For many years, Gnome was the most popular desktop environment. Many of the people who got into Linux on the desktop moved into a Gnome environment. It provided a familiar UI with standard metaphors. While the Linux desktop has moved on for better or worse, the fact remains that it was Gnome that provided the soft landing for many when they jumped ship.
Pay some respect to those who went before and the work they did.
The open source movement owes much to the Gnome foundation. Yes, they have alienated their core support base, and perhaps this situation is a result of those cows coming home to roost. Nonetheless, a gutted or even dead Gnome foundation hurts the whole community, if only because it highlights the fragility of open source focused organizations as going concerns.
Boiling down free speech to nothing more than a constitutional guarantee is to denude it of all meaning.
Free speech is a principle which society bakes into its core values as expressed by the unwritten social contract. It manifests itself in legislation because that is where it needs to be formally documented. However, it is a mistake to think that the written law is the beginning and end of the values that we uphold.
Actually, the thinking that the law as written is the sum total of all values is one of the main problems of today. Because the black letter of the law is taken as the only gospel, then finding loopholes and ways to manipulate the wording to your advantage is just fine. I think a short look around the state of the world today will reveal that that is not fine.
Well, it's a fairly major project. There are a lot of very skilled developers, and it has commercial backing. If you're really, really paranoid and want to use it for something mission critical and highly sensitive, then don't expose it to the internet and access it via VPN only.
smaller problems caused by whatever marginal increase in usage repealing prohibition causes
See, the problem is that there is no evidence to support the proposition that the increase will be marginal, and that the harm will be less. All of the arguments rest on the retelling of the 1920s experience with prohibition and essentially say "well we had all these problems with gangsterism in that period, but look, we made alcohol legal again and all the alcohol related problems went away".
There is a *lot* of research suggesting that the overall social problems caused by alcohol are vastly understated, itis just hidden because it happens at the family and individual level. The social symptoms of alcohol just don't make for interesting reading or spectacular Hollywood movies the way prohibition rackets do.
Finally, comparing the ability to enforce a law in the 1920s to today, a century later, is just folly. The circumstances are wholly different. The real problem underlying the ineffectiveness of today's drug "prohibition" is a lack of political will, conflicts of interest and outright corruption.
The rationale amongst many who lack historical perspective is hopelessly simplistic. The "prohibition didn't work, so let's solve the problem of drugs the same way we solved the problem of alcohol" argument completely ignores the fact that we DIDN'T solve the problem of alcohol. Alcohol has become a massively abused drug that causes all kinds of harm. It destroys families, is highly addictive, results in self-destructive behaviour and is responsible for a surprisingly large number of hospital trauma cases. Yet we hand-wave away this as part of what it means to have freedom because it has become socially acceptable, and the harms associated natural part of human behaviour. I don't want to live in a world where we get so used to other drugs' deleterious effects that we consider heroin addiction, crack habits and meth death to be a natural part of human behaviour.
Making something legal just because our politicians lack the will to engage in a sincere effort to enforce laws regulating it is a poor, shortsighted and ultimately disastrous attitude to take.
It's fast, stable, mature and provides a boatload of the functionality you get from Dropbox and Google on a server that you host yourself. Get it, use it, love it.
I cannot understand why there is such scant mention of OwnCloud in this thread. It is THE solution to the problem of needing Dropbox like functionality on a self-hosted server.
Given the fact that a normal desktop PC cannot generate bitcoins in a reasonable amount of time, isn't it a given fact that we need another party to create or transfer those bitcoins?
No and no. "Creating" bitcoins is not economically practical for individual users any more, however you do NOT need a third party to hold your bitcoins. You can run wallet software on your PC and send and receive bitcoins without the need for any third party.
When another party creates those bitcoins for me, how can I be sure that they won't keep a copy for later use?
Sending you the bitcoins is not just a matter of sending you a copy of the bitcoin "file". For your wallet (which is an application running on your PC) to receive the bitcoins, it must not only get the "file" from the sender, but also verify with the blockchain (the public record of transactions) that they have sent the BTC to you. Once the transaction has been logged on the blockchain, they cannot spend the bitcoins, as the blockchain will reject any attempt to do so.
Smartphones have cameras, accelerometers magnetometers and s bunch of other sensors. Collate data from these sensors and you have a pretty good random seed at any given time.
