Despite the fact that objectively BSD is more Free than Linux-- the GPL imposes an economic cost and restrictions on use that BSD does not.
Could you break that economic cost down for me please? And as for the GPL's restrictions, that makes about as much sense as saying that rape laws are restrictive to the behavior of rapists. The only thing you are "restricted" from doing with GPL software is running off with it and making money from licensing it as if you had written it yourself.
Do you subscribe to the idea that it is inherently bad for those in power to have information in excess of what is required for them to fulfill their constitutional duties? Is anonymity a prerequisite for freedom? Has the only thing protecting that anonymity been the impracticality of knowing everything?
The right to privacy is inferred rather than explicit in the U.S. Constitution. For this to be ruled illegal, you'd have to convince a judge that a commercial RFID tag represents a law enforcement search, and that said search is unreasonable. This is unlikely; therefore, those in power stand to know everything about all of us. Since knowing everything about someone is tantamount to totally controlling them, is this the end of freedom?
The prices in Eastern Canada are ridiculous comparing to some states, around $24 US for DSL or cable.
I guess ridiculous depends on your point of view. It costs $60 get in on the ground floor of dsl/cable in the SouthEast U.S., at least from an ISP with a decent AUP.
If you knew then what you do now? I mean, sure, you could have, but would you have?
Would you have subsidized the kind of vileness that is SCO with your hard earned dollars, rode the wave of artificial esteem in the coat-and-tie world that SCO has enjoyed for becoming a copyright capitalist crusader, then topped it all off by selling that stock to someone sycophantic or stupid enough to buy SCO at $20, while you knew full well that the value was inflated? Would you really have been able to leave this entire situation with no more concern about what you did and why you did it than is required to pick out a new boat?
Is the difference between SCO and the rest of us really just a matter of opportunity?
Your imagination is not my problem. I no more need to certify to you that I am not using your intellectual property than that I am not using alien UFO technology in our corporate restrooms. A assertion must stand on its own merit, and any response to that assertion must necessarily be based upon that merit.
Having established that point, I think I have found a use for your assertions in our corporate restrooms.
Re:So .... what's their plan of action?
on
ISS May Have A Leak
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
They say "There are no immediate concerns for the safety or health of the crew", but what are they doing about it?
Looking for it.
When is it time to take action?
You mean, try to fix it, or abandon the station? Now for the former and when it gets about 1000 times worse and becomes a threat to life support for the latter.
Do they have a way to leave?
Yes. A Soyuz spacecraft is always docked to the station in the case of an emergency evacuation.
My approach would be thus: if the leak cannot be located, start sealing off compartments (this means effectively turning them off, I believe) If it gets that bad, though, I think it means abandoning the affected compartment. This combined with the November event concerns me greatly, but it isn't time to panic yet.
Is it astroturfing, or is it simply that the fickle pendulum of slashdot groupthink has reversed itself?
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Quite so. My mistake.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Actually it was Egypt and not Syria, but for the moment let's say you are correct.
What? Do you think you got out on a technicality? The question still stands.
Let's see, otherwise we have an irrelevant counterpoint, and an ad hominem. I think this one's done.
The only really valuable thing you had to say was what you didn't say. You marked me as a foe before the argument was even concluded. (My foes list was looking a bit weak - thanks for the street cred) If the Liberty incident can be perceived as a pattern of behavior on Israel's part, then this can certainly indicate a pattern of behavior on yours. You wish to preemptively censor anything I say from now on - because I said something you disagree with. Now, not that I give a shit, but that seems to be the mark of a emoting partisan rather than one who thinks. That, more than anything else you've said, proves the extent to which the rest of us should take what you say seriously.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Okay. You concluded that Israel was involved in 9/11, in part by pointing out the U.S.S. Liberty incident. I pointed out that the motivations behind the Liberty incident aren't relevant today and could not explain a possible link to 9/11. I retract the statement regarding anti-semitism. Defend your argument.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Add to that the fact that Israel has done things like this before (see the Lavon affair, or the U.S.S. Liberty)
Israel attacked the U.S.S. Liberty because they didn't want us to see what they were about to do to Syria. They wanted to use the cover of an accidental attack to disrput out ability to monitor their military operations. This was a slimy, underhanded, and murderous thing to do, but the reasons for doing so just don't map to the world situation on 9/10. That they did something despicable doesn't make 9/11 another event "like this" unless the undergirding of your argument is nothing more than anti-semitism.
