No, you're a nutter. Global warming is not going to destroy civilization, and super-volcanoes are survivable and happen on the frequency of hundreds of thousands of years. As for energy, even if we burned through all our oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear reserves, there's still going to be the output of the sun for millions of years. There is no moral imperative to leave now.
In fact, it can be argued that spending large amounts of resources on crude technology that isn't self-sustainable is a waste. We can't even build a self-sustaining biodome here on Earth, let alone off-planet.
You could lead by example and kill yourself instead of using weasel words that suggest it would be beneficial if a virus wiped out half the population.
All he does is "Robin Williams". Every role. Minor variations.
Not true. Some exceptions based only on movies I've seen:
The World According to Garp
Moscow on the Hudson
Cadillac Man
Good Will Hunting
The Night Listener
World's Greatest Dad
And those are just the ones I've seen and recognize from IMDB. Sure, he's best known for his slapstick, but he's a good actor with a wide range. Even a movie like "The Fisher King ", where's he's doing the "Robin Williams" thing, is a well-developed character made to fit the movie.
Debian has granularity too. You don't need to install a desktop environment, but Debian provides a default install in case you want to. Debian has worked out all the dependencies for you, too, and provides binaries for many architectures. You can also easily build a package from source if you want to tweak it.
Also, it provides different levels of dependencies, from required, to recommended, to suggested, and you can specify what the default is, as well as override the default when installing any package.
It also has three levels of releases: stable, testing, and unstable, so you can choose your level of bleeding edge.
But then why did you have multiple paragraphs? There were 3 paragraphs, but the one in the middle was just huge.
As far as editing, you could always post again. I actually like that you can't edit your posts on Slashdot. It doesn't make sense from a conversational point of view. Preview and proofread are good habits.
The law of supply and demand is the basis of capitalism.
That's true, but it is only as a society that we determine to what extent this supply can be artificially limited. People have been learning and copying ideas from each other for as long as the history of humanity, and in general we have benefited from it greatly as a whole.
it is fair for you to be able to be compensated for it for as long as there is demand for it.
That "fairness" comes at the expense of everybody else's freedom. Maybe I don't think it's fair that every copy needs to be paid for once a work has been created, that society should be held back by imposing these limitations and people turned into criminals because they copied some bits.
I don't want them in jail for life, but I don't think "joyriding" is a minor offense and that it should be treated the same as stealing a car, and yes a felony. Don't steal shit, especially expensive shit that's the personal property of others.
Besides the judge, the defendant's attorney should have mentioned it. Maybe he did, but the judge at least seemed to be inclusive in responding to individual arguments, and it would be a major omission to ignore such an argument. I know people like to think the worst, but I don't think the judge would have done that in this case. It's just too obvious when he was so meticulous.
According to the letter of the law (treaty), which you said Britain followed, it doesn't matter what America thinks, and the judge explicitly said in his ruling that the crime had to be illegal in both countries.
Oink case, where the police got their arse handed to them by the judge.
Well this is strange, because the ruling made no mention of this case, which seems to directly apply, but instead talked about a "Rock & Overton" case.
our judges stick to the letter of the agreement [..] under British law, such linking isn't actually illegal
If that is actually the case, then there's no cause to extradite the defendant, because if it's not a crime in both places you can't be extradited for it.
What happened in this ruling is that the judges argued that such linking did violate the law, though having read the ruling I think the argument is pretty weak and this case should be settled in Britain to determine if such linking is illegal or not in British law.
What the hell is wrong with you apologists? Do you know how expensive and important a car is for most people? What kind of excuse can you make for people to take the property of others, whether it's "for fun" or otherwise?
This is just baseless speculation. I think it is fairly obvious that it probably isn't likely.
And Fermi thought it was probable enough that he posed the question, and it's still debated to this day. I'll just quote from Wikipedia, as it has citations:
First of all, even if ET's were common, the galaxy (let alone the universe) is an enormous place.
"If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."
Second, even if our solar system was a freaking interstellar highway, we probably wouldn't notice unless they started taking pit stops in Hawaii or something.
"This argument also assumes the mediocrity principle, which states that Earth is not special, but merely a typical planet, subject to the same laws, effects, and likely outcomes as any other world."
If Earth is a typical planet that life might arise on and can utilize, it would stand to reason that they'd be here making use of it.
Beyond that, maybe an ET civ simply has no need of spreading to every possible planet.
