Oh lighten up. LoTR has always been on-topic here. It's part of your nerd or geek card membership. After all, you conveniently left out the most important part of the tagline: "news for nerds." Though maybe the nature of the nerd is changing. Hard to believe I've been wasting time on slashdot for nearly 20 years now.
Other nerdy non-tech subjects come up from time to time, that slashdotters seem to love talking about:
- star trek
- star wars
- science fiction in general
- The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
to name but a few.
Oh really. You know nothing of this woman and nothing of her situation beyond what little was shared with us. It's okay to not pass judgement on a case because one lacks facts. But you have absolutely no right to make such a broad, casual judgement. In fact your attitude is part of this very problem.
I can assure you that the vast majority of congresspeople will retain their seats in the next election. I think the statistics are in the 90% range. Years of gerrymandering have ensured this.
Robert Reich is certainly right on about the demise of capitalism. Corporations stack the deck so much in their favor that capitalism as we used to have it, as it used to benefit average people, and lift them out of poverty, is pretty much dead. Any attempts to reform the system cause them to scream "socialist wealth redistribution."
I used to think those that picketed at G7 meetings against globalization were luddites. Now I completely understand. Globalization is more and more just bullying on a national scale.
Hopefully in Canada we can get the Conservatives out, though I'm not hopeful. Harper wants Canada to be just like the US in all the bad ways. However a conservative minority government is probably the worst case scenario up here--Harper would be absolutely dictatorial in such a government knowing that the electorate are going to punish anyone who brings the government down and brings on another round of elections. Both opposition parties say they won't even bother reading the TPP in the house (which is honestly a lie, but at least they say they oppose it). I dunno. Plus Trudeau is being an idiot refusing to even talk about a coalition with the NDP. But I digress.
When exactly did Red Hat make this mistake and how did they make it? I have been using Red Hat (later Fedora) since Red Hat 5.0 (original RH linux, circa 1997), so it must have been long before then. I cannot recall any such near disaster. RH has initiated many potentially disruptive changes and came out doing just great. The one that was the hardest was the switch to glibc from the old libc. That broke a lot of things initially, and caused a lot of pain for users and developers. But they worked it out. Of course RH was an extremely small company back then, probably still working out of a garage.
Sorry but that's simply not true. It was Sun and now Oracle that purposely chose an incompatible license for ZFS. Nothing to do with the GPL here. Your complaints are like the people that buy up land around an airport, build houses, and then complain about the noise.
Anyway, if you read the fine articles you'd discover that what Ubuntu is going to do is include ZoL modules in their kernel packages. This takes advantage of GPLv2's aggregation clause which lets you ship non GPL binaries with GPL'd binaries because they aren't linked together (think an OS distribution). Once the modules get loaded, that taints the kernel but since it's the end user that initiates this by choosing to use ZFS, there's no copyright violation. ZoL has always operated this way, actually.
In other words ZoL will not be compiled into the kernel, as to do so by Ubuntu would be a license violation. But Ubuntu plans to ship and support the binary kernel modules. Sounds eminently reasonable to me. Hopefully we'll see this approach adopted by other distributions, athough ZoL is not that hard to get running at all.
No it doesn't have to time out. If no web server is running on 127.0.0.1, the connection attempt fails immediately. This is faster than a 404 even. If you had iptables dropping packets then that would result in a timeout. That's why I have iptables use the REJECT target for outbound things I'm trying to block. That way the connection fails immediately.
Amazon already helpfully stores in the cloud any and all books and documents I send to my kindle via email. They show up in my archive along with all my Amazon-purchased books and I can retrieve them wirelessly on any kindle device or app. This could be a privacy concern for some. I'm not sure if kindle will sync reading position in these third party books. I kind of doubt it.
People sometimes confuse trade secrets and patents. They often act like once something is patented, it's gone forever (big bad company took invention and patented it so we can never see it again). Yet patents are completely opposite of trade secrets. Trade secrets are, well, secret and hidden by nature. Patents are supposed to be open, and should explain exactly how to do something to someone skilled in the art. In terms of knowledge, patents are much better than trade secrets this way. Though the law allows prosecution of someone who violates (steals) a trade secret, once a trade secret is out it's out and it can never be hidden again. I guess the openness of patents is why I get frustrated when companies start getting litigious but get all evasive about exactly which patents they claim are being violated. It's all in the open anyway, so let's see it.
No, they are simply stating facts. This is just the remedy built into the contract being exercised by Apple. I'd go so far as to say most contacts have an agreement over what happens when the is broken. Granted the contact may be one sided with the terms and remedies but iFixit certainly agreed to it.
How is USB C better than micro-USB in terms of wear and tear affecting the plug? It still that fragile contacts tab inside it. Micro USB is indeed terrible, but I don't see how USB C is any more robust, save that it is reversible so people can't break it sticking it in backwards.
There really is resistance to urea here in NA. It's seen as a burden by just about everyone and it really does play into consumers' buying decisions. $20 worth of chemical can translate into thousands of dollars in lost sales. Especially in a market dominated by gasoline cars.
It's also entirely possible that in real-world conditions the EPAs regulations are simply unattainable in any acceptable way. Now that the EPA is going to have to move to real-world testing, this could be a good thing to let the government know just how realistic or unrealistic their targets are. They say they are already testing big diesel engines this way. Makes me really wonder, though, as I'm sure that a big rig could meet standards on a flat stretch of road, but start climbing a hill and I guarantee particulates go up an order of magnitude, despite pollution controls. NOx too.
This idea that one can simply legislate fuel efficiency and emissions can only go so far and I wonder if we aren't at the limit, particularly when emissions and efficiency often work against each other.
Sounds great to me. I don't need any improvements or enhancements. Nice to know I can keep Windows 7 around for another 5 years. After that maybe Wine will be good enough to run the few windows apps I might want to use. Or ReactOS.
Actually, no. Urea does require hotter temperatures, true, but it surely doesn't impact performance. The way diesel pollution works is that you can either lower compression and combustion through EGR to reduce NOx, but this tends to produce particulates and reduces fuel efficiency. Or you can increase efficiency and run the engine hotter, possibly with more compression, which virtually eliminates particulates, but hotter combustion temperatures increase NOx production.
If anything Urea lets the engine run a lot closer to its more efficient state with more compression and higher temperatures. As you say the urea plus the catalyzing exhaust chamber does add weight. But the biggest problem is the availability of urea (in north America) and the handling of it. Especially in the winter.
We run a machine on the farm with Tier 4I emissions on it, and every year we buy about 800 L of urea. It's about $1 CAD/L. So it does add overall cost, though to put it in perspective, it costs nearly $400 a day in diesel fuel during harvest for the same machine, totaling $800 a day for the two machines. But this engine is also more efficient than previous models, so fuel consumption is lower. We don't run the machine in the winter so we've never had any problems with it gelling, and we've never had the machine derate due to urea problems. In my mind, urea injection is really the only practical way to produce cleaner diesels. This is important with biologically-derived fuels as well, such as biodiesel. The carbon cost of urea production and handling probably makes it a wash in terms of CO2 emissions, despite higher efficiency engines. Urea is made from natural gas reformation.
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan