Not really. Sounds like the original devs whining because they got canned.
The company is paying for a complete rewrite from scratch. Maybe they are paying for said rewrite because "the current version is still somewhat buggy and slow".
Seems reasonable to me, if you are doing a rewrite for optimization, move to a more modern language, and (hopefully) reduced bugginess new features really aren't a good idea.
There are methods for combining the C and H again by introducing a catalyst. Since there is no shortage of H and this will provide us with C then there doesn't seem to be a problem here.
The carbon doesn't provide the energy, the carbon provides the structure that the H readily combines with. It's also the thing we need to worry about removing from the air. There is no shortage of energy, there is a whole sea of it out there.
'You've still got the energy cost of disposing of the CO2, by burying it or whatever. It has to be taken out of the carbon cycle completely.'
Why? If the carbon is coming from the air, releasing it back to the air would result in carbon levels remaining the same instead of increasing. Use said carbon to generate electricity/fuel cars (until more eco friendly solutions to these problems become prevelant) and you will reduce the new carbon going into the air. Not to mention help pay for this.
'Readily available firearms do not help if you are already engaged in hand to hand combat, that was the entire point of my post. Since you did not bother reading my first post I can not be bothered explaining it all again.'
I read your post, I'm just not confusing your example with the premises and conclusion made. Your argument was faulty because firearms reduce the likelihood of being in a hand to hand combat situation in the first place.
The best method of self defense in a confrontation is a separate issue from this conversation and overall topic.
From TFA: One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: âoedistribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution.â
So apparently an investigator downloading DOES constitute as infringement.
'Surely that is not the issue... if you choose to watch YouTube all day, that is your right, and it is my same right to download the new distro of Redhat or even the latest cracked game from a P2P service.'
Yes but for the most part, you can both have our cake and eat it too with QoS. Giving lower priority to bulk downloads doesn't necessarily reduce their bandwidth, just their latency.
I run QoS on my home network. My wife's multiple pc's running online gaming, and our voip don't lower the kb/s at which I download bulk traffic. Ultimately, those are relatively low bandwidth but low latency applications and my downloading needs lots of bandwidth but latency doesn't matter so much.
That said, giving bulk downloads equal or greater priority than latency sensitive solutions WILL make them unusable.
I assure you, even the large pockets of car manufacturers are limited and a dollar spent on one line of research is a dollar that isn't spent on another.
For example, note the amazing lack of any revolutionary developments in the automotive industry in the last twenty years or so.
'Did it occur to you that manufacturers could do *both*?'
In fantasy land sure. In the real world companies spend X on development and X is a precious and limited resource. High tech, order my coffee for me options cost even more to research than energy efficiency. Especially since I don't want my fridge deciding if I can afford to buy the coffee today or need to wait until I get paid.
Oh yes, that is MUCH more clear and memorable than a random string of numbers.
It's also about as useless. If you have www.bobsdomain.com you can take www.bobsdomain.com with you and update DNS appropriately when you cross networks. The same is not true of machine35.cust108.cmbg.cable.ntl.com.
What about my iSneakers? How will I address them? If we are getting rid of IPv4 shouldn't we get rid of the ancient and outdated protocols that go with it, DNS, SMTP, etc?
'Going with your fridge analogy, why should it be a bad thing for a grocery store to connect to all the fridges it knows about in order to tell them about new products?'
I'm pretty sure anyone who DOESN'T care to turn their fridge into an advertising portal might want a say in that.
'You'd plug things in, and they'd just work. Globally.'
And pigs would be giant and feed all the starving children of the world. And politicians would suddenly give the slightest rat fsck about the people who elected them. Your vote actually would be something other than a waste of time and suddenly become the magical voice people pretend it is.
There aren't enough addresses to do it your way. And as your fridge example demonstrates, almost all internal devices have a need to access outside information but should not be reachable from outside the home/office/unit.
