yep, like how they EOL'd win98 last year after 9 years of support, and foxpro after 10+ years.
yeah their real bastards MS, only giving a product a 9 year life span. Those linux projects they just never EOL... oh wait no they don't they kill versions off after 2 years or less!
Face it. people have known the writing was on the wall for foxpro for atleast 3 years. they've had shitloads of time to learn.net. it's thier problem, not MS's
This highlights a very real danger with OSS - that the project will collapse under you and you'll be left with 2 choices
1. a painful migration, and i mean painful in terms of giving birth or passing a kidney stone
2. maintain the code yourself, which could be even MORE painful and costly.
yes i know everyone will jump up and down about how this could happen to any project, but folks lets face facts here - In OSS projects where no one is getting paid to write code, you could possibly be hinging a key part of your opperation on the hope that a bunch of geeks don't tire of their little project.
And the "but you can maintain the code yourself" argument is a loser - it's often far more expensive to code yourself then to just pay MS and friends for a solution.
obviously this doesn't apply to huge projects like apache or mysql who have corperate funding.
they will likely have a recpetionist to pay, a couple of paralegals... not the mention the cost of renting an office and insurance. all that quickly eats $400,000 away.
they must still use a normal life support system for the head, as you can't wrap anything over the astronauts head. i wonder how this would cope with a rip in the fabric to, you might have your flesh ripped from your bones and out the hole in the suit?
free market isn't the answer to everything it's true. but in many cases people like you blame capitalism for fuck ups which are actually caused by government regulation.
there's so many conditions and laws on employment, it's no where near a free market.
there is no government that actually wants small government. where else would they find their useless off spring high paying jobs they can't get fired from?
but if you want seriously bad, forget congress and look at the paper shufflers around them, they will do ANYTHING to increase their little kingdoms.
"We've been trying to find a place to store it since the 1950s"
no, it is really easy to store it. only problem is fear whipped up by hystericals like yourself has successfully prevented it happening even in the most remote area's, such as here in australia.
example. pick a geologically stable area (australia), pick some where really really remote where there is nothing else valuable and people won't ever want to live there (middle of australia), seal up spent rods in multiple casings of various non reactive materials, dig a big mother fucker hole in an area well outside of any water table, fill it in.
"Many materials, when exposed to high levels of radiation"
yes. only they tend to keep those to a minimum, because you know, they know what they are doing when they build these things.
"So your plan is to electrify every single foot of the millions of miles of roads in the US"
oh please, show me where i said that? now you are having to resort to making shit up. my very subtle point was that if you actually want an oil free world, it's more then likely you are going to need to give up your personal car.
i have a herb garden and i grow organic fruit and veg in my back yard. i also own a worm farm. I've probably done a shit load more gardaning then you.
you see, while i grow organic produce for myself, i'm not going to fool myself into thinking it would work on a commercial scale. your nitrogen fixers take months to repair the soil, and in that time you can't grow anything on that plot while they restore the soil.
the method you are reffering to is rotation planting, and you would require 3x the farm land. in effect you would be cutting down an aweful lot of the eco system your attempting to protect.
again your ALL displaying how little you understand about what your mouthing off about.
if you were going to farm for bio fuel, it's not going to happen in a forrest which has an eco system to support your 1000 year old tree. Its going to happen on a large plantation with nothing but the most optimal plant you can grow for your purpose, in an attempt to get the max yield per square metre. if you didn't, in order for bio fuel to be a real contender to replace oil you'd end up deforresting 1/2 your land mass (which is WAY worse then using oil)
the draw back to this, is that repeatedly growing crops on one patch of soil depletes it quickly, especially when using fast growing crops. this is because thier is no bio diversity in a plantation, no way other then external fertiliser to replenish the soil.
so, if you can't understand the problem now, well sorry but your just plain thick.
he is slightly off on his botanical anatomy, but he is still right. significant oil and natural gas is required to produce the fertiliser to grow the plants. bio fuel is not the carbon free fuel it is toughted as.
"Um, yes it does. Beleive it or not, plants were around long before fertilizer ('ammonia nitrate') was created."
you display for ignorance on the topic. NO you cannot intensively farm without artifical fertiliser. sure you can just lay seed for the first 2 - 3 years, after that your crops won't grow because the organic matter in the soil will be completely used up.
and don't even think of giving me any of that hippie perma culutre bullshit, it's just not useful for a mass production environment.
and no, you can't just pour human waste on fields to fertilise crops, food crops or not. significant processing is required to even think about using human waste. it would not be a practicle solution. there is one exciting technology that's being used here in autralia which uses a little pre processing and then earth worms to process the sewage, but that is yet to be tested on the scales we are talking about here.
"lots of US farmland is actually fallow to keep food prices up"
let me guess, it's all a conspiracy of the big corperations? call me crazy but i don't see high food prices in america. atleast you aren't hiding your anti capitalist agenda.
