I went to a state school, and even they had both Libreoffice and MS Office installed side by side on all campus computers. You literally could send in anything in your choice of formats -.doc,.docx,.odt,.pdf.... you name it.
Still don't understand why people buy into the SaaS model of closed source for exorbitant fees.
Maybe because those of us who use these things know, especially the oft trotted out Adobe stuff, that it's actually cheaper. I use PhotoShop for photo editing, and simply can't get used to GIMPS interface, especially years ago before they had the dockable windows. I've used PhotoShop since 7.0 came out.
I used to upgrade ~2 versions of PhotoShop, because there are things being integrated into the newer versions that make my job easier. With CC over the same amount of time I save $100+. I also get LightRoom for "free". You know, LightRoom, the program made specifically for photos, AND I also get PhotoShop for the super heavy edits. For cheaper.
As a trade off I have to ensure my PC is connected to the internet every couple months. Boo hoo, I'm sure the PC will never ever be connected to the internet/s
People need to get this. If it's consensus, it's not science. If it's science, consensus is irrelevant. The model is predictive or it's not, popularity doesn't enter into to.
Bullshit.
The Scientific Method is literally built on consensus. You come up with a hypothesis, test it, tweak it until it matches observations, others test it and come to a consensus that it is correct. It then generally will be integrated into a theory and tested to ensure the theory still matches observations and accepted or tweaked further depending on the consensus of all those who have tested it.
Scientific consensus, while not able to escape human nature, generally means everyone agrees that there have been no other observations to disagree with whatever is being discussed. Like everything else in science, if someone comes along with different data and observations, then there will be edits to incorporate them - after they have been tested and accepted.
Yes, something that exists as 0.0033% of the crust isn't rare. We won't even get into the tiny fractions of a percent of that fraction of a percent that are actually in a position where mining is either economically or technologically possible. Or that governments wouldn't hold out and go to war over the resources when they even are able to be mined in an area.
"But, but, my non science based website says these elements aren't rare, even though the site owner probably cant spell Geologist or even mineral without resorting to a dictionary!"
Everyone needs to calm the fuck down and lighten up.
No. Revisionist history should be fought whenever it attempts to rear its ugly head. You can't just mask history because the truth in inconvenient to you, or because it makes you feel uncomfortable. That's how you get repeats of easily deplorable events that could have been avoided.
Those comments in the code are a historical marker of the times when it was written, and should not be tampered with. It helps create a well defined delineation of when the kernel went from a true meritocracy to when the CoC demanders took over. We will be able to look back and see exactly the effects the CoC had on kernel development, whether good or bad, after a long enough period of time passes.
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
Yes, it is because 1) good science is not conducted by consensus.,
I'll give you that. But science is conducted by evidence. And for AGW, there's lots of it.
Uhh, I wouldn't give them that, considering how theories and laws are formed / accepted. They are literally a consensus of many people doing the same experiment and saying "yep, that's what we observed". If there are any outliers that are found, the theory / law gets adjusted accordingly.
Who cares about "right" or "wrong" in this case? It's pretty clear that there is a way for authors to remove the code from the kernel. Taken directly from kernel.org, on the how to contribute FAQ:
Copyright assignments are not required (or requested) for code contributed to the kernel. All code merged into the mainline kernel retains its original ownership; as a result, the kernel now has thousands of owners.
Petty as it is, it's still your copyrighted material, and you can say that they are not allowed to distribute - host it - ( regardless of the licenses ). That is, unless you signed the copyright to the kernel team / kernel.org / whatever. Then you are screwed.
Not only to Iraq, and Afghanistan as someone else already said, but maybe someone should have told those North Vietnamese people they had no chance against the biggest, baddest most armed forces in the world...... oh wait, the big bad most armed forces kind of got their asses handed to them by guerrilla fighters armed with cheap falling appart Chinese rifles and shit covered sticks.
Guess what, in Vietnam we had tanks, helicopters, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons. We. still. didn't. win.
