They should send a thousand of them to antarctica...to counter the melting ice-caps.
I assume you're getting at the same thing that I'm wondering... how much of an impact does this have on water temperature, currents, etc., if they're trying to call it "green"?
Of course, "green" doesn't mean much, but energy is never free, and taking it from an ecosystem is always going to have consequences.
In this case, we could try to use these, make them popular, and find out that they not only take heat energy from the oceans, but also change currents.
Likewise, we could try to cool the ice-caps somehow, but that wouldn't "counteract" what's happening with global warming; it would a more volatility to the system, with more extreme cold in one place battling more extreme heat elsewhere. The weather system is already too screwed up as it is without that.
And that's the REAL problem with this AND global warming: that we take things, on a massive scale, without any real respect for the damage it causes, or the slow processes that are needed to create what we take quickly. We can barely admit that we're doing damage, let alone facing the fact that the damage cannot be undone easily.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't use wind power, or solar power, or thermal power, or even combustion engines. BUT, we need to every bit of energy we take from the world -- in WHATEVER form -- depletes it, and that the only real solution is to cut back on how much we take.
Yes, but how far does that go? Can I reject people just because I suspect they won't think like a geek? It's one of the few ways I can see of getting a fair trial, but I can easily imagine the law arguing that, if I could select based on thinking style/opinions, I could keep selecting until I found people who already thought me innocent before the trial started.
Agreed; I'd hate to end up in court over ANYTHING. Guilty, innocent, or entirely unaware of what I was being accused of, I'd probably still push the wrong buttons on the jury, just be being a geek.
One thing I find interesting though, is the legal systems assertion that you're entitled to a "jury of your peers". What exactly do they mean by that, I wonder? Can you say you consider your peers to be other geeks? People of the same non-judgemental religion? Literally, peers on your P2P network? Other pimps?;)
<sarcasm^gt;Of course it is, because there is no option to browse at -1
The option to browse at -1 does NOT undo the fact that you have decided a certain person's speech is less valid that everyone elses. In fact, it amounts to saying that "all the trolls are kept in the back room. Go talk to them if you like." The attempt to legitimise your censorship by saying that you've gone out of your way even more to provide a method of making the censorship usable is worse, because it shows more premeditation.
p.s.: added sarcasm doesn't make you any less wrong.
It would be much more mature to simply ignore them.
Which is achieved by modding them down.
No, that's preventing everyone else from seeing their opinions too. That's censorship, not personally choosing to ignore something that doesn't interest you. Huge difference.
Then, no one will buy a new CPU. Intel and AMD aren't stupid. they know the consumer will run if they add this crap to thier products.
No. No educated enthusiasts or ethical, far-sighted professionals will buy them. But PCs are now mainstream, which means everyone who buys a TV is now a PC market driver. In other words, anything that the powers-that-be see fit to promote in an advert will become the norm. Personally, I think we'll see the day when open hardware is as much of a battleground as open software is now. Until then, we should all keep spreading the truth: that DRM sucks, and GPLv3 and similar licenses should be promoted in order to slow its spread.
One person's obnoxious poster is another's modern day Mark Twain. It's time people realised that calling someone a "troll" is just a stereotyping, dismissive way of dealing with things you can't be bothered to discuss. It would be much more mature to simply ignore them.
When your customers are government departments like the DHS, who will undoubtedly want stuff like the great firewall of china, just about any marketing speak that offers control is going to sound great, sadly.
Indeed. However, when I first got involved in this whole-disk encryption debate, I should have clearly said that there's no need -- only your personal data and config needs to be encrypted. There's no point in encrypting something that can be downloaded publically. In fact, it probably poses a security risk, since that gives a plaintext copy to try matching the encrypted data to.
They can still comply with the court order, but meanwhile stick by their principles.
You seem to misunderstand the meaning of principles. They're called that because they're considered to be of the utmost importance -- i.e., when you would rather go to jail than violate your principles. Tele2 are not "sticking to their principles"; they're going along with what the law tells them to do, even if they think it's wrong.
unless your BIOS has encryption support (which it doesn't), you can't have an encrypted boot partition.
