Let's get some facts straight. CFC 114 is not "used for enrichment," it is used as a coolant like any other CFC. There is no technical reason that another, less ozone toxic chemical or method could not be used.
Irrelavent. CFC114 is used in the process, whether it is used to cool the beers of the technicians or comes in direct contact with the element. The FACT is CFC114 is used.
Furthermore, the primary reason coolant usage is... producing U-235 through such an outdated method.
Again, irrelevant. Whatever the reasons, Paducah is still in operation enriching uranium leaking CFC114.
By the way, if modern nuclear power plants could get approval to be built, there would be less need for enrichment in the first place.
All modern pre-approved reactor designs are once through cycle, for example the Westinghouse AP-1000. Politically conditions are extremely favourable for Nuclear reactors to be built. Regulatory framework has been discarded (in the guise of the 2005 Energy act).
However, modern designs only require an initial source of enriched material and then can be fed U-238. They accomplish this through extensive reprocessing of nuclear waste and breeding new fissionable material. The end result is an extremely efficient system (uses 99.5% of the energy in uranium as opposed to a LWR which uses 1%) that produces very little waste.
Uses U-238 !?!?!? Are you sure you don't mean Pu-239? Because I think you are talking about a IFR - which needs significant advances in material technology to be viable. Send a link if you really mean a viable commercial reactor that can use U-238.
Industrial emissions amount to a small percent of the total amount of CFCs released per year. the reason for the CFC emissions being so high for industrial use is that the USEC plant is very old...In other words, stop trying to make it sounds like nuclear fuel enrichment is single-handedly causing the destruction of the ozone layer which is going to kill us all.
Compared to what, domestic emissions? old fridges on rubbish tips? More irrelevance, the plant is in operation - no other enrichment facilities are available. CFC114, a greenhouse gas 20,000 times more potent than C02 is leaking from Paducah at 1 million pounds, thats 453,592.27 kilgrams PER YEAR since the bans began. That is 8 618 255.03 kilograms *since* CFC114 was banned. That's the equivalent of 172,365,100,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide from the enrichment process alone and does not include the 1 Gigawatt of coal fired power used to run Paducah. What part of 'Paducah is still in operation' do you not understand?
It's always, always the same thing. Nuclear advocates can't take responsibility for the externalities of the nuclear industry, instead 'it's those greenies fault for not letting us build something else'. Build a geologically stable waste dump first and then maybe we can move on from there.
As for the bit about the algae, there is not a lot of evidence to support your assertion.
Well a quick google seach produced this straight away
Ah yes, Global warming, as brought to you by the hippy peaceniks who campaigned against clean nuclear energy.
CFC 114 is still used for enrichment and is 20,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Up to 1 million pounds of CFC114 leak into the atmosphere per year (from the U.S alone) since the inception of the Montreal protocol, banning CFC's, in 1995.
The news gets better, CFC 114 attacks the ozone layer which protects that algae that makes THE OXYGEN WE BREATHE. Radioactive elements aside - CFC's released into the environment by the enrichment process are the number 1 cause of industrial CFC emissions in the U.S.
Way to go guys...
Instead of being so patronising, you should investigate the scientific, medical, engineering, legal, political and social reasons for opposition to nuclear power and you will find some substantial arguments why nuclear power is not practical at our current level of technology.
Why don't they trample over those landing sites first. I mean it's not as if there is any reason to fuck up what is essentially a preserved historical site from any interference. Nothing is going to convince the 'fake moon landing crowd' anyway.
Future historians anybody? or have we abandoned al hope of ever becoming a space faring race.
thats pretty much why the _vast_ majority of australians dont want guns in our society - there simply isnt a need,
And the vast majority of Australians are so apathetic that they don't recognise *why* there is a need. The series of laws that were passed after Port Arthur and justified as useful for the 2000 Olympics have yet to be sunsetted. As they are no longer neccessary is an extremely unsettling development considering Australia does not have a bill of rights like UK or US citizens but, 'she'll be right mate'(???).
That's why I credit the designers of the American constitution, they knew that the constitution was flawed enough let it slip into despotism, that's why Americans are armed. At the same time the rampant stupidity that is allowed with American weapons laws is the reason it needs some regulation and review.
funnily, the more an individual wants guns the less stable they come across - furthering the argument against them having said weapon(s).
So did you write to a politician protesting any of the terrorism laws that were passed? I actually think Australians would be better off with a few more weapons because our laws were very pragmatic about the way firearms licences were issued and, therefore, who could own a firearm. I don't recall the massacres that occured in Australia were conducted with 'legal' firearms, and Port Arthur has some uncomfortable facts connected to it. So considering that the illegal firearms used in those terrible events were a policing issue not a licencing issue, the premise of deregistering firearms owners in Australia was a political issue.
Of course, once you learn how to handle firearms you respect them, and are very careful with the grave responsibility you posess. It's the extreme of any safety based culture that you find in industry.
as for the 'sport' of it - i've always thought it a stretch at best to call it that - how much of a sweat do you work up pulling a trigger?
Hunting is a skill that goes beyond shooting a target and being a sport.
The ecology of firearms in Australia is the protection of native species. Humans introduced foxes, feral cats and dogs, pigs, goats, buffallo, camels, horses and rabbits that decimate the native population of animals, well over 500,000 species. Yellow tailed rock wallabys (a small, and very cute version of a kangaroo) don't stand a chance against a 60kg feral cat that some careless individual decided to irresponsibly dump in the bush once upon a time.
So it's also stewardship of this continent to protect native species by balancing out the damage humans have done by introducing those species in the first place.
If a farmer has to kill the animals he raised because they were severely burnt in a bushfire a firearm is the most merciful way possible. Below a certain calibre of weapon you are just prolonging the suffering, for the farmer as well. All of that takes skill.
I doubt that events now unfolding in the congo would be the same if thier population was armed. Firearms, owned, maintained and used responsibly with the proper training represent more than just a hunters weapon or a farmers tool. It also represents a long forgotten aspect of the civil rights movement that was maginalised by the 'shooters party' clumsy attempt to retain ownership of thier firearms in Australia.
An armed population is a symbolic counterpoint to a government becoming a dictatorship. It also says that government should fear law abiding citizens, not the other way around.
No, a US states citizens would be protected by the bill of rights.
Exactly, something that seems lost on a lot of Australians when the Anti-Terrorism laws, and laws to remove liability from Australian Soldiers shooting Australian citizens in protests were passed. Australian law has decended to that of a sleazy dictatorship without the dictator. However, the stage is set...
Howard would have done anything to stop that, you don't think he was a 2nd amendment fan do you?
IMINT is great for watching big things: ships, submarines, tanks, airplanes, big crowds of people. It's not so good for monitoring individual people, unless you're really, really good at interpreting the identity of a person from a pixel or two.
Well if you have the specifications of the craft, why don't you share them with us all? The reality here is no-one here knows the capability of this piece of kit, but for 634 billion I would hazard guess that the capabilities are substantial.
The other thing is there are multiple satellites so I would also guess that they are using some sort of method to combine the output of them to enhance the results.
I'll say it also, satellite imagery isn't all it's made out to be. It ain't that great.
Then why have it? It is built for surveillance or why would you have it. Obviously it doesn't have to be that great to be useful and is meant to be used with other apparatus (that doesn't exist in Iraq) to achieve it's goals. Saying this is a means to justify feeling comfortable living in a police state and maintain the illusion of freedom. It doesn't matter what it can or can't do, what matters is what it is for.
Benjamin Franklin said that the constitution (for all it's flaws) wouldn't save America from despotism, and as the mechanism's have been put in place incrementally, we see he was right.
Given that my first interaction with a keyboard was on a new Commodore PET, there's a strong possibility I've been doing this longer than many of the people in this thread have been alive.
Mine was a TRS-80 model 1, I think we are about the same in that pissing contest.
1) The games I play, play in Windows. I have no inclination to fumble-fuck around with emulators or what have you trying to get MS Flight Simulator 2004 or STALKER or Team Fortress 2 running on Linux, not sure it's even possible.
Anything that does not come from microsoft I'd try under wine. I have a stack of games working under wine now. M$ own the roost when it comes to their API - if they want to make up some obscure API call for a game that will make it difficult to work under wine, they can. I'm dumbfounded at how hard it is to get a program like MS-Project to work under wine - it's not exactly testing the boundaries of GPU performance - but it's difficult to get working.
