Also I thought of another - 5. Are there carbon capture techniques that can be used to allow CO2 producing industry to carry on without shoving it all out into the atmosphere? 6. Are offset schemes worth anything or are they just the feelgood bullcrap we all suspect?
1. How do we know we have to get to zero? 2. Do we have to do it immediately or can it be phased in? What are the risks of phasing in green technology as it matures and reducing carbon output over time? 3. Are there other measures that "Greens" have traditionally been against that could be used as a carbon replacement (nucleur)? 4. Is all this going to happen anyway due to oil getting harder to come by?
I don't know the answers to these, but I suspect it's a little more complex than everyone having to go back to the fields.
Right, so you buy into the stupid propaganda that global warming requires a complete return to an agrarian form of society. Good to know it's not worth talking to you.
There's no need to go back to an agrarian society, as much as it's a right wing fantasy that the global warming hippies want everyone to live in a mud hut and eat grass it's not true. Green technologies are coming along nicely, if slowly and on a smaller scale than is desirable.
We want people to stop denying the scientific evidence and start collaborating on a solution, rather than being obstructive.
How else would you propose to cut emissions and make ecologically friendly technology attractive for investment, other than by making it expensive to do so?
I'm genuinely interested rather than preparing to flame. That bit comes further down the post.
As for the liberal slurs... one can equally say that the other side is historically selfish and in the pockets of big business, the folks who have most to lose if any progress is made on the matter.
And what the fuck is the liberal agenda? (excuse my french) It's the same in the UK and in the US, people going on about liberals screwing everything up all the time, all the while there are few liberals in power in either country. The Democrats in the US sure as hell aren't liberal, they don't have the ethics for it. And the liberal party in the UK has only just become a minor member in a coalition. Yet people have been whining about 'liberals' for a decade now.
The problems I see with current western democracy is nothing to with liberalism. It's the damned authoritarians in charge. The opposite of 'liberal'.
That's kinda why I gave up posting and really being bothered by the whole thing.
The people of this planet, for whatever reasons, will just quarrel until the whole place is baked dry. So fuck it, I'm just going to live my life and see what happens.
I got overpayed by quite a bit a few months ago, several paychecks in a row. I called to ask about it and the company just said "Oh, yeah. We'd better stop that. Have a nice day. Nothing was said about taking the overpayments back.
I get that all the time. I either explain I'm a programmer and don't really deal with that sort of stuff, or I give them a hand if it's something simple and I have the time.
"Many of them still like to use to format their layouts."
So do I!
But then the last time I actually tried to learn how to make a web page was 1997. I still find it amusing though, that if you cut out the css and js files that a lot of sites use (using something like adblock), they go back to looking like early 90s websites.
Also spreading hundreds of stylesheets and scripts across many domains doesn't half slow down the browsing experience...
"I'm an atheist but atheism is developing its own dogmatism and I'm not interested, so I'm trying to distance myself from it."
I'm not so sure that's true. I think it's more that those with an agenda have mischaracterised atheists to the extent that people like you (understandably) don't wish to be associated with the straw man that's constantly thrown your way.
The problem with showing respect to religious folks is the asshattery that goes on and is justified by it all. Or the superior attitude you get from some of 'em. Other folks, who are religious in a quiet, studied or reasonable way I have less problem with.
You shouldn't pay a fine, but your shares should lose value. Doesn't matter who owned them then, when you bought them you bet on Dell making you money. Sorry if that didn't turn out.
What you're suggesting is tantamount to corporate immunity from prosecution, for pretty much anything, so long as a couple of years have passed.
Few people release their commercial desktop software for linux because it has a tiny market share and not a very large proportion of that market share even wants commercial desktop software. There may be a few exceptions (Photoshop springs to mind, though I don't believe many home users have actually ever paid for that either).
The way to get closed source stuff to work reliably across linux distros is either to build it for them, or do what most commercial linux software vendors (including my team) do. Pick a couple of the stable distros, usually Redhat and SuSE, and build for them. They provide the stable business desktop.
