You can also uninstall IE from Windows (since SP2, I believe). It doesn't replace MSHTML, of course, or prevent other Windows apps from using the same rendering engine - but is it really possible to swap out WebKit or KHTML?
And yet you advocate bringing the government's wrath upon Microsoft. That's hardly "the right to choose".
Astute observation! OP is agitating not for the right to choose (since Windows doesn't really prevent you from using any competitor's product) but rather the requirement to choose, apparently oblivious to the fact that the decision not to choose is itself a choice; one he would take away.
but when it's made very difficult for the ordinary person to buy a computer, especially a laptop, without Windows being preinstalled, it hardly seems that people have a choice NOT to have it.
Well, that makes a little more a sense. You weren't specific, so I assumed you were talking about the most economical source of hydrogen, which is hydrocarbons. A biomass hydrogen source would be interesting, if it could scale up. But ultimately, there's only so much energy one can extract from a given acre of biomass. I'd be interested to see the numbers.
Maybe, but it still doesn't force you to install Outlook. I seem to recall that the installer allowed you to install, provisionally install, or not install each component separately. So you could by the cheaper version which included the programs you don't want and just unselect those components during the install.
Only problem is that most of those "common compounds" are in fact hydrocarbons. So you (a) do little to solve the fossil fuel dependency problem and (b) still end up releasing large quanitities of CO or CO2 into the atmosphere.
I agree with your analysis. But there is a possibility for a kind of distributed generation that still relies on large-scale baseload energy production. If there is going to be any kind of distribution, I think it would take the form of distributed hydrogen. The hydrogen would be generated large-scale on-site at nuclear reactor facilities, then you could probably use most of the existing natural gas infrastructure for distribution. The hydrogen could then be combusted like natural gas for heat and hot water, or used in fuel cells for localized energy production or transportation.
Not to mention the simple fact that nuke plants in the USA have several-foot-thick concrete containment structures meant to withstand a collision from a fighter jet.
Specifically, three to five feet thick, typically, and able to withstand the impact of a passenger jetliner.
So what do we plan to do with these things again? I doubt anyone will notice if we dump it in the ocean again. *Whistles*
Actually, one serious, legitimate proposal is to seal it in casks and embed it into a subduction zone, so that within a century or so is is drawn deep into the earth's crust.
Nuclear fuels are only limited because the reactors currently in use are old and very wasteful. They only consume U-235, which is relatively rare. Breeder reactors take U-238 and Thorium, which is much more abundant, and convert it into fissionable fuel. You get more fuel out of the reactor than what you put into it! (This does not violate the laws of thermodynamics because the energy released by fission is much greater than the energy required to make stable isotopes unstable.) Using this technology with fuel reprocessing (taking what we currently throw away as "waste" and making it suitable for use again as fuel), our supply of nuclear fuel is practically unlimited, and the waste produced is greatly reduced in both radioactive energy and quantity. I've read that a thousand-megawatt reactor of this type running for a year produces a mere cubic meter of waste material. That's not very much.
That 100 year estimate is only known reserves of U-235, which is the most basic, wasteful type of reactor. By breeding U-235 from the much more plentiful U-238, and by using Thorium, there would be enough nuclear fuel on the Earth to sustain our energy needs until around the time the sun burns out. The waste fuel from one year of a thousand megawatt reactor of this type would be about 1 cubic meter. So yes, nuclear is the answer.
The honest truth is I don't know. It's partly philosophical (should it be the practice of a "reasonable man") but also partly empirical (is it the practice of "reasonable men"). But because it's a difficult question with no easy answers, it's exactly the sort of question courts (often, juries) have to wrestle with.
I heard a fascinating report on NPR this morning about how even though so many options for email and file encryption are coming available, very few people actually use them. Even the big privacy advocates who encourage people to use encryption, it turns out, don't use encryption very much. I think a large part of it is because people don't actually think their data is worth encrypting. The other part of it is that the infrastructure is not ubiquotous enough or simple enough to make it worthwhile for everyday use.
In any case, the story is definitely worth a listen.
Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use KDE over other faster, cheaper, more stable environments.
I'd like to second the parent and encourage mods to mark it informative. The summary is talking about an extremely basic principle of tort law. One may question the sensibility of applying tort law literally hundreds of years old to modern scenarios, but unquestionably the court in this case is acting as it should, by applying established legal principles to the facts at hand.
America is one of the most, if not THE MOST repressive regimes with regard to intellectual freedom in the Western world.
I was going to post a long, detailed reply, but when I got to this sentence, I realized it would be futile. If you truly believe this, then I am sorry, this conversation can serve no purpose any longer.
What Napster did was much more than "hyperlinking" or even indexing, and it's disingenuous for you to imply otherwise. It was contributory copyright infringment, because they actually did stuff to make it easy and convenient to violate copyright. Kind of like the difference between witnessing a crime and being an accomplice to the crime. And for what it's worth, I don't think contributory copyright infringement is legal in any country that complies with the Berne convention.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. Presumably, if a person can afford a PC, they can afford a Mac.
