If it weren't for the GPL, Linux would be nothing more than any other fringe OS out there, such as BeOS, BSD, etc, at least as far as its presence in the corporate world. The GPL exactly the reason why IBM can invest billions in Linux and yet keep it free for others. The GPL levels the corporate playing field and allows IBM to simultaneously benefit from the improvements of others and contribute to linux, for their own benefit. Other can benefit from IBM's contributions, but no one can take IBM's contributions and use them against IBM, as the BSD license allows. In short, it is the viral nature of the GPL that has made linux, for better or worse, what it is. Without it, Linux wouldn't even be uttered in the enterprise at all.
Yeah, like the time the pilot was allowed to break the tail off his airbus A320 and crashed into a housing block in New York? This wouldn't have happened if a) the pilot hadn't been an idiot, b) American Airlines hadn't mistrained their pilots in the simulators and c) if Airbus hadn't bowed to public pressure to make the limits soft-limits instead of hard-limits. Note that c would have prevented this accident regardless of a and b.
And as the Anonymous Coward has replied below, had the A320 allowed the pilots to override the computer, it's not apparent they wouldn't have crashed. They could have crashed spectacularly right on the runway rather than in the trees. So your conclusion (that manual override is needed) simply cannot be validated by this episode.
People are also under the mistaken impression that force-feedback with soft-limits is safer than no feedback and hard limits. Regardless of direct feedback through the stick, good pilots "feel" what their aiplane is doing based on everything from what their instruments tell them to what they feel. All input is processed by their brains and synthesized by their training into the aircraft's "feel." hard-limits don't take away from this, but prevent a lot of unwanted things (like stalling over the runway in the flyby).
The famous crash at the airshow that everyone likes to point to was, in fact, pilot error. Or the error of whomever told the pilots what to do. The flyby was way too low, and the plane was just doing what it was programmed to do: prepare for landing. It really wasn't the fault of the airplane or the airplane design. The A320 is a solid, reliable bird. I've flown on it several times in Europe. Judging by that neat emergency landing in LA by the Jet Blue plane last week, I'd say it's a pretty remarkably robust airplane too (once they replace those pesky nose-gear seals).
I wouldn't necessarily put it in the top 50, but I really enjoyed Time Trax for the year or two that it was on Sci Fi. Not a terribly original plot, but the stories were pretty good and overall quite entertaining.
Ee shouldn't get too complacent in the Linux world. While linux has been making remarkable progress, linux itself does still suffer from this "house divided" syndrome, although it's not quite the same.
What are you talking about? The.NET environment and C# environment has always been available as a separate, free download from MSDN. While developing in Visual Studio is nice, you absolutely don't have to. The compiler is a standalone commandline compiler and the runtime environment certainly doesn't have anything to do with Visual Studio. The Mono developers regularly download the latest versions of.NET to compile their test suites and compare the results to Mono's results.
What forced upgrades are you referring to? I must be missing something here.
Forgive my ignorance, but what does mod_perl have to do with having a scriptable interface into Apache's runtime configuration? Can I use mod_perl to dynamically create, stop or destroy a vhost, all on the fly?
Based on your own little post, I don't blame Asa for deleting your posts. How would an answer to your questions by Asa actually help anything? What would blaming some single person do to help the security situation? Not knowing who you are or what your connection with the Mozilla Developers is, but what business of yours is any of this anyway?
You may be entirely correct in your beliefs and assertions, but because of they way you've said things, it won't matter; you've destroyed your own credibility. Arguing or being persuasive is not the same as whining or demanding, whether you are right or not. Posting A/C about this here doesn't help get your point across either.
I hope they never change the button order back to the old backwards way things used to be. I'd consider using KDE, but the button order always drives me up the wall, as do the dialogs in MS Windows.
No Gnome dialog box should ever have "yes," "no," and cancel as buttons.
To each his own, I guess. We're all going to die sometime.
Sure, but let's be realistic here. Our electricity comes primarily almost exclusively from coal. Hydro and nuclear power are pretty minor in comparison (not saying that this is right). By the time you factor in the losses of converting the energy from coal to the final hydrogen product, you've burned a lot of coal to be equivalent to the same energy in propane or gasoline. If you compare that on equal terms, I think the gasoline releases less carbon. But either way you look at it, carbon is released, and it all comes from fossil fuels.
