This has been said time and again (Bush said it over Kyoto). "If path x is followed, it will damage our economy".
It won't. It will just move things around. Software automation didn't wipe out millions of jobs. It created new ones.
Free software will just end up with another bunch of jobs (it may actually create more jobs due to some decentralisation), but maybe consumers will get more bang for their buck.
If people don't spend money on software, they'll spend it on something else. Maybe some guy will go and buy some more beers because he doesn't have to pay for some software. Who knows.
It's all consumer led. If people perceive some piece of free software as cheaper or better, they will switch. All lobbyists can do is to delay what is natural and inevitable.
It's worth examining the "green" votes for what was being voted on, and not just adding them up. 71 1E is a nothing. Something about "monitoring impact". Big fucking deal.
Nice idea, but these vulture cases are not going to go away, until people realise that they will lose money doing so. Just to clarify though - if the case has merits, people should work it out.
Money is better spent on open source defence, so when some new bunch of lawyers comes along to sue, they don't have to drop their product for fear of litigation (even if they are right, people will often avoid litigation), but can go to the fund who will hire some big guns.
Then, you go after these guys with everything you've got. If they make some spurious copyright claims, you go after them with a defamation suit. You do everything you can to publicise your actions. You make it clear that ANY attempt to try it on will be met with the legal equivalent of sledgehammer right back at them.
I can't believe this. When I look at the utter wank that got lottery grants like the pop music thing in Sheffield or the space centre in Leicester (because Leicester's famous for that).
I'm really skint at the moment, but if times are good, I'll send them something.
In the UK, commercials before movies can be great. Go and see a 15 or an 18, and you'll get ads that you won't get on TV. Then there's Pearl and Dean (ask a UK guy you know about the weird obsession with the music) and the dodgy cut-and-paste ads for local Indian Restaurants and Motorbike shops.
I saw Attack of the Clones, and the ads were better.
It's the lack of joined up thinking that annoys me.
If someone could show me a blueprint for a more environmentally friendly world, I'd be happier. What I hear instead are vague solutions that are not.
There are many proponents of wind power, but it ignores the fact that the UK can't sustain itself on wind power. Solar? Great. Now, who's going to pay to fit cells on the houses. We could get out of our cars, but some trips in the UK are crap without a car.
What many environmentalists and environmental cheerleading politicians also fail to do is to raise the point that what's really required is for people to also change their lifestyles. Instead, we have sticking plasters - wind farms and recycling centres.
Think the recession in 2000 was bad? Wait until you see what doubling the cost of electricity would do.
That ignores what happens in a market.
Fuel is a factor in decisions. People transport goods hundreds of miles because a supplier hundreds of miles away can supply for less than the local supplier, often at marginal cost. Raise the price of fuel, and there is more chance that someone will supply locally instead.
If you travel to work and fuel prices double, you might reconsider where you work.
We are incredibly wasteful in terms of fuel. I heard something about a supplier of soda transporting product from Scotland to London (like 300+ miles). I see bread vans on the motorways here (so that's probably 20-30 mile trip). Why are we transporting bread 20-30 miles when it can be baked locally. Not only that, but to meet the demand of year round produce, people fly strawberries from Israel in winter, rather than enjoying the winter produce.
If you live in the UK, next time you are on the motorway, check out how many lorries are food/supermarket ones.
There's always going to be products that have to be shipped, where production is small and specialised, or for products outside climate like tea or coffee. But often, it's just moved around unnecessarily.
I've started teleworking, on once I got myself into the rhythm of it, I love it. I see my family when I like.
I am buying more food locally. Not only does it save on food miles, but I have relationships with the shopkeepers whose products are far more interesting and food is better quality.
That food costs me more money, but you know what - I don't spend money on the latest pointless gadget because I've got money burning a hole in my pocket (another product not dumped). I know a lot of people who've had 3 PDAs in the time I've had 1. Ironically, they probably use theirs less.
Reduce car use, get better insulation into housing and reduce food miles. I imagine that the reduction in energy use from those three things would be dramatic.
