go someplace and blah blah "wasn't allowed", there were "restrictions" on some people that didn't apply to others. It was "on the books" though. Except over here it wa
That's exactly what we all thought in 1969....
Where has that been hiding? Where were they during the buildup to the iraq invasion, covering all the WMD non stories, that they were pushing after getting "the real info" from out of the government's lie-hole? Parrots, not journalists, the safe way, no boat rocking, no fact checking. Where was all this "fact checking" going on, the post, the ny times, where? Where has been the useful coverage of the economic situation, where were the *good articles*, with the real skinny, main stream traditional news, regurgitating Whitehouse and Fed and Treasury press releases, or places like matt taibbi's stuff in the rolling stone, and dr. housing bubble blog and so on? Why can't they investigate government COMPLETE BS statistics on the economy, and you have to go to shadowstats instead to get it de obfuscated? Where has the real news of war come from, those "embedded" reporters? Ha! How about black box voting? Main stream news..not a peep, it took blackbox voting dog org and brad blog and places like that to get some notice and action going out there, you sure as hell didn't see abcnbccbswallstreethjournalnewyorktimeswapo nonsense bringing it up, and that is sort of *important* in an alleged free democracy. Where the hell is their coverage of sibel edmonds rather *interesting* tale?
One million examples there, tends to indicate a "trend"
Blow dried blowhards. They know where their check comes from and what they can say or not.
Naw, let the controlled establishment propaganda arm of government/ big money interests (the same exact thing) crash and burn, they DESERVE it. They deserved it years ago, as pointed out by an insider journalist a long ago, who grew disillusioned working for the mainstream press and switched to being independent and working for the then new labor movement:
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
http://www.linuxlinks.com/Distributions/Floppy/
In that list, I tried blue flops before, (a two floppy distro, with an enhanced graphical Links browser) it worked fine on an old mostly broken pentium 1 laptop with 16 megs RAM that I was given. It says in the notes minimum requirement is 16 megs or 8 with swap, and a 386, has Ethernet card drivers and a text editor and some other stuff. I know I was able to get online with it and surf reasonably.
http://blueflops.sourceforge.net/
Well, I'd do it by telling all these folks with digital products that because it is SO cheap now to make copies, so cheap and so easy, that society has made an historical breakthrough in eliminating "want" and scarcity in an entire class of products, with this digital replicator technology, which is in the "public good" because our "arts and sciences" made a TREMENDOUS leap forward when this happened in the gestalt; that they either get real and charge a sane fair price, such as perhaps a full 100% markup over bandwith costs for transfer and no more, and make their money on just much larger and legal mass volume sales then, because there is no scarcity now, or that they lose all copyright protections and it goes into public domain instantly if they attempt blatant price gouging by charging 100,000% markup or similar, like they do now, or try to.
Charging folding dollars for a few cents worth of download bandwith is nuts, it's a ripoff and a dangerous precedent for the future as tangible replicators get developed.
Now, if they did that, adopted rules that really reflect advances in technology, then society could still get strict then on really cheap people who wouldn't even pay that now really small and much more fair price as well. I think "cracking down" then would be justified.
What they are doing is trying to maintain the completely junk science totally debunkable viewpoint that these digital copies are a "scarce resource", like they were with wax cylinders and vinyl and plastic tape holder conraptions or even a simple spinning plastic disk, when they are not.
They should NOT be allowed to charge those huge sums for digital copies. Yes, this would require some serious paradigm shifting of the copyright laws, but those copyright laws are all man made, artificial constructs first designed for a much earlier age with primitive technology, and they are not a natural law, and as such, we-society as we-could and should adopt and change the laws as technological circumstances change.
Blatant price gouging and relegating digital technology into the past, locking it down and carving in stone some huge no longer necessary markup for these products is no more than enforced legal Luddism and is abhorrent to the true advancement of the arts and sciences "in the public good" when they insist on such ludicrous prices. It is NOT in the public good for them to get away with that.
The law just shouldn't treat them the same as truly scarce tangible copies which have much higher production and distribution costs. Times have changed, and oh ya they changed copyright law-for the worse, not the better.
BTW Mr. AC, your post was not a troll, it was a legit and honest question. Mods, please fix that.