I went through *exactly* the thought process you did, but eventually prevailed. With fonts and movie playing functionality is clearly being dictated to by distribution restrictions. I got around the fonts by saving them in my local home directory so I didn't have to fuck around on the next install.
That said, I really think you should be using gnome instead of KDE. But if you are a software engineer you already know that there is going to be some mental effort required on your part. Normal users don't so I understand where you are coming from, normal users are mentally lazy and don't want to re-invest mental effort in a new computing platform.
But when you consider that Linux is not purchased, normal users are not part of the first class citizens of the internet so I'm happy if Linux works *for me*. Elitist? Sure but people don't want to understand that patent issues, API obscurity and legalities make movies fonts and games hard to use on Linux and that fundamental design flaws subject them to viruses - that's the status quo at the moment. As for Linux on the desktop - if you are not smart enough to use it - you won't get the benefits - not my fault it's just the way it is. I don't want to be selfish, I want to share but nothing short of a wad of dynamite is going to dislodge some people from their complacency and I have limited energy.
To give you an example, a collegue of mine (a microsofty typa guy) recently asked me about my experiences with mythtv. I told him it's great blah blah blah. Then he asked me if I thought it was ready for him to install and use, I said "no", he asked if I would help him and I said "no - I don't really have time" but try this mythbuntu or mythdora install. I said this because I didn't want to listen to his inevitable complaints about *whatever*. He choose to have a go but didn't want to make a fraction of the mental effort that the many contributors had bringing him such great software *at no charge*.
I'm not saying this is you, but despite being given freedom and all this great software for no cost other than problem solving issues by google he was not prepared to make an effort, in other words he was not ready for the Linux desktop.
Personally I haven't used windows at home for at least 10 years. I wanted people to use linux but the realisation I think I am coming to is people don't deserve Linux unless they actually ask for it.
I got pissed off when I upgraded Fedora 7 to F9 because it took me a whole three days to get things working the way I wanted because of the nvidia drivers, sure I restored my home directory and everything else worked. I was in the middle of an on-line course and I just had to get on with it. I thought 'no wonder people don;t want to use linux'
But soon after I compared that to a laptop that I had to configure for a C# development project with VS2008 and SMS2005 and MSSQL. I am diligent with my XP installs because I don't want the thing to fuck up once I get it set-up. So I use Project Dakota to patch it, installed VS2008, SMS2005 thinking I would be ok. Of course when you have a shit fight on XP - it drags on. Certain versions of MSSQL doesn't install properly with SMS2005 and I can't use database diagrams. I'm hand deleting roughly 50 registry entries and suddenly remembering why I like Linux.
I don't like using windows because it restricts me, but most users won't encounter those restrictions. What they don't realise is in Windows you go A-B-C-D and the task is done, in Linux you go A-B-C-D or A-D and the task is done. When you use windows there is no more efficient way to complete a task, you have to do the same brain dead RSI operation every time. I resent being told I have to use Windows in a work project because my effectiveness is instantly reduced. I feel lobotomised.
Which is the same reason windows people don't want to learn a new OS. There neural patterns have be set to *windoze* and they don't understand how to make that leap. They don't want their effectiveness reduced because thinking is the hardest work.
The F9 and Ubuntu I have is at least as pretty as Vista and mouse gestures come in handy too. I don't know how much better windows is than linux because I don't want to feel like a retard when I am using it, be limited to one pissy workspace, not be able to use all 8Gb ram, or all the CPU cores. I hate licence keys and registry shit. I get so frustrated using windows I think that anyone who really wants to use it, should.
Because that is the user experience they deserve. I think people's experience with the hassles of windows is what they presume is going to happen when they move to Linux. They fear that they are going to go through a whole new set of those experiences.
And they will, for a little while, lets be realistic, but then they will realise they don't get viruses any more, system performance is consistent, and they are able to fully utilise the machines power.
Linux will never be like windows, and thank goodness for that. Usability in Linux is improving with every distributions and no longer needs to duplicate functionality in windows, it gets better and better and is starting to pull ahead. If this is what makes Linux continue to improve then I hope linux is never ready for the desktop. If MSI want to distribute a shit version of linux, then they deserve to pay M$ licencing fees. They should stop distributing it because people will think that Linux is as crap as windows is.
