Why will the world always need hydrocarbons? Plastics will likely be grown by bacteria. Lubricants can be manufactured in other ways. I doubt hydrocarbons will be a significant part of any industrial or manufacturing chain in a century or two.
I'm sorry your stock portfolio is heavily leveraged towards fossil fuels, but making believe that they'll always be pumping long-chain hydrocarbons out of the ground, or even simpler hydrocarbons like methane, is little more than wishful thinking. I give your portfolio another 20 years before it really begins to nose dive.
I've seen a few people try to recreate it on the web, but they never really get the same feel. The sense of community and of being a member of a club is gone now. But I am proud to have run one back in the day. Because Waffle had a decent UUCP client, I also hosted a few Usenet groups and had my own email subdomain. It was from this that I first received an email from someone in New Zealand around 1990 and got the chill up my spine realizing he'd sent it out just a *few hours* before. I also had a Fidonet feed integrated into it to, and remember hunting down a decent modem with a 16550 UART so I could use OS/2s interrupt-driven communications driver instead of the polling one. Once that was done, the BBS could largely run in the background even while I was playing Windows 3.1 games.
I ran WaffleBBS in a DOS VDM under OS/2 2.1 for a couple of years. It was cool in a modest sort of way, but then I moved over to Linux where it was just a few configuration changes and I could give people shell accounts, all on a 486 with 16mb of RAM and a couple of 200mb hard drives.
IBM didn't have a license for Win32. It did support Win32s, through it's support for Windows 3.1/3.11, but the fully Win32 API wasn't going to happen. The only reason it even ran Windows 3.1 apps was because it retained the licensing agreement with Microsoft. But Win32 was never going to happen.
I remember going to a launch event in Vancouver for Warp 4, where they announced they had developed a set of tools that allowed for easier porting of Win32 programs over to OS/2 (much like Microsoft is trying to do now with tools for pulling over Android and iOS apps), but for the most part I think it was just a set of libraries that replicated the calling conventions of the Win32 API, and I don't recall any great amount of Windows software being ported.
The launch party itself was a joke. My boss was invited because he was an IBM VAR, and he took me along because we'd get two copies of Warp 4. We get there, it's about a dozen people in a conference room, with a TV at the front. Someone turned the TV on, and it was someone talking about the various features, with a run-through of the OS's new features. When it was done, we were each given a CD, and it turned out just to be a CD with a video player that basically ran through the Warp 4 features. Worst of all, it needed Windows to run!
I was given a copy of Warp 4 around 2000, and I got as far as booting the CD before I decided it was pretty pointless.
There were two versions of OS/2 Warp. One came with Windows 3.1 built in, and that version was legendary for the fact that it could run Windows apps faster than a native Windows system (the rumor I heard was that it was because IBM had recompiled Windows 3.1 with the Watcom compiler). The other version, which I owned, was cheaper, but required you have a copy of Windows 3.1, and then OS/2 could use its native DOS support to run Windows apps. You could also run the Windows apps either in the IBM GUI where they would be managed alongside OS/2 windows, or you could run it full screen.
It would be like claiming that open use of the QWERTY keyboard risks destroying the writing of books, because, you know, somehow, free use of QWERTY in some way makes it more likely that people will be able to steal novels.
Which is why it is at the heart of two of the most successful software projects in history; the GNU toolset and the Linux kernel.
In the real world, not the fantasy land you come from, results count, and the result of the GPL is an ecosystem of kernel modules, libraries and applications that is used on hundreds of millions of systems around the world every day.
This, I suspect, is going to form a part of their appeal, a sort of IP version of "what about the children?", except this variant is called "what about the GPL?"
This is about interfaces, not their implementation, and no one is challenging that code can be copyrighted. But I get it, maybe the next judge will be the right kind of fucking moron for Oracle to gain a victory.
The organization I work for has both a web site, and a Facebook page. The actual website does get more hits, but the Facebook page is steadily gaining on it.
