Despite the massive sizes of the profits, keep in mind that the $10B quarterly numbers...
I don't see what the reasonableness (or lack thereof) of oil industry profits has to do with their getting tax breaks. Since there are significant externalities to burning oil there is a reasonable argument for taxing it extra to encourage alternatives. The prior poster's argument about oil industry subsides being applied to solar doesn't make much sense either - subsides shouldn't measured against each other but on their independent merit.
A bit? At 200MW for 38km^2 (a 4km diameter)...
You don't even have to Read the Fine Article, the summary page shows they are estimating 2.5 miles^2 (6.5 km^2) for 1000MW. If you disagree with that you should explain yourself first.
We've been on the Do Not Call list for about 3 years (or however long its been in service).
There was an article here recently explaining that if you got on the Do Not Call list when it first came out your listing has now expired. Rather than checking it out I just signed up again. This won't help if your NRCC is the National Republican Congressional Committee but might if it's the National Resource Center for Cephalopods (I'm unsure if they qualify for the non-profit exemption).
Relatively soon we'll have to start investigating renewable (or at least non-fossil fuel based) energy sources, not because of their environmental impact, but because of the lack of alternatives.
If we were just talking about crude oil I would agree with you, but there seems to be enough other fossil fuels to supply our energy needs for several centuries, mostly from coal, tar sands, and oil shales. Deforestation is adding a quite a bit too, which is why I think that running Brazil on ethanol from sugar cane is probably not helping much with the carbon dioxide problem.
This is just what the sensible programs are targeting: Either stop burning coal or keep the resulting CO2 from entering the atmosphere. Also, find some other fuel for cars before we start to liquefy coal in large amounts for them.
Keep in mind that the current high end estimates are for an increase of less than three feet in sea level by the end of this century. We'll probably have to deal with the other consequences of global warming much sooner.
I think the most plausible explanation is that simple life (RNA or equivalent) may be common, but complex life (DNA or equivalent) is very rare. Considering all the things we don't know, though, any particular explanation at this point is probably wrong.
Unfortunately my code says "GPL2 or any later version" and lots of others have contributed to it so I can't change that. So I am stuck,...
Stuck how? You wouldn't be able to clean up the language either way (unless the FSF follows your suggestion), but if you want to make a future release v2 only you can. If part of the code can be relicensed to GPLv3 and part of it can't, the work as a whole is still distributable under v2 and (probably) can't be upgraded to v3. It's up to you whether this would be fair to the other contributers.
It also appears, as others have pointed out, that the DRM stuff (and perhaps the Patent stuff) is an "additional restriction" which means you are not allowed to modify code from saying "GPL2 and later" to saying "GPL3 and later". This kind of means the GPL3 can never be enforced unless the code is written from scratch.
Yes, it probably is an additional restriction, but allowing that type of restriction was the whole point of the later version exception. You should be able to legally make a GPLv3 only (or v3 or later) release. It would only be ineffective to the extent that people can still use the previous v2 version.
I tried that. I'm so used to using middle click to open links in new tabs that I frequently ended up closing the tab I was trying to select, so I turned it off.
Fear?: Fear of what? The GPL software movement is splitting. This may be annoying, but hardly anything to fear.
Uncertainty?: There is little uncertainty, the split is now almost certain.
Doubt?: Doubt of Linux's survival? Anyone paying the slightest attention should have no doubt about that.
The article is filled with what I consider to be libelous comments about RMS: I don't think he is an anarchist, anti-corporate or against the sale of software. That sort of reckless disregard for the truth has no place in such a major publication, and I think Lyons should be fired.
NK will not attack the South unprovoked because even their nut case of a dictator knows that such an act will certainly end his reign.
That reminds me of Iraq moving troops near the Kuwait border in 1990. Everyone I heard said Saddam would never actually invade, but invade he did.
Maybe North Korea will sit still and be proud of its nuclear capability without using it, but I am afraid South Korea is overconfident of being left alone.