THe second fork of facism is corporatism where the state manages for the good of the corporations and vica versa.
Corporate and government systems are full of flaws and loopholes. These allow business to expose themselves to risk well beyond their capability to mitigate.
It's the same issue in every western democracy, externalities. In this case the externalities of the financial system operating on the edge of legality providing the promise of massive returns and exposing the markets to enormous risk, creating a situation where cascade collapses are possible. They expose the taxpayer to enormous risk, whilst shielded from liability for their externalities - so a few benefit and most suffer the consequences.
They can do this because political campaigns are expensive, and they require funding from many sources. Corporations are free to fund political campaigns and candidates. Candidates will not ruin their sponsors income so you have vested interests created. Because of these vested interests the politicians are working for those who fund them, not those who vote for them, so politicians are not able to change the cycle that enforces the status quo. Ergo the system of failure reinforces itself.
In the system of corporate governance that exists (and not just in the financial sector) corporations are not liable for the damage they cause to the community. To try and bring that back into balance governments introduce regulatory frameworks that applies to various business sectors. This creates regulatory apparatus that attempts to regulate behaviour which, over time, becomes ineffectual because more loopholes are created.
Because of this status quo I doubt anyone in power will be able to fix the system properly. The trap of our government and corporate structure is a critical mass of the population must understand this issue for politicians to have the support to create a permanent legislative solution.
The corporation used to be a gift from the community with a very narrow charter, now it is all pervasive with the capacity to privatise gains and socialise losses. The externalities are seen as endemic systemic issues that manifest themselves as a stock market collapse, toxic waste, job losses, human rights violations, carbon emissions and so on.
We have seen these problems for a long time in western democracies. Until the corporate lobbying cycle is made illegal we will not be able to attract the type of problem solvers to government that are able to resolve the legislative problems in corporate governance that only allows a board to make decisions that are in the interest of shareholder value.
It's these two major flaws in the democratic system that allows it to be manipulated into corporatism, as you so appropriately describe. Resolving these flaws are central to resolving most issues in modern politics.
You don't see how self-refuting this is? If corporations are worse because they are LEGALLY requires to maximize shareholder value, then, what entity is responsible for this LEGAL principle...?
If the corporate financial and government systems were free from flaws and loopholes that allow corruption then I might agree with you, but because they are not it is not self-refuting but a self-reinforcing system of failures.
It's the same issue everywhere, externalities. In this case the externalities of the financial system operating on the edge of legality providing the promise of massive returns and exposing the markets to enormous risk, creating a situation where cascade collapses are possible. Why?
Political campaigns are expensive, and they require funding from many sources. Corporations a free to fund political campaigns and candidates, candidates will not ruin their sponsors income so you have vested interests created. Because of these vested interests the politicians are working for those who fund them, not those who vote for them, so politicians are not able to change the cycle that enforces the status quo. Ergo the system of failure reinforces itself.
Wait wait wait wait, when did I ever suggest reams of ineffectual laws? Quite the opposite, actually; I'm not even a supporter of corporate personhood.
By the very nature of the entire system of corporate governance that exists (and not just in the financial sector) they are not liable for the damage they cause to the community. To try and bring that back into balance government, through the ever diminishing will of the people, have introduced this and that law that applies to this or that business sector - creating reams of paperwork and laws to attempt to regulate behaviour which, over time, becomes ineffectual because more loopholes are created. So unless you are supporting further deregulation which enhances the ability for financial corporations to commit crime then the only practical solution that remains is through reams of eventually ineffectual laws that support the status quo - even if you are not aware that is what you are doing.
I'm simply pointing out that because of this status quo it is unlikely that anything other than more regulation will be introduced to fix it, because I doubt anyone in power will be able to fix the system properly. That is the trap of our government and corporate structure, it is flawed deeply. Until the corporate lobbying cycle is made illegal we will not be able to attract the type of problem solvers to government that are able to resolve the structural problems in our corporate systems that only allows a board to make decisions that are in the interest of shareholder value.
And whilst I'm heartened that you do not support corporate personage, because we have been unable to solve these endemic systemic issues they manifest them selves as stock market collapse or toxic waste or job losses or carbon emissions. Until these problems are solved we will not qualify as 'fit' to survive as a race.