Or, to put it another way, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Jesus fucking Christ pal, it's 2016, not 1999.
Which applies to all websites, even Slashdot. Some may opt for more open rules, some for less. If a site is too restrictive for you, then go find one more to your liking.
I'm not obliged to use Facebook. If people want to sell their brains to Mark Zuckerberg, that's their right, but it's hardly a dictatorship in any meaningful use of the word. When we're all forced at gunpoint to use Facebook, then the article may have a point.
I've often thought about it myself. I've monkeyed around with it a few times over the years. And really, it's just a language. Yes, there are is a certain kind of "primitiveness" to it, but then again, even K&R C is a pretty old language. But it strikes me that if the systems work, why spend the astronomical sums rewriting them, and then have to go through the lengthy process of working out the bugs. The one thing about a forty or fifty year old COBOL system, it's been through the ringer a lot of times.
No fucking kidding. As it is they knew where the Egypt Air plane went down within a reasonably tight geographical area, since it was on radar until it plummeted and disappeared.
Which is why it might be a good thing if this ends up in the Supreme Court's hands, because at that point, the argument that an API is open to fair use would gain precedence, and that would be the end of trying to copyright what amounts to a code "phone book".
I guess the only rejoinder to that is making sure the information juries are reviewing is neutral in nature, and in a case like this, that might be harder to obtain.
Still, apart from having to source 8" floppies, it must occupy time realigning drives. I'm assuming there's a lot of 8" drives sitting in closets to be cannibalized.
Since Ayyadurai is making public claims, no, it's not the same, and if there is still a Gawker around to end up in court, Ayyadurai will almost certainly lose.
Well, properly, they are being taken to account for what they did to Hulk Hogan, and the publication of that video is much harder to defend than outing Thiel as a homosexual. The fact is that information gained through questionable, if not outright illegal means, cannot be just universally granted blanket First Amendment protections, and once again courts will be forced to ask "what public good was served by releasing this dubiously-obtained information"?
If this is a blanket First Amendment protection, then revenge porn has essentially been given a complete green light.
Exactly! I think "capriciously" is the operative word here. The entire point of the Revolution was not that the British government didn't have the right to collect taxes (which seems to be the view of the more extreme Libertarians who keep talking about taxation as "theft"), but rather that the British Parliament had no moral right to impose taxes without giving representation to those who were being taxed. The crux of the matter was the British government's refusal to recognize the colonial assemblies as being fully legitimate lawmaking institutions (Britain's view was, in fact, until the Statute of Westminster, that Parliament remained the ultimate legislative authority throughout the British Empire, including its Dominions).
I think that misunderstands what anarchists are. I'd argue that they weren't even Libertarians, and certainly their actions when they became heads of government were not the actions of people who believed the state had virtually no role at all. Quite the opposite, particularly for Madison and Jefferson.
Beyond that, I question the notion that any of them viewed the state as an evil. They certainly viewed the State as capable of evil, but then again, the way the Constitution divvied up powers was largely because they viewed everyone, including the voter, as being capable of evil. That's why the President is selected by an Electoral College, rather than by direct general plebiscite, and why, prior to the 17th Amendment, the only branch of the Federal government that was chosen by direct vote was the House of Representatives.
It is true that Jefferson's ideal state was based, not surprisingly, on a sort of agrarian Libertarianism, and that does have some elements in common with some variants of Anarchism, but that hardly means they were Anarchists, nor does it mean, in my view, that they were Libertarians in the way modern Libertarians would think. Beyond that, the entire point of the US Constitution was because the Articles of Confederation were to weak and left too much undefined, and thus threatened the stability and unity of the United States, and the intention all along was to amend that problem by creating a constitution that created a stronger and more stable Federal government.
Slashdot Mirror
Why will the world always need hydrocarbons? Plastics will likely be grown by bacteria. Lubricants can be manufactured in other ways. I doubt hydrocarbons will be a significant part of any industrial or manufacturing chain in a century or two.
