You can't say all that without specifying what part of the USA you had visited. The United States, when it comes to area, is almost as big as all of Europe and, thus, creating a reliable infrastructure is a harder job than it is in Europe. You have to think in terms of scale, cost, and time/manpower required. Kneejerk responses are not what's needed. You can't criticize without first figuring out exactly what is needed and how it can be reasonably ("reasonably" being the key word here) accomplished.
I had this impression in large parts of NYC. for example, driving into Manhattan from JFK in the early 1990ies felt somewhat like just having landed in Havana. It seemed not as extreme in the past few years, but still not what a European would expect. Then in wide area of, e.g., Greenwich Village the outer building walls from ground level up to the roof are haphazadly crisscrossed by wires for heaven knows what, which enter the apartments through drill holes that seem hastily plastered over. Obviously hyperbole, but it did remind me somewhat of India. I was there during the hurricane Irene scare, and was constantly amazed by the fear of wide-scale infrastructure failure, and looking at the state of the public infrastructure was thinking "well, no need to be surprised".
I mean every damned thing I see nowadays is widescreen, so why put the fricking bar vertical?.
That's exactly the stated reason: all monitors are widescreen, so the expectation is you can more easily spare 50 pixesls of horizontal space for the launcher.
But they are not "proceeding for an offence" as I understand there is no open case, and Assange is not "wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order."
Uh-oh, I don't know how I read that into this link. Apologies. But refer to the law instead:
Art. 36. (*) (1) European Arrest Warrant shall be issued for persons who has committed offences, which carry as per the legislation of the requesting country not less than one year imprisonment sentence or a measure requiring detention or another more severe penalty, or if the imposed penalty imprisonment or the requiring detention measure is not shorter than 4 months.
Interesting, first I heard of this. I skimmed a number of more recent articles now and could not actually find any maximum sentences cited, so I have to take it at face value.
Does not change the fact about the EAW requirement, which was what seemingly was in contention.
I know what I linked. This request confirms that a European Arrest Warrant requires that the fine for the crime is at least one year of jail time, which was Joce640k's point.
Well he may have gotten the source wrong, it's not in Interpol's constition, but he was correct about the facts: a European Arrest Warrant requires that the fine for the crime is at least one year of jail time: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/07/st10/st10975.en07.pdf
This is the second time in this thread you've wrongly accused pro-Assange posters of getting the facts wrong, and I've read like 10% so far.
Get rid of the nvidia-settings application and provide something that resembles modern support for multimonitor setup, preferably by tying into the desktop environments' infrastructures. And support KMS.
The numbers given before (80 to more than 200 billion) have already been paid to the nuclear industry. The fuel rod tax does not even exist yet. I don't know how you can spin that into nuclear "in fact" subsidizing renewable (quotes or not) energy sources.
I agree in part. On the other hand the debt of the German state as a whole is 2,000 billion EUR, so it's not as if 100-200 billion are an insignificant amount at all. And of course you made that calculation for a mature state of the nuclear power production, when it already had secured a very important place in German power production partly due to earlier subsidization. Many of these subsidies were initial funding in a much earlier state, when the contributions to total power consumption were smaller. I'm too lazy to look up numbers and do the math, but the subsidization per kwh may have looked very different early in the industry's life cycle in the sixties, say - which would make more sense to compare to the subsidies per kwh for solar in its current early state.
There are also other considations, IMHO, which are not reflected in the studies at all, not even Greenpeace's. I wrote about it in a sibling reply just a minute ago, so please excuse if I don't repeat it here. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2876563&cid=40127223
I was not being dishonest. The guy I replied to stated that there are subsidies for solar as if such a thing had been unheard of for nuclear. I gave the link to the numbers such as I could quickly find, and it's anyones choice to do the math. I made no statement about comparative size of subsidies.
You are being disingenuous though where you wrote "even if we take at face value your Greenpeace studies". First of all i did not unduly acclaim the mentioned (singular) Grrenpeace study, but more importantly by using that phrase you try to discredit also the other study which came up with the lower (and acknowledged by the authors to be much too low) 80 billion result. This came from the DIW, which is a institution that is held in high regard and certainly not under suspicion of being too hostile to the nuclear industry.
The rest of your post is honest again and I don't dispute your numbers for subsidies per kwh. In fact they were partly in my link. The way I see it though, these numbers do no include all costs for nuclear power. Necessarily, because nobody knows what it will cost to dismantle obsolete nuclear plants and to store the remains. As I mentioned in a later post in the thread, there are no final storage facilities in Germany, and when they tried in Assen in Gorleben in endet in such disasters that nobody in their right mind has any confidence in the abilitiy of the nuclear industry to solve this problem. All we know is that it will cost many times whatever the amount the nuclear industry estimates.
Finally, not even the Greenpeace study includes the IMHO significant social costs of the nuclear industry. It caused, necessarily, a further concentration of economic and political power, and was one of the two significant excuse for the arms race in which the police forces engaged since the 70ies (the other being terrorism). It's not even possible to quantify the harm this has done to German civil society, and guesses will obviously be wildly different between persons depending on the political inclinations of whoever does the guessing.