You can also uninstall IE from Windows (since SP2, I believe). It doesn't replace MSHTML, of course, or prevent other Windows apps from using the same rendering engine - but is it really possible to swap out WebKit or KHTML?
Astute observation! OP is agitating not for the right to choose (since Windows doesn't really prevent you from using any competitor's product) but rather the requirement to choose, apparently oblivious to the fact that the decision not to choose is itself a choice; one he would take away.
How hard is it, really, to type "www.apple.com"?
Well, that makes a little more a sense. You weren't specific, so I assumed you were talking about the most economical source of hydrogen, which is hydrocarbons. A biomass hydrogen source would be interesting, if it could scale up. But ultimately, there's only so much energy one can extract from a given acre of biomass. I'd be interested to see the numbers.
Maybe, but it still doesn't force you to install Outlook. I seem to recall that the installer allowed you to install, provisionally install, or not install each component separately. So you could by the cheaper version which included the programs you don't want and just unselect those components during the install.
I made a typo, you don't breed U-235 from U-238, you breed (I think) PU-239.
Net gain: not much.
I agree with your analysis. But there is a possibility for a kind of distributed generation that still relies on large-scale baseload energy production. If there is going to be any kind of distribution, I think it would take the form of distributed hydrogen. The hydrogen would be generated large-scale on-site at nuclear reactor facilities, then you could probably use most of the existing natural gas infrastructure for distribution. The hydrogen could then be combusted like natural gas for heat and hot water, or used in fuel cells for localized energy production or transportation.
Quick question - where do you think nuclear fuel currently comes from? The sky?
Shoot it into the sun, that's where it came from in the first place! Well, all right, not that sun specifically, but some other long-gone star.
neocons will likely detoante one just to blame it on "those damn Eigh-Rabs"... yep... they just need lots of them.
I hope that's a joke, but I'll be honest, I can't tell.
Specifically, three to five feet thick, typically, and able to withstand the impact of a passenger jetliner.
Actually, one serious, legitimate proposal is to seal it in casks and embed it into a subduction zone, so that within a century or so is is drawn deep into the earth's crust.
Nuclear fuels are only limited because the reactors currently in use are old and very wasteful. They only consume U-235, which is relatively rare. Breeder reactors take U-238 and Thorium, which is much more abundant, and convert it into fissionable fuel. You get more fuel out of the reactor than what you put into it! (This does not violate the laws of thermodynamics because the energy released by fission is much greater than the energy required to make stable isotopes unstable.) Using this technology with fuel reprocessing (taking what we currently throw away as "waste" and making it suitable for use again as fuel), our supply of nuclear fuel is practically unlimited, and the waste produced is greatly reduced in both radioactive energy and quantity. I've read that a thousand-megawatt reactor of this type running for a year produces a mere cubic meter of waste material. That's not very much.
If we use the most efficient nuclear technology that already exists, the answer is essentially forever.
That 100 year estimate is only known reserves of U-235, which is the most basic, wasteful type of reactor. By breeding U-235 from the much more plentiful U-238, and by using Thorium, there would be enough nuclear fuel on the Earth to sustain our energy needs until around the time the sun burns out. The waste fuel from one year of a thousand megawatt reactor of this type would be about 1 cubic meter. So yes, nuclear is the answer.
Reading comprehension! GP is talking about physical server boxes. You're talking about the OS on those physical boxes. Hardware != Software.
1. Exchange server.
2. Exchange server.
3. Exchange server.
There's also plenty of server-client legal software that is Win32 only.
The honest truth is I don't know. It's partly philosophical (should it be the practice of a "reasonable man") but also partly empirical (is it the practice of "reasonable men"). But because it's a difficult question with no easy answers, it's exactly the sort of question courts (often, juries) have to wrestle with.
In any case, the story is definitely worth a listen.
Why would Mac addicts flame you for choosing KDE?
I'd like to second the parent and encourage mods to mark it informative. The summary is talking about an extremely basic principle of tort law. One may question the sensibility of applying tort law literally hundreds of years old to modern scenarios, but unquestionably the court in this case is acting as it should, by applying established legal principles to the facts at hand.
I was going to post a long, detailed reply, but when I got to this sentence, I realized it would be futile. If you truly believe this, then I am sorry, this conversation can serve no purpose any longer.
What Napster did was much more than "hyperlinking" or even indexing, and it's disingenuous for you to imply otherwise. It was contributory copyright infringment, because they actually did stuff to make it easy and convenient to violate copyright. Kind of like the difference between witnessing a crime and being an accomplice to the crime. And for what it's worth, I don't think contributory copyright infringement is legal in any country that complies with the Berne convention.