I work in the industry. My work is pretty far removed from this particular question, but I'm pretty sure that STBs are seen as part of the cost of doing business, not a profitable part of the business.
I think they want to own the box for a few reasons. First, they want as much control over the CA as possible. Second, there's always concern (justified or no) about having third party hardware on any private network. Additionally, they want to control the software so they can change the experience in a controlled way.
That is a valid concern, but you don't propose an alternative. If reducing consumption was going to save us it would have started improving things by now. So we're left with supply.
As far as I can tell, plants are the only practical, sustainable way to extract the solar energy we need. Planting inedible plants would make the problems you cite worse, since it would decrease the flexibility of the market. (Specifically, "fuel" crops couldn't be used to feed people in the short term if there was a food crop failure.)
The answer "solar cells", in this case, would be the logical inverse of, "Let them eat cake."
There are a lot of up-sides to plant-based fuel. It forms a closed carbon cycle. It can be produced near where people live. It creates local work everywhere. It's sustainable.
I'm not sure if you're implying that Scientists make up mysteries. Surely this happens, but I don't believe it is prevalent. I think that wonder at the natural world is a common trait among Scientists, and that they largely wouldn't see the point in making stuff up, since there are so many clear, real, and important questions out there.
I also think there is an imortant distinction between all the other "leaders" you name and Scientists; Scientist just want to figure out what is, where the others want to tell you what to do about it.
Guilty. Hope you don't think that has anything to do with the validity of my argument.
You just made his point by highlighting the difference between linux the kernel and KDE/Gnome/whatever else the GUI. There is no unifying vision for Linux (or whatever you technically want to call it) from low level kernel all the way up to the GUI.
I did no such thing.
Why on Earth do you think there needs to be some "unifying vision"? It's a modular system on purpose. Compare to OS X. In my opinion it's the slickest OS ever. Do you sincerely believe that some Darwin hacker gives two shits about Coco implementation details?
Even if we stipulate this absurd position, any vendor that uses Linux as their kernel may make any and all changes necessary to bring the kernel in line with their "vision" of a complete system. Be it Ubuntu or TiVo.
There absolutely is no "Linux OS". There are many Linux-based OSes, usually called "Linux distributions". Sensible people abbreviate that to "distro". Insensible people abbreviate that to "Linux".
Richard Stallman tried to get people to call it "GNU/Linux", because he felt his contribution was more than that of everyone else that's contributed to the Linux OS. But in the end, almost everyone calls it by the name it was originally given by its creator: Linux.
Linux's UI is based on MIT's X-Windows (why not "MIT/Linux"?)
Wow. First, Linux did get it's name from its creator. But I defy you to show me where he claimed to have created an OS.
Secondly, why did you feel the need to pull RMS into this? I don't recall having used the term "GNU/Linux" in this discussion, and I certainly didn't suggest that anyone else should. If you want to call systems based on a Linux kernel and X "MIT/Linux", be my guest. I'll know precisely what you mean. (Incidentally, I'd suggest that most Linux-based systems don't include X.) My point is that calling anything with a Linux kernel "Linux" is the opposite of communication.
You still aren't reading me. A framebuffer is no more a UI than a mouse ball or X (sans window manager). A framebuffer is a service that might support a UI, but it certainly isn't a UI.
I am thinking that his love for writing low level code is something of a failure of what will allow Linux to come into the mainstream.
And that is, getting the GUI perfected[. ..]
Linux doesn't have a GUI, dude. You should read about Linux more, and write about it less.
Linus is the creator of, and remains deeply involved with the development of the Linux operating system kernel. "The GUI" isn't his concern. (Though providing the underlying services to support it is.)
Also, I don't think Linus much cares about Linux being "mainstream". He just wants it to be the best!
That's the thing about Science. Figuring out that you don't understand something is considered an important part of progress. In those other disciplines it's the ultimate failure.
The Space Shuttles used core memory until 1990. It's an awesome technology. Solid state and persistent. (And I dig how . . . physical it is. You can see how it works!)
I actually have a shitload of rules about approaching women for just this reason. (And probably because I want to avoid it, due to anxiety.) For example, I won't hit on a woman at her place of employment.
If I had a woman's phone number or email address for a non-dating related reason I would not use it to pursue her in that way. I think it is very much the same.
And I think there is a tacit opt-in to being hit on or asked out by being in certain social situations. Being at a party without a date is opting in for being hit on.