- If you run a KDE Plasma desktop environment, apps using GTK+, Motif, or GNUstep are just as non-native as apps using Wine. - If you run GNOME, MATE, Cinnamon, Xfce, or LXDE, apps using Qt, Motif, or GNUstep are just as non-native as apps using Wine.
Yeah, because running a GTK application on a QT based desktop ( where both libraries are going to be installed native if you used your package manager ) is exactly the same as running an EXE / Win32 / WinForms based NTKernel Windows binary on an ELF based Linux system.
WINE does just a little more than translate DX calls to OpenGL you know. It's more than a widget toolkit translation, it literally has to translate low level kernel calls from two completely and radically different systems.
GTK / QT > Xlib? Not that different. They are all API's on native compiled binaries. You can't take an application that uses either and just slap it on a different OS and expect it to run, it won't. You have to compile the binary into something the OS can understand... or *gasp* do like WINE and run the binary through a translation layer.
Twitter / Instagram has the explicit right to display the image, given to them either by the photographer or through the users fair use. They do nothing wrong with fulfilling a HTTP GET request for the image. Instagram and twitter are actually all about sharing the posts / images, on these sites between users and that is why they exist and people upload stuff to them.
The other websites on the other hand do NOT have the explicit permission of the photographer to display the image on their site in any way. It does not matter that they tell the client browser to get the image from twitter and display it within their own page instead of hosting it themselves, they do not have the permission to do display the image. Do note - this would not have come up if the sites had text hyperlinked the actual Instagram / twitter pages so the user had to navigate away from their own site. This wouldn't drive traffic to the story nearly as much though...
To add insult, they are using the image ( without permission ) to make money on these sites. Of course, the easiest thing to do would have been gain permission from the copyright holder - many who if they publish on Instagram or twitter / anywhere else would be happy to grant permission for either having the photo credited to them or an amount that is peanut money to a large media publisher - and THEN publish. That would be too much work though.
You can also bet that if someone had done something similar with copyrighted materials from these publishers, the publishers themselves would have come down like a ton of bricks on them. Personally I'm glad to see the big publishers getting the shaft on a copyright violation. They fucked up in a stupidly spectacular way, were clearly not in the bounds of fair use ( *which PERSONAL social media sharing can be argued for) since the articles were not about the actual photo or capture of it , and should be punished for it.
* Even though the counter argument can be made that the hosts are still making money off of the media platform. Mostly things like these are ignored unless it is a blatant misuse since the user uploaded it to a place that is meant to be shared with other users.
Maybe, but the bigger question is: why didn't this trigger SLA re-compensation. Why the hell is this company seemingly trusting critical enterprise computing to a place the doesn't have a guarantee for five 9's of uptime and penalties for failing that? That's the question I want answered.
Wait until you find wire-sniffing apps inside your (expletives deleted) routers, or someone that's programmed a router port mirror to a tor listener. Security isn't that tough, but it eludes thousands of organizations. Look at this weeks, largest-ever breach in Florida, where most all of the living population of the United States had their names, addresses, and a few other juicy fields snarfed because of stupidity. The basics should include TLS 1.3.
Then you are already fucked. Period. There is nothing stopping the attacker from doing the exact same thing, but easier on your computer, all while being able to read the information in the decrypted form. That means the attacker is already in your network and can chain exploits until they own everything.
Not to mention - why the FUCK would I need HTTPS to view a page that has been sitting around since 1998, is static HTML, likely has no ads plastered all over its face, and contains information on something obscure and random that newer pages don't have anymore? There's no reason for encryption for these older pages. Ever. There is no login information, user credentials, or even scripts being executed. It's fucking HTML, if the browser manage to fuck it up enough to be an exploit maybe, just maybe we should be looking at securing the browser instead of the transfer at that point.
Yeah, exactly like that - well except for the fact that the cascade of movement was apparently irreversible and unstoppable. You know, like it could have been stopped by one HR email to human netops / sysops saying "the termination notice was wrong, Do Not Proceed and restore."
Got any other imaginary scary things about solar you'd like to make up? The computer you are using to type this drivel has the same dangerous stuff in it that your strawman argument has.