In conclusion, I certainly don't doubt that mistakes were made in the subsidization of the German solar industry, and I am far from convinced that solar is a good way to go for countries like Germany. But never I never said I would.
Absolutely. Not even the Greenpeace numbers fully account for that. Plus Germany still has no final storage facility for nuclear waste, and the previous attempts at storage (Assen, Gorleben) ended in costly failure. Who knows what an actual final facility might cost over time.
The German nuclear industry was subsidized by at least 80 billion EUR from 1956 to 2007 (and 3.7 billion in 2006 alone) based on extremely conservative estimates, but likely much more. A study commisioned by Greenpeace arrived at a number of 203.7 billion from 1950 to 2010. According to WP at least, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernenergie#Deutschland
I did you condescending fuck. Try writing. OP is bitching that something his platform isn't getting is useless. Boo-Fucking-Hoo. You can save face and act like he was saying Windows and Mac should have repositories, but that would just be wild speculation rather than what the OP wrote.
Jeez, did someone piss into your shoes? The story is about how linux does not get the app store. The OP says that it's not needed anyway. Big deal.
She does know that her phone has an App store where she can get games and apps, and now here on her computer's browser is something also named App Marketplace, so that must be where she is supposed to go to get Apps here.
The OP quite clearly talked about linux distros even if he does not mention it. And all linux distros that target lay users have such a thing already, like the Ubuntu Software Center (and yes, it does also appear in the Dash menu when you search for "apps)
I don't want to discuss this. I was only interested in the claimed waste of space. (Anyway, I don't think that you can say that - every GUI hides controls, because otherwise it would show them all, all the time, which no GUI does)
I can understand the thing about mouse travel (though it's in fact extremely keyboard compatible), and I also can understand other complaints people have. But waste of space, and a huge one? How so, when nearly all UI elements disappear when not used? (In 12.04, that is a user setting for the launcher, though)
Slashdot Mirror
You can't say all that without specifying what part of the USA you had visited. The United States, when it comes to area, is almost as big as all of Europe and, thus, creating a reliable infrastructure is a harder job than it is in Europe. You have to think in terms of scale, cost, and time/manpower required. Kneejerk responses are not what's needed. You can't criticize without first figuring out exactly what is needed and how it can be reasonably ("reasonably" being the key word here) accomplished.
I had this impression in large parts of NYC. for example, driving into Manhattan from JFK in the early 1990ies felt somewhat like just having landed in Havana. It seemed not as extreme in the past few years, but still not what a European would expect. Then in wide area of, e.g., Greenwich Village the outer building walls from ground level up to the roof are haphazadly crisscrossed by wires for heaven knows what, which enter the apartments through drill holes that seem hastily plastered over. Obviously hyperbole, but it did remind me somewhat of India. I was there during the hurricane Irene scare, and was constantly amazed by the fear of wide-scale infrastructure failure, and looking at the state of the public infrastructure was thinking "well, no need to be surprised".
I mean every damned thing I see nowadays is widescreen, so why put the fricking bar vertical?.
That's exactly the stated reason: all monitors are widescreen, so the expectation is you can more easily spare 50 pixesls of horizontal space for the launcher.
Regarding why there is no option for a horizontal launcher, see the second answer here (to summarize, a horizontal launcher would collided with various design choices in Unity): http://askubuntu.com/questions/33605/can-i-move-the-unity-launcher
But they are not "proceeding for an offence" as I understand there is no open case, and Assange is not "wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order."
Uh-oh, I don't know how I read that into this link. Apologies. But refer to the law instead:
Art. 36. (*) (1) European Arrest Warrant shall be issued for persons who has committed offences, which carry as per the legislation of the requesting country not less than one year imprisonment sentence or a measure requiring detention or another more severe penalty, or if the imposed penalty imprisonment or the requiring detention measure is not shorter than 4 months.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/polju/en/EJN711.pdf
Interesting, first I heard of this. I skimmed a number of more recent articles now and could not actually find any maximum sentences cited, so I have to take it at face value.
Does not change the fact about the EAW requirement, which was what seemingly was in contention.
I know what I linked. This request confirms that a European Arrest Warrant requires that the fine for the crime is at least one year of jail time, which was Joce640k's point.
Only if you ignore article 1.
Well he may have gotten the source wrong, it's not in Interpol's constition, but he was correct about the facts: a European Arrest Warrant requires that the fine for the crime is at least one year of jail time: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/07/st10/st10975.en07.pdf
This is the second time in this thread you've wrongly accused pro-Assange posters of getting the facts wrong, and I've read like 10% so far.
Would you point out to me where the treaty allows for extradition for questioning when no charges have been filed? http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/024.htm
Get rid of the nvidia-settings application and provide something that resembles modern support for multimonitor setup, preferably by tying into the desktop environments' infrastructures. And support KMS.
