* Posts by h4rm0ny

2875 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008

'Turn to nuclear power to save planetary ecology from renewable BLIGHT'

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Nuclear ANYTHING is disastrous!

>>"For those that believe that there is a safe, reasonable solution to the storage of nuclear waste I suggest you volunteer to have some of this stored in your garage "

Why is it some people think that unless someone is willing to bathe in nuclear waste they're not allowed to discuss how to dispose of it? I think gas is relatively safe as well but I'm not going to fill my house with it.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Dunno about warming @H4rmony

>>"Hydrogen is not a method to store energy H4rmony and I never said it was, it is a gas that burns with an almost invisible flame and has no odor."

So did you just out yourself as the AC I replied to? Well anyway, they or you wrote that Hydrogen gives back less energy than it takes to "produce" it. I pointed out that this is true of all the methods of storing energy that we have. And yes, Hydrogen is a method of storing energy. You can't be that dense. Unless you think that a battery is not a means of storing energy but just lithium, a silvery-white metal with a high reactivity.

You're also aware, since you bring up "burning", that Hydrogen Fuel Cells don't use combustion, I hope. No hydrogen is "burned".

>>"You continually offer the use of hydrogen as a "solution" to our energy needs,

I haven't done that even once. Your comprehension of my post is dreadful. Hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is a way of storing it. Use electricity to produce it, instead of charging up a heavy battery with a very limited lifespan or pumping water uphill or whatever other means of storing energy you care to name. And then use a fuel cell to get the energy back later.

I have proposed nuclear as the "solution" (your extreme interpretation of my position, btw), possibly with solar alongside. These are the ways to meet our energy needs and replace fossil fuels. I'll repeat, since you got it wrong in the very first line of your post - hydrogen is a way of storing energy.

Most of the rest of your post is various facts you seem to have Google'd up but don't have the familiarity with to understand the context. For example your confident assertions about how hydrogen couldn't be stored in a car or how it would explode in Texas. You realize that Toyota are mass-producing a hydrogen car, yes? And that this is a road-legal vehicle in the USA (including Texas, you know). You dig up random bits of information to try and prove something can't be done even whilst it's happening! Example: you confidently assert "At room temperature, liquid hydrogen tanks must be vented or they will explode". What, any tank? Regardless of thickness / material / manufacturing process? Have you any idea how stupid what you've just said is? I'll tell you exactly what has happened here. Of course you know, but I want you to know how obvious it is to everyone else as well - you have gone to a search engine and typed in phrases like "hydrogen tank" and "temperature" and "explode" and found someone who makes hydrogen tanks that have to be refrigerated and then come back saying "Ah ha! Hydrogen tanks explode if they're not vented!". You'd better go and tell engineers who have built cars that run on hydrogen that their cars can only run in sub-zero temperatures. Because apparently you know better than them.

>>"the electrical energy it takes to do so, is enormous compared to the process of combustion. It takes more energy to produce Hydrogen than you can ever get in return.

Ah, I knew you thought hydrogen vehicles worked on combustion. You have no idea what you're talking about. In fact there are two things wrong with the above. Firstly, the obvious fact that you're talking about combustion which has - let me emphasize this - NOTHING to do with what we're talking about. Secondly, that your objection is that you get less energy out than you put in. It is a STORAGE medium. You get less energy out than you put in with any energy storage mechanism whether that be even the best batteries, pumping water up hill or anything else. You're condemning hydrogen for not breaking the laws of physics!

>>"Since you OBVIOUSLY can't understand, check the following link"

I think I've figured out the search terms you used - you just typed in "hydrogen safety" didn't you? Your link is one of the first results for this. You might have copied selected parts from this link for your post but you plainly haven't understood it yourself (whilst asserting that I "can't understand"). For example, you talk about how you couldn't have a car in Texas that uses hydrogen because when it got hot it would explode. Your own link shows that hydrogen has an autocombust temperature over twice that of gasoline vapour.. It gets better. You use an argument about how you wouldn't want to smoke around a hydrogen truck. Well no, that would be a safety violation but again, your own link shows that hydrogen has a vapour density of less than 3% that of gasoline vapour. In fact it's about 7% that of air. You know what that means? It means smoking around a hydrogen truck is safer than smoking around a propane tank or a gasoline tank. Because whilst both of those are denser than air and will linger, hydrogen will disperse faster than any other gas. I mean smoking around either is silly but your own argument is shot down by your own link because you have not understood what you are saying.