OK, I was referring to the ICE plus electric kind. They do make an alternative, the hydraulic hybrid boost (and/or complete hydraulic drive), that is already out there in some city delivery trucks and buses. It captures braking force and pressures it, then it adds the boost needed to get going again from a stop. Does it loads cheaper than the electric "regenerative braking" version. Now these sorts of hybrids I can see being useful in a number of scenarios, heck, most vehicles could use it. That's really the big waste in stop and go urban driving, all that starting and stopping inertia. It's fairly efficient in recovery, easily as good as or superior to the electric kind, also easier for the manufacturers to get into, hydraulic and air brakes are by far and away the most common now anyway. Some info, various ideas, random google selection
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/10/parker-20091018.html
http://machinedesign.com/article/hydraulic-hybrids-boost-fuel-economy-1012
http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-top.pag?docid=6752777&ctxixpLink=FcmCtx7&ctxixpLabel=FcmCtx8
As to the electric generator trailer and the electric vehicle, pretty much doable today at a normal entry level ICE vehicle budget. They make kits now to convert real common vehicles (as in by used and cheap to start the project with), like ford rangers or chevy s-10s (some sedans but I forget which ones now they recommend, I am in favor of smaller pickups over sedans for electric vehicles, they can haul the weight better and still have useable cargo and room space). One just needs then a normal landscaper type lightweight steel mesh framed trailer, the kind you see people towing that have a riding lawnmower on them and a few tools, etc, home depot or wherever special, relatively cheap, the generator, can be cheap to expensive, just a judgement call there, some u-bolts to clamp the thing down over the balance point on the trailer axle, add a starter battery on the nose for the down weight needed for attachment, and maybe some additional fuel tank action, etc then sill room for cargo. Probably need to make your own jumper cable thing, not that hard, to connect to the vehicle charge point. Now I am *guessing*, but I would bet you could just about get real close to a new prius price, and have pure electric instead with the genny trailer doing it this way.
You are basically just trading the cash you would have put into an advanced battery system, that is *still* limited, into a more affordable generator system for the once in awhile long trip, and then just having a modest battery system instead. Which also has the benefit of as battery tech advances, you can buy into it easier and cheaper, because you just don't need that many batteries total.
I even noted around a six (to ten) grand NEV modular hybrid type thing that could be assembled completely in one trip at my local home depot before. Not exactly a commuter experience, but you can see the potential there is real close now to this being affordable, the vehicle itself just needs to be a little more realistically a car, say add five more grand to it to get it out of the NEV class, then do the trailer idea with it.
http://slashdot.org/~zogger/journal/207291
Someone up above provided it, and I have said this for years as well: the solution right now for extended range with the electric vehicle, for the occasional longer trip, until batteries or ultracaps get a lot better, is the "modular hybrid" approach, just like this
http://www.evnut.com/rav_longranger.htm
Problem solved, no need to worry about long recharge scenarios or that tarded battery swap out idea. And just a ton of suburban guys who commute and *could* do that in an electric car with even just a 50 mile range, also want (and buy today) a home generator for the occasional use when the power goes out, so this is double plus good there. And for city boys with no garage who live in apartments, who want an electric, these genny trailers could be *rented* for that trip to grannys.
The only thing I would do different with those trailers is make them a scosh bigger with some additional cargo room for that long trip, for your luggage and camping gear or whatever.
One of the really big expenses for adoption of the all electric at a more normal non millionaire pricing level is the insane battery prices. Reduce the needs from a 30 grand battery pack to 5 grand (something like that), be content with just a 50 mile day to day range, with the genny option, bought or rented, and the actual car can be made loads cheaper, and smallish gas gennys just aren't all that expensive (especially if they were to become common for this purpose and mass produced), and most likely only being used half a dozen times a year they would last a really long time.
I think on board hybrids are a dead end, that's just too much weight and complexity having to haul around two different styles of drivetrains all the time on the same axles. All electric + the modular "makes it a hybrid" genny trailer is the way to go.
In Europe I think they are outright banning incandescents shortly. Then what? You can't just have no light in all those places you just said were inappropriate.
Well, I just checked, yes the ban went into effect last month (this is a pro-ban link)
http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/09/01/europes-incandescent-light-bulb-ban-begins-today/
Merchants are allowed to close out remaining incandescent lightbulb inventory and that's it.
I therefore predicteth a robust and lucrative underground black market economy with incandescents in euro-peon-land, just because CFLs don't cut the mustard quite good enough yet for all applications, as you pointed out some examples thereof, and others have noted that they find them severely lacking for this or that reason.
Well, you want ketchup or mayo on that sammich? Whoops, sorry we *only* have ketchup, by law....