P.S, I'll just point out that AIG *was* bailed out for 85 BILLION dollars since we last spoke, with the value of bailouts closing in on a cool TRILLION dollars.
capn; You scurley dog Balmer, I said, why do Pirates act like Pirate's?
messr Balmer; I I I don't know
capn;Because they ARRRRRRRR!!!! Did you see a D or a M around that RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR,
messr balmer; n n nooo.
capn;You shuwld kno tha a pirates favouri lettwr is ARRRRRRRRRR, Now tie im to th yardarm and make im be poiwntin us to more PLUNDARRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!! We've pillagd Wall st enuf!, Mister Gates?
capn;MISTER GATES???
messr Gates; Yes capn?
capn; Tewl th world, for there own good, What's a a Pirate's favorite Operatin Systin!!!
messr Gates; wewl capn a pirates favorite operatin systin is VISTARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but how will you run MS-Access then?
Irrelavent. CFC114 is used in the process, whether it is used to cool the beers of the technicians or comes in direct contact with the element. The FACT is CFC114 is used.
Again, irrelevant. Whatever the reasons, Paducah is still in operation enriching uranium leaking CFC114.
All modern pre-approved reactor designs are once through cycle, for example the Westinghouse AP-1000. Politically conditions are extremely favourable for Nuclear reactors to be built. Regulatory framework has been discarded (in the guise of the 2005 Energy act).
Uses U-238 !?!?!? Are you sure you don't mean Pu-239? Because I think you are talking about a IFR - which needs significant advances in material technology to be viable. Send a link if you really mean a viable commercial reactor that can use U-238.
Compared to what, domestic emissions? old fridges on rubbish tips? More irrelevance, the plant is in operation - no other enrichment facilities are available. CFC114, a greenhouse gas 20,000 times more potent than C02 is leaking from Paducah at 1 million pounds, thats 453,592.27 kilgrams PER YEAR since the bans began. That is 8 618 255.03 kilograms *since* CFC114 was banned. That's the equivalent of 172,365,100,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide from the enrichment process alone and does not include the 1 Gigawatt of coal fired power used to run Paducah. What part of 'Paducah is still in operation' do you not understand?
It's always, always the same thing. Nuclear advocates can't take responsibility for the externalities of the nuclear industry, instead 'it's those greenies fault for not letting us build something else'. Build a geologically stable waste dump first and then maybe we can move on from there.
Well a quick google seach produced this straight away
Overall, the production of oxygen in the oceans is at least equal to the production on land if not a bit more
and
Field studies indicate that photosynthesis is impaired first, followed by decreases in protein concentration and changes in pigment composition. As a result, a dramatic decrease in photosynthetic oxygen production can be measured after exposure to solar radiation
Or of course you could just go straight to the official UN monitoring of CFC114 after Montreal Environme
Yet Another X Server
CFC 114 is still used for enrichment and is 20,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Up to 1 million pounds of CFC114 leak into the atmosphere per year (from the U.S alone) since the inception of the Montreal protocol, banning CFC's, in 1995.
The news gets better, CFC 114 attacks the ozone layer which protects that algae that makes THE OXYGEN WE BREATHE. Radioactive elements aside - CFC's released into the environment by the enrichment process are the number 1 cause of industrial CFC emissions in the U.S.
Instead of being so patronising, you should investigate the scientific, medical, engineering, legal, political and social reasons for opposition to nuclear power and you will find some substantial arguments why nuclear power is not practical at our current level of technology.
For a government that collects so much surveillance on their citizens you would expect an outcry for some accountability when private data is lost.
Future historians anybody? or have we abandoned al hope of ever becoming a space faring race.
And the vast majority of Australians are so apathetic that they don't recognise *why* there is a need. The series of laws that were passed after Port Arthur and justified as useful for the 2000 Olympics have yet to be sunsetted. As they are no longer neccessary is an extremely unsettling development considering Australia does not have a bill of rights like UK or US citizens but, 'she'll be right mate'(???).
That's why I credit the designers of the American constitution, they knew that the constitution was flawed enough let it slip into despotism, that's why Americans are armed. At the same time the rampant stupidity that is allowed with American weapons laws is the reason it needs some regulation and review.