User preferences -> reason modifier
set insightful, interesting, informative, and funny to -6.
set troll, flamebait, offtopic, and redundant to +6.
threshold=3, nested
The energy density of modern batteries approaches that of nuclear reactors.
Hello? E=Mc^2?
This reminds me of helping some high school kids with a science project that involved a cooling system for an overclocked computer. They were going to use liquid cooled by a radiator intended for a 100 horsepower engine. They became concerned about the ability of the radiator to handle the heat. I laughed, but they remained insistent.
1 horsepower = 746 watts
2000 watts = maximum energy output of the electrical outlet into which the computer was plugged.
Number of outlets (presumably on different circuits) required to power devices 100% efficient at turning electricity in heat; such that the radiator's cooling capacity would be overloaded = 35.
Naturally, I told the kids they needed a 600 volt A/C bus capable of handling 124 amps of current to power their celeron for the project.
Now that you're outed, I'd like to know - what is the going rate for astroturfing these days? Do they pay you by the post, or are you employed as a professional?
I never said that I consider retaliation a reasonable or moral basis for foreign policy.
And I never said 911 was a foreign policy dispute. I reject your premise that 911 was merely a diplomatic technicality. It was a cowardly, devastating attack against the United States. It stands as a completely different category of problem from the erosion of French artistic identity.
Some of the stunts the U.S. have pulled in South America (Panama, Grenada, etc.) are not far from that level of arrogance and lunacy.
Irrelevant. Your opinions with regard to the U.S.'s behavior in other matters does not change the nature of 911.
If I may briefly assume you have made a strong argument that the U.S. invaded Iraq with intent to conquer her
No, you may not - don't put words in my mouth.
Far be it from me to presume a strength in your argument that does not in fact exist. It won't happen again.
There are two issues at hand here. One is this statement:
I think there's middle ground, especially when the cost of that freedom is the saving of human life.
My comment was in direct response to that conclusion. It does not necessarily follow that I do not believe in speeding enforcement, which seems to be the premise in your argument. It is possible to believe in speeding enforcement without believing that safety trumps all other public policy concerns, nor even that it is necessarily the most important consideration thereof.
Now, on to speeding enforcement. Speeding enforcement (as practiced here in the United States) is more a tax system than a means of ensuring public safety. Speed limits are deliberately underposted so that random fine-based enforcement can create an easily controllable flow of revenue. In this context, therefore, enhanced capabilities only lead to the growth of governmental and bureaucratic edifice supported by the "taxes" collected.
Beyond being organizationally divergent from public safety, increased enforcement wouldn't even work to bring it about. As innovations such as airbags and antilock brakes came about, insurance companies expected accident rates and related costs to decline. They did not. Although the reasons aren't yet completely understood, a leading opinion is that drivers operate within a subjective "safety zone" with regard to how carefully they operate a vehicle. If this is the case, motorists would "compensate" for strict obedience of underposted speed limits in other ways, such as being less attentive while driving or following too closely.
Given that people will therefore be only as safe as they choose to be, what is the answer WRT to public safety? There isn't one. That was not and should not be the primary goal of traffic law enforcement. The primary goal of traffic law enforcement is to provide sufficient order for the roadways to function.
Clearly, a prior kind of invasion of the U.S. by another nation is required for a U.S. invasion of the perpretrator to be considered a retaliation.
Do you consider it reasonable, therefore, for the U.S. to hijack random aircraft throughout the world and crash them into things as a response to 911?
All that rhetoric about "the friends of our enemies", "axis of evil", etc. leads down a very slippery slope of cannonboat diplomacy littered with domino theories, neo-colonialism, and U.S. special economic interests.
Rather like that string of disconnected and unsupported rhetoric? If I may briefly assume you have made a strong argument that the U.S. invaded Iraq with intent to conquer her, why are our discussions regarding that "conquest" dominated by the question of when we are leaving?
Slashdot Mirror
For real, man. 5 million can buy a LOT of bondo.
Despite the fact that objectively BSD is more Free than Linux-- the GPL imposes an economic cost and restrictions on use that BSD does not.
Could you break that economic cost down for me please? And as for the GPL's restrictions, that makes about as much sense as saying that rape laws are restrictive to the behavior of rapists. The only thing you are "restricted" from doing with GPL software is running off with it and making money from licensing it as if you had written it yourself.
My high school career prediction (as appears in my yearbook):
Chosen from among many to explore Mars and is now a current resident.