>>"As Hydrogen is not the best choice, then the only alternative gas is CNG or LNG. Both are being used as fuel right now and are far cleaner and safer than hydrocarbon liquid fuels like gasoline or kerosene."

They're not cleaner - the output of a hydrogen fuel cell is water. Safer is a relative thing - both are combustible materials but there are strong reasons why hydrogen can actually be safer, e.g. you never need to deliberately burn it and it disperses upwards immediately. In either case, both require sensible safety measures but the point is that hydrogen is no more dangerous than natural gas and in some ways safer. But the simple fact that you call the gas cleaner shows how very little you understand.

I honestly prefer arguing with Trevor Potts as at least he makes factual arguments and valid points even if accompanied by violent threats. You however, reach depths of ignorance I did not know existed. How you can know so little and yet not be aware of your own ignorance is a mystery that may never be solved. Go and inhale some hydrogen - it might increase the density of your head a little.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

>>Certainly we need fusion power, and asap. Fission is a dead end.

Want to support that? Not the part about fusion power, that would be lovely. No, the part about Fission being a dead end. The principles of Physics are unlikely to alter any time soon and there's enough fuel to keep us warm and toasty for centuries to come, so what makes it a "dead end" ?

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: How many errors can you fit in one paragraph?

>>"In 2014 renewables are going to have contributed somewhere in the region of 15% of UK electricity supply. How is this paltry?"

Primarily because it's relative to the amount of the resource that has been put into it. Yes, it wouldn't be paltry if we were talking about people peddling bicycles to generate it. But for the amount of money and environmental impact that has been put into Wind power, you could be seeing many times that amount of electricity from other sources.

>>"As you well know, energy price increases <> energy bill increases because energy consumption is not static. Average household electricity demand is down about 15% since 2005 and average gas demand is down more than a quarter."

The article is stating that actual bills have risen. So if you're stating that usage is actually down then that makes the situation worse, not better. And what are the reasons for electricity usage being down? If it's better insulation or similar, then that's no credit to wind power, it's something that is independent of energy source. If it's down to rising energy costs however (which surely is a factor), well then that's not a good thing, it means people are being driven to use less by the increased costs of which renewables are a very large part.

>>"Costs of support for renewable energy amounts to 5% of energy bills and about 5% of the increase in bills since 2010."

Those are actually pretty big sums of money. You got angry at 15% being called "paltry" despite the huge cost of that 15%, but you want to dismiss 5% surcharge on energy bills. And in reality, the cost is much higher because investment and development of the renewables has taken the place of other more economic means of energy production. It has displaced better technologies.

>>"15% of electricity supply isn't far behind nuclear. So do you believe that nuclear is also giving us very little in the way of carbon reductions?"

They both do offer much reduced carbon. The difference is that Nuclear is viable by itself and you still get that reduction. Wind power relies on the reduced carbon argument to sell itself. As you have just admitted, carbon reduction is comparable between the two, so why go with the hideously inefficient and expensive one?

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Dunno about warming @H4rmony

>>"Please stop speaking about "hydrogen" It is the biggest fallacy there is. Hydrogen cannot be contained for lengthy periods, is VERY dangerous and takes more energy to produce than it will give back. Useless!"

Let's take this in order of easiest first. Hydrogen isn't a source of energy, it's a means of storing it. And no means of storing energy we have is 100% efficient. You could as easily say "batteries - we get less energy out of them as we do charging them up" and it would be just as true and just as useless as an argument for or against them. All that your statement proves is that you either don't understand that it's about storing energy rather than producing it, or you're trying to pull a fast one with things that sound Truthy. If the latter then you pick a forum with a bit less technical knowledge floating around it than an IT news site.

Let's talk about storage next. There is the oft-bandied around fact that Hydrogen can leak through steel. 'Goodness!' think most people - how can you ever contain it? Well the answer is that the "leaking through steel" is true but critics keep seeming to ask the question the rate at which it leaks through steel. It's not that fast. Fill up a tank with hydrogen and by the end of the year, you'll have a bit less hydrogen in it. It's not the big deal people make it out to be. The rate also obviously depends on the pressure which drops over time as well so the rate decreases. A bigger issue is hydrogren embrittlement but you know what? We have ways of dealing with that.

Finally, let's deal with "VERY dangerous" (your capitals). It's actually not that dangerous. People die from electric shocks every year - are you against mains electricity too? One nice thing about hydrogen, btw, is that it rises. VERY fast. You know all those Hollywood car explosions which are a giant ball of flame (not that realistic, but that's Hollywood for you). Instead picture a tall candle of flame that vanishes rapidly upwards. That's hydrogen. Nice, eh?

>>If you are opposed to Nuclear, we have Natural Gas

Wait, weren't you just attacking Hydrogen for being "VERY dangerous". And now you're in favour of something that explodes far more dangerously? I'm confused. Or you are. Let's go with you.

And I'm not opposed to Nuclear - that's pretty much the point of my posts here: Nuclear is great but it doesn't ramp up or down very quickly so to deal with fluctuations in demand run high and put the excess during dips into hydrogen to power our vehicles. Beautiful.

>>"CNG or LNG doesn't matter. It is as clean as any alternative because the percursors for all the "Alternative" energy sources create more CO2 than it does to EFFICIENTLY burn Natural Gas or use it in Fuel Cells."

CNG / LNG certainly aren't as clean as a hydrogen fuel cell at the end stage because hydrogen fuel cells waste product is water. And they're not cleaner to produce because your "Precursor" you seem to care so much about can be nuclear power. How anyone can compare the "EFFICIENT" burning of anything at all (your caps again) with nuclear power, I can't fathom. Combustion verses atoms splitting? You think the former could ever be more efficient than that? (Sorry - EFFICIENT). Several billions of tonnes of waste into the atmosphere versus a few hundred tonnes of easily collected and containable dense metals? And you talk about "clean" ?

>>"Much Sturm und Drang about nothing. The fluctuations in solar output have more to do with the climate than these so called "scientists" will admit. Liars every one! Follow their source of money and you'll understand."

You're mixing your messages badly here. You know that Lewis Page is actually quite the critic of AGW? One of the main points is that Nuclear makes sense regardless of which side of the debate you fall on (or even if you try to avoid picking one). Fossil fuels are running out sooner or later, they pollute the atmosphere with all sorts of things and they make us (speaking as a resident of a Western country) highly dependent on some very nasty and vicious regimes. Whereas we can get Uranium from Australians. Okay - they've inflicted some bad soap operas on us and their mice look funny and are seven foot tall, but they're generally pretty nice and I'd far rather buy a small amount of Uranium from them than endless tonnes from the Saudi and Qatar regimes.

Your post is ill-informed and all over the place as regards its point. But as you took the time to single me out in your topic title, enjoy my reply.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Dunno about warming

>>Fukushima harmless?

Well if you're going to take positions to extreme absurds then no. Very few accidents are completely harmless. But in the history of power generation (any type), it's down there.

>>1. Bit early to say as radiation induced illnesses are ot like some virus, hitting everyone immediately (except for those worst exposed to heaviest doses).

If it's a "bit early" to say that it isn't harmful then it's a "bit early" to say that it is. You're basically just taking a Russell's Teapot approach here - you haven't been able to show harm so you're invoking the spectre that maybe we'll find out later that it is. We actually have an extremely good idea of how much radiation was leaked and precisely what contaminants. And we're able to compare the quantities with other nuclear accidents and - importantly - everyday "natural" radiation and activities like being a pilot. And you know what? It's not that high.

>>2. So, all that money,people, homes evacuated .... That's all costless, is it?

The real question is, is it necessary or is it an overreaction. Actually, there are two questions here - the other one being why are you holding nuclear to a standard that it must be completely harmless and there can never be any cost? Because if you apply the same standard to other power industries, nuclear looks pretty good. Do you know more people have been killed building and maintaining wind turbines than have died as a result of nuclear accidents? True fact.

>>3. Long term storage of the waste products in an increasingly unstable world (politically).

Why do you think the ever smaller amount of waste is so insurmountable a problem? The USA has an entire facility under a mountain where it can be stored. You seem to be conflating nuclear waste with nuclear weapons, btw.

>>4. So, no cooling water (that becomes rather warm) is discharged, no land used and irrecoverable in our lifetime, not even as a theme park. No cables, nothing.

I genuinely have no idea what you are babbling about.

>>it just shows the down-voters discomfort with views or facts that do not fit his ideas.

Seriously? The old pre-emptive "people who downvote me are biased" attack? In this day and age?

5
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Dunno about warming

>>"There's also the option of building various hydrocarbons (for which we already have the distribution infrastructure) out of carbon dioxide, hydrogen and energy."

True and if the numbers work out, that would definitely have the advantage you say - existing infrastructure. However, I would like to see a move to hydrogen fuel cells because it leads to much cleaner air and is a lot more pleasant to be around. Converting petrol to hydrogen for the sake of that would not make sense. But if it's a choice between turning your electricity into hydrocarbons or hydrogen, then long-term hydrogen would be preferable.

2
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Dunno about warming

>>"Fukushima proves the point, and from one of the most technologically advanced countries on the planet."

Perhaps not the point you think it proves, though. To me it's an example of how multiple reactors from 1960's designs, built over four decades ago not only survived one of the worlds most powerful recorded earthquakes without melting down or leaking significant radiation, but also survived the following tsunami still without significant leakage.

Add on four decades of improvements and safety features, I'm pretty happy about it. Is that the point you were thinking it proved?

58
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Dunno about warming

>>"the downside is that there is little demand in those areas so we need mahoosively long and expensive power lines to get the power to where it is needed."

Oddly enough, that's actually feasible and cost-effective. At least from the study I read on the idea. But it doesn't need to be done that way, either. I'm actually very in favour of using hydrogen fuel-cells to power vehicles. Middle East states could go from being main exporters of petrol to main exporters of hydrogen quite comfortably, if they wanted to. Toyota have a commercial hydrogen fuel cell car that has great range and power, far better than battery-power. So transmission by powerline is not the only way this can be hugely useful.

8
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This isn't about energy, it's about ideology.

Wow.

18
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: How convenient...

>>"it's the most heavily subsidised industry in the history of all subsidised industries."

In the field of power generation, I think that honour would go to Wind power. In the vast sweeping context of "all subsidised industries", I'm not even going to touch such a ridiculous statement.

Nuclear "subsidies" are primarily the government providing the insurance since you can't get that privately. But the State absorbing the risk is not really the same sort of "subsidy" as say wind power. The latter is a definite and ongoing cost. The former is a chance of having to pay out but if all is well, not a cost at all. Calling it a subsidy is not really conveying to people what it is as people assume that means money is being handed over.

26
4
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Dunno about warming

In amongst your damning of renewables you include solar. Wind is almost a disaster as an alternative power-source and biofuels totally are. But Solar actually has a very positive role to play. It has been middling so far but it's a very immature technology. Unlike wind and biofuels there are a lot of good reasons to expect it to improve rapidly over the next decade.

What solar cannot do is provide a good baseline. We don't have the energy storage technology and even if we did, we'd need huge areas of land to generate enough energy. But what it can do is provide an excellent compliment to nuclear power. Nuclear is by far the best power technology for a number of reasons (until Fusion comes along, maybe!) but it doesn't ramp up and down quickly / efficiently. So pair it with Solar which ramps up in the day when our usage rises and down in the evening when it falls, and you have a pretty nice pairing with nuclear. There are also regions where solar can be much better too - deserts of North Africa and parts of the Middle East. These are areas where there is little ecosystem and consistent daylight hours all year round. Build some large solar farms in the Sahara or wherever and you have a nice source of power where it's not going to bother anyone. At scale, this could be pretty effective.