Got any degrees that even remotely touch on basic chemistry or geology?
My computer isn't getting rained on with and saturated with weak carbonic and sulfuric acid to mobilize those heavy metals. I don't know about you, but I treat my electronics better than that. Well, yours seems to need to be drool-proofed, so maybe it's not so bad if it gets a little extra wet. Hell maybe it would wash some if the drool away.
QED it isn't a solved problem.
Yes it is. Saying it isn't a solved problem is like saying sewing up a knife wound isn't a solved problem because the doctors weren't allowed to perform the surgury that they know how to do.
You can't seem to grasp the concept that even at PPM heavy metals build up in bio-systems. Hence why living near a coal plant is bad, one of the many reasons actually.
You also can't seem to grasp that 1: ignoring the problems won't make them go away, 2: the problems can affect an area now AND become worse over time, and 3: how to construct / deconstruct an actual argument.
And there is no "solar might be bad" for those that live near extremely large installations, it is and will be. It's simple chemistry. Whether steps can be taken ( or even will be at first, after all they cost money ) to mitigate this is yet to be seen.
Given that large grid scale solar installations aren't a) crushed and b) having acidic fluid run over them continuously, I think you can stop worrying about leachate.
Yeah, it's not like there is a source of carbonic / sulfuric ( if there is any kind of volcanic aerosols in the air at the time) acid falling from the sky onto the panels occasionally.
Just because the leaching is slow, doesn't mean that the metals won't build up over time. If we are lucky the soils will filter them out ( and become contaminated ), if we aren't so lucky we face the danger of heavy metal poisoning of underground water reservoirs over time.
Just like "who cares about CO2 levels 100 years from now" came back to bite us in the ass, "who cares about heavy metals in water reservoirs 100 years from now" will also bite the poor bastards living at the time right in the ass.
If I get heavy metal buildups I want it to be because I am doing something fun with heavy metals, not just because I live near a solar farm and increase the environmental concentration by a few PPM in the essentials for living.
Holy crap. I was right. They are talking about burning fossil fuels to make fossil fuels. *sobs uncontrollably* But I don't see anything about producing fuel in the actual article, beyond a passing mention that if someone wanted to come up with a way to create fossil fuels in a carbon-neutral way, they would need to start with carbon. As far as this paper is concerned, they're sticking it in a tank, which is a lot more plausible than doing something useful with it.
So what? a 40-60% reduction in waste gasses per energy unit output is still better than a 0% reduction.
If this can be made commercial scale and stable we should be able to eventually stop needing underground hydrocarbons. We could get energy from wind + solar supplements to the fuels produced from these plants. If there is also sequestration happening, we could even get CO2 levels down to a better level that won't mess up ocean chemistry even, all while having a backup fuel source just stored away in an inert form.
A percentage which is falling daily. Nuclear has a waste problem and a fallout risk. Solar and wind have no such issues. People recognize this and are acting accordingly with their interests. Most would rather live near some solar panels than a fission plant no matter how safe people claim it to be.
I'd rather live near a nuke plant and far, far away from any large grid scale solar installations. I don't want to deal with any of the heavy metals that would leach off of the panels, no matter how slowly they leach.
As for the waste problem with nuclear, it's a solved problem. Unfortunately, like everything else nuclear, including safety measure on newer designs, we aren't allowed to implement the solutions. We have reactor designs that could burn the "spent fuel" for power generation, but since they will produce fissionable "weapons grade" isotopes that can be extracted we can't build them.
Just as a side note - the same thing that makes those isotopes very useful for weapons makes them ideal as a fuel source for a reactor too.
We have reactor designs that can burn the fuel down a such a low radiation risk that a guy could literally shovel accidental fuel spills up into a wheelbarrow with little risk of radiation related health issue... providing he isn't exposed for long times / too often. It's just that those aren't allowed to be built because " nu-cler enremogy is the devil, mmmm-kay" morons.
Because 1: this isn't an actual Universal Basic Income trial. It was more of an extension to unemployment programs, looking to see if people with a guaranteed income ( even if it's a very small one ) will continue to look for a job to supplement that income.