I guess it isn't practical to put a chip in a roll of film and therefore use the DMCA to get consumable product lock-in.
Ford Prefect must be played by one of the following:
Christopher Lloyd
Tom Baker
That is all.
Do you subscribe to the idea that it is inherently bad for those in power to have information in excess of what is required for them to fulfill their constitutional duties? Is anonymity a prerequisite for freedom? Has the only thing protecting that anonymity been the impracticality of knowing everything?
The right to privacy is inferred rather than explicit in the U.S. Constitution. For this to be ruled illegal, you'd have to convince a judge that a commercial RFID tag represents a law enforcement search, and that said search is unreasonable. This is unlikely; therefore, those in power stand to know everything about all of us. Since knowing everything about someone is tantamount to totally controlling them, is this the end of freedom?
such as the zebra mussel that has ravaged the midwestern United States.
Those zebra mussels must be pretty badass to be growing in Nebraska cornfields.
(yes, I know zebra mussels are a problem for inland freshwater bodies. The joke is still funny. Thank you.)
The prices in Eastern Canada are ridiculous comparing to some states, around $24 US for DSL or cable.
I guess ridiculous depends on your point of view. It costs $60 get in on the ground floor of dsl/cable in the SouthEast U.S., at least from an ISP with a decent AUP.
I guess Steven Hawking has to cancel that Playboy subscription.
(if you don't get it, move along. There is something to "get" and your mod points are needed elsewhere. Thank you.)
If you knew then what you do now? I mean, sure, you could have, but would you have?
Would you have subsidized the kind of vileness that is SCO with your hard earned dollars, rode the wave of artificial esteem in the coat-and-tie world that SCO has enjoyed for becoming a copyright capitalist crusader, then topped it all off by selling that stock to someone sycophantic or stupid enough to buy SCO at $20, while you knew full well that the value was inflated? Would you really have been able to leave this entire situation with no more concern about what you did and why you did it than is required to pick out a new boat?
Is the difference between SCO and the rest of us really just a matter of opportunity?
Your imagination is not my problem. I no more need to certify to you that I am not using your intellectual property than that I am not using alien UFO technology in our corporate restrooms. A assertion must stand on its own merit, and any response to that assertion must necessarily be based upon that merit.
Having established that point, I think I have found a use for your assertions in our corporate restrooms.
They say "There are no immediate concerns for the safety or health of the crew", but what are they doing about it?
Looking for it.
When is it time to take action?
You mean, try to fix it, or abandon the station? Now for the former and when it gets about 1000 times worse and becomes a threat to life support for the latter.
Do they have a way to leave?
Yes. A Soyuz spacecraft is always docked to the station in the case of an emergency evacuation.
My approach would be thus: if the leak cannot be located, start sealing off compartments (this means effectively turning them off, I believe) If it gets that bad, though, I think it means abandoning the affected compartment. This combined with the November event concerns me greatly, but it isn't time to panic yet.
"The /.'ers frothing at the mouth about this..."
You know, that's funny, because I see a lot of frothing alright, but
it seems to be swishing the other way.
Is it astroturfing, or is it simply that the fickle pendulum of slashdot groupthink has reversed itself?
Quite so. My mistake.
Actually it was Egypt and not Syria, but for the moment let's say you are correct.
What? Do you think you got out on a technicality? The question still stands.
Let's see, otherwise we have an irrelevant counterpoint, and an ad hominem. I think this one's done.
The only really valuable thing you had to say was what you didn't say. You marked me as a foe before the argument was even concluded. (My foes list was looking a bit weak - thanks for the street cred) If the Liberty incident can be perceived as a pattern of behavior on Israel's part, then this can certainly indicate a pattern of behavior on yours. You wish to preemptively censor anything I say from now on - because I said something you disagree with. Now, not that I give a shit, but that seems to be the mark of a emoting partisan rather than one who thinks. That, more than anything else you've said, proves the extent to which the rest of us should take what you say seriously.
Okay. You concluded that Israel was involved in 9/11, in part by pointing out the U.S.S. Liberty incident. I pointed out that the motivations behind the Liberty incident aren't relevant today and could not explain a possible link to 9/11. I retract the statement regarding anti-semitism. Defend your argument.