The question is, what would stop it? "given intelligent life's ability to overcome scarcity, and its tendency to colonize new habitats, it seems likely that at least some civilizations would be technologically advanced, seek out new resources in space and then colonize first their own star system and subsequently the surrounding star systems."
there are numerous reasons why it's unlikely to be true. I doubt I've covered half of them.
There are plenty of arguments to attempt to explain Fermi's Paradox, lots of them covered on the Wikipedia page, but it's definitely an interesting question and by no means settled.
If you are going to target the pirate bay, you must also target Bing, Google, and every other search engine out there.
Google will remove links to infringing material on request. The Pirate Bay guys advertised themselves as a place to find stuff to pirate, and openly mocked the people who demanded that they remove links to infringing material.
If the standard is to not use your dominant market share to dominate other markets, then they are not "doing all they can to play fair".
Google made a browser, gives it away for free, and uses their dominant position in search as a way to market it. Microsoft made a browser and installed it as part of their operating system, something that every other major operating system now does as well.
And the case of Chrome was just one example out of the four I gave.
Funny, because I've had the opposite experience, and it's one of the reasons why I left reddit. I'm not happy with Slashdot's system either, but there's no way that I'd see reddit as being an improvement.
It fo think that is the same thing, you are very ignorant, and to stupid to realize when you are ignorant.
Pretty funny that you're talking like this, when it looks like you had a stroke when typing this up.
If Google made you install Chrome, that might be an issue.
The point is they are using their strong search position to enter other markets. When it came to Microsoft, you could always install Netscape. And it's not like if you use another operating system that you won't get a default browser installed. Personally, I think the Netscape complaints were pretty weak, but if you're going to allow them, then the same can be made against Google.
They created an OS for a mobile device. The did not force other people to use it, and it wasn't done to push anyone out of business.
They did it to gain search marketshare in the mobile space. So they essentially gave away a mobile operating system to compete with the likes of Palm, Blackberry, and Apple, much like Microsoft gave away a browser to compete with Netscape.
They are building Camelot
*snort* If you think Google knowing everything about you and being everywhere is such a great thing, you are welcome to it, but I don't agree.
"Google originally claimed they were just going to be a search company?" Citation needed.
It's difficult, as this is based on stuff I read from Google when it was just starting out, and that I've having trouble finding. For example, I remember distinctly that Google had a page that said they don't do popup windows because the browser has dedicated functionality for that and it should be at the user's discretion. It's nearly impossible to find something like that over 10 years later. I'm also pretty sure they mentioned something like "Don't Be Evil" before their 2004 prospective, but I can't find the first reference to that, either.
Every company tries to leverage their strengths into more market share.
Of course. The question is at what point do regulators start having a problem with it. Microsoft got burned several times by the EU for such practices. One example is how they forced Microsoft to offer users a choice of which browser to install instead of defaulting to IE.
So my only argument is that Google wasn't "doing all they can to play fair", not that Microsoft is playing "fair" (by regulatory standards).
That's the benefit of having cheap labor, low regulations, and low standards of living. What firm in the US can afford to stay in business while doing custom manufacturing jobs for around $1,000?
How well would you compete if you were trying to sell such custom services against people overseas? Can you imagine trying to pay things like rent or health insurance while doing so?
Google will have to be really careful (but they know that, and I'm sure they are doing all they can to play fair),
No, they aren't. Examples below.
but if they use their dominance in search to (artificially) dominate other markets, it's kind of what Microsoft did with IE and it got them in to trouble.
Like how they display a big fat ad to install Chrome when I visit their home page with IE? Or how they used Android to get themselves on mobile? Or how they aggressively scanned copyrighted books without payment, and then tried to get an exclusive deal to do this in a court settlement? Or how they keep on buying Internet companies like YouTube, which serve content, but Google originally claimed they were just going to be a search company?
I think it's pretty obvious they are empire building.
Java has better tools than C++. It doesn't have the crazy error messages of C++, doesn't have the hair-pulling memory errors of C++, or a bunch of other undefined, crappy behavior that is common in C++.
C++ has crappy module support, with its awful header files and inefficient compiling.
Sure, if you put the effort into it, your C++ code will perform faster and use less memory than Java. On the other hand, Java is quite often "good enough" without all the hassles.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a nutter, I am a realist.