Because 2: if the people that actually need it are in a narrow subset of the population, statistically you will get very few of them in your data set. Why bother making a data set if the vast majority of it is garbage data that you can't use to look at what you want to study?
Giving an extra 5-6K / year to people making easily livable wages won't tell you anything, other than getting a free 6K "makes life easier". Giving 6K / year to someone who is NOT making a livable wage can tell you a lot, like is it enough / too much / not enough, or in the worst case - will people actually look for a job if they are getting this money.
TFA contains some serious scientific illiteracy: 1. Dinosaurs are not "a species". 2. Crocodiles did not "descend from dinosaurs" 3. Plants would have no reason to evolve tasteless toxins, and there is no evidence whatsoever that they did.
1: species can be both singular and plural. Guess what it is in this case. Since you seem to have trouble with comprehension I'll even give you a hint - it's not singular. 2: You are completely and utterly wrong. Not only did lizards descend from parts of the dinosauria tree, but in addition to that, crocodiles are also the lizards most closely related to birds genetically. 3: If you could fucking bother to actually read the article that you are claiming is illiterate you would understand that the study hypothesizes that the DINOSAURS couldn't / didn't evolve the capability of tasting the poisons in the plants. This was backed up by modern crocodiles not being able to taste and discern poisonous meats.
So yeah, tell me again how the paper got everything wrong. I mean you were 0/3 after all.
2. UnRAR source code may be used in any software to handle
RAR archives without limitations free of charge, but cannot be
used to develop RAR (WinRAR) compatible archiver and to
re-create RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary.
Distribution of modified UnRAR source code in separate form or as a part of other software is permitted, provided that
full text of this paragraph, starting from "UnRAR source code"
words, is included in license, or in documentation if license
is not available, and in source code comments of resulting package.
3. The UnRAR utility may be freely distributed. It is allowed
to distribute UnRAR inside of other software packages.
Shitty wording on the licence part, but the code is distributed in compiled binary form as a part of the sofware. MS. would have to display the license in the "about" section that covers licences. They probably do, I've never looked, but these things are the type of things that the lawyers would make damn sure that the devs knew about.
I can't claim they did or didn't. I _can_ however state that Apple consistently ignores user feedback, tells you bugs will be fixed and then never gets around to it, and half asses feature requests. Just look at how long users were requesting that folders be sorted first in finder, leading to the creation of xtrafinder to fill that gap. Then Apple breaks it and says "oops" guess we will have to half ass make sorting folders first work... but only when sorting by name, not by date which was the most requested.
So it wouldn't surprise me at all if Apple _was_ made aware of the issue by displaylink and then either a: never fixed the bug when they said they would, or b: fixed the bug and then applied another patch that broke it again.
As for displaylink breaking, just look at what it is sitting on. Every single one of the people saying the Windows drivers break on updates is running Windows 10... the latest problem child OS from MS. My Mac with Yosemite hasn't had the drivers break in the four years I've had it, My Windows 8.1 laptop has no driver breakage in the same time, and my Server2k12 workstation has had.... a whole 0 times that the displaylink driver broke in an update.
I would definitely point the finger at the problem being Windows 10 in this case.
So, just HOW many THIRD PARTY display products SHOULD Apple test with?!?
More than zero? Displaylink isn't some little rinkydink monitor maker, they are the driver framework that something like 99.9% of all USB monitor vendors use. They should test against Displaylink at the very least. It's only driver technology that has been around for a decode or so...
As for why have one of these monitors? Easy, only having to use one single cable since they are also USB powered. It makes it quite easy and clutter free to have a second monitor on the go.
It's been out for decades! Just put your perc pot over the molten hole where your Prescott processor used to be before it melted through the motherboard, floor, and planets core. You should have a fresh pot in no time at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Then don't go to a shit school.
I went to a state school, and even they had both Libreoffice and MS Office installed side by side on all campus computers. You literally could send in anything in your choice of formats - .doc, .docx, .odt, .pdf.... you name it.