I just don't like the CFLs, the ones I have tried anyway. I'm down to one in the wellhouse and that's it, I removed the ones I had installed throughout the house, thinking I was being a good boy and all, and went back to cheap incandescents that are suitable for purpose. I found the CFLs won't light up a room from the ceiling, looks like twilight to me and defeats the whole purpose of having an overhead light, I can't use them for reading, the color and intensity are way off sitting next to a normal table lamp with one of those things in there, and for close work, forget it, I have to throw on a headlamp anyway then so what's the point?
I will hold out for cheaper/better LEDs instead,(I already have some portable battery operated ones I use now, mostly during the frequent power outages here in colonialized and exploited third world rural merika, and like them a lot, and they are just bargain basement el cheapo ten buck chinese camping lamps and they work just great, same batts for a few years now) and in the meantime, conserve energy in other areas /me thinks about a rainy day nap right now ;)
Their-government-science and economic rules are HARMFUL, wasteful, they do not work and haven't worked for so long now that it has resulted in vast loss of sea creatures, it has resulted in LESS fish in the sea, not more, and higher prices for what seafood we get, and long range it has near destroyed the fishing industry. It's been way more bureaucratic insane bull than not. It is not "science" at all.
The biggest single positive change they can do is recognize the HARD SCIENCE,(and this is an exact example of where a simple law change would really work) completely verifiable, repeatable, absolutely zero debate, not opinion, real fact, real data, that fishing with nets results in a "variety" catch in multi hundreds of thousands of fishing trips a year, all over the planet, and it should NOT be illegal to bring that catch in and sell it. In fact it should be near required, and sort it out at the docks and fishhouses better.
All of the fish with airbladders die from the bends when you haul them up, but official pseudo science regulations *make believe this doesn't happen*, that if you "throw them back" they go on their merry fish way. They just don't.. Please see my reply here as well, my direct observations as a commercial shrimper before, and this was decades ago and the-governments- are still enforcing "throw it all back in except the target fish" and it is still utter complete rubbish junk science.
There is simply no way possible at all to have some sort of artificial intelligence driven nets (or "longline" rigs) that only catch one single target species of a correct size and gender, or any other ridiculous notion like that. They can try and regulate that into existence all day long, using as many laws and words as possible, and it still will not change reality.
And there is just example after example of this sort of insane regulatory mindset that has infested governments and well meaning but totally naive enviro orgs where reality doesn't even come close to their theories. The freakin spotted owl crap is another prime example there of total Agenda 21 style driven rubbish junk science that caused huge loss of jobs and incomes, and did *nothing* at all whatsoever to either increase or decrease the spotted owl populations. It has been proven without any doubt at all that they do not absolutely require virgin old growth forest, they find nests in barns and second growth forests, and that the main reason their numbers were in decline is because of competition from other more aggressive owl species.
Not saying all regulations are bad, of course not, I'd be the first to admit that and am in favor of true scoience based regs, but tons of them are so far into being counter productive as opposed to the stated goals that you have to wonder what other purpose is behind them,* because they have nothing to do with hard science or legitimate best practices, even though their words may claim they do.
*Well, I don't winder at all about it, I'll leave it for "debate", but in the past when I was "in the movement" I have heard personally dot org enviro so called leaders and organizers bragging and discussing "off the record" about their long range political power goals, which are pretty disgusting totalitarian crap and have little to do with saving the environment and a lot to do with having a major global two class society with masters-order givers, and serfs-order takers who have been herded into selected mega cities by overlapping and ridiculous laws that make rural living about impossible, even when they use normal "left wing" styled soothing words and noises.
I no longer would work with or be affiliated with most of the large "enviro" orgs out there, even though I am fairly and honestly "green" myself, and walk my talk with my lifestyle choices, nor do I trust any of their tame politicians who go along with that nonsense, including the upcoming co2 cap and trade world new wall
Yes, just way way WAY too much bullcrap comes out of the one world all humans are evil and must be controlled agenda driven "watermelon" side of the environmental movement. The public facing green with the solid red core. Been seeing it for years, main reason I stopped joining and participating in the more mainstream big enviro orgs. To me, the ones that do the best job are the ones lead by sportsmen, like trout unlimited and ducks unlimited, etc. Just those two orgs do more for nature, good science and a good environment inside the US, without bankrupting anyone or forcing people out of work or any of that other rank stuff that happens, then all the other more well known big orgs like the sierra club and WWF combined. So, when I see a chance to expound a little here on something I know about, I do so.