So did you write to a politician protesting any of the terrorism laws that were passed? I actually think Australians would be better off with a few more weapons because our laws were very pragmatic about the way firearms licences were issued and, therefore, who could own a firearm. I don't recall the massacres that occured in Australia were conducted with 'legal' firearms, and Port Arthur has some uncomfortable facts connected to it. So considering that the illegal firearms used in those terrible events were a policing issue not a licencing issue, the premise of deregistering firearms owners in Australia was a political issue.
Of course, once you learn how to handle firearms you respect them, and are very careful with the grave responsibility you posess. It's the extreme of any safety based culture that you find in industry.
Hunting is a skill that goes beyond shooting a target and being a sport.
The ecology of firearms in Australia is the protection of native species. Humans introduced foxes, feral cats and dogs, pigs, goats, buffallo, camels, horses and rabbits that decimate the native population of animals, well over 500,000 species. Yellow tailed rock wallabys (a small, and very cute version of a kangaroo) don't stand a chance against a 60kg feral cat that some careless individual decided to irresponsibly dump in the bush once upon a time.
So it's also stewardship of this continent to protect native species by balancing out the damage humans have done by introducing those species in the first place.
If a farmer has to kill the animals he raised because they were severely burnt in a bushfire a firearm is the most merciful way possible. Below a certain calibre of weapon you are just prolonging the suffering, for the farmer as well. All of that takes skill.
I doubt that events now unfolding in the congo would be the same if thier population was armed. Firearms, owned, maintained and used responsibly with the proper training represent more than just a hunters weapon or a farmers tool. It also represents a long forgotten aspect of the civil rights movement that was maginalised by the 'shooters party' clumsy attempt to retain ownership of thier firearms in Australia.
An armed population is a symbolic counterpoint to a government becoming a dictatorship. It also says that government should fear law abiding citizens, not the other way around.
Exactly, something that seems lost on a lot of Australians when the Anti-Terrorism laws, and laws to remove liability from Australian Soldiers shooting Australian citizens in protests were passed. Australian law has decended to that of a sleazy dictatorship without the dictator. However, the stage is set...
Or a 1st Amendment fan.
happily ever after.
until it stops them playing a game. Then they get really pissed off
It's important to have goals.
We need more spies to justify paranoid people.
Well if you have the specifications of the craft, why don't you share them with us all? The reality here is no-one here knows the capability of this piece of kit, but for 634 billion I would hazard guess that the capabilities are substantial.
The other thing is there are multiple satellites so I would also guess that they are using some sort of method to combine the output of them to enhance the results.
I guess they will use it though.
Then why have it? It is built for surveillance or why would you have it. Obviously it doesn't have to be that great to be useful and is meant to be used with other apparatus (that doesn't exist in Iraq) to achieve it's goals. Saying this is a means to justify feeling comfortable living in a police state and maintain the illusion of freedom. It doesn't matter what it can or can't do, what matters is what it is for.
Benjamin Franklin said that the constitution (for all it's flaws) wouldn't save America from despotism, and as the mechanism's have been put in place incrementally, we see he was right.
I wonder how hot the water is for the frog now?
must. not. capitalise. after. full. stop.
Are you serious, Offtopic!!!!! doesn't anyone get that joke. duuuuhhhhhhhhhh!
Excellent advice, please mod this up.
Mine was a TRS-80 model 1, I think we are about the same in that pissing contest.
Anything that does not come from microsoft I'd try under wine. I have a stack of games working under wine now. M$ own the roost when it comes to their API - if they want to make up some obscure API call for a game that will make it difficult to work under wine, they can. I'm dumbfounded at how hard it is to get a program like MS-Project to work under wine - it's not exactly testing the boundaries of GPU performance - but it's difficult to get working.
I went through *exactly* the thought process you did, but eventually prevailed. With fonts and movie playing functionality is clearly being dictated to by distribution restrictions. I got around the fonts by saving them in my local home directory so I didn't have to fuck around on the next install.
That said, I really think you should be using gnome instead of KDE. But if you are a software engineer you already know that there is going to be some mental effort required on your part. Normal users don't so I understand where you are coming from, normal users are mentally lazy and don't want to re-invest mental effort in a new computing platform.