Still don't understand why people buy into the SaaS model of closed source for exorbitant fees.
Maybe because those of us who use these things know, especially the oft trotted out Adobe stuff, that it's actually cheaper. I use PhotoShop for photo editing, and simply can't get used to GIMPS interface, especially years ago before they had the dockable windows. I've used PhotoShop since 7.0 came out.
I used to upgrade ~2 versions of PhotoShop, because there are things being integrated into the newer versions that make my job easier. With CC over the same amount of time I save $100+. I also get LightRoom for "free". You know, LightRoom, the program made specifically for photos, AND I also get PhotoShop for the super heavy edits. For cheaper.
As a trade off I have to ensure my PC is connected to the internet every couple months. Boo hoo, I'm sure the PC will never ever be connected to the internet /s
People need to get this. If it's consensus, it's not science. If it's science, consensus is irrelevant. The model is predictive or it's not, popularity doesn't enter into to.
Bullshit.
The Scientific Method is literally built on consensus. You come up with a hypothesis, test it, tweak it until it matches observations, others test it and come to a consensus that it is correct. It then generally will be integrated into a theory and tested to ensure the theory still matches observations and accepted or tweaked further depending on the consensus of all those who have tested it.
Scientific consensus, while not able to escape human nature, generally means everyone agrees that there have been no other observations to disagree with whatever is being discussed. Like everything else in science, if someone comes along with different data and observations, then there will be edits to incorporate them - after they have been tested and accepted.
Yes, something that exists as 0.0033% of the crust isn't rare. We won't even get into the tiny fractions of a percent of that fraction of a percent that are actually in a position where mining is either economically or technologically possible. Or that governments wouldn't hold out and go to war over the resources when they even are able to be mined in an area.
"But, but, my non science based website says these elements aren't rare, even though the site owner probably cant spell Geologist or even mineral without resorting to a dictionary!"
Everyone needs to calm the fuck down and lighten up.
No. Revisionist history should be fought whenever it attempts to rear its ugly head. You can't just mask history because the truth in inconvenient to you, or because it makes you feel uncomfortable. That's how you get repeats of easily deplorable events that could have been avoided.
Those comments in the code are a historical marker of the times when it was written, and should not be tampered with. It helps create a well defined delineation of when the kernel went from a true meritocracy to when the CoC demanders took over. We will be able to look back and see exactly the effects the CoC had on kernel development, whether good or bad, after a long enough period of time passes.
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
Yes, it is because 1) good science is not conducted by consensus.,
I'll give you that. But science is conducted by evidence. And for AGW, there's lots of it.
Uhh, I wouldn't give them that, considering how theories and laws are formed / accepted. They are literally a consensus of many people doing the same experiment and saying "yep, that's what we observed". If there are any outliers that are found, the theory / law gets adjusted accordingly.
Who cares about "right" or "wrong" in this case? It's pretty clear that there is a way for authors to remove the code from the kernel. Taken directly from kernel.org, on the how to contribute FAQ:
Copyright assignments are not required (or requested) for code contributed to the kernel. All code merged into the mainline kernel retains its original ownership; as a result, the kernel now has thousands of owners.
Petty as it is, it's still your copyrighted material, and you can say that they are not allowed to distribute - host it - ( regardless of the licenses ). That is, unless you signed the copyright to the kernel team / kernel.org / whatever. Then you are screwed.
Not only to Iraq, and Afghanistan as someone else already said, but maybe someone should have told those North Vietnamese people they had no chance against the biggest, baddest most armed forces in the world...... oh wait, the big bad most armed forces kind of got their asses handed to them by guerrilla fighters armed with cheap falling appart Chinese rifles and shit covered sticks.
Guess what, in Vietnam we had tanks, helicopters, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons. We. still. didn't. win.
- If you run a KDE Plasma desktop environment, apps using GTK+, Motif, or GNUstep are just as non-native as apps using Wine.
- If you run GNOME, MATE, Cinnamon, Xfce, or LXDE, apps using Qt, Motif, or GNUstep are just as non-native as apps using Wine.