Since natural gas is CH4, you will definitely have carbon left over after producing H2 gas and it definitely comes off as C02.
Great, but how much carbon do they release into the atmosphere?
See, energy density isn't the only consideration.
Actually as it currently stands, propane (or even gasoline) vehicles release a lot less carbon into the atmosphere than hydrogen cars. In fact, given that hydrogen can only be created by electrolyzing water or stripping it from heavier hydrocarbons such as natural gas (which releases lots of CO2), I'd estimate that propane or gasoline would release many times less carbon than any hydrogen vehicle currently.
Even the images that say "true color" or "near true color" aren't really that. From what I've read (and it was on the internet so it must be true), mars on the ground doesn't look all that different from an average arizona or nevada desert scene. In some Viking images from the 70's the sky is quite blue with white clouds. Same from pathfinder. Although during a dust storm the sky is definitely reddish, just like it is here (watched a dust storm roll across the Med from the sahara once -- made the sky a sick red color even though I was a thousand miles from the sahara). See, for example, http://mars-news.de/life/ or http://mars-news.de/color/blue.html
Does anyone have any good gimp filter parameters for making some better color images from the raw nasa ones?
I've owned my little black and white Okidata 10ex LED printer (basically a LASER printer) for more than 5 years and I've replaced the tonor cartridge a couple of times. By now the cost of this printer is a fraction of the cost of buying and maintaining an inkjet printer.
With budget Laser printers on the market these days, even if you have to pay twice the cost of an inkjet printer, for 99% of your printing needs the Laser is the far far better deal. You can get the Samsung 1710ML, for example, at less than $100 on some sales.
I do sometimes need color, and a color laser would be nice, although the colors from such a printer are not good enough for some applications such as photo printing. Photo printing is the one last domain of the ink jet, and probably always will be. But I do that so rarely that taking my photos to walmart to print is the best deal for me.
At present, there are simply too many widget toolkits and desktop environments present. Motif, GTK, QT, KDE, Gnome.. and none of these are strong enough for there to be a clear winner. They are all tied to X, and perhaps that in itself is a problem.
A single, unified, high quality toolkit is needed, that makes development on Linux as attractive as it is on Windows or Mac OS X. While choice is good, sometimes it can cause more problems than it solves. Perhaps a solution such as Y Windows (http://www.y-windows.org/) may help.
To emphasise the problems facing developers.. GTK looks terrible. QT is nice, but it's a fully blown development environment. Most OSS QT apps are KDE apps, which places a dependency on KDE, which is also undesirable. Developing GUI apps on Linux is far from ideal.
The Linux platform is excellent when developing non-gui based programs. It's an excellent server based platform. But as a desktop solution, it's weak. I use Linux every day, and I can tell you, I fully understand why people hesitate to adopt it - despite the fact it's free.
Well actually things aren't so rosy in Windows either. In fact these days there really isn't that much unification among all the apps as far as gui widget goes either. For instance, every version of MS Office draws its own widgets (regardless of platform) and many apps have this ridiculous idea that they should be skinned (ie media players). Programs like Symantec antivirus for home have really awful self-drawn UIs.
Things in Linux aren't really that bad at all. I have a very consistant look and feel on my linux desktop. I can't remember the last time I used an app that didn't integrate well as far as look and feel or any other thing goes. Freedesktop.org has really had a positive impact.
I think the obstacles to Linux adoption are in areas other than this. Areas like software installation, OS configuration.
I find the whole SETI program very interesting. Obviously we're look simply for signals that would indicate something not natural (being-made). However the math shows that to get a coherent signal from, say, earth to deep space would require a transmitter of such power that we currently cannot even generate. We'd have a far better success rate sending huge rockets on 10000 year journeys to other worlds.
This also brings out some of the problems with wireless technology in general. It is convenient and necessary, but not extremely energy efficient (or even efficient in other ways). Sometimes plugging a cord in is the most efficient way to communicate between two points.
Hence I doubt any alien is going to notice whether or not our earth is covered in RF noise. Besides, if they have the technology to come by and say hi, they surely understand what spread spectrum is. But we all know they use subspace radio now. Once we build a warp core that can send out subspace emissions, then they'll take notice.
