Sure, but there was no mistake made. See here. (Apologies for the less-than-kind reference to you in that post - I was peeved at the tone, though subsequently understanding your rationale helps...)
Sigh. Given the jack^H^H^H^H kind reply below yours, let me further clarify:
If that is their plan, they must not realize the low value of QT (we have plenty of alternatives) In the context of discussing switching to an alternative, QT is not low-value because the effort involved in switching KDE from QT to something else would be huge.
Yet still - open source DRM will prevent the 'casual piracy' that everyone seems to worry about. Remember that the majority of users will/listen/ when their phone tells them something is protected.
Damn dude. I think you read too much into these things. If a parent is talking to relative strangers - and doesn't want to give out the names of her family members - what's so unreasonable about saying "10-month-old"?
Then again, if your parents are referring to you as "our 432-month old", it all begins to make sense...
You make the assumption that if switchgrass is grown, food will not be grown, to the point of food shortages. Aside from that, your going in circles:
Original post said that the land would not be used for food production anyway; someone agreed with that and pointed out that this still might cause some shortages due to higher profit in farming switchgrass than food. (Side note: this is a self-correcting problem, because then the market price of switchgrass would fall as the supply increased).
Your argument was that farming new land instead of using land previously used for food would increase CO2 and implied that it created fertilizer runoff issues. When the point was made that CO2 would not necessarily increase, and that runoff issues were not a problem, you switched to saying that people would starve because the land was not being used for food. Begging the question a bit, yes?
We'll overlook the namecalling for now, as it's irrelevant to the subject at hand. But it seems to me you're going to have a problem with any solution that doesn't fit your predefined dogma of the 'right' solution. Sometimes, it helps to listen to other ideas. Occasionally, you may even find that they have merit if you keep an open mind.
The '83 or '84 was getting nearly 60mpg on the highway. And yet now people pay a ridiculous premium on a hybrid, so that they can get something that brings 30-40 mpg. There's something seriously wrong with this icture.
The '83 or '84 was getting nearly 60mpg on the highway. And yet now people pay a ridiculous premium on a hybrid, so that they can get something that brings 30-40 mpg? There's something seriously wrong with this picture.
By looking at the context of the time; the turmoil from the Revolution was still fresh -- they were essentially codifying the things that they had fought for.
Here's an interesting timeline that gives some perspective; though it's only one slice of the picture.
However, some things are absurdly easy to define -- take freedom of speech. You are allowed to say pretty much what you want, where you want, short of "Fire!" in a crowded theater. No one has yet found a way to twist the First Amendment into meaning something it doesn't -- into somehow meaning, for example, that all speech except blasphemy is protected. That's debatable; let's look at the text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Maybe I'm just too naive, but it seems to me that it's established such that: a) there would not be a new Church of England taking power in the US and that people can choose whatever religion they want b) people could criticize the goverment. c) people can protest when the government is being stupid. d) the press should be able to report on activities of the government without limitations.
Yet somehow in the last couple hundred years, this has evolved to mean that anything anyone wants to say is fine. That freedom of the press means the press can invade peoples lives without permission or consequence. That people can smear shit on a painting, call it art, and have that considered "protected".
Are you so sure that it hasn't been twisted? Because it's used now to protect a/lot/ more than it says it protects.
One other thing to note... from an economists perspective, your productivity doesn't matter. Something may benefit some people and harm others, but the interests of the individual are meaningless -- what is important is the benefit to the economy (&hence, society). That's a little disturbing. When phrased that way, it bears a peculiar similarity to the words of a certain Mr. Marx.
sail killed slave rowers... I thought it was something to do with whips and infection...
Re:This is how economics is supposed to work!
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
Also interesting to see whether the trend of people sensing safety while in those large vehicles will continue...
Or whether it will be replaced by a sense of embarrassment.
I used to curse the Soccer-moms driving around in their BMW X5's to pick up a single toddler from kindergarten and drive 800 meters to their house. But now, I smile, knowing what a stupid waste of money it really was.
I didn't bother waiting - I laughed over what a stupid waste of money it was from the start. Lexus, BMW, Mercedes SUVs; I think that some people have forgotten the/point/ of such vehicles.
Huh? A motorbike has terrible aerodynamic drag, making the petrol consumption comparable to a small car (which is more convenient and takes more passengers and load).
I enjoy riding my motorbike, but it's not like I save on petrol.