Yeah, because running a GTK application on a QT based desktop ( where both libraries are going to be installed native if you used your package manager ) is exactly the same as running an EXE / Win32 / WinForms based NTKernel Windows binary on an ELF based Linux system.
WINE does just a little more than translate DX calls to OpenGL you know. It's more than a widget toolkit translation, it literally has to translate low level kernel calls from two completely and radically different systems.
GTK / QT > Xlib? Not that different. They are all API's on native compiled binaries. You can't take an application that uses either and just slap it on a different OS and expect it to run, it won't. You have to compile the binary into something the OS can understand... or *gasp* do like WINE and run the binary through a translation layer.
Gee golly, this ANDROID app I'm emulating does things the Android way. News at 11.
What's next, you going to start complaining that programs you run in WINE want to save to locations just like they were running under native windows?
Here, I'll translate it into rude so you can understand it: The fucking moron here is you.
And that is exactly as it should be.
Twitter / Instagram has the explicit right to display the image, given to them either by the photographer or through the users fair use. They do nothing wrong with fulfilling a HTTP GET request for the image. Instagram and twitter are actually all about sharing the posts / images, on these sites between users and that is why they exist and people upload stuff to them.
The other websites on the other hand do NOT have the explicit permission of the photographer to display the image on their site in any way. It does not matter that they tell the client browser to get the image from twitter and display it within their own page instead of hosting it themselves, they do not have the permission to do display the image. Do note - this would not have come up if the sites had text hyperlinked the actual Instagram / twitter pages so the user had to navigate away from their own site. This wouldn't drive traffic to the story nearly as much though...
To add insult, they are using the image ( without permission ) to make money on these sites. Of course, the easiest thing to do would have been gain permission from the copyright holder - many who if they publish on Instagram or twitter / anywhere else would be happy to grant permission for either having the photo credited to them or an amount that is peanut money to a large media publisher - and THEN publish. That would be too much work though.
You can also bet that if someone had done something similar with copyrighted materials from these publishers, the publishers themselves would have come down like a ton of bricks on them. Personally I'm glad to see the big publishers getting the shaft on a copyright violation. They fucked up in a stupidly spectacular way, were clearly not in the bounds of fair use ( *which PERSONAL social media sharing can be argued for) since the articles were not about the actual photo or capture of it , and should be punished for it.
* Even though the counter argument can be made that the hosts are still making money off of the media platform. Mostly things like these are ignored unless it is a blatant misuse since the user uploaded it to a place that is meant to be shared with other users.
Maybe, but the bigger question is: why didn't this trigger SLA re-compensation. Why the hell is this company seemingly trusting critical enterprise computing to a place the doesn't have a guarantee for five 9's of uptime and penalties for failing that? That's the question I want answered.
Wait until you find wire-sniffing apps inside your (expletives deleted) routers, or someone that's programmed a router port mirror to a tor listener. Security isn't that tough, but it eludes thousands of organizations. Look at this weeks, largest-ever breach in Florida, where most all of the living population of the United States had their names, addresses, and a few other juicy fields snarfed because of stupidity. The basics should include TLS 1.3.
Then you are already fucked. Period. There is nothing stopping the attacker from doing the exact same thing, but easier on your computer, all while being able to read the information in the decrypted form. That means the attacker is already in your network and can chain exploits until they own everything.
Not to mention - why the FUCK would I need HTTPS to view a page that has been sitting around since 1998, is static HTML, likely has no ads plastered all over its face, and contains information on something obscure and random that newer pages don't have anymore? There's no reason for encryption for these older pages. Ever. There is no login information, user credentials, or even scripts being executed. It's fucking HTML, if the browser manage to fuck it up enough to be an exploit maybe, just maybe we should be looking at securing the browser instead of the transfer at that point.
Yeah, exactly like that - well except for the fact that the cascade of movement was apparently irreversible and unstoppable. You know, like it could have been stopped by one HR email to human netops / sysops saying "the termination notice was wrong, Do Not Proceed and restore."
Other than that yeah, exactly the same.
