"That is untestable accusation, even though I am an imperialist yankee gringo pig."
Well, since you didn't base your facts, I presume they come from the same sources I've seen. The study I was talking about (that I don't have a link, since I've know about by the main (printed) press) was bashed all over the world because of the flaws I pointed. But you may have seen some other one. Also, nobody said you where a "yankee gringo pig", I just tould you that somebody lied to you. As far as I know, it is not your falt.
"Solar radiation is not the problem for crop production at the poles. The incidence angle is low, but the length of the day in spring and summer compensate."
There is no way that the lenght of the day can grow to compensate the reduced (with a sin function) solar radiation. At most, a day can have 24 hours, what is not enough. But, of course, they can produce something, just not as much as tropical areas.
"No. Fair trade suggests that inflows and outflows are equal, period. Many developing countries use a cheap labor model..."
Modern economics imply that the more variety of people (and natural resources, but that is not the case here) a country have, the less it needs external commerce. That is why the United States have small exports (and imports too). It is just natural to the other developped countries to trade more. And I'm talking about developped countries here, so the rest doesn't apply.
"This isn't necessarily bad. In much of the world there will be increased crop yields."
That is a lie. I remember when that was on the media (worldwide, or at least here at Brazil too), some american "researches" made (very unreliable) simulations and came to this conclusion. Well, they where lying. They where confusing highter temperatures with highter amount of energy comming from the Sun. Since that is a so obvious mistake, I can tell that they where willfuly liyng to us.
By their calculations, you can expect that crop yelds wil increase on areas that are covered with ice (some of the time and all of it). But it will go down on the hotter areas, since plants don't like hot weather (they do like hight solar radiation, although). Since the areas that are now frozen receive so little solar radiation, they can't yeld so much to compensate (and the area is also not that big). And, yes, I happen to know a bit about the subject.
Also, those other developped countries export more, but they have a smaller population, so that is expected. To think about the american debt, you should only considerate how much they export to the United States. And your country also have a growing fiscal debit (since the current administration), telling us that you are spending less with the military than you used to do at the Cold War doesn't change this fact.
"Do you think he's going to magically look up AIDS and how it's spread?"
Yes, I do. Human being have that weard thing that we call will. You know, they get interested on stuff, see what they can do, and do. All without you needing to command them.
I guess you are a lon of time in front of your computer, those and people are not the same.
I think you have a quite distorted view of that. First, it is not the United States taking advantage of a corrupt governemnt. It is a non profit moviment creating the specs of something that the corrupt governemnt can use for free (buying the hardware, mostly from asian companies that will most of it reach Argentina at a fair price, all increments will be withing your country). Second, why do you think that it will make things worse? A corrupt government would spend the money on something else (stealing the same amount) if it didn't have the laptop to buy.
As I say often, this $100 laptop is a very nice initiative. If there is something out there that can help we fight against corrupt governments, that is the internet. And making it available for everyone will only help. I really don't know Argentina that well, but here at Brazil, we need very much some accessible communication channel that is not controlled by the government.
Yep. Speed is the main advantage of binary formats (since we now compress the textual ones). But I'd like to add that I'm using OOo for a few mounths now without ever needing to enable the java functionality (you can disable java at the configuration window). Almost all of it is written in other languages.
"Let's see now. If I want to help people in the third-world.. hmm. Well, they obviously aren't starving, have -spectactular- medical care, there's no problem with HIV, and we made sure they all have clean water and nice 2-story ranch houses. Crime is at an all-time low and there aren't -any- despots or tyrannical dictators that let American corporations in to use their citizens as dirt-cheap overworked labor for pennies."
Humm, would you be surprised if I tell you that the answer to most of those question is "yes" for a lot of people? You must get a look at the real world. You are talking about a lot of people here, with a lot of different needs.
And by the way, cheap computers (with easy connections, like the $100 laptop) are the best available possibility against despots and tyrannical dictators that we have nowadays.
No, you don't seem to know. First, one don't need to power the laptop with the cranck, he can just plug it to the grid, like any onther eletronic product. If you where whatching it closer, you should know that.
Second, better information for the rural population of most 3rd world countries is very important. Almost all countries on the world need the agriculture to sustain its economy (even at the 1st world), and improving rural productivity is a known way to boost urban development (just economics).
Third, we won't be able to predic or measure the most important impact of those devices for several years. Unbiquitous access to information is very powerfull, it can change those societies on a lot of different ways.
