Try to keep in mind to say hello to me next time, or I'll literally take a sword to cut your head off. You should take responsibility for your own choices in deciding to be impolite.
God fucking damn it. You've made the funniest situational comment I've seen on slashdot this year. You made me explode a mist of orange juice that was dripping from my screen until a short while ago.
I actually attended a semester of 'problems and challenges of nuclear engineering from a physics and economy viewpoint', but pray tell me that my university physics professor is somehow paid advertising.
Drumroll...in an economy made of people, things are paid by people! Whoa, who would have thought!
So, pray tell me, what would you rather spend your money on than improving your environment and creating a sustainable future through R&D? Profit for oil companies or driving a SUV instead of a fuel efficient car? Hell, you'd be forced to make different decisions based on the new petrol price that factors into the environmental impact and maybe even switch to non-polluting alternative sources!
Sorry, you do not pass the reading comprehension test. The emphasis is on _promising_ ahead of 20+ years. I would have no problem with him saying "my goal is to move the energy policy towards nuclear in my presidential term(s) if elected (and reelected), so in the next 4 (8) years, I'll start the planning operations for 45 new nuclear power plants, provide federal funds for it, establish a timetable, locations, oversight and people responsible for this national project. By the end of my first/second term, I'll be able to say to you that we've started constructing on 30 out of 45 plants, and work is well under way. If all goes well, the first power plant will be online 10 years from now and 45 should be done by 2030 if the leadership of the USA stays the course."
See the difference between this and "I want 45 nuclear power plants built by 2030" ?
To sum it up: I want the USA to have +45 modern nuclear power plants by 2030, but I want the presidential candidates to tell what they'll do about it in their own term.
I have to agree that your argument sounds compelling at face value, but then again I'm reminded that when used in the context of broadband penetration, it holds up similarly well. This explains why tightly packed countries like Sweden have such a good telecommunications infrastructure, while the sparsely populated USA doesn't. (sarcasm)
Sidenote: I hate when people talk about "the economy". It doesn't exist, as in you can't interpret it as a whole, especially saying that something would "hurt the economy". In a lot of cases referring to that is an excuse made up by the business sector because they're not willing to adapt (which doesn't necessarily mean they would suffer, but that they'd have to change the way they do things).
With careful planning, things can be done. Taxing fuel might mean the end of suburbia, but I don't think people would miss it. Public space engineers certainly won't. Living locally would help the mental state of the USA a lot by the way. Communities and public spaces worth caring about ties into this. Returning to planning though, this would need to be done in multiple stages, with incentives for public transport, fuel efficiency and things like that. Done the right way it will be a net benefit even from a business perspective, even without the environmental impact.
The problem is that governments rarely do large scale projects well. The exception is the french.
1. I never said anything about this being a bad idea. Just that it's typical of politicians. This way he can put billions into nuclear power, have the corporations steal the money and not have to be accountable for the delays and increased costs.
2. The stupid two party system mentality is killing the USA.
The world seriously needs to loosen it's oil dependency. There aren't that many oil fields that are easily extractable anyway. There is tons of shale of course, but it's not nearly as energy efficient as oil used to be. Compared to that non-fossil fuels are more cost effective.
We need to factor the environmental impact into the price. Let's tax pollutants heavily and spend the income on energy efficiency research, energy source research, pollution cleanup and research. I'm thinking fuel prices like in Europe (so around double of the current US price), but the tax content spent like above.
McCain is ancient and he'll be dead in a few years
on
McCain Backs Nuclear Power
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Seriously, one of the more classic political tricks is to promise something way ahead in time, something that would have to be achieved by someone other than you.
It is just more obvious because of McCain's age. Don't get me wrong, nuclear is currently the safest, greenest option that is economically viable, but promising things 20+ years into the future is pretty bad.
There was (still is?) a high profile case in Hungary, because 5 police officers raped a girl last year. This has led to a major, major scandal, which resulted in the police chief of Budapest being fired and other police officials getting sacked. The police officers weren't convicted for raping the girl, however, because generally the police is covering up crimes perpetrated by their fellow officers. Interesting things like a two weeks delay between the victim reporting the incident and the start of investigation, among other things, helped the perpetrators to get rid of DNA evidence, wipe their patrol car clean and so on. The police officers remained on duty until weeks later, then arrested, tried and found not guilty. They were later found guilty (by their superiors) of leaving their post (as proven by cell tower information) and were given an unusually harsh sentence for that (demotion).
I've got reminded of this case because the defense lawyer of the police officers called the rape victim a whore. He's gotten widely condemned for it and the hungarian lawyer's bar launched an ethical proceeding about it.
It looks as if though you're looking at wine and expect everything to just work, with no effort or expense on your part. The reality is that wine is a compatibility tool or a tool of interoperability. It isn't a 100% solution. If your whole infrastructure is built around windows systems and applications which generally use the API in less than mainstream ways, then by all means, stay on windows. Noone said that you'll be completely let off the hook for choosing a piss poor operating system in the first place. No, that's your shit. All wine is supposed to do is that if you compile against wine, you'll be able to run your program on windows and linux too, apart from providing a tool that can run windows applications in most cases, for free. If you need more than that, then pay for it.