Got any other imaginary scary things about solar you'd like to make up? The computer you are using to type this drivel has the same dangerous stuff in it that your strawman argument has.
Got any degrees that even remotely touch on basic chemistry or geology?
My computer isn't getting rained on with and saturated with weak carbonic and sulfuric acid to mobilize those heavy metals. I don't know about you, but I treat my electronics better than that. Well, yours seems to need to be drool-proofed, so maybe it's not so bad if it gets a little extra wet. Hell maybe it would wash some if the drool away.
QED it isn't a solved problem.
Yes it is. Saying it isn't a solved problem is like saying sewing up a knife wound isn't a solved problem because the doctors weren't allowed to perform the surgury that they know how to do.
No, the irrational one here is you:
You can't seem to grasp the concept that even at PPM heavy metals build up in bio-systems. Hence why living near a coal plant is bad, one of the many reasons actually.
You also can't seem to grasp that 1: ignoring the problems won't make them go away, 2: the problems can affect an area now AND become worse over time, and 3: how to construct / deconstruct an actual argument.
And there is no "solar might be bad" for those that live near extremely large installations, it is and will be. It's simple chemistry. Whether steps can be taken ( or even will be at first, after all they cost money ) to mitigate this is yet to be seen.
Given that large grid scale solar installations aren't a) crushed and b) having acidic fluid run over them continuously, I think you can stop worrying about leachate.
Yeah, it's not like there is a source of carbonic / sulfuric ( if there is any kind of volcanic aerosols in the air at the time) acid falling from the sky onto the panels occasionally.
Just because the leaching is slow, doesn't mean that the metals won't build up over time. If we are lucky the soils will filter them out ( and become contaminated ), if we aren't so lucky we face the danger of heavy metal poisoning of underground water reservoirs over time.
Just like "who cares about CO2 levels 100 years from now" came back to bite us in the ass, "who cares about heavy metals in water reservoirs 100 years from now" will also bite the poor bastards living at the time right in the ass.
If I get heavy metal buildups I want it to be because I am doing something fun with heavy metals, not just because I live near a solar farm and increase the environmental concentration by a few PPM in the essentials for living.
Holy crap. I was right. They are talking about burning fossil fuels to make fossil fuels. *sobs uncontrollably* But I don't see anything about producing fuel in the actual article, beyond a passing mention that if someone wanted to come up with a way to create fossil fuels in a carbon-neutral way, they would need to start with carbon. As far as this paper is concerned, they're sticking it in a tank, which is a lot more plausible than doing something useful with it.
So what? a 40-60% reduction in waste gasses per energy unit output is still better than a 0% reduction.
If this can be made commercial scale and stable we should be able to eventually stop needing underground hydrocarbons. We could get energy from wind + solar supplements to the fuels produced from these plants. If there is also sequestration happening, we could even get CO2 levels down to a better level that won't mess up ocean chemistry even, all while having a backup fuel source just stored away in an inert form.
A percentage which is falling daily. Nuclear has a waste problem and a fallout risk. Solar and wind have no such issues. People recognize this and are acting accordingly with their interests. Most would rather live near some solar panels than a fission plant no matter how safe people claim it to be.
I'd rather live near a nuke plant and far, far away from any large grid scale solar installations. I don't want to deal with any of the heavy metals that would leach off of the panels, no matter how slowly they leach.
As for the waste problem with nuclear, it's a solved problem. Unfortunately, like everything else nuclear, including safety measure on newer designs, we aren't allowed to implement the solutions. We have reactor designs that could burn the "spent fuel" for power generation, but since they will produce fissionable "weapons grade" isotopes that can be extracted we can't build them.
Just as a side note - the same thing that makes those isotopes very useful for weapons makes them ideal as a fuel source for a reactor too.
We have reactor designs that can burn the fuel down a such a low radiation risk that a guy could literally shovel accidental fuel spills up into a wheelbarrow with little risk of radiation related health issue... providing he isn't exposed for long times / too often. It's just that those aren't allowed to be built because " nu-cler enremogy is the devil, mmmm-kay" morons.