Eh? What kind of motorbike are you driving? I regularly drive my cruiser (Shadow Sabre 1100) at speeds from 60-90 mph, and consistently get about 40mpg.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, okay, I understand you're talking about the convenience factor here -- but "carting a usb drive around"? Are your USB drives made of Neutronium?
Sure. Foxmarks lets you keep the data on your own servers if you're paranoid, never even communicating with theirs.
Sure, but there was no mistake made. See here. (Apologies for the less-than-kind reference to you in that post - I was peeved at the tone, though subsequently understanding your rationale helps...)
Insensitive clod. In an alternate universe, OS/2 Warp /is/ the dominant desktop!
Yep, because I'm sure that instead of working on alternatives, every geek is just hanging onto NYCL's words...
See reply to previous guy. Thanks for the lecture, and let me give one of my own: If you don't read replies in-context, don't post.
I knew someone was going to mention that ;) I was directly answering the parent's point, though, that Qt is not at all "low value".
Let's not get into the Gnome v. KDE battle...
Yet still - open source DRM will prevent the 'casual piracy' that everyone seems to worry about. Remember that the majority of users will /listen/ when their phone tells them something is protected.
Low value is a relative thing - that's a lot of work to rewrite KDE3 and 4 without it.
Then again, if your parents are referring to you as "our 432-month old", it all begins to make sense...
Yeah - my Grandma would love to be l0ng3r and h4rd3r!
You make the assumption that if switchgrass is grown, food will not be grown, to the point of food shortages. Aside from that, your going in circles:
Original post said that the land would not be used for food production anyway; someone agreed with that and pointed out that this still might cause some shortages due to higher profit in farming switchgrass than food. (Side note: this is a self-correcting problem, because then the market price of switchgrass would fall as the supply increased).
Your argument was that farming new land instead of using land previously used for food would increase CO2 and implied that it created fertilizer runoff issues. When the point was made that CO2 would not necessarily increase, and that runoff issues were not a problem, you switched to saying that people would starve because the land was not being used for food. Begging the question a bit, yes?
We'll overlook the namecalling for now, as it's irrelevant to the subject at hand. But it seems to me you're going to have a problem with any solution that doesn't fit your predefined dogma of the 'right' solution. Sometimes, it helps to listen to other ideas. Occasionally, you may even find that they have merit if you keep an open mind.
Looking back at the archive, it's said that for several years: http://web.archive.org/web/20050122134257/http://alex.kozinski.com/
The '83 or '84 was getting nearly 60mpg on the highway. And yet now people pay a ridiculous premium on a hybrid, so that they can get something that brings 30-40 mpg. There's something seriously wrong with this icture.
The '83 or '84 was getting nearly 60mpg on the highway. And yet now people pay a ridiculous premium on a hybrid, so that they can get something that brings 30-40 mpg? There's something seriously wrong with this picture.
By looking at the context of the time; the turmoil from the Revolution was still fresh -- they were essentially codifying the things that they had fought for. Here's an interesting timeline that gives some perspective; though it's only one slice of the picture.
Maybe I'm just too naive, but it seems to me that it's established such that: a) there would not be a new Church of England taking power in the US and that people can choose whatever religion they want b) people could criticize the goverment. c) people can protest when the government is being stupid. d) the press should be able to report on activities of the government without limitations.
Yet somehow in the last couple hundred years, this has evolved to mean that anything anyone wants to say is fine. That freedom of the press means the press can invade peoples lives without permission or consequence. That people can smear shit on a painting, call it art, and have that considered "protected".
Are you so sure that it hasn't been twisted? Because it's used now to protect a /lot/ more than it says it protects.
So what you're saying is that we should discriminate against the people who would use the OSS we produce, on the basis of their beliefs?
Huh. Interesting.
Whoah! I'm... impressed. This may be the first car analogy I've seen on /. that is actually a fair representation of the situation. Well done.
BetterUniverse better = UniverseFactory.getUniverse(oldUniverse);
Or whether it will be replaced by a sense of embarrassment.
I used to curse the Soccer-moms driving around in their BMW X5's to pick up a single toddler from kindergarten and drive 800 meters to their house. But now, I smile, knowing what a stupid waste of money it really was.
I didn't bother waiting - I laughed over what a stupid waste of money it was from the start. Lexus, BMW, Mercedes SUVs; I think that some people have forgotten theI enjoy riding my motorbike, but it's not like I save on petrol.
Eh? What kind of motorbike are you driving? I regularly drive my cruiser (Shadow Sabre 1100) at speeds from 60-90 mph, and consistently get about 40mpg.