11
11

Finland ditches copyright levy on digital kit, pays artists directly

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Not pirates - just because you don't carry along a CD player anymore...

>>"These taxes/levies are not enforced because of piracy, but to "compensate" for "personal copies": you buy a CD"

No I don't. I buy an MP3 from Amazon. I don't think that I have bought a CD in at least four years.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Mushroom

How the fuck is this justifiable? So were I living in Finland, I would now be being forced to pay compensation for the actions of pirates?

3
3

MI6 oversight report on Lee Rigby murder: US web giants offer 'safe haven for TERRORISM'

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: they're not morons

>>"The very best IT admins are the kinds of people who, in the midst of a shit storm, will readily admit to their mistakes in order to prevent further harm, *to get the job done*. Officials at MI6 and other intelligence agencies could learn a thing or two from that."

But we have what I call a Daily Mail society in this country - we (as a nation) do not tolerate failures. Once the gutter press get hold of something they demand a head. MP loses his temper with someone and calls them a pleb? Dragged through the gutter and their political career on the line. Someone murdered on the street in a million to one event? The press want a head for their pike. Anything the press get hold of the pressure on the government to deliver a response his huge. MI6 can't simply say "we missed something, but mostly we're pretty good at this" because they'd be torn apart from the press that want their mournful and contrite confession and - preferably, someone to hound out of their job.

We are not a society that allows imperfection (in other people, of course). Buy a copy of the Daily Mail and read it whilst repeating to yourself "2nd most popular newspaper in the UK" repeatedly.

First is The Sun, btw. Third is The Mirror. We all live in Salem now.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Is the ISC staffed entirely by morons?

I know the answer, of course. It just has to be asked. Idiots.

5
0

Microsoft tries to defend Irish servers from US g-men invasion, again

h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Good on Microsoft

>>"Exactly. So they only have their in Ireland? If that were true, that's not something to brag about if you're trying to make out that you're a highly available and scalable cloud provider."

Because Ireland is a tiny country that could catch fire and lose all your backups? It's just not safe having Dublin and Cork so close together!

Idiot.

3
0

Linus Torvalds releases Linux 3.18 as 3.17 wobbles

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I feel that I must defend Linux here.

>>"Remember, Linux is a toy - an impressive toy, to be fair - but still a toy, so it's unfair to expect the same of it as you would professional systems."

Apparently a child sees everything as a toy. Even if that "toy" underlies billions of £'s of business daily.

Idiot trolls are idiot trolls regardless of their target.

7
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Seems wrong...

>>"Is there any difference?"

Mint says 'yes'. Gentoo and Debian say 'no'.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Linux future

>>It'll all be fine after Torvalds. Lennart Poettering and Kay Sievers can take over. Only they can make the "Open Source community [..] one happy place".

I know you're being sarcastic but that just made me shiver.

You know that Poettering would be the one driving the bus in the first place, yes? :/

4
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Unknown source of kernel lock-ups?

>>"Er, its being given away for free?"

Er, that's a terrible response. When someone points out a bug in Linux we do not respond "Well it's free, what do you expect"? GNU/Linux powers half the Internet. Bad attitude is bad. Linux is not worse quality because it happens to be free nor should we expect it to be.

8
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Linux

Re: Unknown source of kernel lock-ups?

>>A "couple of people" means half of Linux desktop users!

And half of all websites. ;)

2
2
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: Seems wrong...

Pedantry is a good thing in coders. My best coders are pedants.

Also, it's "Linux" with a capital 'L'.

34
3

Orion hacker sends stowaway into SPAAAAACE

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Boys and their toys -- in spaaaace

<a href="http://www.ruralking.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/p/l/playmobil_toys_shark_7006.jpg>This one</a> first!

0
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Why the fuck ...