Add to that the fact that Israel has done things like this before (see the Lavon affair, or the U.S.S. Liberty)
Israel attacked the U.S.S. Liberty because they didn't want us to see what they were about to do to Syria. They wanted to use the cover of an accidental attack to disrput out ability to monitor their military operations. This was a slimy, underhanded, and murderous thing to do, but the reasons for doing so just don't map to the world situation on 9/10. That they did something despicable doesn't make 9/11 another event "like this" unless the undergirding of your argument is nothing more than anti-semitism.
How do you find out what is taboo? Easy.
User preferences -> reason modifier
set insightful, interesting, informative, and funny to -6.
set troll, flamebait, offtopic, and redundant to +6.
threshold=3, nested
Happy surfing!!
Actually, they should just enact a law that states that while driving a car, your attention should be focused on (duh!) *driving the car*
I'll make your neurosurgeon aware of that when the attending tries to call his cell for advice re: the catscan of your shattered neck.
especially considering how heavily it is pushed by many development / engineering communities
You don't seem to know who is responsible for your addiction. (hint- it may not be your professional collegues)
Hello? E=Mc^2?
This reminds me of helping some high school kids with a science project that involved a cooling system for an overclocked computer. They were going to use liquid cooled by a radiator intended for a 100 horsepower engine. They became concerned about the ability of the radiator to handle the heat. I laughed, but they remained insistent.
- 1 horsepower = 746 watts
- 2000 watts = maximum energy output of the electrical outlet into which the computer was plugged.
- Number of outlets (presumably on different circuits) required to power devices 100% efficient at turning electricity in heat; such that the radiator's cooling capacity would be overloaded = 35.
Naturally, I told the kids they needed a 600 volt A/C bus capable of handling 124 amps of current to power their celeron for the project.Now that you're outed, I'd like to know - what is the going rate for astroturfing these days? Do they pay you by the post, or are you employed as a professional?
And I never said 911 was a foreign policy dispute. I reject your premise that 911 was merely a diplomatic technicality. It was a cowardly, devastating attack against the United States. It stands as a completely different category of problem from the erosion of French artistic identity.
Some of the stunts the U.S. have pulled in South America (Panama, Grenada, etc.) are not far from that level of arrogance and lunacy.
Irrelevant. Your opinions with regard to the U.S.'s behavior in other matters does not change the nature of 911.
No, you may not - don't put words in my mouth.
Far be it from me to presume a strength in your argument that does not in fact exist. It won't happen again.
There are two issues at hand here. One is this statement:
I think there's middle ground, especially when the cost of that freedom is the saving of human life.
My comment was in direct response to that conclusion. It does not necessarily follow that I do not believe in speeding enforcement, which seems to be the premise in your argument. It is possible to believe in speeding enforcement without believing that safety trumps all other public policy concerns, nor even that it is necessarily the most important consideration thereof.
Now, on to speeding enforcement. Speeding enforcement (as practiced here in the United States) is more a tax system than a means of ensuring public safety. Speed limits are deliberately underposted so that random fine-based enforcement can create an easily controllable flow of revenue. In this context, therefore, enhanced capabilities only lead to the growth of governmental and bureaucratic edifice supported by the "taxes" collected.
Beyond being organizationally divergent from public safety, increased enforcement wouldn't even work to bring it about. As innovations such as airbags and antilock brakes came about, insurance companies expected accident rates and related costs to decline. They did not. Although the reasons aren't yet completely understood, a leading opinion is that drivers operate within a subjective "safety zone" with regard to how carefully they operate a vehicle. If this is the case, motorists would "compensate" for strict obedience of underposted speed limits in other ways, such as being less attentive while driving or following too closely.
Given that people will therefore be only as safe as they choose to be, what is the answer WRT to public safety? There isn't one. That was not and should not be the primary goal of traffic law enforcement. The primary goal of traffic law enforcement is to provide sufficient order for the roadways to function.
Clearly, a prior kind of invasion of the U.S. by another nation is required for a U.S. invasion of the perpretrator to be considered a retaliation.
Do you consider it reasonable, therefore, for the U.S. to hijack random aircraft throughout the world and crash them into things as a response to 911?
All that rhetoric about "the friends of our enemies", "axis of evil", etc. leads down a very slippery slope of cannonboat diplomacy littered with domino theories, neo-colonialism, and U.S. special economic interests.
Rather like that string of disconnected and unsupported rhetoric? If I may briefly assume you have made a strong argument that the U.S. invaded Iraq with intent to conquer her, why are our discussions regarding that "conquest" dominated by the question of when we are leaving?