No problem if the chip can only identify the bank. There should be no private key on it, so if you lose, the phisher will be able to identify the bank, and you only need to go there and get another token.
They do force people to buy their products. They simply make sure that the competition doesn't exist. And that is the why they need power.
So, even if they lose some money on the short term, the *AA will try to get power, because if they don't, the money will go to the competition on the future (and they'll need to adjust their prices). Although money is the final obective, you'd better think about power to understand them, not money.
The best part of a formal standard is that or you support it, or you don't. There is no middle ground, so if MS Office claims to support ODF, it must support it all, and only it (no embrace and extend).
" Guys: I am a member of the group that Microsoft joined"
Nice, can you explain, since you don't accept members whith problems with antitrust laws, why was Microsoft accepted?
Also, don't your group make decisions based on consensus, instead o majority? How do you think Microsoft (that assumed plublicaly to be against ODF) won't disturb the acceptance process?
Microsoft could very well downgrade Windows until it done nothing unsecure. And fix the settings to not let them 'fade away' with time.
But with DRM, all that is futile. You'll need to be coneected on the internet every time, you'll need to let new programs run on your box, and you'll need complex routines to check if the user didn't change anything on the computer (and probably more).
That is the problem. It shouldn't need maintence (unless your hardware fails). It is not (or should not be) open to an insecure network, the requisites don't change often, and it should have standard software. Why maintence? (answer: because of DRM)
Funny, I can't run 2 year old binaries on my Linux. Maybe you made your system before the last changes of gcc, but if so, it is not legacy support, it is using the old system.
Every time someone made that question before, the answer was that Microsoft's patents are only defensive. There is change here. And if you read the questions again, you'll see that they where very likely combined before, so the interview was really to make a point. No idependent reporter make such biased questions.
Where is the consistent vision of proprietary software? Most prorpietary programs out there can't agree on protocols, can't agree on interface, can't even all of them agree on making money! Why can't OSX and Windows share the same interface? Those inconsistences are a hell to the user! And look at J++, whoe sole objective was to kill Java. That is inconsistence!
See it isn't insightfull anyway you put it. But if you observe inconsistency inside a free project, you can tell us about.
And most of what is out there is crap, free or not. Get used to it.
That news was brought by Microsoft. There is no way that those questions where made by an idependent reporter. So, now I have the question, why now?
It seems to me that Microsoft is fighting to stay alife. Not on the long term, but that we could have a nice surprise on the next mounths.
Microsoft could chose to use its patents against FOSS any time, but it chosed no to do so. Why? The only explanation I have is because of PR. Using patents against a (perceived as) weak opponent would cause severe harm to the image of both Microsoft and software patents on the public. So MS was waiting to use it when softPatents where better accepted or bad times came. Software patents are not better accepted now, so it must be the second option (treatening to use have the same effects of using them).
We've seen a sequence of very bad news for Microsoft on the last week that could put its stocks very down. MS seems to have contability problems (like most other big companies out there), and there is some speculation about them hiding bad results. At the formal side, there are no good news also, since MS isn't as lucrative as it used to be, and don't seem to be able to grow anymore. They may quite well be on a bubble, and managements would know that. If it is a bubble, and burst, they'll rapidly get out of money to invest. And MS with no money to invest is a sitting duck, just wating to get shot.
People, we may have won that war!!! It is early to be sure, but it is very possible.
I belive in God, but it is irrelevant to the discussion. My point is that God has no means of proving itself. No one, not moving mountais (literaly), not converting people, not sending messages, not even appearing to all people and telling us something. No one of those would prove the existence of God.
And there is no known flaw at the theory of evolution. And macroevolution is a fact. My point was exactly that the GP underestimated how much the scientists want to find a flaw at the theory (his estimate was: "everybody want to win a Nobel price", mine was: "everybody wants to make a revolution on all sciences"), and tell that to all the world. And until now, no one was able to do that.
What is a good scenario, but is destroyed when you put money on the equation. On the reality, engeneers get underpaid, management get lots of money. So, many engeneers want to go into management.
That is also a reason to companies should pay the engeneers well.
It is imposible to prove (or disprove) the existenec of God. There is no piece of evidence that will do it. But you don't need to prove God to show that evolution is wrong (and proving God will not be enough to show it either), you simply need to get evidence of changes that don't obey evolution's axioms.
