typodupeerror

Comment Re:Nice but (Score 2, Interesting)56

what you say is reasonable but there are a lot of assumptions and i really would like to see some numbers.
Back in the old days pc were relatively polluting and none ever thought about that. Now we know of all the toxic problem related to their making - and their reciclying - so most companies are working on making them more "green".

So what about solar panel ? Are they made with this concepts in mind or are they made just as cheap as possible without taking in account pollution made to make them or not? How long does it takes to make them "greener" or , using math, when this is true ?

"amount of electricity of one panel per day" * "X days" + "pollution produced to make that panel" > "pollution per day of a fossile fuel power plant giving the same amount of electricity"
(i really hope it's readible)

Also you forget that solar panel will not last forever, so depending on the X of the equation above you can make some good assumption rather than running to solar panel because "they told me it's green so it must be".

Comment Nice but (Score 2, Interesting)56

I'm very happy to see this kind of competition however from a scientific prospective i see some problem: saying you save co2 with solar energy is a bit "gross", first to produce all those solar panels you had to pollute the environment so the first question someone should ask is : ok solar is good but how much do you pollute to produce one flat panel ? Are we sure the pollution made (and i'm not speaking only about amount of CO2 but also toxic in rivers, sea etc. etc. ) to make a solar panel is less than the one we would make to make the same power from "classic" method ? CO2 savings: well this is just ridiculous: a nuclear reactor, a wind reactor, a carbon fuel power plant, a hydroelectric power plant. 4 ways of getting electricity, four different amount of Co2 produced, so from what kind of power plant does your electricity come, this is how you try to figure out your real "co2 savings" . Next thing to speak about should the fact that our pollution doesn't come only from Co2 but from toxic wastes too, so measuring pollution with Co2 is ineffective and misleading. I really DO care for my planet and sometimes looks like all this "environmental talks" are just exscuses to push new products rather than really doing something to make earth a better place for our future generations but I might be wrong .

Comment Re:Stability (Score 2, Interesting)891

Besides is Linus really "free"? My time has value too (about \$50/hour) and the hours I spent trying to connect to my ISP could have been spent earning overtime at work, buying Windoze for ~\$120, and still having some cash leftover in my pocket. Sometimes it's worth handing-over the credit card to get plug-and-play software, rather than put-up with free software's constant need to "configure" everything.

Even with plug and play software you have sometimes to stay hour to fix a problem because they aren't doing what they were told to do, so in that case you have spent \$\$ to buy the program and you have to spent time trying to fix problem or either contact customer support to find a way to solve the problem. This is not about Foss or proprietary sw, it's about wether a program is good or not and if their "default config" is enough satisfying for the 99% of the users who are just beginning with it. So maybe today you will find your linux distro more enjoyable since many default configuration works for lots of people and you haven't to spend time making custom configs.

Comment Re:Surprising (Score 1)552

I don't suppose your proposal has any more detail to it?

no sorry, i just know the system today is flawed but i don't have any serious proposal.

Actually, anyone doing research really doesn't have to worry about other people's patents. Since the beginning, patent law has recognized a strong research exemption from infringement.

So if you're doing research that you simply want to donate to the commons, then you have nothing to worry about.

Now, if you plan on selling the invention or using it in your business, *then* you need to worry about patents.

yes that's what i'm talking about R&D for business since the one for the "commons" is mostly a matter of universities rather than private companies.

Comment Re:Surprising (Score 3, Insightful)552

true. stronger ip laws will lead to even less R&D or to R&D which will involve 50% of the people there just to check if there hasn't been alread a previous IP on that idea . it is time to wipe out patent and copyright or rewrite it from the scratch to help evolve and not involve

Comment doesn't look accurate (Score 1)81

page 16 (or 14) there are the top 10 isp supporting p2p piracy: Telecom italia is named twice at 11.6% and 1.6%... how come they are twice ? Iunet is named but the provider is named wind/infostrada . later in the page they named what they DID in December 2009 ... clearly a typo but.. does anyone re read it before publishing it ?