Of course you can. You just can't have an encrypted MBR... unless you boot from a floppy or a USB drive you keep on your person, or something like that. Note that bios limitations can also be circumvented with linuxbios;)
Your math is a little faulty there, I fear. You forgot to take into account the uncertainty regarding the actual birthdate of christ. Or, indeed, whether he was even born.
Do you know how to tell when a porn star is filling his gas tank?
Just before the fuel comes out, he yanks the nozzle out and sprays it all over the windshield.
What worries me is that a robot is likely to do the same. Haven't you ever tried to fill your tank with gas and had the thing click every few seconds, thinking your tank is full? I guess it's some maladjustment of the sensors. With a manually controlled nozzle, it's bearable -- you can just keep pressing the lever (generally more slowly) until your tank is full (at a much slower rate).
But with a robot attendant? The thing will come over, bitch at you to release your tank door, open the door, unscrew and the cap, and begin filling your tank. Two seconds later, it'll get it wrong and think the tank is full, and probably bitch at you for wasting its time as it trundles off to bitch at someone else.
Oh, I'm 100% sure they're being opportunistic, and that this should not earn them trust. It just makes a nice contrast to companies like MS who are both opportunistic AND annoying-at-the-current-moment;)
That's some way to twist the fact that a company just stole half a billion dollars from citizens. Next you'll be telling us that Microsoft are good people because they charge africans a month's salary for windows, and give back a few million of what they stole for PR and bribes.
Yes, some kind of transition phase is the only approach that makes sense with established APIs. That's precisely why python is doing a 2.6 version to bridge the gap.
There IS no problem. Python 3 will be incompatible with 2.5, yes. That's why there'll be a python 2.6. Duh. It'll be compatible with 2.5 and will provide some 3.0 features when specially asked for (from future import..), but also warn of deprecations, incompatibilities, etc.
Note that the library license actually represents a strategic retreat. We would prefer to insist as much as possible that programs based on GNU software must themselves be free. However, in the case of libraries, we found that insisting they be used only in free software appeared to discourage use of the libraries rather than encouraging free applications.
By definition, having a redundant backup system means inefficient use of systems. When there's an infinite demand, such as there is with bandwidth, this means there's no point in having backup links at the same high capacity. Instead, what you do is guarantee some minimum access and a good coping/recovery strategy. Seems that the good strategy is the part missing in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume you're getting at the same thing that I'm wondering... how much of an impact does this have on water temperature, currents, etc., if they're trying to call it "green"?
Of course, "green" doesn't mean much, but energy is never free, and taking it from an ecosystem is always going to have consequences.
In this case, we could try to use these, make them popular, and find out that they not only take heat energy from the oceans, but also change currents.
Likewise, we could try to cool the ice-caps somehow, but that wouldn't "counteract" what's happening with global warming; it would a more volatility to the system, with more extreme cold in one place battling more extreme heat elsewhere. The weather system is already too screwed up as it is without that.
And that's the REAL problem with this AND global warming: that we take things, on a massive scale, without any real respect for the damage it causes, or the slow processes that are needed to create what we take quickly. We can barely admit that we're doing damage, let alone facing the fact that the damage cannot be undone easily.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't use wind power, or solar power, or thermal power, or even combustion engines. BUT, we need to every bit of energy we take from the world -- in WHATEVER form -- depletes it, and that the only real solution is to cut back on how much we take.
Yes, but how far does that go? Can I reject people just because I suspect they won't think like a geek? It's one of the few ways I can see of getting a fair trial, but I can easily imagine the law arguing that, if I could select based on thinking style/opinions, I could keep selecting until I found people who already thought me innocent before the trial started.
I think I've spotted a bug. You'll need a much bigger upper limit on that loop, if you're busy-waiting for basic to be capable of something useful
I think you missed the fact that his fs used balanced trees ;)
Agreed; I'd hate to end up in court over ANYTHING. Guilty, innocent, or entirely unaware of what I was being accused of, I'd probably still push the wrong buttons on the jury, just be being a geek.
;)
One thing I find interesting though, is the legal systems assertion that you're entitled to a "jury of your peers". What exactly do they mean by that, I wonder? Can you say you consider your peers to be other geeks? People of the same non-judgemental religion? Literally, peers on your P2P network? Other pimps?