Because 1: this isn't an actual Universal Basic Income trial. It was more of an extension to unemployment programs, looking to see if people with a guaranteed income ( even if it's a very small one ) will continue to look for a job to supplement that income.
Because 2: if the people that actually need it are in a narrow subset of the population, statistically you will get very few of them in your data set. Why bother making a data set if the vast majority of it is garbage data that you can't use to look at what you want to study?
Giving an extra 5-6K / year to people making easily livable wages won't tell you anything, other than getting a free 6K "makes life easier". Giving 6K / year to someone who is NOT making a livable wage can tell you a lot, like is it enough / too much / not enough, or in the worst case - will people actually look for a job if they are getting this money.
The only Illiteracy here is yours.
TFA contains some serious scientific illiteracy:
1. Dinosaurs are not "a species".
2. Crocodiles did not "descend from dinosaurs"
3. Plants would have no reason to evolve tasteless toxins, and there is no evidence whatsoever that they did.
1: species can be both singular and plural. Guess what it is in this case. Since you seem to have trouble with comprehension I'll even give you a hint - it's not singular.
2: You are completely and utterly wrong. Not only did lizards descend from parts of the dinosauria tree, but in addition to that, crocodiles are also the lizards most closely related to birds genetically.
3: If you could fucking bother to actually read the article that you are claiming is illiterate you would understand that the study hypothesizes that the DINOSAURS couldn't / didn't evolve the capability of tasting the poisons in the plants. This was backed up by modern crocodiles not being able to taste and discern poisonous meats.
So yeah, tell me again how the paper got everything wrong. I mean you were 0/3 after all.
2. UnRAR source code may be used in any software to handle
RAR archives without limitations free of charge, but cannot be
used to develop RAR (WinRAR) compatible archiver and to
re-create RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary.
Distribution of modified UnRAR source code in separate form
or as a part of other software is permitted, provided that
full text of this paragraph, starting from "UnRAR source code"
words, is included in license, or in documentation if license
is not available, and in source code comments of resulting package.
3. The UnRAR utility may be freely distributed. It is allowed
to distribute UnRAR inside of other software packages.
Shitty wording on the licence part, but the code is distributed in compiled binary form as a part of the sofware. MS. would have to display the license in the "about" section that covers licences. They probably do, I've never looked, but these things are the type of things that the lawyers would make damn sure that the devs knew about.
I can't claim they did or didn't. I _can_ however state that Apple consistently ignores user feedback, tells you bugs will be fixed and then never gets around to it, and half asses feature requests. Just look at how long users were requesting that folders be sorted first in finder, leading to the creation of xtrafinder to fill that gap. Then Apple breaks it and says "oops" guess we will have to half ass make sorting folders first work... but only when sorting by name, not by date which was the most requested.
So it wouldn't surprise me at all if Apple _was_ made aware of the issue by displaylink and then either a: never fixed the bug when they said they would, or b: fixed the bug and then applied another patch that broke it again.
As for displaylink breaking, just look at what it is sitting on. Every single one of the people saying the Windows drivers break on updates is running Windows 10... the latest problem child OS from MS. My Mac with Yosemite hasn't had the drivers break in the four years I've had it, My Windows 8.1 laptop has no driver breakage in the same time, and my Server2k12 workstation has had.... a whole 0 times that the displaylink driver broke in an update.
I would definitely point the finger at the problem being Windows 10 in this case.
So, just HOW many THIRD PARTY display products SHOULD Apple test with?!?
More than zero? Displaylink isn't some little rinkydink monitor maker, they are the driver framework that something like 99.9% of all USB monitor vendors use. They should test against Displaylink at the very least. It's only driver technology that has been around for a decode or so...
As for why have one of these monitors? Easy, only having to use one single cable since they are also USB powered. It makes it quite easy and clutter free to have a second monitor on the go.
It's been out for decades! Just put your perc pot over the molten hole where your Prescott processor used to be before it melted through the motherboard, floor, and planets core. You should have a fresh pot in no time at all.