Comment i don't like it at all (Score 2, Interesting)926

i went to see that page and i found it really horrible. the layout is not professional at all but rather one of those "conspiration page ALIENS ABDUCTED BY GOVERNMENT ZOMG ZOMG" template. the "shocking" attitude that spreading of opinion more like facts rather then .. opinion, which lead to "yes is true" "no it isn't because of this this and that" flamebait debate the "get linux" .. no really, i've been using linux on all my desktop and server since '98 but i'm aware of the fact that he's still not ready for end user joe the plumber also why not simply saying to look around for other oses ? it's not about windows vs linux it's about freedom of choice; what about freedos, what about bsd ? If you want to fight for the cause i think fsf should focus on making linux desktop more friendly to end user while keeping a high level of "hackable" for those who know what to do. I really hate these kind of campaign because they hurt my work and my reputation: when i go to a new client and i propose linux then i get that "you open source taliban yadda yadda yadda" and i have to spend a lot of time weighting sentences and phrases to explain why i proposed that solution based on linux, why it's a good thing for the company because of the less cost, etc. etc. Now i have a new campaign that will drop out my credibility again: ah you use linux, you're an open source taliban where's you tin foil hat ? seriously fsf, focus on coding, focus on producing good documentation on how to do "stuff" with linux, help on traslations for multilanguage. if you want to get rid of that poisoning education help debian-edu to prepare a nice distro that can be easily installed on a school network .

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1)370

And, most importantly

• NAT prevents direct attacks on Internet- connected machines
• NAT prevents snooping of internal network structures

This is something you can activate on a router/firewall the same way today you activate Nat and Upnp to open some ports. Really, it's just a matter of the configuration guy to drop by default incoming to connection not initiated by you and enable only the hosts that are allowed to receive it.

Comment Re:Have them make it a bonus (Score 1)395

yeah lawyers can make a mess for everything but if there's a written agreemen they can't ignore it. To the Author of the question: you can talk (through email) with your boss and make an agreement, the more you talk the less it is likely there would be a misunderstanding and it could be used in case some lawyers step in to claim anything. Since you already have some software licensed to you it would be only a mess to change property of the laptop and the software and it could lead to problem misunderstanding etc. etc. for his sake and yours it's better to just give \$\$ as a bonus without even saying it's because of the laptop. On the other side you'll both write and sing an agreement that at the moment you are using your personal laptop to do your work and both you and your company are good about this .

Comment Re:Make them write some code (Score 1)1091

This might be more reasonable then it appears on face value.

By separating sports people based on gender you're admitting that women simply cannot compete with men physically.

it's not about segregation but rather keeping the competition as much fair as possible and keep that sport interesting. that's the reason you don't see a male gymnast jumping around with a ball or a ribbon

This causes many female teams to be largely ignored

people don't go look for female baseball because they are not interested. in the same way they are not interested in floorball or male synchronized swimming. here where i live female volleyball is quite famous and many people go see their matches

Comment Re:Take away the money (Score 1)1091

None is coming to your house and getting your children to make them the next super hero of that sport, it's always parents who are obsessed about making their children famous and don't care if they're ruining his life or not. And when the athlete has grown up he can always decide to give up and do less training or if there's a big pressure he can quit and go do something else.

Comment Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score 1)1164

Not really. Science can suggest alternatives but it cannot prove it. The age of the world is only longer then 6000 years because we want to understand it that way, not because any proof that exists.

so fossils older than 6000 years aren't good enough as proofs ?

Comment Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score 1)1164

it's not about choices or having faith, the problem behind this is that evolution is a theory that comes from scientific studies. behind creationism there's just a pedantic reading of a book made 2000 years ago by people who weren't scientist. So Gnome vs Kde or VI vs Emacs is just a personal choice, something debatable; creationism vs evolutionism is not a personal choice, is not someting debatable: one is an idea that come from ignorant people, the other is supported by ton of book and experiments. If you want to debate then you can go with neodarwin vs lamark (and even in this case there are proofs against lamark tough some ideas are good), but not creationism. The world must go on accepting theories from science not fairy tales, unless you want to go back to middle ages hunt witches and die for a flu. Scientific world keeps going with the idea that if a theory is wrong you must show what it's lacking, if you propose a new one you must provide proofs other than "because i said so". It's time to put a bound, a big "STOP" sign on religion on this matters because it's causing only confusion and ignorance. Because today it's C vs E but tomorrow, what about a flat world vs round world ? what about a geocentric vs heliocentic ss ? Do you want to see newers Giordano Bruno on flames because they were questioning religion ?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson

Working...