That said, disproving evolution would be much more important than disproving aether. The entire biology field is based on this theory, and its axioms are mostly our definition of life. If evolution is wrong, there is something very wrong with math or there is something very different with life. Both discoveries could very well be classified between the most important discoveries of history.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, since you didn't base your facts, I presume they come from the same sources I've seen. The study I was talking about (that I don't have a link, since I've know about by the main (printed) press) was bashed all over the world because of the flaws I pointed. But you may have seen some other one. Also, nobody said you where a "yankee gringo pig", I just tould you that somebody lied to you. As far as I know, it is not your falt.
There is no way that the lenght of the day can grow to compensate the reduced (with a sin function) solar radiation. At most, a day can have 24 hours, what is not enough. But, of course, they can produce something, just not as much as tropical areas.
Modern economics imply that the more variety of people (and natural resources, but that is not the case here) a country have, the less it needs external commerce. That is why the United States have small exports (and imports too). It is just natural to the other developped countries to trade more. And I'm talking about developped countries here, so the rest doesn't apply.
That is a lie. I remember when that was on the media (worldwide, or at least here at Brazil too), some american "researches" made (very unreliable) simulations and came to this conclusion. Well, they where lying. They where confusing highter temperatures with highter amount of energy comming from the Sun. Since that is a so obvious mistake, I can tell that they where willfuly liyng to us.
By their calculations, you can expect that crop yelds wil increase on areas that are covered with ice (some of the time and all of it). But it will go down on the hotter areas, since plants don't like hot weather (they do like hight solar radiation, although). Since the areas that are now frozen receive so little solar radiation, they can't yeld so much to compensate (and the area is also not that big). And, yes, I happen to know a bit about the subject.
Also, those other developped countries export more, but they have a smaller population, so that is expected. To think about the american debt, you should only considerate how much they export to the United States. And your country also have a growing fiscal debit (since the current administration), telling us that you are spending less with the military than you used to do at the Cold War doesn't change this fact.
Yes, I do. Human being have that weard thing that we call will. You know, they get interested on stuff, see what they can do, and do. All without you needing to command them.
I guess you are a lon of time in front of your computer, those and people are not the same.
I think you have a quite distorted view of that. First, it is not the United States taking advantage of a corrupt governemnt. It is a non profit moviment creating the specs of something that the corrupt governemnt can use for free (buying the hardware, mostly from asian companies that will most of it reach Argentina at a fair price, all increments will be withing your country). Second, why do you think that it will make things worse? A corrupt government would spend the money on something else (stealing the same amount) if it didn't have the laptop to buy.
As I say often, this $100 laptop is a very nice initiative. If there is something out there that can help we fight against corrupt governments, that is the internet. And making it available for everyone will only help. I really don't know Argentina that well, but here at Brazil, we need very much some accessible communication channel that is not controlled by the government.
Yep. Speed is the main advantage of binary formats (since we now compress the textual ones). But I'd like to add that I'm using OOo for a few mounths now without ever needing to enable the java functionality (you can disable java at the configuration window). Almost all of it is written in other languages.
Humm, would you be surprised if I tell you that the answer to most of those question is "yes" for a lot of people? You must get a look at the real world. You are talking about a lot of people here, with a lot of different needs.
And by the way, cheap computers (with easy connections, like the $100 laptop) are the best available possibility against despots and tyrannical dictators that we have nowadays.
No, you don't seem to know. First, one don't need to power the laptop with the cranck, he can just plug it to the grid, like any onther eletronic product. If you where whatching it closer, you should know that.
Second, better information for the rural population of most 3rd world countries is very important. Almost all countries on the world need the agriculture to sustain its economy (even at the 1st world), and improving rural productivity is a known way to boost urban development (just economics).
Third, we won't be able to predic or measure the most important impact of those devices for several years. Unbiquitous access to information is very powerfull, it can change those societies on a lot of different ways.
Or D) We'll see cheap Linux machines.
No problem if the chip can only identify the bank. There should be no private key on it, so if you lose, the phisher will be able to identify the bank, and you only need to go there and get another token.
They do force people to buy their products. They simply make sure that the competition doesn't exist. And that is the why they need power.
So, even if they lose some money on the short term, the *AA will try to get power, because if they don't, the money will go to the competition on the future (and they'll need to adjust their prices). Although money is the final obective, you'd better think about power to understand them, not money.
People wouldn't read it anyway...