In the UK, we have subsidies for solar cells, electricity from sustainables doesn't incur the carbon tax, but for me to have sustainable fuel still costs more.
And, they don't pay a tax for making some beautiful hillsides ugly with wind farms.
No source of energy is without risk/cost. Most people (outside the US?) now realise that the cost of fossil fuels is too high and would support governmental action to reduce CO2 emissions (as long as they don't have to do anything personally)
That's the problem. Most people don't want to change their lifestyle one iota to save the planet. Even when there are grants (like those for cavity wall), people won't do it because there's still an outlay (takes about 10 years to pay for). Lots of people still drive 20mpg SUVs to get them and their fat ass to work. I know some people who drive to work - 1 mile.
I wonder if there's a big difference between chernobyl and the UK and the USA. Chernobyl existed in a country with virtually no press freedom. Exposing the risks would have been difficult.
But they are not adding numbers. Most of those sales will be replacements, not new Windows users. For every XP system they sell, they're dumping an old Win 98 system.
If I bought a new PC tomorrow with Windows XP on it, First thing I'd do after getting ADSL working would be to download Firefox.
If we can get people using and enjoying the tabbed browsing, pop up blocker and skinning (and others) to the point where people don't want to lose it, they'll do likewise.
Also, how do Microsoft work out those figures?
Re:You almost certainly don't need to know.
on
Browser Wars Mark II
·
· Score: 1
I think one of the reasons why people won't convert lock, stock and barrel to MS Only, is that they don't want to lose the Mozilla market share. Sure, it may be only 4%, but it's often including geeks with high disposable income (and anyone willingly losing 4% of their market for such small cost is an idiot).
As an ex-Mainframe COBOL guy, turned MS Access, turned VB programmer, I was quite MS committed.
I'm now using C#, and the thing is, it means that I now don't look at C++ code with horror. It's readable, as is PHP and Java.
A lot of people are going from VB to C#. The leap from VB to VB.NET is quite major, so why not leap to something that people will view less as being a script kiddie language?
OK, I work in computers, but the installers for Firefox and Thunderbird are just fine and dandy. I'll try an experiment, though and give it to some people to install.
I'd like to get my site back up (and also put another posters hint about a "non-standard browser" message) and was wondering what you do (stuff that is obviously W3C compliant) to make it look uglyish in IE.
Slashdot Mirror
It won't. It will just move things around. Software automation didn't wipe out millions of jobs. It created new ones.
Free software will just end up with another bunch of jobs (it may actually create more jobs due to some decentralisation), but maybe consumers will get more bang for their buck.
If people don't spend money on software, they'll spend it on something else. Maybe some guy will go and buy some more beers because he doesn't have to pay for some software. Who knows.
It's all consumer led. If people perceive some piece of free software as cheaper or better, they will switch. All lobbyists can do is to delay what is natural and inevitable.
Greens
UKIP seem to be best
Lib Dems Next
Tories Next
Labour Last
It's worth examining the "green" votes for what was being voted on, and not just adding them up. 71 1E is a nothing. Something about "monitoring impact". Big fucking deal.
The biggies are 34/115 and 74 IMO.
Are you suggesting the average politician isn't as bright as the average...
Oh... wait.
Money is better spent on open source defence, so when some new bunch of lawyers comes along to sue, they don't have to drop their product for fear of litigation (even if they are right, people will often avoid litigation), but can go to the fund who will hire some big guns.
Then, you go after these guys with everything you've got. If they make some spurious copyright claims, you go after them with a defamation suit. You do everything you can to publicise your actions. You make it clear that ANY attempt to try it on will be met with the legal equivalent of sledgehammer right back at them.
That's how to defend rights.
I'm really skint at the moment, but if times are good, I'll send them something.
Under what law is it illegal to bring a camera into a cinema?
I saw Attack of the Clones, and the ads were better.
Tux meets Goatse?
If someone could show me a blueprint for a more environmentally friendly world, I'd be happier. What I hear instead are vague solutions that are not.
There are many proponents of wind power, but it ignores the fact that the UK can't sustain itself on wind power. Solar? Great. Now, who's going to pay to fit cells on the houses. We could get out of our cars, but some trips in the UK are crap without a car.