You're acting like moving from windows to linux under wine would be the endgame. It isn't. It is the first step of a migration. Yes, migration costs, but not having an intermediate point between windows applications and linux applications would cost more.
I'm not seeing the problem here. They are not required to give a damn if you're not paying them anything. Paid wine support/services exists from multiple companies, who do give a damn to your specific application level concerns.
Your broad statements that would require substantial experience with Wine to be taken as credible are undermined by the fact that some of your statements seem to signal serious unfamiliarity with it. I'm not exactly sure why you're spreading FUD, but you do.
Oh jeez, wine took 15 years to get to 1.0 and you're complaining that they only did so just because they wanted to increment the version number?
By these standards I would expect you to still talk about TCO even if Wine would make it possible that your computer would be shitting five pound golden bricks every ten minutes.
Wine is a reimplementation of the windows API. It is not an emulator. An emulator is a simulation of another program or hardware. If WINE is an emulator then SAMBA is one, too (the point being, they aren't emulators).
I've been following the Net Neutrality mailing list quite closely since it's creation. You've been a prominent poster on the list, who argues from the position of a small ISP. That doesn't make your opinion more correct or valid.
Numerous people have tried to convince you about the fallacies of your position, so I will humbly suggest that your ISPs bottom line problems might be precisely due to you and your ISP not understanding these issues.
I'm sorry, but I cannot endorse any of the positions you take (which are documented thoroughly in the nnsquad archive), namely that bandwidth overselling is the only way ISPs can stay alive and that justifies QoS and blocking P2P, that RST packets from an ISP are not forgery, etc. In fact, I consider you to be part of the problem, while ISPs keep having these opinions, we need legislation to provide fairness for internet users against ISPs. It's long overdue. Mail and television receives much more legal protection, but they are not even tenth as important to me as a correctly working internet access.
I think it is a good time to reply here and link to the paper that prompted me to write the OP in this thread. I think there was even a slashdot story about it.
Because pretty much every isp is part of a vertical monopoly and QoS provides a convenient excuse to leverage their monopoly in one market to push their product in another.
It is very hard for a man to understand something when his political appointment to his current position depended on him not understanding certain things -- to paraphrase the old quote (probably from Mark Twain?)
Slashdot Mirror
Try to keep in mind to say hello to me next time, or I'll literally take a sword to cut your head off. You should take responsibility for your own choices in deciding to be impolite.
God fucking damn it. You've made the funniest situational comment I've seen on slashdot this year. You made me explode a mist of orange juice that was dripping from my screen until a short while ago.
I actually attended a semester of 'problems and challenges of nuclear engineering from a physics and economy viewpoint', but pray tell me that my university physics professor is somehow paid advertising.
Drumroll...in an economy made of people, things are paid by people! Whoa, who would have thought!
So, pray tell me, what would you rather spend your money on than improving your environment and creating a sustainable future through R&D? Profit for oil companies or driving a SUV instead of a fuel efficient car? Hell, you'd be forced to make different decisions based on the new petrol price that factors into the environmental impact and maybe even switch to non-polluting alternative sources!
Sorry, you do not pass the reading comprehension test. The emphasis is on _promising_ ahead of 20+ years. I would have no problem with him saying "my goal is to move the energy policy towards nuclear in my presidential term(s) if elected (and reelected), so in the next 4 (8) years, I'll start the planning operations for 45 new nuclear power plants, provide federal funds for it, establish a timetable, locations, oversight and people responsible for this national project. By the end of my first/second term, I'll be able to say to you that we've started constructing on 30 out of 45 plants, and work is well under way. If all goes well, the first power plant will be online 10 years from now and 45 should be done by 2030 if the leadership of the USA stays the course."
See the difference between this and "I want 45 nuclear power plants built by 2030" ?
To sum it up: I want the USA to have +45 modern nuclear power plants by 2030, but I want the presidential candidates to tell what they'll do about it in their own term.
I have to agree that your argument sounds compelling at face value, but then again I'm reminded that when used in the context of broadband penetration, it holds up similarly well. This explains why tightly packed countries like Sweden have such a good telecommunications infrastructure, while the sparsely populated USA doesn't. (sarcasm)
Sidenote: I hate when people talk about "the economy". It doesn't exist, as in you can't interpret it as a whole, especially saying that something would "hurt the economy". In a lot of cases referring to that is an excuse made up by the business sector because they're not willing to adapt (which doesn't necessarily mean they would suffer, but that they'd have to change the way they do things).
With careful planning, things can be done. Taxing fuel might mean the end of suburbia, but I don't think people would miss it. Public space engineers certainly won't. Living locally would help the mental state of the USA a lot by the way. Communities and public spaces worth caring about ties into this. Returning to planning though, this would need to be done in multiple stages, with incentives for public transport, fuel efficiency and things like that. Done the right way it will be a net benefit even from a business perspective, even without the environmental impact.
The problem is that governments rarely do large scale projects well. The exception is the french.
Strawman positions make great target practice for the young slashdotters to defeat.