There is an opt-out list. Wear a ring on your left ring finger. (And like all opt-out lists, the most scummy will ignore it!)
Take, for example TV or a magazine. There's an implicit contract. The TV station or the magazine publisher uses advertising revenue to subsidize the cost of the product. I know this going in, and tacitly consent to this arrangement. Or don't.
I have email for personal and/or business purposes. (This applies equally to telephone.) I don't approve of anyone subverting my means of communication to sell me something. No matter how much they think I'll benefit from it. Ever.
When I read a magazine I agree to spending some of the time being exposed to ads. I don't agree to have to weed through my inbox to get to my actual messages.
I've been saying for years that plain soap is good enough, and that it's bad for us as a species to use anti-bacterial soap. I have "body wash" in my soap dispenser in the bathroom, because all the "hand soap" is anti-bacterial these days.
Just goes to show that even an uninformed, loud-mouthed, opinionated jerk is right sometimes.
That's a pretty good answer. (And I certainly read replies by ACs.)
Here's a very interesting reply I received from an AC. Trouble is it's impossible to tell if subsequent replies are from the same AC, which, in turn, makes conversation impossible.
Interestingly, someone else replied. I'd summarize that reply as, "Your post is interesting and worthwhile, you should take the trouble to log in."
Anyway, it's my policy, and you aren't required to like it;-)
I understand that this is a legitimate recall. That said, if your phone is burning your legs while it's charging I'm pretty sure you're using it wrong.
Ever since I installed a satellite radio receiver in my car, my musical horizons have broadened significantly. A lot of the artists I hear on some of the more obscure channels aren't indexed on iTunes or even available on illegal services like Limewire. This mostly applies to older music that is out of print, or never made it to CD.
Huh? Some guy is spinning vinyl into a ADC for (digital) satellite uplink? That doesn't sound plausible.
I happen to know that Echostar's "CD channels" are actually fed by CD changing robots. I suspect this is the norm.
Did it really not occur to you that by being a smug, self-righteous, arrogant prick in your response you were validating his point of view? Or was that what you were trying to do?
Slashdot Mirror
I work in the industry. My work is pretty far removed from this particular question, but I'm pretty sure that STBs are seen as part of the cost of doing business, not a profitable part of the business.
I think they want to own the box for a few reasons. First, they want as much control over the CA as possible. Second, there's always concern (justified or no) about having third party hardware on any private network. Additionally, they want to control the software so they can change the experience in a controlled way.
-Peter
You're in luck! I assure you that you can!
-Peter
That is a valid concern, but you don't propose an alternative. If reducing consumption was going to save us it would have started improving things by now. So we're left with supply.
As far as I can tell, plants are the only practical, sustainable way to extract the solar energy we need. Planting inedible plants would make the problems you cite worse, since it would decrease the flexibility of the market. (Specifically, "fuel" crops couldn't be used to feed people in the short term if there was a food crop failure.)
The answer "solar cells", in this case, would be the logical inverse of, "Let them eat cake."
There are a lot of up-sides to plant-based fuel. It forms a closed carbon cycle. It can be produced near where people live. It creates local work everywhere. It's sustainable.
-Peter
I'm not sure if you're implying that Scientists make up mysteries. Surely this happens, but I don't believe it is prevalent. I think that wonder at the natural world is a common trait among Scientists, and that they largely wouldn't see the point in making stuff up, since there are so many clear, real, and important questions out there.
I also think there is an imortant distinction between all the other "leaders" you name and Scientists; Scientist just want to figure out what is, where the others want to tell you what to do about it.
-Peter
Guilty. Hope you don't think that has anything to do with the validity of my argument.
I did no such thing.
Why on Earth do you think there needs to be some "unifying vision"? It's a modular system on purpose. Compare to OS X. In my opinion it's the slickest OS ever. Do you sincerely believe that some Darwin hacker gives two shits about Coco implementation details?
Even if we stipulate this absurd position, any vendor that uses Linux as their kernel may make any and all changes necessary to bring the kernel in line with their "vision" of a complete system. Be it Ubuntu or TiVo.
-Peter
There absolutely is no "Linux OS". There are many Linux-based OSes, usually called "Linux distributions". Sensible people abbreviate that to "distro". Insensible people abbreviate that to "Linux".