You could use Google maps, and Yahoo finance. No flash.
The best part of a formal standard is that or you support it, or you don't. There is no middle ground, so if MS Office claims to support ODF, it must support it all, and only it (no embrace and extend).
Nice, can you explain, since you don't accept members whith problems with antitrust laws, why was Microsoft accepted?
Also, don't your group make decisions based on consensus, instead o majority? How do you think Microsoft (that assumed plublicaly to be against ODF) won't disturb the acceptance process?
Microsoft could very well downgrade Windows until it done nothing unsecure. And fix the settings to not let them 'fade away' with time.
But with DRM, all that is futile. You'll need to be coneected on the internet every time, you'll need to let new programs run on your box, and you'll need complex routines to check if the user didn't change anything on the computer (and probably more).
That is the problem. It shouldn't need maintence (unless your hardware fails). It is not (or should not be) open to an insecure network, the requisites don't change often, and it should have standard software. Why maintence? (answer: because of DRM)
Funny, I can't run 2 year old binaries on my Linux. Maybe you made your system before the last changes of gcc, but if so, it is not legacy support, it is using the old system.
Every time someone made that question before, the answer was that Microsoft's patents are only defensive. There is change here. And if you read the questions again, you'll see that they where very likely combined before, so the interview was really to make a point. No idependent reporter make such biased questions.
Where is the consistent vision of proprietary software? Most prorpietary programs out there can't agree on protocols, can't agree on interface, can't even all of them agree on making money! Why can't OSX and Windows share the same interface? Those inconsistences are a hell to the user! And look at J++, whoe sole objective was to kill Java. That is inconsistence!
See it isn't insightfull anyway you put it. But if you observe inconsistency inside a free project, you can tell us about.
And most of what is out there is crap, free or not. Get used to it.
That news was brought by Microsoft. There is no way that those questions where made by an idependent reporter. So, now I have the question, why now?
It seems to me that Microsoft is fighting to stay alife. Not on the long term, but that we could have a nice surprise on the next mounths.
Microsoft could chose to use its patents against FOSS any time, but it chosed no to do so. Why? The only explanation I have is because of PR. Using patents against a (perceived as) weak opponent would cause severe harm to the image of both Microsoft and software patents on the public. So MS was waiting to use it when softPatents where better accepted or bad times came. Software patents are not better accepted now, so it must be the second option (treatening to use have the same effects of using them).
We've seen a sequence of very bad news for Microsoft on the last week that could put its stocks very down. MS seems to have contability problems (like most other big companies out there), and there is some speculation about them hiding bad results. At the formal side, there are no good news also, since MS isn't as lucrative as it used to be, and don't seem to be able to grow anymore. They may quite well be on a bubble, and managements would know that. If it is a bubble, and burst, they'll rapidly get out of money to invest. And MS with no money to invest is a sitting duck, just wating to get shot.
People, we may have won that war!!! It is early to be sure, but it is very possible.
What would probably replace all their development team, and spend any income they get.
Debian is big, not only on the number of CDs it use. But that was the better sugestion until now :)
I belive in God, but it is irrelevant to the discussion. My point is that God has no means of proving itself. No one, not moving mountais (literaly), not converting people, not sending messages, not even appearing to all people and telling us something. No one of those would prove the existence of God.
And there is no known flaw at the theory of evolution. And macroevolution is a fact. My point was exactly that the GP underestimated how much the scientists want to find a flaw at the theory (his estimate was: "everybody want to win a Nobel price", mine was: "everybody wants to make a revolution on all sciences"), and tell that to all the world. And until now, no one was able to do that.
Right. But I think that "theory" is implicit when I talk abouth math. Otherwise it makes no sense at all.
Anyway, your comment help clarifying it. Thanks.
What is a good scenario, but is destroyed when you put money on the equation. On the reality, engeneers get underpaid, management get lots of money. So, many engeneers want to go into management.
That is also a reason to companies should pay the engeneers well.
It is imposible to prove (or disprove) the existenec of God. There is no piece of evidence that will do it. But you don't need to prove God to show that evolution is wrong (and proving God will not be enough to show it either), you simply need to get evidence of changes that don't obey evolution's axioms.
That said, disproving evolution would be much more important than disproving aether. The entire biology field is based on this theory, and its axioms are mostly our definition of life. If evolution is wrong, there is something very wrong with math or there is something very different with life. Both discoveries could very well be classified between the most important discoveries of history.