The option to browse at -1 does NOT undo the fact that you have decided a certain person's speech is less valid that everyone elses. In fact, it amounts to saying that "all the trolls are kept in the back room. Go talk to them if you like." The attempt to legitimise your censorship by saying that you've gone out of your way even more to provide a method of making the censorship usable is worse, because it shows more premeditation.
p.s.: added sarcasm doesn't make you any less wrong.
No, that's preventing everyone else from seeing their opinions too. That's censorship, not personally choosing to ignore something that doesn't interest you. Huge difference.
No. No educated enthusiasts or ethical, far-sighted professionals will buy them. But PCs are now mainstream, which means everyone who buys a TV is now a PC market driver. In other words, anything that the powers-that-be see fit to promote in an advert will become the norm. Personally, I think we'll see the day when open hardware is as much of a battleground as open software is now. Until then, we should all keep spreading the truth: that DRM sucks, and GPLv3 and similar licenses should be promoted in order to slow its spread.
One person's obnoxious poster is another's modern day Mark Twain. It's time people realised that calling someone a "troll" is just a stereotyping, dismissive way of dealing with things you can't be bothered to discuss. It would be much more mature to simply ignore them.
When your customers are government departments like the DHS, who will undoubtedly want stuff like the great firewall of china, just about any marketing speak that offers control is going to sound great, sadly.
Indeed. However, when I first got involved in this whole-disk encryption debate, I should have clearly said that there's no need -- only your personal data and config needs to be encrypted. There's no point in encrypting something that can be downloaded publically. In fact, it probably poses a security risk, since that gives a plaintext copy to try matching the encrypted data to.
You seem to misunderstand the meaning of principles. They're called that because they're considered to be of the utmost importance -- i.e., when you would rather go to jail than violate your principles. Tele2 are not "sticking to their principles"; they're going along with what the law tells them to do, even if they think it's wrong.
Of course you can. You just can't have an encrypted MBR... unless you boot from a floppy or a USB drive you keep on your person, or something like that. Note that bios limitations can also be circumvented with linuxbios
Your math is a little faulty there, I fear. You forgot to take into account the uncertainty regarding the actual birthdate of christ. Or, indeed, whether he was even born.
What worries me is that a robot is likely to do the same. Haven't you ever tried to fill your tank with gas and had the thing click every few seconds, thinking your tank is full? I guess it's some maladjustment of the sensors. With a manually controlled nozzle, it's bearable -- you can just keep pressing the lever (generally more slowly) until your tank is full (at a much slower rate).
But with a robot attendant? The thing will come over, bitch at you to release your tank door, open the door, unscrew and the cap, and begin filling your tank. Two seconds later, it'll get it wrong and think the tank is full, and probably bitch at you for wasting its time as it trundles off to bitch at someone else.
Oh, I'm 100% sure they're being opportunistic, and that this should not earn them trust. It just makes a nice contrast to companies like MS who are both opportunistic AND annoying-at-the-current-moment ;)
No these are embryos. You must be thinking of steroids.
That's some way to twist the fact that a company just stole half a billion dollars from citizens. Next you'll be telling us that Microsoft are good people because they charge africans a month's salary for windows, and give back a few million of what they stole for PR and bribes.
I'm not really much for liking megacorps, but it's good to see one -- IBM in this case, for the moment -- that's on the right side.
I think what they mean is that, compared to the official microsoft versions, the pirated copies are a much better product.
Yes, some kind of transition phase is the only approach that makes sense with established APIs. That's precisely why python is doing a 2.6 version to bridge the gap.
There IS no problem. Python 3 will be incompatible with 2.5, yes. That's why there'll be a python 2.6. Duh. It'll be compatible with 2.5 and will provide some 3.0 features when specially asked for (from future import ..), but also warn of deprecations, incompatibilities, etc.
Tuvalu was probably slashdotted a long time ago.
By definition, having a redundant backup system means inefficient use of systems. When there's an infinite demand, such as there is with bandwidth, this means there's no point in having backup links at the same high capacity. Instead, what you do is guarantee some minimum access and a good coping/recovery strategy. Seems that the good strategy is the part missing in this case.