The numbers given before (80 to more than 200 billion) have already been paid to the nuclear industry. The fuel rod tax does not even exist yet. I don't know how you can spin that into nuclear "in fact" subsidizing renewable (quotes or not) energy sources.
I agree in part. On the other hand the debt of the German state as a whole is 2,000 billion EUR, so it's not as if 100-200 billion are an insignificant amount at all. And of course you made that calculation for a mature state of the nuclear power production, when it already had secured a very important place in German power production partly due to earlier subsidization. Many of these subsidies were initial funding in a much earlier state, when the contributions to total power consumption were smaller. I'm too lazy to look up numbers and do the math, but the subsidization per kwh may have looked very different early in the industry's life cycle in the sixties, say - which would make more sense to compare to the subsidies per kwh for solar in its current early state.
There are also other considations, IMHO, which are not reflected in the studies at all, not even Greenpeace's. I wrote about it in a sibling reply just a minute ago, so please excuse if I don't repeat it here. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2876563&cid=40127223
I was not being dishonest. The guy I replied to stated that there are subsidies for solar as if such a thing had been unheard of for nuclear. I gave the link to the numbers such as I could quickly find, and it's anyones choice to do the math. I made no statement about comparative size of subsidies.
You are being disingenuous though where you wrote "even if we take at face value your Greenpeace studies". First of all i did not unduly acclaim the mentioned (singular) Grrenpeace study, but more importantly by using that phrase you try to discredit also the other study which came up with the lower (and acknowledged by the authors to be much too low) 80 billion result. This came from the DIW, which is a institution that is held in high regard and certainly not under suspicion of being too hostile to the nuclear industry.
The rest of your post is honest again and I don't dispute your numbers for subsidies per kwh. In fact they were partly in my link. The way I see it though, these numbers do no include all costs for nuclear power. Necessarily, because nobody knows what it will cost to dismantle obsolete nuclear plants and to store the remains. As I mentioned in a later post in the thread, there are no final storage facilities in Germany, and when they tried in Assen in Gorleben in endet in such disasters that nobody in their right mind has any confidence in the abilitiy of the nuclear industry to solve this problem. All we know is that it will cost many times whatever the amount the nuclear industry estimates.
Finally, not even the Greenpeace study includes the IMHO significant social costs of the nuclear industry. It caused, necessarily, a further concentration of economic and political power, and was one of the two significant excuse for the arms race in which the police forces engaged since the 70ies (the other being terrorism). It's not even possible to quantify the harm this has done to German civil society, and guesses will obviously be wildly different between persons depending on the political inclinations of whoever does the guessing.
In conclusion, I certainly don't doubt that mistakes were made in the subsidization of the German solar industry, and I am far from convinced that solar is a good way to go for countries like Germany. But never I never said I would.
No, I did not. I referred to a study commissioned by Greenpeace. The actual study is in the WP source, read it and spare me your ad hominem argument.
Absolutely. Not even the Greenpeace numbers fully account for that. Plus Germany still has no final storage facility for nuclear waste, and the previous attempts at storage (Assen, Gorleben) ended in costly failure. Who knows what an actual final facility might cost over time.
The German nuclear industry was subsidized by at least 80 billion EUR from 1956 to 2007 (and 3.7 billion in 2006 alone) based on extremely conservative estimates, but likely much more. A study commisioned by Greenpeace arrived at a number of 203.7 billion from 1950 to 2010. According to WP at least, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernenergie#Deutschland
Ubuntu Software Center does the job just fine
I did you condescending fuck. Try writing. OP is bitching that something his platform isn't getting is useless. Boo-Fucking-Hoo. You can save face and act like he was saying Windows and Mac should have repositories, but that would just be wild speculation rather than what the OP wrote.
Jeez, did someone piss into your shoes? The story is about how linux does not get the app store. The OP says that it's not needed anyway. Big deal.
The OP is a fucking retard then. This is targeted towards Windows and Mac OS X. No one gives a shit about Linux.
Read the OP again.
Bitching? The freakin' story is about how the app store is not available for Linux. The OP just said that it's not required for Linux anyway.
She does know that her phone has an App store where she can get games and apps, and now here on her computer's browser is something also named App Marketplace, so that must be where she is supposed to go to get Apps here.
The OP quite clearly talked about linux distros even if he does not mention it. And all linux distros that target lay users have such a thing already, like the Ubuntu Software Center (and yes, it does also appear in the Dash menu when you search for "apps)
It isn't?
I don't want to discuss this. I was only interested in the claimed waste of space. (Anyway, I don't think that you can say that - every GUI hides controls, because otherwise it would show them all, all the time, which no GUI does)
Actually I find them to be really stupid.
They are fantastic for google efficiency.
I can understand the thing about mouse travel (though it's in fact extremely keyboard compatible), and I also can understand other complaints people have. But waste of space, and a huge one? How so, when nearly all UI elements disappear when not used? (In 12.04, that is a user setting for the launcher, though)