Debian is a hobbyist OS at heart. Ubuntu still needs to figure out what it is as it's less stable than debian but is aiming to be an everyman desktop.
"no, you don't need to test against the two most recent versions of the ten most common distributions, because all of those distributions share bit-for-bit identical versions of the same core libraries"
Whilst that is an admirable goal, outside of the mainframe world it doesn't seem to be like that in practice. Commercial UNIX ends up doing the same, as does windows. Maybe it's unusual for the user to see it, maybe the APIs themselves don't change but the implementations do. It happens a lot and makes testing software on any platform (other than s390) a pain in the arse.
"an Ubuntu user goes on the forums to beg for the arcane incantations that will get his WiFi working on..."
Well, some ubuntu users do. But then, remember that Ubuntu users aren't being forced to upgrade their OS. A lot do because they must have the latest and greatest, but they don't have to. This is not something that most windows users do. The LTS releases are an attempt to address some of your concerns though, I think, and it speaks of the different audience that linux currently has. The OS moulds it's audience, and then the audience mould the OS...
Hell, I had much the same experience when I upgraded my laptop from Vista to 7, half the stuff stopped working, I had to trawl forums to find how other people had done things with limited success and I still have to boot twice if I want the webcam to work.
I still fundamentally disagree that linux is stuck in the 90s. A hell of a lot of progress has been made in terms of device support, user experience and ease of use, ease of install, threading capabilities (thank god), software install and update (Synaptic is a joy to use compared to what went on in the 90s). I take your point about API stability, particularly where it involves sound, but I still think you're way out of line.
Once it runs, it runs, and even none experts can use it quite happily, these days.
I dunno. To me it's weasely *if* the author has decided to GPL a library because they don't want you to use it unless you GPL your stuff too.
Lots of people disagree with the philosophy behind the GPL, but many others see it as a way to prevent people who won't share alike from using stuff they've contributed to the (GPL) community, and it can be quite important to them.
I agree that the case in question is an interesting one because we're talking about an area outside of the traditional zone of argument - i.e. dynamic linking. But I don't really understand why so many people try to work around the GPL, its intent is clear.
"If your thing is something that's going to be built on like a compiler or a library, then the LGPL is probably more suitable."
Surely that depends on what you want done with your library? If you don't want your library to be used by non-GPL software, then the full GPL remains suitable. Yo restrict its use by other FOSS licensed code and by people who would keep their code closed, but maybe that's your aim.
"if you manage to circumvent GPL this way the Evil Proprietarians out there will know they can use it too, and it's BAD BAD BAD, so please do as I say"
Surely one should take into account the wishes of the author of the code?
The GPL is usually used by people who don't want their stuff used by others who do not reciprocate by opening up their code under the GPL. Regardless of whether you think you can work around it and perhaps have the law on your side, do you not see it as an abuse of the gift that's been given by the author(s)?
If there is any substance to your opinion there - which bits?
Because I don't really see that. The mid 90s saw Win 95 showing up, and linux is more stable, usable and secure than that by a million miles. More so than NT 4, 95's contemporary. Compared to the UNIX workstations of the time, which largely ran X and CDE, X.org and Gnome/KDE are leaps and bounds ahead of where CDE ever got to, to the extent that Gnome is now an option on solaris machines and the KDE libraries (if not the whole system) are found everywhere from big iron to embedded devices.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I get it, we all have to concentrate really hard on evolving!
And if it happens too fast for us or many other animals, and it is entirely preventable by us, why should we not try to prevent it?
Or are you a fatalist that thinks that we should try to adapt and if we fail then we deserve to disappear?
I spelled nuclear wrong.
Also I thought of another -
5. Are there carbon capture techniques that can be used to allow CO2 producing industry to carry on without shoving it all out into the atmosphere?
6. Are offset schemes worth anything or are they just the feelgood bullcrap we all suspect?
1. How do we know we have to get to zero?
2. Do we have to do it immediately or can it be phased in? What are the risks of phasing in green technology as it matures and reducing carbon output over time?
3. Are there other measures that "Greens" have traditionally been against that could be used as a carbon replacement (nucleur)?
