Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Finally! (Score 1, Interesting) 174

by TemporalBeing (#47947879) Attached to: Native Netflix Support Is Coming To Linux

It almost seems like an accident, though. They need to move to HTML5 because Microsoft supports its technologies like high school students support their relationships.

12 years for Win XP.

However, Silverlight is already out of support. It didn't even make 3 years of support. I think the big thing that did it in was also the same thing that MS tried to show it off with - the Olympics on-line broadcasting in the US. Too many restrictions and it didn't go anywhere. NBC left it behind shortly after; an there has been zero large deployments of it since (at least any where near that scale).

Comment: Re:Federal Overreach (Score 1) 154

by TemporalBeing (#47947585) Attached to: Dealership Commentator: Tesla's Going To Win In Every State

Profound analysis. By your logic, why don't we just give up on anything requiring centralized government then?

Exactly. Outside of keeping the states working together collaboratively, and providing national defense, there really isn't much that the Federal Government should be doing.

That is why the original Articles of Confederation were so weak - too weak to even enforce getting funding from the States; the US Constitution that replaced it was made stronger primarily to ensure the Federal Government was able to collect funding from the States and do a little more, but the intent of the Federal Government was still basically the same - to help smooth over relations between the States by managing the inter-state relationships, and provide a uniform defense for all States against foreign (not domestic) enemies. (Domestic enemies were left for the States to manage.)

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 1) 379

by TemporalBeing (#47938801) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

If you really buy that principle and want to enforce it religiously, then please never use a web browser again (even Lynx!), not to mention any other complex program that isn't formed from a bunch of small "do one thing well!" utilities that are executed in a pipeline.

If web browsers and other modern programs do not follow the "many small tools doing 1 thing well" model, that's only due to programmer mediocrity and market pressure.

Not quite. There are a number of reasons why one would build a binary that doesn't have any shared libraries:

  • You want to control the dependencies of the software on the target system
  • You want to have the installed software be minimally impacting the target system
  • You are targetting a portion of the system that is loaded before the libraries are available
  • and more...

Technically, any program under /bin and /sbin are suppose to be fully self-contained binaries - e.g. no external library dependencies; if they must, then those can only be under /lib, but it has to be a minimal set. That was deu to / being the only file system mounted for certain scenarios, e.g boot time before the other volumes are mounted, or in recovery mode when other volumes have not yet been mounted.

Further, any file that goes into an initrd image has the same set of requirements - in that case initrd is extracted to a RAM-based file system (f.e tempfs) so it's only what you put in.

This is yet another area that systemd is breaking - because they're pushing for everything to be /usr and removing /sbin, /bin, etc claiming those are "not useful any more". The devs need to get exposed to some real embedded development environments where the reality is that those things are still extremely useful.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 2) 379

by TemporalBeing (#47928627) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

When I was in university,I used an HPUX system that had been heavily retrofitted to use all of the gnu applications and utilities that were available at the time. Nobody ever insisted that it ever should have been called GNU/HPUX. At east one release of Minix extensively used gnu software as well. If that was ever an expectation of Stallman's for operating system installations that heavily depended on GNU, then should have been in v1 of the GPL. Doing otherwise, and pulling this only after Linux had started to acquire some notoriety of its own makes him look just as bad as people who sit on patents until some really big company start to use it without knowing about the patent, and start enforcing it only then.

Agreed. Even Solaris uses mostly GNU software now. So are you going to call it GNU/OpenSolaris or GNU/Solaris? Or GNU/MacOSX?
No. It's just Solaris, OpenSolaris, and MacOS X.

Comment: Re:Linux-oriented? (Score 1) 33

by TemporalBeing (#47928463) Attached to: Digia Spins Off Qt As Subsidiary

Linux has uses it as a primary desktop toolkit

Don't get me wrong, it is extremely well used, but nothing close to universal.

Now that it's been LGPL for a while, possibly if it ditched moc and used standard C++ templates for signals and introspection it could be the primary desktop toolkit. Though to be honest plenty of Linux developers have no love for C++ either.

You do realize that there are more and more parts of the Linux Desktop using Qt directly, even outside of KDE?

For example, LightDM uses Qt and Qt5's QML.

Comment: Re:Hate Amazon for this (Score 1) 77

by TemporalBeing (#47891115) Attached to: Amazon Instant Video Now Available On Android

I generally like Amazon. I am a Prime subscriber and I am supposed to be able to watch their Prime videos as well. However we're an Android family and do not have any iOS or Amazon devices. I have tried them, but I did not like them.