There's a lot of hate against this idea, variants of "but you don't understand you naieve fool" are being thrown around. Sure, this is a simplistic idea, but it's not doomed like you and the other contrarians claim. Consider:
Assuming you *did* manage to buy up 25% of the coal mines and take their produce off the market. A coal power buyout would raise the price of remaining coal, as coal supply would now be too low to meet demand from the fixed number of coal fired plants. Plants would need to bid up prices on the coal, or shut down permanently as too much demand for coal chases too little supply. Conveniently, the least efficient (i.e., the plants that emit the most unburned carbon) plants will most likely be the ones to shut down as they are the ones providing the lowest yield per unit of coal input.
Reduced total output from coal plants would reduce overall electricity generation, increasing prices overall. Increased energy prices would stimulate consumers to engage in power saving behaviour and lower the threshold of profitability on green power projects. Once equilibrium was reached again, the mix of green power gneration to dirty power generation would have improved dramatically in the economy. Part of the problem we face is that green power prices relative to dirty power prices are too high, and an initiative like this would be a shot in the arm to the green industry that desperately needs just a kick start to reach scale.
Stop hating the idea just because it wasn't presented in a 20 page brief complete with executive summary and contingency analysis. The idea holds water and the sentiment certainly is meritorious.
Some cheap android device + sat phone. Duct tape those two devices anywhere on the plane where you can feed then 5V.
Problem solved. I understand the safety precautions etc, but streaming critical data would not be a huge data stream, and we solved that problem with very small devices a long time ago. Building a device with a GPS module, accelerometer and satphone chipset would be enough to give basic positional and attitudinal data and would be completely isolated from the rest of the plane's systems except for the 5V feed.
You do NOT need a $100k contractor sourced device to add "tracking of last resort" functionality t a plane.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Not sure what GP was on about, but I'd trust a Google Car over a teen driver any day of the week.
Have another look. Self-driving car tech is a lot more advanced than people realize.
For many years, Gnome was the most popular desktop environment. Many of the people who got into Linux on the desktop moved into a Gnome environment. It provided a familiar UI with standard metaphors. While the Linux desktop has moved on for better or worse, the fact remains that it was Gnome that provided the soft landing for many when they jumped ship.
Pay some respect to those who went before and the work they did.
It knows what it's done.
The open source movement owes much to the Gnome foundation. Yes, they have alienated their core support base, and perhaps this situation is a result of those cows coming home to roost. Nonetheless, a gutted or even dead Gnome foundation hurts the whole community, if only because it highlights the fragility of open source focused organizations as going concerns.
(Yes, yes I know it's supposed to be chickens.)
I cannot reply to that without Godwining the thread.
Boiling down free speech to nothing more than a constitutional guarantee is to denude it of all meaning.
Free speech is a principle which society bakes into its core values as expressed by the unwritten social contract. It manifests itself in legislation because that is where it needs to be formally documented. However, it is a mistake to think that the written law is the beginning and end of the values that we uphold.
Actually, the thinking that the law as written is the sum total of all values is one of the main problems of today. Because the black letter of the law is taken as the only gospel, then finding loopholes and ways to manipulate the wording to your advantage is just fine. I think a short look around the state of the world today will reveal that that is not fine.
They hate us for our freedom. Underhanded manipulation of their local political system for our own agenda has nothing to do with it.
Well, it's a fairly major project. There are a lot of very skilled developers, and it has commercial backing. If you're really, really paranoid and want to use it for something mission critical and highly sensitive, then don't expose it to the internet and access it via VPN only.
All problems have a solution :)
OwnCloud is open source software. You download it and install it on your server. What are you talking about?
And...
See, the problem is that there is no evidence to support the proposition that the increase will be marginal, and that the harm will be less. All of the arguments rest on the retelling of the 1920s experience with prohibition and essentially say "well we had all these problems with gangsterism in that period, but look, we made alcohol legal again and all the alcohol related problems went away".
There is a *lot* of research suggesting that the overall social problems caused by alcohol are vastly understated, itis just hidden because it happens at the family and individual level. The social symptoms of alcohol just don't make for interesting reading or spectacular Hollywood movies the way prohibition rackets do.