"And here you completely fail to understand the difference between fossil fuels and biofuels"
no i don't think you understand how biodiesel is produced (yet you seem to support it so vigarously?) a key component of biodiesel is the amount of fertiliser used to produce the crop which uses a lot of - you guessed it - OIL.
"You do realize that a oil wells, pipelines, refineries and all the other related infrastructure is going to destroy a lot more natural plant life than a farm, right?"
err i think his point is that we already have plenty od inferstructure in place for oil production - why chop down MORE tree's to produce biodiesel?
"Nuclear power is not "emission free". Sure, it produces no CO2, but it produces lots of nasty stuff that we have to pack away for a few thousand years. And even if you reprocess the fuel itself, there's still lots of other material that becomes irradiated that must be disposed of.
You also fail to mention any way that nuclear power would actually work as a motor vehicle fuel."
firstly, nuclear power produces water vapour which IS a significant greenhouse gas, thought the actual volume is a drop in the bucket. the nasty stuff you refer to is the spent fuel rods, which is easy enough to store. i'm not sure what makes you think why something being irradiated means it's dangerous, it merely means it's been exposed to radiation. not that it's dangerous. i think you are confusing irradiation with CONTAMINATION, which means radiactive material is present on/in something.
lastly your statment about having no way of using nuclear power - ever been on a tram/train/subway before?
you don't just push a seed in the ground and it grows you know, it takes lots of ammonia nitrate to grow crops on the scale you are talking about, the production of which requires lots of oil and gas.
all you are doing is fooling yourself into thinking there's no oil being burnt, when really you are just pouring the oil (in another form) on the plants then burning the plants.
nicely put. it does take fertiliser to achieve enough growth to make a decent amount of bio fuel. rich soils don't stay rich with intensive farming. the only way to break the hold of oil on our energy needs to is to completely remove oil from the cycle. you might be able to do that by using fertiliser from another source such as human waste composted by worms or other animal waste.
C02 isn't significant in the green house effect anyway. you've been mislead into thinking it. the only emissions significant with cars are the noxious gases that are suplhur based. diesel is really bad for this.
.. is it's damn hard to write properly, especially with a GUI in mind. quite often you want the gui to be stopped by some process. My only exposure have been writing gui stuff in wxpython and that was hard enough to get right.
never tried BE, but if it managed to come up with an easy way to deal with threading then i'm impressed.
hardware won't remove your add/remove programs option. kdawson is just an MS bashing tard. If your going to have a go at MS, atleast make it something that's actually a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
yep, like how they EOL'd win98 last year after 9 years of support, and foxpro after 10+ years.
yeah their real bastards MS, only giving a product a 9 year life span. Those linux projects they just never EOL... oh wait no they don't they kill versions off after 2 years or less!
Face it. people have known the writing was on the wall for foxpro for atleast 3 years. they've had shitloads of time to learn .net. it's thier problem, not MS's
1. a painful migration, and i mean painful in terms of giving birth or passing a kidney stone
2. maintain the code yourself, which could be even MORE painful and costly.
yes i know everyone will jump up and down about how this could happen to any project, but folks lets face facts here - In OSS projects where no one is getting paid to write code, you could possibly be hinging a key part of your opperation on the hope that a bunch of geeks don't tire of their little project.
And the "but you can maintain the code yourself" argument is a loser - it's often far more expensive to code yourself then to just pay MS and friends for a solution.
obviously this doesn't apply to huge projects like apache or mysql who have corperate funding.
IF this is real, and it can spread quickly and cause maximum damage then it's just as bad as windows, because the end result is an unsafe system.
never buy anything from check point.
they will likely have a recpetionist to pay, a couple of paralegals... not the mention the cost of renting an office and insurance. all that quickly eats $400,000 away.
wikipedia is just peoples pesudo expert knowledge. open libary is actual books.
they must still use a normal life support system for the head, as you can't wrap anything over the astronauts head. i wonder how this would cope with a rip in the fabric to, you might have your flesh ripped from your bones and out the hole in the suit?
Fuck i want some bad ass nanotube legs so i can run fast and jump high. the coppas will never catch me
there's so many conditions and laws on employment, it's no where near a free market.
but if you want seriously bad, forget congress and look at the paper shufflers around them, they will do ANYTHING to increase their little kingdoms.
no, it is really easy to store it. only problem is fear whipped up by hystericals like yourself has successfully prevented it happening even in the most remote area's, such as here in australia.
example. pick a geologically stable area (australia), pick some where really really remote where there is nothing else valuable and people won't ever want to live there (middle of australia), seal up spent rods in multiple casings of various non reactive materials, dig a big mother fucker hole in an area well outside of any water table, fill it in.
"Many materials, when exposed to high levels of radiation"
yes. only they tend to keep those to a minimum, because you know, they know what they are doing when they build these things.