I'm sorry your stock portfolio is heavily leveraged towards fossil fuels, but making believe that they'll always be pumping long-chain hydrocarbons out of the ground, or even simpler hydrocarbons like methane, is little more than wishful thinking. I give your portfolio another 20 years before it really begins to nose dive.
The age of hydrocarbons is drawing to a close.
It's going to take 20-30 years. If you still have signicant investment in fossil fuels in 20 years you will be a moron.
I've seen a few people try to recreate it on the web, but they never really get the same feel. The sense of community and of being a member of a club is gone now. But I am proud to have run one back in the day. Because Waffle had a decent UUCP client, I also hosted a few Usenet groups and had my own email subdomain. It was from this that I first received an email from someone in New Zealand around 1990 and got the chill up my spine realizing he'd sent it out just a *few hours* before. I also had a Fidonet feed integrated into it to, and remember hunting down a decent modem with a 16550 UART so I could use OS/2s interrupt-driven communications driver instead of the polling one. Once that was done, the BBS could largely run in the background even while I was playing Windows 3.1 games.
I ran WaffleBBS in a DOS VDM under OS/2 2.1 for a couple of years. It was cool in a modest sort of way, but then I moved over to Linux where it was just a few configuration changes and I could give people shell accounts, all on a 486 with 16mb of RAM and a couple of 200mb hard drives.
OS/2 2.0 still retained significant 16 bit code, by 2.1 and Warp 3, much of that had been excised, with HPFS being the notable exception.
Why not just run it virtualized? I haven't done it, but I've heard plenty of people run OS/2 under Virtualbox.
IBM didn't have a license for Win32. It did support Win32s, through it's support for Windows 3.1/3.11, but the fully Win32 API wasn't going to happen. The only reason it even ran Windows 3.1 apps was because it retained the licensing agreement with Microsoft. But Win32 was never going to happen.
I remember going to a launch event in Vancouver for Warp 4, where they announced they had developed a set of tools that allowed for easier porting of Win32 programs over to OS/2 (much like Microsoft is trying to do now with tools for pulling over Android and iOS apps), but for the most part I think it was just a set of libraries that replicated the calling conventions of the Win32 API, and I don't recall any great amount of Windows software being ported.
The launch party itself was a joke. My boss was invited because he was an IBM VAR, and he took me along because we'd get two copies of Warp 4. We get there, it's about a dozen people in a conference room, with a TV at the front. Someone turned the TV on, and it was someone talking about the various features, with a run-through of the OS's new features. When it was done, we were each given a CD, and it turned out just to be a CD with a video player that basically ran through the Warp 4 features. Worst of all, it needed Windows to run!
I was given a copy of Warp 4 around 2000, and I got as far as booting the CD before I decided it was pretty pointless.
There were two versions of OS/2 Warp. One came with Windows 3.1 built in, and that version was legendary for the fact that it could run Windows apps faster than a native Windows system (the rumor I heard was that it was because IBM had recompiled Windows 3.1 with the Watcom compiler). The other version, which I owned, was cheaper, but required you have a copy of Windows 3.1, and then OS/2 could use its native DOS support to run Windows apps. You could also run the Windows apps either in the IBM GUI where they would be managed alongside OS/2 windows, or you could run it full screen.
The kernel was 32 bit. The only 16 bit piece left as of OS/2 4 was the HPFS driver.
It would be like claiming that open use of the QWERTY keyboard risks destroying the writing of books, because, you know, somehow, free use of QWERTY in some way makes it more likely that people will be able to steal novels.
Which is why it is at the heart of two of the most successful software projects in history; the GNU toolset and the Linux kernel.
In the real world, not the fantasy land you come from, results count, and the result of the GPL is an ecosystem of kernel modules, libraries and applications that is used on hundreds of millions of systems around the world every day.
This, I suspect, is going to form a part of their appeal, a sort of IP version of "what about the children?", except this variant is called "what about the GPL?"
This is about interfaces, not their implementation, and no one is challenging that code can be copyrighted. But I get it, maybe the next judge will be the right kind of fucking moron for Oracle to gain a victory.
