Apparently this has been encouraged by systemd developesr: https://mail.gnome.org/archive...

In all seriousness, if there are parts in my system for which I do not know what it is good for, I want to be able to remove it.

If gnome components depend specifically on systemd this seems to imply that there are no well-defined interfaces and the code is coupled, this has nothing to do with linking vs RPC over dbus.

Interesting. I have to say I am also worried about software freedom, but not so much because of licensing.

I am worried because loosly coupled systems based on well defined interfaces are replaced by deeply integrated systems. This means that you cannot easily replace one part you do not like with another anymore. This is not only bad engineering, it also limits your freedom in a very real sense. This is the real problem with systemd - and not only with systemd

You are confusing some theoretical limit with actually approaching a limit. A recent study by Fraunhofer socierty for Germany shows the theoretical potential for wind power as 2900 TWh/a which is about five times the current consumption. So there is still plenty of wind left...

"Over the last five years, wind and solar PV have become increasingly cost-competitive with conventional generation
technologies, on an unsubsidized basis, in light of material declines in the pricing of system components (e.g., panels,
inverters, racking, turbines, etc.), and dramatic improvements in efficiency, among other factors"

http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Leve...

I said more competitive than nuclear. The subsidies are paid to make renewables competitive relative to cheap but polluting energy sources such as coal. With respect to nuclear subsidies in UK, take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
This isn't even remotely economical without massive subsidies.

This is a red herring, except for fossil fuels health effects are not really an issue for any energy source. And with the money saved by not wasting it on nuclear you can easily save much more human lifes by putting the money in health care or safety in traffic.

We basically just started investing in renewables. There is no indication whatsoever that we are at some kind of limit.

Investing into a mix of renewables and improved energy efficiency is a much more economical way of achieving the same goal. In light of this, nuclear is simply a waste of resources.

It is true that such non-technical issues have driven up the cost of nuclear, but it is far from the truth that this is the only reason. Also some of the non-technical cost is not easy to avoid. Nuclear is expensive today and if you solve its inherent problems (essentially you need a closed fuel cycle if you want to scale it up) it will get even more expensive.

A technique which is not economical is not of much use for solving global problems.

Strawman.

I would mod you up if I could.

I don't think Microsoft as a company can claim a seat at any ISO standards committee. As far as I know - but I may be wrong - the members of the ISO, i.e. the national standard bodies, send people to the technical comittees. The rules the national standard organizations have probably vary a lot from country to country, but they mostly seem to be self-governed institutions. So it is hard to imaging that they there were no means to prevent this blatant misuse, either by enforcing existing rules or changing the rules.