Cheers ill look into it.
Cheers ill look into it.
I think such a licence would need very careful wording. Wording that concentrates on the entity or organisation using rather then jurisdiction.
GPL claims free as in speech not beer. Whereas this would be removing that very concept. By suggesting use for some ideas is not allowed.
I can def see the advantage. Especially for people developing social software. But trying to form a licence like that. While not running fowl of existing GPL restrictions. Would take some seriose legal understanding. As making gpled current libraries incompatible. Could totally remove existing work to expand upon. Removing most developers desire to place the effort needed for the new software.
Would be interesting to watch the project form though. Unfortunately it would be very much like watching a dangerous stunt. Facinating as much for the risk of failure as that of hoping for success.
Remember we saw these numbers in 2010.
But no party below 30% can gain the seat count needed to force the larger parties. The 2 main parties would rather fight for FPTP then alliw smaller parties to gain equality.
So as I said. Getting lib dems greens or reform to form the largets party is the only way a coalution would work.
If all smallnparties agreed PR was the only way and a coalution before the election was agreed. Maybe. But that is not going to happen with the current 3rd parties.
Now. If we (god not me we as no fickers gonna vote for me) but we as in those who think FPTP is over. Formed a party just to end fptp. And promised a new electoon as soon as it was removed. That may stand a chance of actually winning a majoroty.
But (and its a big one) the 2 main party would center the fight on what happens if something big happens before that 2nd election.
We would fight the whole election on fearnof every single issue the tories and labout can i vent to happe. I. The year or sonit would take to rebuild our democratic syseem.
Actually reform dosent. Thay have about 25%. And while that is the largest party.
Normally 30+ is needed for a majority and even then. They are needed in the right place to gain MPs. With current numbers and distribution. Reform would likely lead to a weak tory coalition. Ie both parties only just haveing 50% of MPs. And reform would likey only have a few more then now.
It may even lead to a lib dem major party coalition. Just because lib dems vots are more centralised onto certain constituancies.
But lib dems recent history may mean while that os doable They refuse.
This is one of the unique messesbof fptp numbers are less clear until yoy get into the 33% mark. Then the seat numbers start to grow rapidly.
you wouldn’t need a majority.
That coalition would need a majority. That is the whole way the system works. And as no 3rd party coalition is going to gain 50% of MPs. That majority will require one of the bigger parties. This is the whole reason mathematically FPTP will always turn into a 2 party system. Game theory allows no other effective result.
3rd parties will always split the vote allowing lower support opposition to gain power. Forcing opposition politics rather then a fight over actual ideas.
Hence why the 2 big parties opposed the AV ref. Any change is a disadvantage to them.
The only way we will ever change our political system. Is if a majority of voters consider doing so to be a higher priority then any other political issue. And vote for a party or coalition that has that as its main goal. Without that level of commitment. The 2 main parties will always find a way to split opposition and allow one of them to gain a majority of MPs.
Yep sounds about right. The competition watchdog. Its whole name is about stopping competitors.
Come on has it seemed to do anything else since about the 1990s.
Ssh x11 forwarding has been a popular system for decades. (Id love to know if wayland options exist yet)
But as other have suggested you need x11 on both systems. It is very inbuilt into the way x11 was originally designed. (From back when we had huge shared servers and dumbish xterm workstations. This means it was designed to do much of the work on the server end with the display being the lower cost less able system.
It will work on a pie. But not with the lite os system as designed.
However, stopping oil immediately before alternatives are in place would be a humanitarian disaster
I agree. But many don’t. Its def up for debate.
But that is in no way justification for new dilling. All drilling new fields dose is give excuses to delay those alternatives. We are not really waiting for new tech to solve this problem. The tech we have today is able to do it. What we need it the fiscal and societal motivation to move away from oil. More oil will just motivate those currently making money from it to slow down that investment more.
We need to invest in major inferstructure uprated to our electrical grid. Copy ideas like Norway new overhead power for trucking. (Think electric trams but using roads and semi trucks. Then using battery for last mile transport etc. While its only a trial being built atm. It is the type of thinking we need. And better electrical grids are the first steps.