1. I never said anything about this being a bad idea. Just that it's typical of politicians. This way he can put billions into nuclear power, have the corporations steal the money and not have to be accountable for the delays and increased costs.
2. The stupid two party system mentality is killing the USA.
The world seriously needs to loosen it's oil dependency. There aren't that many oil fields that are easily extractable anyway. There is tons of shale of course, but it's not nearly as energy efficient as oil used to be. Compared to that non-fossil fuels are more cost effective.
We need to factor the environmental impact into the price. Let's tax pollutants heavily and spend the income on energy efficiency research, energy source research, pollution cleanup and research. I'm thinking fuel prices like in Europe (so around double of the current US price), but the tax content spent like above.
Seriously, one of the more classic political tricks is to promise something way ahead in time, something that would have to be achieved by someone other than you.
It is just more obvious because of McCain's age. Don't get me wrong, nuclear is currently the safest, greenest option that is economically viable, but promising things 20+ years into the future is pretty bad.
You're thinking of Perlgolf.
Just look around. Sysadmins = slashdot people. Do you see anyone here who knows who Tiger Woods is, nonetheless when he'll play? Exactly.
There was (still is?) a high profile case in Hungary, because 5 police officers raped a girl last year. This has led to a major, major scandal, which resulted in the police chief of Budapest being fired and other police officials getting sacked. The police officers weren't convicted for raping the girl, however, because generally the police is covering up crimes perpetrated by their fellow officers. Interesting things like a two weeks delay between the victim reporting the incident and the start of investigation, among other things, helped the perpetrators to get rid of DNA evidence, wipe their patrol car clean and so on. The police officers remained on duty until weeks later, then arrested, tried and found not guilty. They were later found guilty (by their superiors) of leaving their post (as proven by cell tower information) and were given an unusually harsh sentence for that (demotion).
I've got reminded of this case because the defense lawyer of the police officers called the rape victim a whore. He's gotten widely condemned for it and the hungarian lawyer's bar launched an ethical proceeding about it.
DRM drives a honest man to not liking DRM. Those who use software against the wishes of the content creator are rewarded with superior quality.
It looks as if though you're looking at wine and expect everything to just work, with no effort or expense on your part. The reality is that wine is a compatibility tool or a tool of interoperability. It isn't a 100% solution. If your whole infrastructure is built around windows systems and applications which generally use the API in less than mainstream ways, then by all means, stay on windows. Noone said that you'll be completely let off the hook for choosing a piss poor operating system in the first place. No, that's your shit. All wine is supposed to do is that if you compile against wine, you'll be able to run your program on windows and linux too, apart from providing a tool that can run windows applications in most cases, for free. If you need more than that, then pay for it.
You're acting like moving from windows to linux under wine would be the endgame. It isn't. It is the first step of a migration. Yes, migration costs, but not having an intermediate point between windows applications and linux applications would cost more.
I'm not seeing the problem here. They are not required to give a damn if you're not paying them anything. Paid wine support/services exists from multiple companies, who do give a damn to your specific application level concerns.
Your broad statements that would require substantial experience with Wine to be taken as credible are undermined by the fact that some of your statements seem to signal serious unfamiliarity with it. I'm not exactly sure why you're spreading FUD, but you do.
You're mostly americans in the same sense as this planet is "mostly" harmless.
Oh jeez, wine took 15 years to get to 1.0 and you're complaining that they only did so just because they wanted to increment the version number?
By these standards I would expect you to still talk about TCO even if Wine would make it possible that your computer would be shitting five pound golden bricks every ten minutes.
Wine is a reimplementation of the windows API. It is not an emulator. An emulator is a simulation of another program or hardware. If WINE is an emulator then SAMBA is one, too (the point being, they aren't emulators).
I've been following the Net Neutrality mailing list quite closely since it's creation. You've been a prominent poster on the list, who argues from the position of a small ISP. That doesn't make your opinion more correct or valid.
Numerous people have tried to convince you about the fallacies of your position, so I will humbly suggest that your ISPs bottom line problems might be precisely due to you and your ISP not understanding these issues.
I'm sorry, but I cannot endorse any of the positions you take (which are documented thoroughly in the nnsquad archive), namely that bandwidth overselling is the only way ISPs can stay alive and that justifies QoS and blocking P2P, that RST packets from an ISP are not forgery, etc. In fact, I consider you to be part of the problem, while ISPs keep having these opinions, we need legislation to provide fairness for internet users against ISPs. It's long overdue. Mail and television receives much more legal protection, but they are not even tenth as important to me as a correctly working internet access.
I think it is a good time to reply here and link to the paper that prompted me to write the OP in this thread. I think there was even a slashdot story about it.
Because pretty much every isp is part of a vertical monopoly and QoS provides a convenient excuse to leverage their monopoly in one market to push their product in another.
...or some such. Because those don't work on the scale of an ISP. It's simply much cheaper to add more bandwidth than try to manage things with QoS.
...with DRM. Nokia is just another company in the long line of companies that have to learn this or die.
It is very hard for a man to understand something when his political appointment to his current position depended on him not understanding certain things -- to paraphrase the old quote (probably from Mark Twain?)