"So your plan is to electrify every single foot of the millions of miles of roads in the US"
oh please, show me where i said that? now you are having to resort to making shit up. my very subtle point was that if you actually want an oil free world, it's more then likely you are going to need to give up your personal car.
you see, while i grow organic produce for myself, i'm not going to fool myself into thinking it would work on a commercial scale. your nitrogen fixers take months to repair the soil, and in that time you can't grow anything on that plot while they restore the soil.
the method you are reffering to is rotation planting, and you would require 3x the farm land. in effect you would be cutting down an aweful lot of the eco system your attempting to protect.
if you were going to farm for bio fuel, it's not going to happen in a forrest which has an eco system to support your 1000 year old tree. Its going to happen on a large plantation with nothing but the most optimal plant you can grow for your purpose, in an attempt to get the max yield per square metre. if you didn't, in order for bio fuel to be a real contender to replace oil you'd end up deforresting 1/2 your land mass (which is WAY worse then using oil)
the draw back to this, is that repeatedly growing crops on one patch of soil depletes it quickly, especially when using fast growing crops. this is because thier is no bio diversity in a plantation, no way other then external fertiliser to replenish the soil.
so, if you can't understand the problem now, well sorry but your just plain thick.
if you think employment is a free market, your delousional.
he is slightly off on his botanical anatomy, but he is still right. significant oil and natural gas is required to produce the fertiliser to grow the plants. bio fuel is not the carbon free fuel it is toughted as.
you display for ignorance on the topic. NO you cannot intensively farm without artifical fertiliser. sure you can just lay seed for the first 2 - 3 years, after that your crops won't grow because the organic matter in the soil will be completely used up.
and don't even think of giving me any of that hippie perma culutre bullshit, it's just not useful for a mass production environment. and no, you can't just pour human waste on fields to fertilise crops, food crops or not. significant processing is required to even think about using human waste. it would not be a practicle solution. there is one exciting technology that's being used here in autralia which uses a little pre processing and then earth worms to process the sewage, but that is yet to be tested on the scales we are talking about here.
if you didn't think it could be proven, how the hell did you come to the conclusion that she was guilty?
let me guess, it's all a conspiracy of the big corperations? call me crazy but i don't see high food prices in america. atleast you aren't hiding your anti capitalist agenda.
"And here you completely fail to understand the difference between fossil fuels and biofuels"
no i don't think you understand how biodiesel is produced (yet you seem to support it so vigarously?) a key component of biodiesel is the amount of fertiliser used to produce the crop which uses a lot of - you guessed it - OIL.
"You do realize that a oil wells, pipelines, refineries and all the other related infrastructure is going to destroy a lot more natural plant life than a farm, right?"
err i think his point is that we already have plenty od inferstructure in place for oil production - why chop down MORE tree's to produce biodiesel?
"Nuclear power is not "emission free". Sure, it produces no CO2, but it produces lots of nasty stuff that we have to pack away for a few thousand years. And even if you reprocess the fuel itself, there's still lots of other material that becomes irradiated that must be disposed of. You also fail to mention any way that nuclear power would actually work as a motor vehicle fuel."
firstly, nuclear power produces water vapour which IS a significant greenhouse gas, thought the actual volume is a drop in the bucket. the nasty stuff you refer to is the spent fuel rods, which is easy enough to store. i'm not sure what makes you think why something being irradiated means it's dangerous, it merely means it's been exposed to radiation. not that it's dangerous. i think you are confusing irradiation with CONTAMINATION, which means radiactive material is present on/in something.
lastly your statment about having no way of using nuclear power - ever been on a tram/train/subway before?
you don't just push a seed in the ground and it grows you know, it takes lots of ammonia nitrate to grow crops on the scale you are talking about, the production of which requires lots of oil and gas.
all you are doing is fooling yourself into thinking there's no oil being burnt, when really you are just pouring the oil (in another form) on the plants then burning the plants.
nicely put. it does take fertiliser to achieve enough growth to make a decent amount of bio fuel. rich soils don't stay rich with intensive farming. the only way to break the hold of oil on our energy needs to is to completely remove oil from the cycle. you might be able to do that by using fertiliser from another source such as human waste composted by worms or other animal waste.
C02 isn't significant in the green house effect anyway. you've been mislead into thinking it. the only emissions significant with cars are the noxious gases that are suplhur based. diesel is really bad for this.
never tried BE, but if it managed to come up with an easy way to deal with threading then i'm impressed.
your right unfortunately. damage control is always more costly then doing it right the first time as well, the costs just aren't taken into account.
hardware won't remove your add/remove programs option. kdawson is just an MS bashing tard. If your going to have a go at MS, atleast make it something that's actually a problem.
exactly what i've been telling these nob heads - This is nothing but senseless MS bashing