Unfortunately giving current oil interests longer is not in anyway the solution. As a society we need to accept the use is going to stop. So pull our freaking socks up and get on with it. We don’t need to wait for new tech. We need to implement the best of the current tech and stop finding excuses.
Yeah that was sorta my point. Modern/ current technology at best mimics some functionality of intelligence. Hence my claim it is artificial. It really is no more then 1980s expert systems with much greater data speeds and sets. And more flexible algorithms. But an evolution not a revolution.
He ce why I’d say artificial intelligence applies to current technology. Because it is not real.
If we ever develop anything that is intelligence as many fear it. Then by its very definition AI is no longer a valid term for it. Hence why O think we should stop using that term when talking about weather such things are safe or not. First It gives the impression to the less informed that we are anywhere close to such tech. Creating invalid fears of current tech. When lets face it their are plenty of genuine arguments about the massive use of data.
But more importantly if ever anything (sci-filike as it may be) that is trully able to learn and think for itself is developed (if that would even be the correct term as we really are that ill-informed on how atm) . Then artificial would be a miss definition.
Nameing them and criticism is def not a first amendment violation.
Just at the least very irresponsible. If we assume he knows the violent nature of some of his followers. (June 6th of course he knows) by definition terrorism even if legally not. As the choice is likely done as a threat to control their political expressions.
But no the first amendment in no way provides protection for you based on your speech. Just a probation on government specifically passing laws to prevent it.
If we never drill for it. Or allow anyone else. Studies will run out eventually.
It is in no way a solution. But the simple fact is adding new wells extends the time corperations and governments can delay implementing alternatives. Increasing the total amount of harm done to the enviroment.
It is not a zero sum game. Providing our own dose not mean the world burns the same amount t it means we burn for longer with less urgency to alternative options and inferstructure.
I mean honestly I am 54 years old. I learned about climate change in school in 1982. It was known proven science back that far. Esso/Exxon was the company that discovered and prooved it was man made back in the early 70s. They then decided to invest billions in climate change denial. Internally selling ideas like the one you are sharing.
These ideas exist for one reason. To allow oil companies to extract every fucking penny they can out of oil. Before we stop them. Its fucking disgusting that they have not been jailed.
If they were. (As unlikely as that seems)
Actually stating so would be the best way to prevent having to do so. That is what bothers me about media asking world leaders this. All they are doing is giving a war criminal a list of safe and unsafe nations to visit. Surely any nation that was seriose about wanting to arrest him. Would remain silent about it.
Actually when you discuse the 187th century. You are talking about pre revisionist science. IE before the definition of the scientific method.
And all the articles you shared were dated 1990s to late 2010s so no you were in no way talking about past views. But instead questioning hypothesis and reviews that has so far failed to form scientific theories on the subject.
Most age groups find a days work stressful.
Young people are just the first generation to be unashamed to admit it.
In part because we grew up with to many rancid arse holes like Liz Kendal expressing her toxic crap.
Nearly all of these present hypotheses. As of this moment there is no clearly accepted theoretical model on how animals or human consciousness works. Just lots of open to debate hypotheses. Because for all we understand about neurons and processing of the mind. Much of the hypotheses are not truly testable. Just collections of experiments and ideas the scientific community is unable to form clear understanding and agreement on.
If you read this collection and say science believes animals feel no pain you are either misinformed or lieing. These are just a collection of opinions and experiments that fail to form clear conclusions as of yet. Because the simple fact is the mind is still very unknown for both humans and animals.
You sent articles that propose an hypothesis not a tested theory. Hence they are just some scientists proposing as of yet unfounded ideas. They are not valid theories until both tested and reviewed by independent groups.
Hence my who,e point that modern media likes to misrepresent science.
Nope the fact is FPTP is mathematically garrenteed to force a 2 party system. As 3rd parties will always split the vote forcing control to the more unified but smaller opposition.
The political direction of other nations. Honestly it is what all wealthy nations use aid for.
I think you underestimate the hate.
For the organisations that want to deny the ideals suggested. Using software under such a licence would lose them support. So when developers select such a licence. The software itself gets recognised as such. Meaning any shitty organisation using it gets labeled unacceptable to their very user base.
So requiring the acceptance of these facts would have the same effect as anything else.