>>"Maybe if it was a deep space probe or at least a multi-year orbital mission. But just for two orbits in less than 4.5 hours followed by a splashdown? It sounds like the sort of publicity stunt the Reg SPB would do with with a balloon launched rocket powered 3D printed spaceplane rather than multi-billion funded NASA :-)"

Well I'm sorry that you don't get out of bed for less than a hundred complete orbits, but if others get a kick out of this - good for them. The thing about "publicity stunts" is that they're only a negative for bad causes. If this gets schools, enthusiasts or anyone else paying attention to spaceflight, that's a good thing, imo. Have you even looked at their site? Here it is:

http://mars.nasa.gov/participate/send-your-name/orion-first-flight

Go on - take a look. This is fun stuff if you're a kid, it's got a mock-up "boarding pass" for your name, you sign up for updates and you get to see maps of where it is and learn more about it.

Didn't you all get the memo? Being a jaded above-it-all cynic is so Nineties. Enjoying stuff and being enthusiastic is what the cool kids are doing these days. Go and listen to your Cure albums or something if you don't like it. :p

7
4
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Why the fuck ...

Maybe they're just not as jaded as you and they really like the idea of their names being lasered onto a chip and hurtling 6,000km over our heads around the Earth.

Childhood enthusiasm for rockets - losing it is a choice.

21
0

Manchester festival marketers fined £70,000 over spam ‘mum’ texts

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Actually it is possible to fake a sender. Very nasty potential for abuse. Especially as any replies can go to the relevant entry in the phone's address book.

SMS is long overdue for a complete re-do but I don't know how likely that is.

On a related note: Bill Hick's on Marketing. I don't know if it's just confirmation bias, but I have found the field of marketing attracts some of the least pleasant types of people to be around that I've met. It's all the ones who are really full of themselves and think they're oh-so-cool, despite pretty much everyone outside of their niche group thinking they're arseholes. At least, that's an impression I have formed over the years.

20
0

So this Saudi Prince calls and asks why he can't watch movies ...

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Computer stupidities...

>>One of the client's sales execs (desk at the other end of an open plan office) asked for some sales data to be extracted from the database. About an hour later I had a nicely formatted report printed off for him and took it down to his desk. I asked someone nearby "where's xxxx". "He doesn't work here anymore."

You had a very narrow escape, by the sounds of it. Depending on the data Sales exec was probably aware of an incoming problem and had asked you for the hard copy so they could leave with a bunch of valuable data to reference once they were locked out of their email, CRM, etc.

It's possibly lucky for you that it did take you an hour. Not that it would have been fair to blame you so you'd probably be okay but still - not good for the company, either. I hope you mentioned to other people that you'd been asked by him to get him a hard copy of it all.

0
0

Wikipedia won't stop BEGGING for cash - despite sitting on $60m

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

I used to donate.

I'm perfectly able and willing to help pay for a site that I make use of and I would prefer to pay than the site go ad-supported (and all that comes with it). I've donated to Wikipedia a number of times in the past.

But I stopped when they tried to take the product of someone else's work on a technicality (the "Simian Selfie") and decided that not only did they not care about the individual who paid for the equipment, set everything up, spent many days slowly becoming accepted by the macaques and had specifically travelled around the world to photograph them and did all the post processing on the image - all on a legally untested contention of theirs; they also wanted to set themselves up as the moral arbitrators of right and wrong. The Wikipedia page on the subject is the smuggest little thing I've ever seen on there, dripping with fake objectiveness. Clued me in to the nature of some of the people there. Not impressed.

26
1

Holy sh*t! Amsterdam man in pop-up public toilet shock horror

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Comedy gold right there!

Presumably it rose with a moped on top of it, not well balanced, a man came up and started using the convenience - remember this is at night and I don't see floodlights on the top of this thing, and the moped toppled off and fell on him. Maybe he leant a hand on the thing which helped nudge the moped off (did you see it wobbling half-way through the video?) or some friends leant on the other side, waiting for him. Anyway, unless you routinely look up for falling vehicles every time you urinate, I don't think it's really fair to laugh at this. The man was apparently badly injured.

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
FAIL

And for women?

Forgive me for being a rapid, man-hating feminist, but wouldn't it be nice to have something that women could use as well?