Wow. First, Linux did get it's name from its creator. But I defy you to show me where he claimed to have created an OS.
Secondly, why did you feel the need to pull RMS into this? I don't recall having used the term "GNU/Linux" in this discussion, and I certainly didn't suggest that anyone else should. If you want to call systems based on a Linux kernel and X "MIT/Linux", be my guest. I'll know precisely what you mean. (Incidentally, I'd suggest that most Linux-based systems don't include X.) My point is that calling anything with a Linux kernel "Linux" is the opposite of communication.
-Peter
You still aren't reading me. A framebuffer is no more a UI than a mouse ball or X (sans window manager). A framebuffer is a service that might support a UI, but it certainly isn't a UI.
-Peter
Huh? Are you saying that a framebuffer is a UI?
-Peter
Linux doesn't have a GUI, dude. You should read about Linux more, and write about it less.
Linus is the creator of, and remains deeply involved with the development of the Linux operating system kernel. "The GUI" isn't his concern. (Though providing the underlying services to support it is.)
Also, I don't think Linus much cares about Linux being "mainstream". He just wants it to be the best!
-Peter
That's the thing about Science. Figuring out that you don't understand something is considered an important part of progress. In those other disciplines it's the ultimate failure.
-Peter
The Space Shuttles used core memory until 1990. It's an awesome technology. Solid state and persistent. (And I dig how . . . physical it is. You can see how it works!)
-Peter
He looks suspiciously like Butt-Head.
-Peter
I actually have a shitload of rules about approaching women for just this reason. (And probably because I want to avoid it, due to anxiety.) For example, I won't hit on a woman at her place of employment.
If I had a woman's phone number or email address for a non-dating related reason I would not use it to pursue her in that way. I think it is very much the same.
And I think there is a tacit opt-in to being hit on or asked out by being in certain social situations. Being at a party without a date is opting in for being hit on.
There is an opt-out list. Wear a ring on your left ring finger. (And like all opt-out lists, the most scummy will ignore it!)
-Peter
You weren't addressing me, but I'll chime in.
Take, for example TV or a magazine. There's an implicit contract. The TV station or the magazine publisher uses advertising revenue to subsidize the cost of the product. I know this going in, and tacitly consent to this arrangement. Or don't.
I have email for personal and/or business purposes. (This applies equally to telephone.) I don't approve of anyone subverting my means of communication to sell me something. No matter how much they think I'll benefit from it. Ever.
When I read a magazine I agree to spending some of the time being exposed to ads. I don't agree to have to weed through my inbox to get to my actual messages.
-Peter
I don't open with that.
If you consider Slashdot to be my peers I do very well, given my affinity (or even simple familiarity) with soap.
Thanks for your concern all the same.
-Peter
Either you get it perfectly, or you don't realize that I'm in on the joke.
-Peter
I've been saying for years that plain soap is good enough, and that it's bad for us as a species to use anti-bacterial soap. I have "body wash" in my soap dispenser in the bathroom, because all the "hand soap" is anti-bacterial these days.
Just goes to show that even an uninformed, loud-mouthed, opinionated jerk is right sometimes.
-Peter
For those who don't care to read the fine article, Verizon's official position is, "Our bad, but no smoke, and no fire."
I'm serious, that's a quote.
-Peter
That's a pretty good answer. (And I certainly read replies by ACs.)
;-)
Here's a very interesting reply I received from an AC. Trouble is it's impossible to tell if subsequent replies are from the same AC, which, in turn, makes conversation impossible.
Interestingly, someone else replied. I'd summarize that reply as, "Your post is interesting and worthwhile, you should take the trouble to log in."
Anyway, it's my policy, and you aren't required to like it
-Peter
I understand that this is a legitimate recall. That said, if your phone is burning your legs while it's charging I'm pretty sure you're using it wrong.
-Peter
I can see it now, "Deuce Bigelow: Extraterrestrial Gigolo".
*shudder*
-Peter
When do we get the Slashdot story about color radar?
-Peter
Huh? Some guy is spinning vinyl into a ADC for (digital) satellite uplink? That doesn't sound plausible.
I happen to know that Echostar's "CD channels" are actually fed by CD changing robots. I suspect this is the norm.
-Peter
Nicely done!
-Peter
Did it really not occur to you that by being a smug, self-righteous, arrogant prick in your response you were validating his point of view? Or was that what you were trying to do?
-Peter