It would probably be easier to start a fork from one of the BSDs than making Linux v3 compatible without (or maybe even with) the help of the current maintainers. I don't think that would generate much interest, though.
Unless you apply a tangential force your angular velocity will go down as you as you go up, so you do need horizontal acceleration to reach geosynchronous orbit. A high enough orbit would be stable with just the horizontal velocity you get starting out from the equator, but this is several times geosynchronous height.
Every sailing vessel is basically a solar powered boat.
If you're going to claim wind power is the same as solar power you may as well call gasoline engines solar powered too: In each case the energy originally came from the sun. In reality, it is useful to make the distinction between all of these because each power source requires different methods to use and has different downsides. Even the environmental consequences of wind and solar voltaic are different if you consider the manufacturing process.
IE will still work with the old version, so they could probably just change the default for Firefox (and other compatible browsers). So far, I don't even prefer the new version under Firefox, since I usually use threaded mode. I like the new version better now than the last time I tried it, so I may change my mind by the time it's out of beta.
What do you think he might want to do with the money if he doesn't want it personally?
I think it likely he would prefer to use it to help deserving mathematicians continue their research. But, which ones should get the money? The process of choosing where the money should go is probably uninteresting to him, so he would want to avoid it. Now, consider what happens if he refuses the prize money: It will go back into the endowment it came from, and then experts will eventually find a deserving recipient. Sounds like this could be a win/win from Perelman's perspective.
Maybe, but a number of scientific projects have been canceled after a lot of money was invested. The superconducting super collider was canceled after it was partially built, and at least one NASA mission that was nearly ready to fly just recently got killed to cover the cost overruns in the manned space program.
Anyway, it seems that both Earth/Luna and Pluto/Charon are useful as counter-examples to naive definitions of "moon". With Earth/Luna, both have totally concave orbits wrt the sun (so they're a binary planet pair), but their barycenter is inside the Earth (so they're a planet/moon pair). Pluto/Charon reverse both of these criteria.
Then insisting on both criteria for a double planet would leave us with our historical definitions for our solar system, but leave a firm definition in place for future discoveries.
The requirement of a concave orbit make more sense to me than internal barycenter criterion, and I'm guessing the Pluto Charon system fails that test. Anyone know for sure?
That's still evolution, even if the eventual consequence of that evolutions is, for example, weaker eyesight. Mostly though, the lack of strong pressure on a large population leads to very slow evolution.
Since they have to be able to bill you, the fact that you are a subscriber might be available if the Swedish government caves, but I doubt they will keep any records linking you to any specific traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't even have to Read the Fine Article, the summary page shows they are estimating 2.5 miles^2 (6.5 km^2) for 1000MW. If you disagree with that you should explain yourself first.
There was an article here recently explaining that if you got on the Do Not Call list when it first came out your listing has now expired. Rather than checking it out I just signed up again. This won't help if your NRCC is the National Republican Congressional Committee but might if it's the National Resource Center for Cephalopods (I'm unsure if they qualify for the non-profit exemption).
If we were just talking about crude oil I would agree with you, but there seems to be enough other fossil fuels to supply our energy needs for several centuries, mostly from coal, tar sands, and oil shales. Deforestation is adding a quite a bit too, which is why I think that running Brazil on ethanol from sugar cane is probably not helping much with the carbon dioxide problem.
This is just what the sensible programs are targeting: Either stop burning coal or keep the resulting CO2 from entering the atmosphere. Also, find some other fuel for cars before we start to liquefy coal in large amounts for them.
Keep in mind that the current high end estimates are for an increase of less than three feet in sea level by the end of this century. We'll probably have to deal with the other consequences of global warming much sooner.
You are arguing for the Fermi Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
I find it fairly convincing but many people don't.
I think the most plausible explanation is that simple life (RNA or equivalent) may be common, but complex life (DNA or equivalent) is very rare. Considering all the things we don't know, though, any particular explanation at this point is probably wrong.