Finally, comparing the ability to enforce a law in the 1920s to today, a century later, is just folly. The circumstances are wholly different. The real problem underlying the ineffectiveness of today's drug "prohibition" is a lack of political will, conflicts of interest and outright corruption.
Sounds like a free and just society to me.
The rationale amongst many who lack historical perspective is hopelessly simplistic. The "prohibition didn't work, so let's solve the problem of drugs the same way we solved the problem of alcohol" argument completely ignores the fact that we DIDN'T solve the problem of alcohol. Alcohol has become a massively abused drug that causes all kinds of harm. It destroys families, is highly addictive, results in self-destructive behaviour and is responsible for a surprisingly large number of hospital trauma cases. Yet we hand-wave away this as part of what it means to have freedom because it has become socially acceptable, and the harms associated natural part of human behaviour. I don't want to live in a world where we get so used to other drugs' deleterious effects that we consider heroin addiction, crack habits and meth death to be a natural part of human behaviour.
Making something legal just because our politicians lack the will to engage in a sincere effort to enforce laws regulating it is a poor, shortsighted and ultimately disastrous attitude to take.
It's fast, stable, mature and provides a boatload of the functionality you get from Dropbox and Google on a server that you host yourself. Get it, use it, love it.
I cannot understand why there is such scant mention of OwnCloud in this thread. It is THE solution to the problem of needing Dropbox like functionality on a self-hosted server.
OwnCloud. It's The Solution to this problem.
No and no. "Creating" bitcoins is not economically practical for individual users any more, however you do NOT need a third party to hold your bitcoins. You can run wallet software on your PC and send and receive bitcoins without the need for any third party.
Sending you the bitcoins is not just a matter of sending you a copy of the bitcoin "file". For your wallet (which is an application running on your PC) to receive the bitcoins, it must not only get the "file" from the sender, but also verify with the blockchain (the public record of transactions) that they have sent the BTC to you. Once the transaction has been logged on the blockchain, they cannot spend the bitcoins, as the blockchain will reject any attempt to do so.
You're clearly a liar. A Google Maps search revealed that there is no lane or indeed roadway of any kind named "Literal Interpretation".
Buying junk like that is probably why they failed.
Smartphones have cameras, accelerometers magnetometers and s bunch of other sensors. Collate data from these sensors and you have a pretty good random seed at any given time.
5Ah batteries in tablets would take approx 12 hours to charge on a 500mAh USB link.
We've got this thing called True Coat...
No, it's not.
There's a lot of hate against this idea, variants of "but you don't understand you naieve fool" are being thrown around. Sure, this is a simplistic idea, but it's not doomed like you and the other contrarians claim. Consider:
Assuming you *did* manage to buy up 25% of the coal mines and take their produce off the market. A coal power buyout would raise the price of remaining coal, as coal supply would now be too low to meet demand from the fixed number of coal fired plants. Plants would need to bid up prices on the coal, or shut down permanently as too much demand for coal chases too little supply. Conveniently, the least efficient (i.e., the plants that emit the most unburned carbon) plants will most likely be the ones to shut down as they are the ones providing the lowest yield per unit of coal input.
Reduced total output from coal plants would reduce overall electricity generation, increasing prices overall. Increased energy prices would stimulate consumers to engage in power saving behaviour and lower the threshold of profitability on green power projects. Once equilibrium was reached again, the mix of green power gneration to dirty power generation would have improved dramatically in the economy. Part of the problem we face is that green power prices relative to dirty power prices are too high, and an initiative like this would be a shot in the arm to the green industry that desperately needs just a kick start to reach scale.
Stop hating the idea just because it wasn't presented in a 20 page brief complete with executive summary and contingency analysis. The idea holds water and the sentiment certainly is meritorious.
Some cheap android device + sat phone. Duct tape those two devices anywhere on the plane where you can feed then 5V.
Problem solved. I understand the safety precautions etc, but streaming critical data would not be a huge data stream, and we solved that problem with very small devices a long time ago. Building a device with a GPS module, accelerometer and satphone chipset would be enough to give basic positional and attitudinal data and would be completely isolated from the rest of the plane's systems except for the 5V feed.
You do NOT need a $100k contractor sourced device to add "tracking of last resort" functionality t a plane.
If you want native, wxWidgets.
Cross platform. Open source. Sane licensing. True native drawn widgets.