Our theories about space-time are wrong, based on a tiny sample of local phenomena, and it is a complete and utter waste of time and resources for us to even begin making calculations of this sort at this point.
Maybe just maybe, its us who is wrong and not the amount of matter.
'Firstly, is it legal to carry a concealed weapon in public where you are?'
Yes.
'If it is not the whole point of your post with regard to your wallet is irrelevant since without the ability to concealed carry in public the potential thief does not have to worry about you having a gun assuming you look like a law abiding citizen.'
True, but it is, and concealed carry bans are gun control laws as well. This is a discussion about removing those laws.
'It is also about you deciding if the contents of your wallet are worth fighting for, and whether fighting would help you hold on to it.'
Not really. The mugger knows you have a gun, he will go for easier prey.
'What will help more is a sound knowledge of martial arts but even this may not be of assistance unless you have spent many years practising engaging multiple opponents and can be sure your response will be truly autonomic.'
A knowledge of martial arts might help you fight back or it might not. Modern martial arts aren't really street fighting arts. That said, it won't help prevent you from being mugged in the first place. Readily available firearms will. Not that nobody will be mugged, but it will take much more desperation to do the mugging.
It isn't about what you do when confronted with a mugger, fight, don't fight, shoot, have a gun, don't have a gun. If most people have guns then there are easier ways to make a buck than mugging. Just as if most people have guns in their home there are easier ways to make a living than burglary.
Considering the number of confrontations they engage in, people rarely attack police officers. The reason is not the officers knowledge of martial arts or that police officers are intimidating. The reason isn't the legal consequences should be caught. The reason is the thunder cannon the officers openly display.
With plenty of big notices that you are installing something restricted/non-free they do indeed and not by default. However, there wasn't time for them to do so before release and they also need to ship a browser by default, that browser must be free.
'This whole section is referring to using the program, not "developing" or "modifying" the program'
The whole section applies with or without your agreement. Contrary to the name, a EULA is not a license, it is a contract. Contracts require agreement. Again, you are quoting a notice that is included within the text of the GPL, it is true whether or not you read it or agree to it.
'GNU themselves, instructs you to display the GPL to the end-user'
The notice you omitted is a copyright notice, not the GPL. But even if it were, a notice is not a EULA.
'So, where's the evidence of that? The USA has very high rates of violent crime with guns.'
Make up your mind, are we talking about violent crime rates or are we isolating the issue to gun violence. More guns means more gun violence. Any moron can tell you that. There is gun control in place throughout the United States despite the second amendment. In places where gun control has been relaxed, violent crime as a whole has gone down.
For example, look to Florida and concealed carry permits. After concealed carry permits were implemented violent crime and murder rates plummeted dramatically. In Washington D.C. the opposite was demonstrated, with gun controls put in place the murder rate rose to one of the highest in the nation.
'Sounds like the typical "By using this software, you give up the right to sue us" wording that appears in most EULAs.
The GPL contains a EULA just like all other software. It's practically financial/legal suicide to release software without a EULA in today's lawsuit happy world.'
False. The limitation of liability in the GPL is a notice. It doesn't require agreement by the end user. As an end user you don't even need to read the GPL, it doesn't apply to you. You distribute under the GPL, the GPL is not something that gives the end user permission to use the software.
'That would break lots of other things we want (e.g., letting students read and write in their own networked folders)'
That may well be. I don't know your setup that well but based on your post it sounded like the only time students were working on physics work outside of physics was when they e-mailed the work to themselves. In that case, having functional individual network folders is nothing more than technology for its own sake.
'and it would be totally backwards to make decisions like that based on one piece of software'
Again, that depends on whether there is any reason not to do so. Is there any actual practical functional advantage to keeping separate accounts in the physics lab? The biggest reason for separate accounts is permissions. Do students have different levels of access based on windows permissions? Or are students basically all working with the same applications?