But when you consider that Linux is not purchased, normal users are not part of the first class citizens of the internet so I'm happy if Linux works *for me*. Elitist? Sure but people don't want to understand that patent issues, API obscurity and legalities make movies fonts and games hard to use on Linux and that fundamental design flaws subject them to viruses - that's the status quo at the moment. As for Linux on the desktop - if you are not smart enough to use it - you won't get the benefits - not my fault it's just the way it is. I don't want to be selfish, I want to share but nothing short of a wad of dynamite is going to dislodge some people from their complacency and I have limited energy.
To give you an example, a collegue of mine (a microsofty typa guy) recently asked me about my experiences with mythtv. I told him it's great blah blah blah. Then he asked me if I thought it was ready for him to install and use, I said "no", he asked if I would help him and I said "no - I don't really have time" but try this mythbuntu or mythdora install. I said this because I didn't want to listen to his inevitable complaints about *whatever*. He choose to have a go but didn't want to make a fraction of the mental effort that the many contributors had bringing him such great software *at no charge*.
I'm not saying this is you, but despite being given freedom and all this great software for no cost other than problem solving issues by google he was not prepared to make an effort, in other words he was not ready for the Linux desktop.
They're all Greek to me.
I got pissed off when I upgraded Fedora 7 to F9 because it took me a whole three days to get things working the way I wanted because of the nvidia drivers, sure I restored my home directory and everything else worked. I was in the middle of an on-line course and I just had to get on with it. I thought 'no wonder people don;t want to use linux'
But soon after I compared that to a laptop that I had to configure for a C# development project with VS2008 and SMS2005 and MSSQL. I am diligent with my XP installs because I don't want the thing to fuck up once I get it set-up. So I use Project Dakota to patch it, installed VS2008, SMS2005 thinking I would be ok. Of course when you have a shit fight on XP - it drags on. Certain versions of MSSQL doesn't install properly with SMS2005 and I can't use database diagrams. I'm hand deleting roughly 50 registry entries and suddenly remembering why I like Linux.
I don't like using windows because it restricts me, but most users won't encounter those restrictions. What they don't realise is in Windows you go A-B-C-D and the task is done, in Linux you go A-B-C-D or A-D and the task is done. When you use windows there is no more efficient way to complete a task, you have to do the same brain dead RSI operation every time. I resent being told I have to use Windows in a work project because my effectiveness is instantly reduced. I feel lobotomised.
Which is the same reason windows people don't want to learn a new OS. There neural patterns have be set to *windoze* and they don't understand how to make that leap. They don't want their effectiveness reduced because thinking is the hardest work.
The F9 and Ubuntu I have is at least as pretty as Vista and mouse gestures come in handy too. I don't know how much better windows is than linux because I don't want to feel like a retard when I am using it, be limited to one pissy workspace, not be able to use all 8Gb ram, or all the CPU cores. I hate licence keys and registry shit. I get so frustrated using windows I think that anyone who really wants to use it, should.
Because that is the user experience they deserve. I think people's experience with the hassles of windows is what they presume is going to happen when they move to Linux. They fear that they are going to go through a whole new set of those experiences.
And they will, for a little while, lets be realistic, but then they will realise they don't get viruses any more, system performance is consistent, and they are able to fully utilise the machines power.
Linux will never be like windows, and thank goodness for that. Usability in Linux is improving with every distributions and no longer needs to duplicate functionality in windows, it gets better and better and is starting to pull ahead. If this is what makes Linux continue to improve then I hope linux is never ready for the desktop. If MSI want to distribute a shit version of linux, then they deserve to pay M$ licencing fees. They should stop distributing it because people will think that Linux is as crap as windows is.
Corporate and government systems are full of flaws and loopholes. These allow business to expose themselves to risk well beyond their capability to mitigate.
It's the same issue in every western democracy, externalities. In this case the externalities of the financial system operating on the edge of legality providing the promise of massive returns and exposing the markets to enormous risk, creating a situation where cascade collapses are possible. They expose the taxpayer to enormous risk, whilst shielded from liability for their externalities - so a few benefit and most suffer the consequences.
They can do this because political campaigns are expensive, and they require funding from many sources. Corporations are free to fund political campaigns and candidates. Candidates will not ruin their sponsors income so you have vested interests created. Because of these vested interests the politicians are working for those who fund them, not those who vote for them, so politicians are not able to change the cycle that enforces the status quo. Ergo the system of failure reinforces itself.