2
2

systemd row ends with Debian getting forked

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Do Not Want

Some of the fallacious and loaded argument from the systemd camp winds me up. In particular that quote in the article about giving systemd a chance to mature before "throwing toys out". Apart from the patronizing language (very inappropriate - this is a core part of the distro we're discussing and they're trying to make it sound like throwing a tantrum over nothing), there is also the very simple fact that this is NOT a case of giving something a chance to mature before judging it - it's choosing a direction for development. Doing what they suggest is moving you ever further down that road to systemd and making it ever harder to back out.

Disingenuous and offensive.

36
0

Men, Women and Children: Shows how crap the internet is via the medium of crap film

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

I have a rule.

I will not watch any film for which the trailer is an opening "poignant" character moment, followed by a wide-angle shot and slow piano music interspersed with people doing "ordinary" things.

This rule has, of yet, had not a single false negative in alerting me to awful movies.

12
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: "Starring Adam Sandler"

Yes, but Adam Sandler only kills jokes.

14
0

Social media data is RIDDLED with human behaviour errors, boffins warn

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: DurasnoPeach

I'm rather alarmed you think that is a Right-wing / Left-Wing thing. Do you by any chance have a political leaning of your own?

19
2

Guess which US tech giant was just hit with a $137m tax bill in China?

h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Joke

Poor Microsoft.

Still playing catch-up with Google.

3
2

'How a censorious and moralistic blogger ruined my evening'

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Completely reversed my attitude.

I had been generally positive toward Uber just because it seemed the right time for such technology and a good shift in principle.

Based on those links I now see it's a case of right time, right place, wrong company to luck out and be there.

Deeply unpleasant culture.

5
0

What kind of generation doesn't stick it to the Man, but to Taylor Swift instead?

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: If the Beatles weren't paid so excessively they'd have stayed together

Have we properly controlled against all those less rich and successful bands which stayed together or split up? Because most of the bands I know of that didn't get worldwide recognition still split up anyway. It's something that happens routinely. I think you can actually make a pretty good case that success more commonly keeps a band together than lack of success does.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Moan bitch ... starve?

>>"So I take it you don't disagree with his point about copyright being too long? This, I believe *is* his point."

I suggested that the most popular things being shared by far are recent / current media. Look on Pirate Bay and you're going to see Guardians of the Galaxy, not Forbidden Planet. The latter will be there, but way, way down. I know perfectly well what is point is, what I'm saying is that it's a separate argument not relevant as a counter-point to critics of piracy.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: If there was no money in music...

>>"So stop pissing and moaning about it and run yourselves like every other self employed business, and make your own money without delegating the non-exciting work to others."

Why should a talented musician have to also be an accountant or a publicist or recording specialist? Shouldn't a musician be able to delegate such things if they wish and focus on their music?

1
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Moan bitch ... starve?

>>"Missing in all this loquacious outpouring is a reasoned argument why any artist or their descendant should be expected to be paid for anything that happend more than 40 years ago. Yes, that "punctuated equilibrium" should be changed. Better coypright for only 15 years, how is that?"

I would happily bet a considerable sum of money that if I survey the top 50 songs or movies from The Pirate Bay this month, that all of them were produced in the last fifteen years. Certainly for movies and if not all then very nearly all, for songs, as well.

Point being that what you have written is irrelevant for most piracy today.

0
5
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This is the future

>>"Until the 19th Century, the only source of a stable purple dye was a rare shellfish imported from the Middle East. Then a young chemist by the name of William Henry Perkin accidentally invented Artificial Mauve. Suddenly, everyone could afford to wear purple -- but the cash value of the shellfish that had been the sole source of purple dye plummeted."

Bad analogy is bad. You can't see the flaws in it yourself? Honestly? We're not talking about an alternative creator of music, we're talking about people taking the same creator's content but not paying them.

It amazes me how some people can focus solely on distribution costs and methods as if music, films and software were just a natural resource that arose to be harvested, and talked as if they were fighting some evil monopoly over the right to gather it themselves. Rather than taking the efforts of people who made it without compensation.