There's more to it than that even. IBM chose to invest billions in Linux precisely because it *was* GPL. IBM wisely understands that the GPL allows IBM to partake of a very rich platform and community, and to enhance it for their own purposes while maintaining a level playing field where no company is advantaged over IBM because of IBM's work. This is a great example of Adam Smith's idea of self-interest vs self-interest. In this case, the GPL plays on this conflict to actually promote mutual benefits to all parties. The GPL is a marvelous example of how free market, capitalist forces can actually benefit the all participating parties under certain conditions.
Turning back to IBM and the GPL, if IBM had invested in FreeBSD, for example, then everything IBM did would be used to compete directly with IBM--they would be forging the very weapon that could be wielded against them. If you use a more liberal code license, the only way for a company like IBM to invest in it safely is to completely fork the code. This is what Apple did, and it has worked fine for them, except that they had to shoulder the entire burden of development now, and basically given up the existing community. Had Apple simply built on FreeBSD rather than fork it, Apple's investment would end up as a weapon used back against themselves.
Thus Eric is wrong, but maybe for different reasons than most people think. Having watched what IBM has done with linux lately, I can say with some confidence that Linux would be dead right now had it not been for the GPL. If not dead, as insignificant as *BSD.
Have you ever used a java program under OS X? If the program follows OS X conventions and uses Swing, Java apps look and feel just like normal mac applications. No Java hasn't failed on the desktop. Java on the OS X looks and feels like a first-class application environment.
NeoOffice/J only uses java to implement some things and doesn't use swing. Therefore at this point, it's simply OpenOffice/X11 with the X11 parts replaced with Java drawing code and a native menu (as well as finder integration).
Does anyone know if it is possible to boot knoppix via pxelinux, perhaps nfs-mounting the iso image which is then loop-back mounted instead of having the CD in the drive? That would be incredibly useful.
Well, seeing as I can't fly gas airplanes at my local city park, LiPolys are as good as I can get right now. I don't see children's toys burning gasoline yet. Maybe safe fuel cells in the future...
Compared to a few years ago, performance is pretty cool. In fact before the widespread adoption in RC of NiMH and LiPoly, electric-powered RC planes just didn't exist like they do now. Many RC fliers can get their electrics up over 1000' altitudes and some planes fly up over 50 mph.
The 1500 mAh is the amount of current you can draw from the battery before the low-voltage threshold is reached. Almost all R/C electronic speed controls have a cut-off to kill your prop motor before the voltage drops too low which keeps you from ruining your batteries and insures you have enough power to control the servos to get you down. Judging by the computer's readout on my charger, I typically drain about 1300 mAh of power on each cycle.
NiMH batteries are also rated similarly. In other words, 1800 mAh of power before the cell drops below 1 V or something. Batteries are elastic, so really these numbers are estimations of usable voltage.
I've been using Lithium Polymer batteries for quite some time on my electric remote control airplanes. They are amazingly light weight, pack a lot of energy and can handle enormous current loads. My airplanes draw up to 10 Amps of steady current from my 7.4V 1500 mAh batteries, although typical flights use much less, about 12 to 14 minutes per charge of constant flying.
The downsides to LiPoly are the same as LiIon. They are expensive and don't have an operational lifetime that is very long. They wear out just sitting on the shelf. I anticipate having to replace my airplane batteries every year or so. LiPoly batteries also take a long time to completely charge. Filling an empty 1500 mAh battery takes almost one and a half hours at 1.5 A charging current. Also if a LiPoly is every discharged below a certain voltage, the cells are ruined.
There seems to be this common fallacy going around that people these days believe. That is that combustion=bad. Well we have news for you. Everything from bacteria to human bodies employs combustion as the primary means of energy production. That's right. Our bodies burn carbohydrates with oxygen producing carbon dioxide.
The number one way of producing energy always will involve burning something. Naturally burning fossil fuels will always be a dirty afair and one that puts billions of previously contained CO2 into the atmosphere. Biodiesel on the other hand releases no (zero) net CO2. There are particulate emissions still, but that is mainly ash and we'll learn how to clean that up eventually. We'll also have to learn how to prevent nitrous oxide emission and other things. But we can do it. Our cars will be burning fuel for many many years, although we hope it will not be fossil fuels and that it will be cleaner than today.