Individual accounts may well be justified in the case of your lab. You would certainly know better than I do. But I see Active Directory, individual user accounts, and centralized domain security used for its own sake where a simpler solution makes more sense on a daily basis.
The GPL is a license for distributors, not for end users. There is no EULA to bypass?
If you obtained the software legally, you have the right to use it without any license or additional permission. If you want to distribute the software on the other hand, that is an activity restricted by copyright law and so you will need a license (say the GPL) that sets terms under which you have permission to do that.
Again, since you have permission to distribute, those you distribute to will have obtained the software legally and thus won't need a license to use it. And so on, and so forth.
No EULA's. If it has a EULA, it isn't free software.
EULA are counter to the spirit of open and free software. Software does not require a license to use, you have the right to use software as long as you acquired it legally.
Licenses like the MPL or the GPL are for those who wish to modify and distribute software, because those activities are restricted by copyright law and the licenses are needed to allow you to do them.
EULA's are contracts that force users to give up some of their rights or regulate how they use the software beyond the restrictions imposed by copyright.
Mozilla's EULA was relatively benign as far as EULAs go but a EULA just the same. Since having a EULA means an app isn't free software Ubuntu couldn't/wouldn't include the EULA version in Ubuntu.
On another note, I doubt you'll find many legal weapons in the hands of the gang members in L.A. They use illegal black market weapons. Even without gun control, people aren't keen on committing crimes with weapons that can be traced back to them.
The only ones who might use legally purchased weapons are the potential victims.
Slashdot Mirror
It's currently written in small talk, and straight from the summary its slow and buggy now.
Java wouldn't have been my choice for a more modern language but its trendy enough I suppose.
'Clearer?'
Not really. Sounds like the original devs whining because they got canned.
The company is paying for a complete rewrite from scratch. Maybe they are paying for said rewrite because "the current version is still somewhat buggy and slow".
Seems reasonable to me, if you are doing a rewrite for optimization, move to a more modern language, and (hopefully) reduced bugginess new features really aren't a good idea.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=PCo&q=convert+carbon+into+hydrocarbons&btnG=Search
There are methods for combining the C and H again by introducing a catalyst. Since there is no shortage of H and this will provide us with C then there doesn't seem to be a problem here.
The carbon doesn't provide the energy, the carbon provides the structure that the H readily combines with. It's also the thing we need to worry about removing from the air. There is no shortage of energy, there is a whole sea of it out there.
'You've still got the energy cost of disposing of the CO2, by burying it or whatever. It has to be taken out of the carbon cycle completely.'
Why? If the carbon is coming from the air, releasing it back to the air would result in carbon levels remaining the same instead of increasing. Use said carbon to generate electricity/fuel cars (until more eco friendly solutions to these problems become prevelant) and you will reduce the new carbon going into the air. Not to mention help pay for this.
'Readily available firearms do not help if you are already engaged in hand to hand combat, that was the entire point of my post. Since you did not bother reading my first post I can not be bothered explaining it all again.'
I read your post, I'm just not confusing your example with the premises and conclusion made. Your argument was faulty because firearms reduce the likelihood of being in a hand to hand combat situation in the first place.
The best method of self defense in a confrontation is a separate issue from this conversation and overall topic.
From TFA: One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: âoedistribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution.â
So apparently an investigator downloading DOES constitute as infringement.
'You mean, there is a law against that? If there is, it violates my first amendment right, I am suing you buddy.'
The government is bound by the first amendment, not your boss.
because there is no 'sad but true' moderation.
'Surely that is not the issue ... if you choose to watch YouTube all day, that is your right, and it is my same right to download the new distro of Redhat or even the latest cracked game from a P2P service.'
Yes but for the most part, you can both have our cake and eat it too with QoS. Giving lower priority to bulk downloads doesn't necessarily reduce their bandwidth, just their latency.
I run QoS on my home network. My wife's multiple pc's running online gaming, and our voip don't lower the kb/s at which I download bulk traffic. Ultimately, those are relatively low bandwidth but low latency applications and my downloading needs lots of bandwidth but latency doesn't matter so much.