4. Is all this going to happen anyway due to oil getting harder to come by?
I don't know the answers to these, but I suspect it's a little more complex than everyone having to go back to the fields.
Right, so you buy into the stupid propaganda that global warming requires a complete return to an agrarian form of society. Good to know it's not worth talking to you.
Why the hell was my (parent) post modded troll?
I genuinely despair in humanity and really tried to stop caring about climate issues as a result. How is expressing this possibly a troll?
False dichotomy.
There's no need to go back to an agrarian society, as much as it's a right wing fantasy that the global warming hippies want everyone to live in a mud hut and eat grass it's not true. Green technologies are coming along nicely, if slowly and on a smaller scale than is desirable.
We want people to stop denying the scientific evidence and start collaborating on a solution, rather than being obstructive.
How else would you propose to cut emissions and make ecologically friendly technology attractive for investment, other than by making it expensive to do so?
I'm genuinely interested rather than preparing to flame. That bit comes further down the post.
As for the liberal slurs... one can equally say that the other side is historically selfish and in the pockets of big business, the folks who have most to lose if any progress is made on the matter.
And what the fuck is the liberal agenda? (excuse my french) It's the same in the UK and in the US, people going on about liberals screwing everything up all the time, all the while there are few liberals in power in either country. The Democrats in the US sure as hell aren't liberal, they don't have the ethics for it. And the liberal party in the UK has only just become a minor member in a coalition. Yet people have been whining about 'liberals' for a decade now.
The problems I see with current western democracy is nothing to with liberalism. It's the damned authoritarians in charge. The opposite of 'liberal'.
I'll always vote appropriately... but yeah, otherwise I guess they've won, I stopped caring.
That's kinda why I gave up posting and really being bothered by the whole thing.
The people of this planet, for whatever reasons, will just quarrel until the whole place is baked dry. So fuck it, I'm just going to live my life and see what happens.
I got overpayed by quite a bit a few months ago, several paychecks in a row. I called to ask about it and the company just said "Oh, yeah. We'd better stop that. Have a nice day. Nothing was said about taking the overpayments back.
Life is good to me sometimes.
So when monopolies use abusive business practices in the eu, they should be thanked and sent on their way?
I'm trying to see what you're getting at here.
I get that all the time. I either explain I'm a programmer and don't really deal with that sort of stuff, or I give them a hand if it's something simple and I have the time.
There's no need to be a dick about it.
"Many of them still like to use to format their layouts."
So do I!
But then the last time I actually tried to learn how to make a web page was 1997. I still find it amusing though, that if you cut out the css and js files that a lot of sites use (using something like adblock), they go back to looking like early 90s websites.
Also spreading hundreds of stylesheets and scripts across many domains doesn't half slow down the browsing experience...
Meh, my eee 901 has no problems with gnome. Hell, it can even run compiz quite happily too!
"I'm an atheist but atheism is developing its own dogmatism and I'm not interested, so I'm trying to distance myself from it."
I'm not so sure that's true. I think it's more that those with an agenda have mischaracterised atheists to the extent that people like you (understandably) don't wish to be associated with the straw man that's constantly thrown your way.
The problem with showing respect to religious folks is the asshattery that goes on and is justified by it all. Or the superior attitude you get from some of 'em. Other folks, who are religious in a quiet, studied or reasonable way I have less problem with.
If you are the market leader, and discount your goods if you get an exclusivity deal, that's pretty anticompetitive don't you think?
You shouldn't pay a fine, but your shares should lose value. Doesn't matter who owned them then, when you bought them you bet on Dell making you money. Sorry if that didn't turn out.
What you're suggesting is tantamount to corporate immunity from prosecution, for pretty much anything, so long as a couple of years have passed.
Few people release their commercial desktop software for linux because it has a tiny market share and not a very large proportion of that market share even wants commercial desktop software. There may be a few exceptions (Photoshop springs to mind, though I don't believe many home users have actually ever paid for that either).
The way to get closed source stuff to work reliably across linux distros is either to build it for them, or do what most commercial linux software vendors (including my team) do. Pick a couple of the stable distros, usually Redhat and SuSE, and build for them. They provide the stable business desktop.
Debian is a hobbyist OS at heart. Ubuntu still needs to figure out what it is as it's less stable than debian but is aiming to be an everyman desktop.
"no, you don't need to test against the two most recent versions of the ten most common distributions, because all of those distributions share bit-for-bit identical versions of the same core libraries"
Whilst that is an admirable goal, outside of the mainframe world it doesn't seem to be like that in practice. Commercial UNIX ends up doing the same, as does windows. Maybe it's unusual for the user to see it, maybe the APIs themselves don't change but the implementations do. It happens a lot and makes testing software on any platform (other than s390) a pain in the arse.
"an Ubuntu user goes on the forums to beg for the arcane incantations that will get his WiFi working on..."
Well, some ubuntu users do. But then, remember that Ubuntu users aren't being forced to upgrade their OS. A lot do because they must have the latest and greatest, but they don't have to. This is not something that most windows users do. The LTS releases are an attempt to address some of your concerns though, I think, and it speaks of the different audience that linux currently has. The OS moulds it's audience, and then the audience mould the OS...
Hell, I had much the same experience when I upgraded my laptop from Vista to 7, half the stuff stopped working, I had to trawl forums to find how other people had done things with limited success and I still have to boot twice if I want the webcam to work.
I still fundamentally disagree that linux is stuck in the 90s. A hell of a lot of progress has been made in terms of device support, user experience and ease of use, ease of install, threading capabilities (thank god), software install and update (Synaptic is a joy to use compared to what went on in the 90s). I take your point about API stability, particularly where it involves sound, but I still think you're way out of line.
Once it runs, it runs, and even none experts can use it quite happily, these days.
I dunno. To me it's weasely *if* the author has decided to GPL a library because they don't want you to use it unless you GPL your stuff too.
Lots of people disagree with the philosophy behind the GPL, but many others see it as a way to prevent people who won't share alike from using stuff they've contributed to the (GPL) community, and it can be quite important to them.
I agree that the case in question is an interesting one because we're talking about an area outside of the traditional zone of argument - i.e. dynamic linking. But I don't really understand why so many people try to work around the GPL, its intent is clear.
"Were any of those people judges?"
Who cares? Shouldn't you be respecting the wishes of the people who wrote this stuff and are giving it away free?
Frankly I don't like all this hunting for exceptions and ways around the GPL, it's abusive of the spirit in which this stuff was created.
"the GOTCHYA's have gotta stop if companies like the ones I've worked for are desired to utilize and contribute to OSS projects."
Do they want to open up their derivative code? No?
Then the GPL isn't for them and they likely weren't going to contribute anyway.
"If your thing is something that's going to be built on like a compiler or a library, then the LGPL is probably more suitable."
Surely that depends on what you want done with your library?
If you don't want your library to be used by non-GPL software, then the full GPL remains suitable. Yo restrict its use by other FOSS licensed code and by people who would keep their code closed, but maybe that's your aim.
"if you manage to circumvent GPL this way the Evil Proprietarians out there will know they can use it too, and it's BAD BAD BAD, so please do as I say"
Surely one should take into account the wishes of the author of the code?
The GPL is usually used by people who don't want their stuff used by others who do not reciprocate by opening up their code under the GPL. Regardless of whether you think you can work around it and perhaps have the law on your side, do you not see it as an abuse of the gift that's been given by the author(s)?
Flash on 64 it linux has been ok for a while, though it's borked again at the moment whilst adobe re-architect. As for ARM....
Works fine on my N900!
If there is any substance to your opinion there - which bits?
Because I don't really see that. The mid 90s saw Win 95 showing up, and linux is more stable, usable and secure than that by a million miles. More so than NT 4, 95's contemporary. Compared to the UNIX workstations of the time, which largely ran X and CDE, X.org and Gnome/KDE are leaps and bounds ahead of where CDE ever got to, to the extent that Gnome is now an option on solaris machines and the KDE libraries (if not the whole system) are found everywhere from big iron to embedded devices.
I really don't see it....