Another one that almost caught me in the beginning was climate change. Yes, the climate changes, and always will, sometimes faster sometimes slower. Yes, humans pollute and can be wasteful and we sure can be smarter about how we go about things. I am all for cleaner environment, alternative energy (own my own solar panels and windcharger, unlike 99.99% of self professed enviros out there, grow a lot of our own food organically here, don't use GM seeds, heat with natural wood instead of fossil fuels, etc) and etc, but as soon as I heard the first faint whisperings of a new trillion dollar a year wall street scam skimming effort called "cap and trade", the stealth negatax on the productive middleclass, I knew 3/4ths or better of the crap we would see "academically" and from government officials and NWO connected think tanks/foundations after that point would be garden fertilizer of the more natural kind. And it has been.
Which really is a shame, really, a crying shame, because we COULD do a lot better with some more sane and not based on junk science policies,like pushing superinsulation-real energy conservation, and telecommuting over physical commuting for office jobs, as the top priority over taxed this or that or expensive new centralized powerplants of any kind, or offering 100% tax credits for new solar installs, anything better over "cap and trade", but they are bound and determined to come up with another huge ripoff scam now that they got busted with their mortgage frauds pants down around their ankles and needed bailing out to cover their bad derivatives bets. I mean, can't folks read the news and see where all this economic ripoff crap comes from in the first place?
So that's the next boondoggle and pocket picking conjob, sold to people with the slickest possible PR and propaganda money can buy to save the planet, tax yourselves out of existence and into perpetual and muyltugenerational serfdom so that the billionaires can become multi billionaires. And they'll get legions of followers to cheer on this mass lameness. Freakin sad really.
There's an old adage that is almost always true, "follow the money". You do that, it eventually leads right back to the same posse of crooks and thieves in DC and on wall street, just never fails.
Over there where you are, have you gotten nailed with any of their "rewilding" wolves yet? We don't have that yet here,(they keep trying but no dice for them yet) but just the coyotes and wild dogs are bad enough.
Well, go do your own googling then and find out about modern game management, it's out there. I am a rural person and long time outdoorsman, like well over half a century worth now, this is just freeking as common of knowledge in our "community" as starbucks charges multiple dollars per cup of coffee is in yours. I mean, geez loweez, just go to some magazine stand that has a lot of "multicultural diversity" in the selections, they have entire magazines devoted to JUST whitetail deer hunting and *herd management*. Now, besides the articles, just look at the ads in that magazine. This isn't "opinion", this is established practice and business.
This is old hat well established science here and is already a *pretty large industry*. A business, not just some wild theory. If that ain't enough for a "debunking" I don't know what else could qualify. All these folks are not in the hobby and sport and business of making less deer, and smaller deer.
As to basic biology, the birds and bees.. That's second grade at the latest stuff, at least the basics. Taking big bucks, mature many year old game animals, does NOT remove the genes he carries from the herd, they are already out there in tons of baby and older deer from that buck gettin' lucky numerous times before. He ain't "saving himself" for later, for Ms. Doe "right", he's already done his buck-best in that regard, and they duke it out between the big bucks over who gets first dibs and who gets sloppy seconds. This period is called "the rut". The bigger tougher ones win. This means the bigger tougher buck-genes get a much better shot at being passed down into the herd. Like I said, basic biology.
Want some more odd facts about deer in the US? There are MORE whitetail deer NOW, 2009, then there were when the pilgrims first landed,by a huge factor, and for a couple hundred years after that time. Want to know why? It's because there is more dense cover now, less climax forests but more second or later growth, plus more ag area so they can munch on like corn and soybeans, etc, which means LOTS more for them to eat of a higher nutritional density, many more places to hide and yard up, and now we have better game management as well. We are getting more deer now, and overall larger deer, *even with robust hunting pressure*.
The very lowest period of time for whitetail populations in US history was immediately after the beginning of the great depression, when hunting pressure shot through the roof because people were starving because the wallstreet pirates had borked the economy, so hunting pressure increased well past the point that the authorities could handle. It got so bad for the deer population, that in some areas, such as my state of Georgia, they estimate only a few hundred head were left statewide, total, before things started getting better, and now the herd size is back up just great, and the individual animal size is back up as well. Very similar to my Zimbabwe comments, just we didn't have a big civil war going on then (unfortunately in my view, we should have sorted out those scumbag ripoff "elitists" the traditional way back then and been done with it));.heh.... Very similar in some ways, borked economy, ag plummeted, hunting increased from necessity, etc. Anyway, water under the dam now. Or maybe coming soon again, who knows....