That said, giving bulk downloads equal or greater priority than latency sensitive solutions WILL make them unusable.
I assure you, even the large pockets of car manufacturers are limited and a dollar spent on one line of research is a dollar that isn't spent on another.
For example, note the amazing lack of any revolutionary developments in the automotive industry in the last twenty years or so.
'Did it occur to you that manufacturers could do *both*?'
In fantasy land sure. In the real world companies spend X on development and X is a precious and limited resource. High tech, order my coffee for me options cost even more to research than energy efficiency. Especially since I don't want my fridge deciding if I can afford to buy the coffee today or need to wait until I get paid.
'machine35.cust108.cmbg.cable.ntl.com'
Oh yes, that is MUCH more clear and memorable than a random string of numbers.
It's also about as useless. If you have www.bobsdomain.com you can take www.bobsdomain.com with you and update DNS appropriately when you cross networks. The same is not true of machine35.cust108.cmbg.cable.ntl.com.
What about my iSneakers? How will I address them? If we are getting rid of IPv4 shouldn't we get rid of the ancient and outdated protocols that go with it, DNS, SMTP, etc?
'Going with your fridge analogy, why should it be a bad thing for a grocery store to connect to all the fridges it knows about in order to tell them about new products?'
I'm pretty sure anyone who DOESN'T care to turn their fridge into an advertising portal might want a say in that.
'You'd plug things in, and they'd just work. Globally.'
And pigs would be giant and feed all the starving children of the world. And politicians would suddenly give the slightest rat fsck about the people who elected them. Your vote actually would be something other than a waste of time and suddenly become the magical voice people pretend it is.
There aren't enough addresses to do it your way. And as your fridge example demonstrates, almost all internal devices have a need to access outside information but should not be reachable from outside the home/office/unit.
'So you can connect to your fridge and see if your milk has gone off from outside your home?'
I have no problem connecting to devices on my internal network now. I don't see why my fridge would represent a problem.
'Does your small business with 60 employees want to use IP telephony? In this case, each PC (or each telephone) needs a public IP.'
Why? You need one IP and a couple ports forwarded to an asterisk box.
'why bother when it doesn't actually gain you anything?'
ummm... because there aren't enough ip's for everything to have a public address?
Our theories about space-time are wrong, based on a tiny sample of local phenomena, and it is a complete and utter waste of time and resources for us to even begin making calculations of this sort at this point.
Maybe just maybe, its us who is wrong and not the amount of matter.
'Firstly, is it legal to carry a concealed weapon in public where you are?'
Yes.
'If it is not the whole point of your post with regard to your wallet is irrelevant since without the ability to concealed carry in public the potential thief does not have to worry about you having a gun assuming you look like a law abiding citizen.'
True, but it is, and concealed carry bans are gun control laws as well. This is a discussion about removing those laws.
'It is also about you deciding if the contents of your wallet are worth fighting for, and whether fighting would help you hold on to it.'
Not really. The mugger knows you have a gun, he will go for easier prey.
'What will help more is a sound knowledge of martial arts but even this may not be of assistance unless you have spent many years practising engaging multiple opponents and can be sure your response will be truly autonomic.'
A knowledge of martial arts might help you fight back or it might not. Modern martial arts aren't really street fighting arts. That said, it won't help prevent you from being mugged in the first place. Readily available firearms will. Not that nobody will be mugged, but it will take much more desperation to do the mugging.
It isn't about what you do when confronted with a mugger, fight, don't fight, shoot, have a gun, don't have a gun. If most people have guns then there are easier ways to make a buck than mugging. Just as if most people have guns in their home there are easier ways to make a living than burglary.
Considering the number of confrontations they engage in, people rarely attack police officers. The reason is not the officers knowledge of martial arts or that police officers are intimidating. The reason isn't the legal consequences should be caught. The reason is the thunder cannon the officers openly display.