Yes, it probably is an additional restriction, but allowing that type of restriction was the whole point of the later version exception. You should be able to legally make a GPLv3 only (or v3 or later) release. It would only be ineffective to the extent that people can still use the previous v2 version.
No, it's the cube of 10 i.e. 1000. This is still, of course, completely insignificant.
I tried that. I'm so used to using middle click to open links in new tabs that I frequently ended up closing the tab I was trying to select, so I turned it off.
I really don't see any FUD here.
Fear?: Fear of what? The GPL software movement is splitting. This may be annoying, but hardly anything to fear.
Uncertainty?: There is little uncertainty, the split is now almost certain.
Doubt?: Doubt of Linux's survival? Anyone paying the slightest attention should have no doubt about that.
The article is filled with what I consider to be libelous comments about RMS: I don't think he is an anarchist, anti-corporate or against the sale of software. That sort of reckless disregard for the truth has no place in such a major publication, and I think Lyons should be fired.
I got 25 hits for the full phrase on Google. The earliest I see off hand is from 2001.
That reminds me of Iraq moving troops near the Kuwait border in 1990. Everyone I heard said Saddam would never actually invade, but invade he did.
Maybe North Korea will sit still and be proud of its nuclear capability without using it, but I am afraid South Korea is overconfident of being left alone.
It would probably be easier to start a fork from one of the BSDs than making Linux v3 compatible without (or maybe even with) the help of the current maintainers. I don't think that would generate much interest, though.
The Hurd is another option.
Unless you apply a tangential force your angular velocity will go down as you as you go up, so you do need horizontal acceleration to reach geosynchronous orbit. A high enough orbit would be stable with just the horizontal velocity you get starting out from the equator, but this is several times geosynchronous height.
If you're going to claim wind power is the same as solar power you may as well call gasoline engines solar powered too: In each case the energy originally came from the sun. In reality, it is useful to make the distinction between all of these because each power source requires different methods to use and has different downsides. Even the environmental consequences of wind and solar voltaic are different if you consider the manufacturing process.
I meant to say I use nested mode.
IE will still work with the old version, so they could probably just change the default for Firefox (and other compatible browsers). So far, I don't even prefer the new version under Firefox, since I usually use threaded mode. I like the new version better now than the last time I tried it, so I may change my mind by the time it's out of beta.
He could have been clearer, but considering the subject I think he was saying "Will cost the consumer more" is a blatantly obvious lie.
I found most of the Man-Kzin stories very good; much better than Larry's own recent output.
What do you think he might want to do with the money if he doesn't want it personally?
I think it likely he would prefer to use it to help deserving mathematicians continue their research. But, which ones should get the money? The process of choosing where the money should go is probably uninteresting to him, so he would want to avoid it. Now, consider what happens if he refuses the prize money: It will go back into the endowment it came from, and then experts will eventually find a deserving recipient. Sounds like this could be a win/win from Perelman's perspective.
Maybe, but a number of scientific projects have been canceled after a lot of money was invested. The superconducting super collider was canceled after it was partially built, and at least one NASA mission that was nearly ready to fly just recently got killed to cover the cost overruns in the manned space program.
Fluoride is a form of fluorine. If you add trace amounts of fluorine to silicon you're going to end up with fluoride anyhow.
Then insisting on both criteria for a double planet would leave us with our historical definitions for our solar system, but leave a firm definition in place for future discoveries.
The requirement of a concave orbit make more sense to me than internal barycenter criterion, and I'm guessing the Pluto Charon system fails that test. Anyone know for sure?
That's still evolution, even if the eventual consequence of that evolutions is, for example, weaker eyesight. Mostly though, the lack of strong pressure on a large population leads to very slow evolution.
Since they have to be able to bill you, the fact that you are a subscriber might be available if the Swedish government caves, but I doubt they will keep any records linking you to any specific traffic.