A lot of this really just boils down to 60s ideas of environmentalism and reducing pollution. It's just that the modern spin ads an extra level of extreme hysterics to the situation that are likely to alienate people and trigger skepticism.
Although you are probably right. If you ask all of the apathetic types just going along or even the true blue tree huggers to really sacrifice, you will probably get a much different answer.
That's probably why you have this whole subject wrapped in hysteria to begin with. Someone thinks they need to generate a sense of urgency by any means necessary.
That's not even the biggest problem with Google and Android; the biggest problem is the complete lack of support Android devices get after they're a few months old, which makes them security nightmares. Cyanogen promises to fix that, but it's only going to work if they have better device coverage than they have now.
That makes no sense at all. Cyanogen is a bit player; how many people do you know who are running it? (If you do know any, exclude all the tech-heads and answer again.) MS doesn't care about destroying something that's barely larger than a hobby project.
MS *does* care about hurting Google and improving the marketshare for Windows Phone, or somehow improving their own presence in the mobile arena. So any actions here are going to be towards that end.
Perhaps they see any move to help Cyanogen as something which will help destabilize Android in general. Or, more likely, they see it as something that can use to get a big foothold into the Android space, and then use it to take it over from Google. Embrace, extend, extinguish.
Students in the US have their rights severely curtailed at school. They have no rights under the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendments.
There's also code besides the driver code; the Broadcom chips themselves have CPU cores (not sure what kind exactly) running their own firmware, which of course is loaded by the driver. This code is completely closed-source and secret. (The driver code is partially open; you can see their open-source Linux code in the kernel tree; it's "brcmfmac" and "brcmsmac")
I wonder if Apple's recent updates updated the firmware blobs for the Broadcom chips? This could also explain the problems.
I've worked with the Broadcom driver source code; it's crap. It doesn't surprise me they're having problems. What's funny is (now that I think about it and remember this from a prior job) Apple is easily Broadcom's biggest wifi customer; you'd think they could do a better job with their software for them, but apparently not.
Perhaps the writer didn't know if he was using coax or twisted pair.
The type of people who do that don't fight for anyone's rights. They fight to consolidate their own power.
I wonder if these are Broadcom chips, with the driver code actually being supplied by Broadcom. Broadcom drivers are shit.
Buddy, have you SEEN a florida mosquito?
Pffffft. The twin engine mosquito in Alaska eat those Florida skeeters for lunch. By the dozen.
VMware has better USB and SATA device support. It requires less resources to run multiple VMs (compared to virtualbox) and more readily supports virtual clusters.
Although I could certainly see how most other desktop VM users would be perfectly satisfied with Virtualbox.
So you're saying you have no basis for your belief that algal microbiofuel is energy efficient. Pretty much what I figured. Lots of semi-literate technobabble about the components, but you don't know shit about the efficiency, which is the entire focus of this article.
I haven't looked at any of the research since 2009, when I looked into setting up an algae system with a friend who ran his family's vehicles on biodiesel and was buying from a company 20 miles away. We figured we could take all the hipster business on the South end of San Jose. We decided not to do it because it was only cost effective with government subsidies, because the energy conversion was so awful. Which is to say; I don't have any of the materials anymore and don't really care if you want to keep being ignorant, so I'm not going to go find them for you. If you want to not be wrong, you should do the research.
The paper, from a research group led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen, France, and published in 2012, showed “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data,”
"The publication of his team's study was greeted by a storm of protest from scientists, and both the EFSA and Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment In Berlin slammed the paper for providing inadequate data to support its conclusions."
which in no way indicates that he was discredited. The retraction occurred in Nov 2013, the paper was published in 2012. There's also no mention of no one else failing to reproduce the results, which would be difficult to do since the paper was published in 2012, and the test ran 2 years. It sounds more like political and financial pressure than science. True science would run additional studies to support or discredit those published results. Your postings are reek of shill quality, I wonder how you're getting modded up so much.
I tend to agree that we should proceed with GMO very very carefully, and that Monsanto probably should be banned from the field. Why? Because they have shown that they're purely driven by greed and are thus unsuitable stewards for what's going to affect us potentially forever. That's the problem with GMO, it's not a 1 time item.
You first. You made the first claim; you show me your resource showing the energy efficiency of algal microbiofuel from sun to tank. Cite the page, please.