4
3

Microsoft: It's TIME at LAST. Yes - .NET is going OPEN and X-PLATFORM

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Will there be a Redhat of Linux .NET?

>>You know the companies I'm talking about. The ones who, faced with CentOS vs RHEL will always go for the latter because that way "we can call someone if things go wrong".

I don't know why you put that last part in quote marks. You can call RedHat if things go wrong - it's a major and good thing for the Enterprise customers.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Clearly MS read Elop's memo...

>>This is about providing cross platform options for other niche OSs like OS-X and legacy UNIX type platforms and derivatives like Linux. So developers can for instance code / test on a Linux platform that provides the environment they might like to use for day to day coding, but then can be run in production on a standardised..."

I really don't think that is the case. For one, GNU/Linux is not a "niche" OS. It's hugely successful on the server side. And OSX is not a "niche" OS. It's hugely successful on the client side.

But to your main point, I don't think that makes sense at all. You develop on a system that is as close to your target environment as possible. Even minor differences can have drastic results. (In fact the minor ones can be the hardest to find and debug - from recent experience, alas).

I don't doubt that MS want to get as many people as possible using their platform but the above as a method doesn't make sense to me.

2
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: ????

>>"Well .Net is faster and more efficient, easier to install and manage, has had a couple of orders of magnitude fewer security holes, and supports multiple programming languages....And it's not made / supported by Oracle."

Alright, alright. But apart from all that, what have the Redmonds ever done for us?

5
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Another tool in the kitbag

>>"What will you do if you have developed something, run in on Linux machines... and one day Microsoft decided not to support Linux any longer."

Well that's true of any language or framework, Open Source or otherwise - you have to hope there are enough others out there like you that it wont wither away and die. A couple of things with .NET are that (a) it's already pretty mature and widely-used so that's good. And following from that, even if MS abandon support for it on GNU/Linux, they'll continue to support .NET itself so the job of maintaining it on GNU/Linux is a lot simpler than if it were abandoned altogether. You're always going to have a sizeable community next door and that has knock-on effects - you essentially just have to re-implement any changes rather than come up with them yourself. And it massively enlarges the pool of available programmers too.

In fact, I'm surprised at this decision because of that last point. What this does is enable a lot of Windows programmers to [more] easily migrate to writing software on GNU/Linux.

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Ah Miguel

I used to be a pretty big critic of Miguel. I'm pretty sure at one point I accused him of secretly working for Microsoft to trap GNU/Linux and that Mono was a cunning ploy to tie GNU/Linux to an environment that Microsoft controlled. I was a pretty fierce critic of Mono for that reason.

I may have been a little hard on him given today's news. Oops.

1
0

DAY ZERO, and COUNTING: EVIL 'UNICORN' all-Windows vuln - are YOU patched?

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Hopeless...

>>"What percentage of Windows users run their machines with elevated rights, i.e. admin acounts, 24/7/365?"

Almost exactly the same as the percentage of Windows users that have XP, rather than Vista onwards.

1
2

Microsoft's Lync becomes 'Skype for Business'

h4rm0ny
Silver badge
FAIL

Oh Dear Goddess, NO!

Lync is probably the best product MS make. Skype is quite possibly the worst (if we exclude historical things they no longer support). Everything is going backwards, today.

I LOATHE the "Skype look and feel", it's unprofessional, uneasy on the eye, and all round hideous to look at. And recently it got WORSE! The Skype interface can be summed up as "Apple done wrong".

The entirety of the Skype code base should be transferred to a single hard drive, have holy wafers stuffed in its SATA port and be buried with a magnet through its spindle.

And when I say "buried", I mean tossed into a volcano in Mordor by a hobbit.

I hate it. Genuinely despise it. It holds back and displaces so many better solutions and Could Have Been's. Technology would categorically be in a better place today if it had failed. And I detest that a worse technology (by far) is starting to subsume a better one. I'm going to fire up my Debian box and do everything I need from that instead of my Windows 8 one. I don't want to touch anything Microsoft, today.

12
2

Forums