With plenty of big notices that you are installing something restricted/non-free they do indeed and not by default. However, there wasn't time for them to do so before release and they also need to ship a browser by default, that browser must be free.
'This whole section is referring to using the program, not "developing" or "modifying" the program'
The whole section applies with or without your agreement. Contrary to the name, a EULA is not a license, it is a contract. Contracts require agreement. Again, you are quoting a notice that is included within the text of the GPL, it is true whether or not you read it or agree to it.
'GNU themselves, instructs you to display the GPL to the end-user'
The notice you omitted is a copyright notice, not the GPL. But even if it were, a notice is not a EULA.
'So, where's the evidence of that? The USA has very high rates of violent crime with guns.'
Make up your mind, are we talking about violent crime rates or are we isolating the issue to gun violence. More guns means more gun violence. Any moron can tell you that. There is gun control in place throughout the United States despite the second amendment. In places where gun control has been relaxed, violent crime as a whole has gone down.
For example, look to Florida and concealed carry permits. After concealed carry permits were implemented violent crime and murder rates plummeted dramatically. In Washington D.C. the opposite was demonstrated, with gun controls put in place the murder rate rose to one of the highest in the nation.
'Sounds like the typical "By using this software, you give up the right to sue us" wording that appears in most EULAs.
The GPL contains a EULA just like all other software. It's practically financial/legal suicide to release software without a EULA in today's lawsuit happy world.'
False. The limitation of liability in the GPL is a notice. It doesn't require agreement by the end user. As an end user you don't even need to read the GPL, it doesn't apply to you. You distribute under the GPL, the GPL is not something that gives the end user permission to use the software.
'That would break lots of other things we want (e.g., letting students read and write in their own networked folders)'
That may well be. I don't know your setup that well but based on your post it sounded like the only time students were working on physics work outside of physics was when they e-mailed the work to themselves. In that case, having functional individual network folders is nothing more than technology for its own sake.
'and it would be totally backwards to make decisions like that based on one piece of software'
Again, that depends on whether there is any reason not to do so. Is there any actual practical functional advantage to keeping separate accounts in the physics lab? The biggest reason for separate accounts is permissions. Do students have different levels of access based on windows permissions? Or are students basically all working with the same applications?
Individual accounts may well be justified in the case of your lab. You would certainly know better than I do. But I see Active Directory, individual user accounts, and centralized domain security used for its own sake where a simpler solution makes more sense on a daily basis.
Here's a thought, use per machine accounts instead of per user accounts and click through the EULAs BEFORE imaging the drive.
The GPL is a license for distributors, not for end users. There is no EULA to bypass?
If you obtained the software legally, you have the right to use it without any license or additional permission. If you want to distribute the software on the other hand, that is an activity restricted by copyright law and so you will need a license (say the GPL) that sets terms under which you have permission to do that.
Again, since you have permission to distribute, those you distribute to will have obtained the software legally and thus won't need a license to use it. And so on, and so forth.
No EULA's. If it has a EULA, it isn't free software.
EULA are counter to the spirit of open and free software. Software does not require a license to use, you have the right to use software as long as you acquired it legally.
Licenses like the MPL or the GPL are for those who wish to modify and distribute software, because those activities are restricted by copyright law and the licenses are needed to allow you to do them.
EULA's are contracts that force users to give up some of their rights or regulate how they use the software beyond the restrictions imposed by copyright.
Mozilla's EULA was relatively benign as far as EULAs go but a EULA just the same. Since having a EULA means an app isn't free software Ubuntu couldn't/wouldn't include the EULA version in Ubuntu.
On another note, I doubt you'll find many legal weapons in the hands of the gang members in L.A. They use illegal black market weapons. Even without gun control, people aren't keen on committing crimes with weapons that can be traced back to them.
The only ones who might use legally purchased weapons are the potential victims.