I am amused by all the call for hydrogen or electric vehicles as if either was really a true source of power. They are not. They are energy storage mechanisms, and not very good at that (for hydrogen, E=MC2). Batteries are certainly improving, but in the process they are now more toxic and harder to dispose of than ever before.
I agree that we have to eliminate fossil fuels from our lifestyles. I call on the government to stop keeping our gas prices artificially low. Once they come up to a more realistic level of say $4 a gallon or so, then we will start seeing people take it seriously. Also we need to get the old cars either off the road or modified to meet modern emission standards. Ten high-mileage hybrid car do little good when one old gas-guzling, poluting clunker is still on th road.
Slashdot Mirror
I know what the terms are and how they are related. Exactly what are you talking about?
If it weren't for the GPL, Linux would be nothing more than any other fringe OS out there, such as BeOS, BSD, etc, at least as far as its presence in the corporate world. The GPL exactly the reason why IBM can invest billions in Linux and yet keep it free for others. The GPL levels the corporate playing field and allows IBM to simultaneously benefit from the improvements of others and contribute to linux, for their own benefit. Other can benefit from IBM's contributions, but no one can take IBM's contributions and use them against IBM, as the BSD license allows. In short, it is the viral nature of the GPL that has made linux, for better or worse, what it is. Without it, Linux wouldn't even be uttered in the enterprise at all.
Yeah, like the time the pilot was allowed to break the tail off his airbus A320 and crashed into a housing block in New York? This wouldn't have happened if a) the pilot hadn't been an idiot, b) American Airlines hadn't mistrained their pilots in the simulators and c) if Airbus hadn't bowed to public pressure to make the limits soft-limits instead of hard-limits. Note that c would have prevented this accident regardless of a and b.
And as the Anonymous Coward has replied below, had the A320 allowed the pilots to override the computer, it's not apparent they wouldn't have crashed. They could have crashed spectacularly right on the runway rather than in the trees. So your conclusion (that manual override is needed) simply cannot be validated by this episode.
People are also under the mistaken impression that force-feedback with soft-limits is safer than no feedback and hard limits. Regardless of direct feedback through the stick, good pilots "feel" what their aiplane is doing based on everything from what their instruments tell them to what they feel. All input is processed by their brains and synthesized by their training into the aircraft's "feel." hard-limits don't take away from this, but prevent a lot of unwanted things (like stalling over the runway in the flyby).
The famous crash at the airshow that everyone likes to point to was, in fact, pilot error. Or the error of whomever told the pilots what to do. The flyby was way too low, and the plane was just doing what it was programmed to do: prepare for landing. It really wasn't the fault of the airplane or the airplane design. The A320 is a solid, reliable bird. I've flown on it several times in Europe. Judging by that neat emergency landing in LA by the Jet Blue plane last week, I'd say it's a pretty remarkably robust airplane too (once they replace those pesky nose-gear seals).
It is almost certainly Cingular, since they are the only other large GSM provider in America.
I wouldn't necessarily put it in the top 50, but I really enjoyed Time Trax for the year or two that it was on Sci Fi. Not a terribly original plot, but the stories were pretty good and overall quite entertaining.
Ee shouldn't get too complacent in the Linux world. While linux has been making remarkable progress, linux itself does still suffer from this "house divided" syndrome, although it's not quite the same.
What are you talking about? The .NET environment and C# environment has always been available as a separate, free download from MSDN. While developing in Visual Studio is nice, you absolutely don't have to. The compiler is a standalone commandline compiler and the runtime environment certainly doesn't have anything to do with Visual Studio. The Mono developers regularly download the latest versions of .NET to compile their test suites and compare the results to Mono's results.
What forced upgrades are you referring to? I must be missing something here.
Forgive my ignorance, but what does mod_perl have to do with having a scriptable interface into Apache's runtime configuration? Can I use mod_perl to dynamically create, stop or destroy a vhost, all on the fly?
Based on your own little post, I don't blame Asa for deleting your posts. How would an answer to your questions by Asa actually help anything? What would blaming some single person do to help the security situation? Not knowing who you are or what your connection with the Mozilla Developers is, but what business of yours is any of this anyway?
You may be entirely correct in your beliefs and assertions, but because of they way you've said things, it won't matter; you've destroyed your own credibility. Arguing or being persuasive is not the same as whining or demanding, whether you are right or not. Posting A/C about this here doesn't help get your point across either.