In the system of corporate governance that exists (and not just in the financial sector) corporations are not liable for the damage they cause to the community. To try and bring that back into balance governments introduce regulatory frameworks that applies to various business sectors. This creates regulatory apparatus that attempts to regulate behaviour which, over time, becomes ineffectual because more loopholes are created.
Because of this status quo I doubt anyone in power will be able to fix the system properly. The trap of our government and corporate structure is a critical mass of the population must understand this issue for politicians to have the support to create a permanent legislative solution.
The corporation used to be a gift from the community with a very narrow charter, now it is all pervasive with the capacity to privatise gains and socialise losses. The externalities are seen as endemic systemic issues that manifest themselves as a stock market collapse, toxic waste, job losses, human rights violations, carbon emissions and so on.
We have seen these problems for a long time in western democracies. Until the corporate lobbying cycle is made illegal we will not be able to attract the type of problem solvers to government that are able to resolve the legislative problems in corporate governance that only allows a board to make decisions that are in the interest of shareholder value.
It's these two major flaws in the democratic system that allows it to be manipulated into corporatism, as you so appropriately describe. Resolving these flaws are central to resolving most issues in modern politics.
your first born child to install.
I wonder what will happen next? maybe they we a bit over the edge of legality with the FBI investigating potential for fraud.
If the corporate financial and government systems were free from flaws and loopholes that allow corruption then I might agree with you, but because they are not it is not self-refuting but a self-reinforcing system of failures.
It's the same issue everywhere, externalities. In this case the externalities of the financial system operating on the edge of legality providing the promise of massive returns and exposing the markets to enormous risk, creating a situation where cascade collapses are possible. Why?
Political campaigns are expensive, and they require funding from many sources. Corporations a free to fund political campaigns and candidates, candidates will not ruin their sponsors income so you have vested interests created. Because of these vested interests the politicians are working for those who fund them, not those who vote for them, so politicians are not able to change the cycle that enforces the status quo. Ergo the system of failure reinforces itself.
By the very nature of the entire system of corporate governance that exists (and not just in the financial sector) they are not liable for the damage they cause to the community. To try and bring that back into balance government, through the ever diminishing will of the people, have introduced this and that law that applies to this or that business sector - creating reams of paperwork and laws to attempt to regulate behaviour which, over time, becomes ineffectual because more loopholes are created. So unless you are supporting further deregulation which enhances the ability for financial corporations to commit crime then the only practical solution that remains is through reams of eventually ineffectual laws that support the status quo - even if you are not aware that is what you are doing.
I'm simply pointing out that because of this status quo it is unlikely that anything other than more regulation will be introduced to fix it, because I doubt anyone in power will be able to fix the system properly. That is the trap of our government and corporate structure, it is flawed deeply. Until the corporate lobbying cycle is made illegal we will not be able to attract the type of problem solvers to government that are able to resolve the structural problems in our corporate systems that only allows a board to make decisions that are in the interest of shareholder value.
And whilst I'm heartened that you do not support corporate personage, because we have been unable to solve these endemic systemic issues they manifest them selves as stock market collapse or toxic waste or job losses or carbon emissions. Until these problems are solved we will not qualify as 'fit' to survive as a race.
P.S, I'll just point out that AIG *was* bailed out for 85 BILLION dollars since we last spoke, with the value of bailouts closing in on a cool TRILLION dollars.
capn; You scurley dog Balmer, I said, why do Pirates act like Pirate's?
messr Balmer; I I I don't know
capn;Because they ARRRRRRRR!!!! Did you see a D or a M around that RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR,
messr balmer; n n nooo.
capn;You shuwld kno tha a pirates favouri lettwr is ARRRRRRRRRR, Now tie im to th yardarm and make im be poiwntin us to more PLUNDARRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!! We've pillagd Wall st enuf!, Mister Gates?
capn;MISTER GATES???
messr Gates; Yes capn?
capn; Tewl th world, for there own good, What's a a Pirate's favorite Operatin Systin!!!
messr Gates; wewl capn a pirates favorite operatin systin is VISTARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
crew; RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
capn; And phwy is that Mistarrr Gates;
messr Gates; Because if you can;t steal it it isn't PLUNDARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
crew; PLUNDARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!