Netflix supports Android devices well. And I like them for it. Amazon is pulling these shenanigans in order to prop up support for their mostly uninteresting platform. Android has the largest market share and my family has 4 Android tablets and 4 Android phones. None of these devices can play Amazon instant video. Damn you Amazon!

My wife has an Prime account, and we basically don't use it for Video's because its too damn confusing what you can watch for free, what's up for rent, or purchases. I really wish they made it so that Prime members could just WATCH a video regardless, with rent being for non-prime, and purchases being an optional thing in addition. Then we might actually use the Prime Video; but as it stands now it's useless.

Comment: Re:Science creates understanding of a real world. (Score 1) 770

by TemporalBeing (#47865575) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

Which of these testable science facts do you disagree with: AGW Science:

AGW is not science but the belief that GW is a direct result of humans, something that is not provable as there are far too many factors involved, unknowns, and incomplete data sets and data timspans. Longer duration data timespans are available with the caveat that the accuracy is questionable due to assumptions involved regarding the data, etc. The only real data set is at most 100 years old, but even then most GW folks will discount the sensor data in a good portion of that as being in-accurate for a variety of reasons, making the usable data set

  1. A lot of visible light hits the earth.
  2. Visible light pass through CO2 with no interaction.
  3. Visible strikes something, IR is emitted
  4. CO2 absorbs energy from IR
  5. Human put more CO2 into the atmosphere then can be absorbed through the normal cycle.
  6. Extra CO2 means more energy held in the lower atmosphere.

So you've provided a simple, not entirely testable (by average tester) set of steps for testing for one specific thing (CO2) out of many factors, most of which we have zero control over but any one of which can easily outweigh how much impact CO2 has. You still haven't shown that it is humans that causes most of the CO2, or even contributed to GW in any significant way.

And that's the problem for AGW - there's nothing that substantially concludes what is causing GW to start with, let alone being able to track that human activity.

Before you can prove humans are doing it, you have to first prove what is causing it, and the cause for GW is still very much up in the air. Until that is settled and concluded without any kind of AGW bias (as is prevalent) than determining that humans are the cause cannot happen.

"but because we should be good stewards of the resources around us" Why? if you don't think we can do harm to it, why do we need to be good stewards?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Comment: Re:Nonsense (Score 1) 280

by TemporalBeing (#47863771) Attached to: Is It Time To Split Linux Distros In Two?

"...you will find a radio [button] option for optimizing windows for programs or background services".

True. Have you actually tried using it, and what differences in response time did you observe?

Yes, I've used it - on both Desktop AND Server; and it does improve performance for background (service) applications.

Comment: Re:Science creates understanding of a real world. (Score 0) 770

by TemporalBeing (#47854009) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation
Personally, I don't think AGW is real at all.

That said, I still fully agree that technology should have as minimal an impact on the environment as possible. Not because of AGW, but because we should be good stewards of the resources around us. But that also means that making the technology have as minimal impact as possible must be a goal and that making it do so will obviously result in times that we cannot - simply because the technology is not market ready (e.g. mass producable, cheap enough, etc) to do so for short durations. The answer, in some cases, may be that that means the technology itself cannot be used; while in other situations you use it realizing that the impact will be minimalized over time.

F.e if you have a power generator that generates a lot of radiation that cannot yet be contained, then it should not be used until that radiation can be contained. However, if you have a vehicle that produces a very trace amount of non-lethal emissions (e.g CO2) in normal use, then you use it realizing that it will get better contained throughout the progress of technology - e.g model year 1 might leak more than model year 5 as tech progresses; in some cases tech being retrofitted, ala Coal Power Plants. All-in-all, there has to be a balance between what is fully contained, partially contained, and not contained at all for what technology we decide to use.

Comment: Re:Straight to the pointless debate (Score 1) 136

Not likely since AGW is based on science, and scientific method. Where as deniers are just a bunch of dolts with no science behind them. Ask yourself this: How come AGW deniers never talk about the actual science? They make post like you do: No evidence, no data, every scientist, every agency, every competing country are all in some conspiracy and only the enlightened few* can see 'The Truth!'

*get over yourself already

FYI - there are temperature sensor records going back to the early 1900's. However, they discount a good chunk of them saying that the sensors were not accurate or reliable, etc. All I'm saying, is that if the data does't align to their beliefs then they very well may say the same thing here - that the satellite's sensors used to capture the data were not accurate enough to use for the purpose of climate science, etc; and therefore toss out the data.

It's not like they haven't done the before.

On the versus, look for the other side to go the other way.

It's politics and if you don't think that doesn't play a role in science (however altruistic, benign, or nefarious that role may be) then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Save the whales. Collect the whole set.

Working...