It all has to do with whether or not the local economy is intact or not, if local agriculture is able to work and make some money and not be destroyed from warfare or other retarded big business and big government normal tom foolery, then responsible game management. No game management (the agenda 21, Gaia, "rewilding" junk science theory), means the herds get overly large for their area and start croaking from diseases and malnutrition, and then the natural predators, who's numbers have now increased go through the same thing, lose food, so they croak from malnutrition, a boom bust never ending cycle). No game mana
Junk science in that article, easily debunked, at least as pertains big game animals, and I will include whitetails here. And this is how. You can't even GET to a big buck to harvest until he is an adult for several years after he hits breeding age, so he has passed on his big buck genes numerous times. I mean really, this is simple biology.
In addition, it isn't just big bucks taken anyway, most hunters will take a large one if possible, a smaller one just for eats, then an even smaller doe during doe season to keep herd size manageable. Medium sized ones are frequently ignored, to let them grow a few more seasons. This is *very* common practice, even moreso with private deer clubs who lease land and go even beyond state regs. This is true scientific herd management now where the private sector is even better at it than the public sector. Modern deer herd management is very good at maintaining both larger and healthier animals for the most part. It is in their *interest* to do so, and a lot of time, money and effort goes into it.
Now maybe this isn't the case in "anything goes" places like Africa during some local tribe versus tribe war and anything that moves is taken for eats, but modern hunting science and management *where it is practiced legitimately* has resulted in decent game animals. And no, I don't want to hear that they manage their herds there in africa, they TRY to manage their herds there, and there's a big difference between "do" and "try", like yoda sez. It's anarchy warzone there more often than not, and basically unlimited poaching going on, "bushmeat", and the killing of animals for that ludicrous ivory trade and so on for rich farts, so of course herd size and individual size will start to drop then.
So you really can't paint with too broad a brush, it really matters which areas you are talking about and which species. In places where it is pure sport, and it is intelligently managed and patrolled, the herds are getting better barring any killer multi year drought, in places that have unregulated market hunting, combined with local warfare so much less legit agriculture is done, where the people get insane desperate and just want anything at all to eat, yes, smaller.
Prime example, Zimbabwe. Regulated sport hunting combined with good quality agriculture, back when it was Rhodesia, worked (I will leave the political element out, just concentrate on animals, wild game and domestic, and food supply now), after the revolution, with no credible management other than the victors went bonkers and looted whatever they could and killed off the farmers and so on, the whole nation collapsed. They used to export ag, bigtime, breadbasket of Africa, plus had outstanding big game hunting, now they have *neither* and are a global laughingstock and their people starve.
I used to work shrimpers and this is exactly what happens, and it was dumb then and dumb now. It was *illegal* to keep any of the good fish, at least that is what I was told back then and how I understood the practice to come about, they were trying to "regulate" the fisheries, plus the shrimpers themselves only wanted the one thing in the iceholds anyway, to facilitate unloading and also because most of them are contract shrimpers. So it was a double rule to "just keep the gulf shrimp". Huge schools of sharks follow the boats and eat the stuff that goes back over through the scuppers.(this also served as a handy protip why it was a good idea to pay attention and not accidentally fall over, your chances of getting picked back up immediately are between zero and no way most of the time)
Now we used to eat what we wanted onboard, whatever you wanted to pick out that ya caught, my favorite by far is cobia, but come close to getting back into port, whatever we had that wasn't shrimp, over the side. Now this was a long time ago now, maybe the law/practice has changed, but it sure was retarded back then, thousands of dollars worth and plenty of good tasting calories more or less wasted, *per trip*. I'm talking real decent grouper and snapper, etc, all sorts of stuff. I don't recall catching any dolphins, but we'd see a lot, they follow the boats around as well to eat bycatch. Any of the fish with airbladders would just croak anyway when you hauled them up, that part was really dumb that they made it illegal or against the rules to keep them. Hell, we didn't even keep all the shrimp! We'd toss back over the rock shrimp and just keep the gulf shrimp, and the rock shrimp are twice as good, way more a lobster flavor to them. That I think was more from preserving them, they just don't last as long on ice and we did two week trips. We sure did eat a lot of them though.
Anyway, I think that dumb law (like I said, if it was a law) and practice did more to wipe out good edible species in the gulf than the "legitimate" catch did, commercial or sportfishing.
The *coolest* thing we caught, IMO, was two giant manta rays, just way way cool. Hugegigantoramous. They didn't croak but it was a bear to get them back over the side.