No, you're a nutter. Global warming is not going to destroy civilization, and super-volcanoes are survivable and happen on the frequency of hundreds of thousands of years. As for energy, even if we burned through all our oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear reserves, there's still going to be the output of the sun for millions of years. There is no moral imperative to leave now.
In fact, it can be argued that spending large amounts of resources on crude technology that isn't self-sustainable is a waste. We can't even build a self-sustaining biodome here on Earth, let alone off-planet.
You're just as bad as the religious people you seek to condemn.
You could lead by example and kill yourself instead of using weasel words that suggest it would be beneficial if a virus wiped out half the population.
All he does is "Robin Williams". Every role. Minor variations.
Not true. Some exceptions based only on movies I've seen:
And those are just the ones I've seen and recognize from IMDB. Sure, he's best known for his slapstick, but he's a good actor with a wide range. Even a movie like "The Fisher King ", where's he's doing the "Robin Williams" thing, is a well-developed character made to fit the movie.
Debian has granularity too. You don't need to install a desktop environment, but Debian provides a default install in case you want to. Debian has worked out all the dependencies for you, too, and provides binaries for many architectures. You can also easily build a package from source if you want to tweak it.
Also, it provides different levels of dependencies, from required, to recommended, to suggested, and you can specify what the default is, as well as override the default when installing any package.
It also has three levels of releases: stable, testing, and unstable, so you can choose your level of bleeding edge.
Scala derives much of its benefit from being compatible with the Java libraries and running on the JVM.
But then why did you have multiple paragraphs? There were 3 paragraphs, but the one in the middle was just huge.
As far as editing, you could always post again. I actually like that you can't edit your posts on Slashdot. It doesn't make sense from a conversational point of view. Preview and proofread are good habits.
The law of supply and demand is the basis of capitalism.
That's true, but it is only as a society that we determine to what extent this supply can be artificially limited. People have been learning and copying ideas from each other for as long as the history of humanity, and in general we have benefited from it greatly as a whole.
it is fair for you to be able to be compensated for it for as long as there is demand for it.
That "fairness" comes at the expense of everybody else's freedom. Maybe I don't think it's fair that every copy needs to be paid for once a work has been created, that society should be held back by imposing these limitations and people turned into criminals because they copied some bits.
Fair enough, that's a good point -- if it works in practice. Ultimately I want solutions that work the best.
I don't want them in jail for life, but I don't think "joyriding" is a minor offense and that it should be treated the same as stealing a car, and yes a felony. Don't steal shit, especially expensive shit that's the personal property of others.
Besides the judge, the defendant's attorney should have mentioned it. Maybe he did, but the judge at least seemed to be inclusive in responding to individual arguments, and it would be a major omission to ignore such an argument. I know people like to think the worst, but I don't think the judge would have done that in this case. It's just too obvious when he was so meticulous.
Well, America thinks it is.
According to the letter of the law (treaty), which you said Britain followed, it doesn't matter what America thinks, and the judge explicitly said in his ruling that the crime had to be illegal in both countries.
Oink case, where the police got their arse handed to them by the judge.
Well this is strange, because the ruling made no mention of this case, which seems to directly apply, but instead talked about a "Rock & Overton" case.
our judges stick to the letter of the agreement [..] under British law, such linking isn't actually illegal
If that is actually the case, then there's no cause to extradite the defendant, because if it's not a crime in both places you can't be extradited for it.
What happened in this ruling is that the judges argued that such linking did violate the law, though having read the ruling I think the argument is pretty weak and this case should be settled in Britain to determine if such linking is illegal or not in British law.
What the hell is wrong with you apologists? Do you know how expensive and important a car is for most people? What kind of excuse can you make for people to take the property of others, whether it's "for fun" or otherwise?
It would help if he learned how to use paragraphs. I'm not reading that wall of text.
This is just baseless speculation. I think it is fairly obvious that it probably isn't likely.
And Fermi thought it was probable enough that he posed the question, and it's still debated to this day. I'll just quote from Wikipedia, as it has citations:
First of all, even if ET's were common, the galaxy (let alone the universe) is an enormous place.
"If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."
Second, even if our solar system was a freaking interstellar highway, we probably wouldn't notice unless they started taking pit stops in Hawaii or something.
"This argument also assumes the mediocrity principle, which states that Earth is not special, but merely a typical planet, subject to the same laws, effects, and likely outcomes as any other world."
If Earth is a typical planet that life might arise on and can utilize, it would stand to reason that they'd be here making use of it.