What many environmentalists and environmental cheerleading politicians also fail to do is to raise the point that what's really required is for people to also change their lifestyles. Instead, we have sticking plasters - wind farms and recycling centres.
That ignores what happens in a market.
Fuel is a factor in decisions. People transport goods hundreds of miles because a supplier hundreds of miles away can supply for less than the local supplier, often at marginal cost. Raise the price of fuel, and there is more chance that someone will supply locally instead.
If you travel to work and fuel prices double, you might reconsider where you work.
We are incredibly wasteful in terms of fuel. I heard something about a supplier of soda transporting product from Scotland to London (like 300+ miles). I see bread vans on the motorways here (so that's probably 20-30 mile trip). Why are we transporting bread 20-30 miles when it can be baked locally. Not only that, but to meet the demand of year round produce, people fly strawberries from Israel in winter, rather than enjoying the winter produce.
If you live in the UK, next time you are on the motorway, check out how many lorries are food/supermarket ones.
There's always going to be products that have to be shipped, where production is small and specialised, or for products outside climate like tea or coffee. But often, it's just moved around unnecessarily.
I've started teleworking, on once I got myself into the rhythm of it, I love it. I see my family when I like.
I am buying more food locally. Not only does it save on food miles, but I have relationships with the shopkeepers whose products are far more interesting and food is better quality.
That food costs me more money, but you know what - I don't spend money on the latest pointless gadget because I've got money burning a hole in my pocket (another product not dumped). I know a lot of people who've had 3 PDAs in the time I've had 1. Ironically, they probably use theirs less.
Reduce car use, get better insulation into housing and reduce food miles. I imagine that the reduction in energy use from those three things would be dramatic.
Are they, for instance paying a tax for making some hillsides ugly ;)
And, they don't pay a tax for making some beautiful hillsides ugly with wind farms.
I'm not denying your figures, but that sounds like some great news that I missed. Can I have the source?
That's the problem. Most people don't want to change their lifestyle one iota to save the planet. Even when there are grants (like those for cavity wall), people won't do it because there's still an outlay (takes about 10 years to pay for). Lots of people still drive 20mpg SUVs to get them and their fat ass to work. I know some people who drive to work - 1 mile.
I wonder if there's a big difference between chernobyl and the UK and the USA. Chernobyl existed in a country with virtually no press freedom. Exposing the risks would have been difficult.
The question I have is whether it is realistic. How many wind farms would have to be built to supply the energy of industry and homes?
But they are not adding numbers. Most of those sales will be replacements, not new Windows users. For every XP system they sell, they're dumping an old Win 98 system.
There's only one site I use in IE - Windows Update. That's IT.
Simply (and call me a zealot if you want) if someone took away Firefox viewing of their site properly, I'll take my business elsewhere.
I've already done this. An electric co lost a sale with me, and I wrote and told them why.
If I bought a new PC tomorrow with Windows XP on it, First thing I'd do after getting ADSL working would be to download Firefox.
If we can get people using and enjoying the tabbed browsing, pop up blocker and skinning (and others) to the point where people don't want to lose it, they'll do likewise.
Also, how do Microsoft work out those figures?
I think one of the reasons why people won't convert lock, stock and barrel to MS Only, is that they don't want to lose the Mozilla market share. Sure, it may be only 4%, but it's often including geeks with high disposable income (and anyone willingly losing 4% of their market for such small cost is an idiot).
I'm now using C#, and the thing is, it means that I now don't look at C++ code with horror. It's readable, as is PHP and Java.
A lot of people are going from VB to C#. The leap from VB to VB.NET is quite major, so why not leap to something that people will view less as being a script kiddie language?
OK, I work in computers, but the installers for Firefox and Thunderbird are just fine and dandy. I'll try an experiment, though and give it to some people to install.
I'd like to get my site back up (and also put another posters hint about a "non-standard browser" message) and was wondering what you do (stuff that is obviously W3C compliant) to make it look uglyish in IE.
I can't remember if native SVG support is in Mozilla yet.
....cool!