The organization I work for has both a web site, and a Facebook page. The actual website does get more hits, but the Facebook page is steadily gaining on it.
Or, to put it another way, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Jesus fucking Christ pal, it's 2016, not 1999.
Which applies to all websites, even Slashdot. Some may opt for more open rules, some for less. If a site is too restrictive for you, then go find one more to your liking.
I'm not obliged to use Facebook. If people want to sell their brains to Mark Zuckerberg, that's their right, but it's hardly a dictatorship in any meaningful use of the word. When we're all forced at gunpoint to use Facebook, then the article may have a point.
Can anyone explain to me what a "powerful" certificate is?
I've often thought about it myself. I've monkeyed around with it a few times over the years. And really, it's just a language. Yes, there are is a certain kind of "primitiveness" to it, but then again, even K&R C is a pretty old language. But it strikes me that if the systems work, why spend the astronomical sums rewriting them, and then have to go through the lengthy process of working out the bugs. The one thing about a forty or fifty year old COBOL system, it's been through the ringer a lot of times.
No fucking kidding. As it is they knew where the Egypt Air plane went down within a reasonably tight geographical area, since it was on radar until it plummeted and disappeared.
Which is why it might be a good thing if this ends up in the Supreme Court's hands, because at that point, the argument that an API is open to fair use would gain precedence, and that would be the end of trying to copyright what amounts to a code "phone book".
I guess the only rejoinder to that is making sure the information juries are reviewing is neutral in nature, and in a case like this, that might be harder to obtain.
Still, apart from having to source 8" floppies, it must occupy time realigning drives. I'm assuming there's a lot of 8" drives sitting in closets to be cannibalized.
Since Ayyadurai is making public claims, no, it's not the same, and if there is still a Gawker around to end up in court, Ayyadurai will almost certainly lose.
Well, properly, they are being taken to account for what they did to Hulk Hogan, and the publication of that video is much harder to defend than outing Thiel as a homosexual. The fact is that information gained through questionable, if not outright illegal means, cannot be just universally granted blanket First Amendment protections, and once again courts will be forced to ask "what public good was served by releasing this dubiously-obtained information"?
If this is a blanket First Amendment protection, then revenge porn has essentially been given a complete green light.
Exactly! I think "capriciously" is the operative word here. The entire point of the Revolution was not that the British government didn't have the right to collect taxes (which seems to be the view of the more extreme Libertarians who keep talking about taxation as "theft"), but rather that the British Parliament had no moral right to impose taxes without giving representation to those who were being taxed. The crux of the matter was the British government's refusal to recognize the colonial assemblies as being fully legitimate lawmaking institutions (Britain's view was, in fact, until the Statute of Westminster, that Parliament remained the ultimate legislative authority throughout the British Empire, including its Dominions).
I think that misunderstands what anarchists are. I'd argue that they weren't even Libertarians, and certainly their actions when they became heads of government were not the actions of people who believed the state had virtually no role at all. Quite the opposite, particularly for Madison and Jefferson.
Beyond that, I question the notion that any of them viewed the state as an evil. They certainly viewed the State as capable of evil, but then again, the way the Constitution divvied up powers was largely because they viewed everyone, including the voter, as being capable of evil. That's why the President is selected by an Electoral College, rather than by direct general plebiscite, and why, prior to the 17th Amendment, the only branch of the Federal government that was chosen by direct vote was the House of Representatives.
It is true that Jefferson's ideal state was based, not surprisingly, on a sort of agrarian Libertarianism, and that does have some elements in common with some variants of Anarchism, but that hardly means they were Anarchists, nor does it mean, in my view, that they were Libertarians in the way modern Libertarians would think. Beyond that, the entire point of the US Constitution was because the Articles of Confederation were to weak and left too much undefined, and thus threatened the stability and unity of the United States, and the intention all along was to amend that problem by creating a constitution that created a stronger and more stable Federal government.