Beyond that, maybe an ET civ simply has no need of spreading to every possible planet.
The question is, what would stop it? "given intelligent life's ability to overcome scarcity, and its tendency to colonize new habitats, it seems likely that at least some civilizations would be technologically advanced, seek out new resources in space and then colonize first their own star system and subsequently the surrounding star systems."
there are numerous reasons why it's unlikely to be true. I doubt I've covered half of them.
There are plenty of arguments to attempt to explain Fermi's Paradox, lots of them covered on the Wikipedia page, but it's definitely an interesting question and by no means settled.
If you are going to target the pirate bay, you must also target Bing, Google, and every other search engine out there.
Google will remove links to infringing material on request. The Pirate Bay guys advertised themselves as a place to find stuff to pirate, and openly mocked the people who demanded that they remove links to infringing material.
If the standard is to not use your dominant market share to dominate other markets, then they are not "doing all they can to play fair".
Google made a browser, gives it away for free, and uses their dominant position in search as a way to market it. Microsoft made a browser and installed it as part of their operating system, something that every other major operating system now does as well.
And the case of Chrome was just one example out of the four I gave.
Funny, because I've had the opposite experience, and it's one of the reasons why I left reddit. I'm not happy with Slashdot's system either, but there's no way that I'd see reddit as being an improvement.
It fo think that is the same thing, you are very ignorant, and to stupid to realize when you are ignorant.
Pretty funny that you're talking like this, when it looks like you had a stroke when typing this up.
If Google made you install Chrome, that might be an issue.
The point is they are using their strong search position to enter other markets. When it came to Microsoft, you could always install Netscape. And it's not like if you use another operating system that you won't get a default browser installed. Personally, I think the Netscape complaints were pretty weak, but if you're going to allow them, then the same can be made against Google.
They created an OS for a mobile device. The did not force other people to use it, and it wasn't done to push anyone out of business.
They did it to gain search marketshare in the mobile space. So they essentially gave away a mobile operating system to compete with the likes of Palm, Blackberry, and Apple, much like Microsoft gave away a browser to compete with Netscape.
They are building Camelot
*snort* If you think Google knowing everything about you and being everywhere is such a great thing, you are welcome to it, but I don't agree.
"Google originally claimed they were just going to be a search company?"
Citation needed.
It's difficult, as this is based on stuff I read from Google when it was just starting out, and that I've having trouble finding. For example, I remember distinctly that Google had a page that said they don't do popup windows because the browser has dedicated functionality for that and it should be at the user's discretion. It's nearly impossible to find something like that over 10 years later. I'm also pretty sure they mentioned something like "Don't Be Evil" before their 2004 prospective, but I can't find the first reference to that, either.
Every company tries to leverage their strengths into more market share.
Of course. The question is at what point do regulators start having a problem with it. Microsoft got burned several times by the EU for such practices. One example is how they forced Microsoft to offer users a choice of which browser to install instead of defaulting to IE.
So my only argument is that Google wasn't "doing all they can to play fair", not that Microsoft is playing "fair" (by regulatory standards).
That's the benefit of having cheap labor, low regulations, and low standards of living. What firm in the US can afford to stay in business while doing custom manufacturing jobs for around $1,000?
How well would you compete if you were trying to sell such custom services against people overseas? Can you imagine trying to pay things like rent or health insurance while doing so?
I'm cynical about charities. It seems that whenever you put people in charge of a pile of money, they find a way to use it for themselves.
Google will have to be really careful (but they know that, and I'm sure they are doing all they can to play fair),
No, they aren't. Examples below.
but if they use their dominance in search to (artificially) dominate other markets, it's kind of what Microsoft did with IE and it got them in to trouble.
Like how they display a big fat ad to install Chrome when I visit their home page with IE? Or how they used Android to get themselves on mobile? Or how they aggressively scanned copyrighted books without payment, and then tried to get an exclusive deal to do this in a court settlement? Or how they keep on buying Internet companies like YouTube, which serve content, but Google originally claimed they were just going to be a search company?
I think it's pretty obvious they are empire building.
Java has better tools than C++. It doesn't have the crazy error messages of C++, doesn't have the hair-pulling memory errors of C++, or a bunch of other undefined, crappy behavior that is common in C++.
C++ has crappy module support, with its awful header files and inefficient compiling.
Sure, if you put the effort into it, your C++ code will perform faster and use less memory than Java. On the other hand, Java is quite often "good enough" without all the hassles.