Why don't you change it then? Add the following text to your ~/.kde/share/config/kdeglobals to change the button order:
[KDE]
ButtonLayout=1
Thank you!
I hope they never change the button order back to the old backwards way things used to be. I'd consider using KDE, but the button order always drives me up the wall, as do the dialogs in MS Windows.
No Gnome dialog box should ever have "yes," "no," and cancel as buttons.
To each his own, I guess. We're all going to die sometime.
Sure, but let's be realistic here. Our electricity comes primarily almost exclusively from coal. Hydro and nuclear power are pretty minor in comparison (not saying that this is right). By the time you factor in the losses of converting the energy from coal to the final hydrogen product, you've burned a lot of coal to be equivalent to the same energy in propane or gasoline. If you compare that on equal terms, I think the gasoline releases less carbon. But either way you look at it, carbon is released, and it all comes from fossil fuels.
Since natural gas is CH4, you will definitely have carbon left over after producing H2 gas and it definitely comes off as C02.
Great, but how much carbon do they release into the atmosphere?
See, energy density isn't the only consideration.
Actually as it currently stands, propane (or even gasoline) vehicles release a lot less carbon into the atmosphere than hydrogen cars. In fact, given that hydrogen can only be created by electrolyzing water or stripping it from heavier hydrocarbons such as natural gas (which releases lots of CO2), I'd estimate that propane or gasoline would release many times less carbon than any hydrogen vehicle currently.
Even the images that say "true color" or "near true color" aren't really that. From what I've read (and it was on the internet so it must be true), mars on the ground doesn't look all that different from an average arizona or nevada desert scene. In some Viking images from the 70's the sky is quite blue with white clouds. Same from pathfinder. Although during a dust storm the sky is definitely reddish, just like it is here (watched a dust storm roll across the Med from the sahara once -- made the sky a sick red color even though I was a thousand miles from the sahara). See, for example, http://mars-news.de/life/ or http://mars-news.de/color/blue.html
Does anyone have any good gimp filter parameters for making some better color images from the raw nasa ones?
I've owned my little black and white Okidata 10ex LED printer (basically a LASER printer) for more than 5 years and I've replaced the tonor cartridge a couple of times. By now the cost of this printer is a fraction of the cost of buying and maintaining an inkjet printer.
With budget Laser printers on the market these days, even if you have to pay twice the cost of an inkjet printer, for 99% of your printing needs the Laser is the far far better deal. You can get the Samsung 1710ML, for example, at less than $100 on some sales.
I do sometimes need color, and a color laser would be nice, although the colors from such a printer are not good enough for some applications such as photo printing. Photo printing is the one last domain of the ink jet, and probably always will be. But I do that so rarely that taking my photos to walmart to print is the best deal for me.
Well actually things aren't so rosy in Windows either. In fact these days there really isn't that much unification among all the apps as far as gui widget goes either. For instance, every version of MS Office draws its own widgets (regardless of platform) and many apps have this ridiculous idea that they should be skinned (ie media players). Programs like Symantec antivirus for home have really awful self-drawn UIs.
Things in Linux aren't really that bad at all. I have a very consistant look and feel on my linux desktop. I can't remember the last time I used an app that didn't integrate well as far as look and feel or any other thing goes. Freedesktop.org has really had a positive impact.
I think the obstacles to Linux adoption are in areas other than this. Areas like software installation, OS configuration.
I find the whole SETI program very interesting. Obviously we're look simply for signals that would indicate something not natural (being-made). However the math shows that to get a coherent signal from, say, earth to deep space would require a transmitter of such power that we currently cannot even generate. We'd have a far better success rate sending huge rockets on 10000 year journeys to other worlds.
This also brings out some of the problems with wireless technology in general. It is convenient and necessary, but not extremely energy efficient (or even efficient in other ways). Sometimes plugging a cord in is the most efficient way to communicate between two points.
Hence I doubt any alien is going to notice whether or not our earth is covered in RF noise. Besides, if they have the technology to come by and say hi, they surely understand what spread spectrum is. But we all know they use subspace radio now. Once we build a warp core that can send out subspace emissions, then they'll take notice.
There's more to it than that even. IBM chose to invest billions in Linux precisely because it *was* GPL. IBM wisely understands that the GPL allows IBM to partake of a very rich platform and community, and to enhance it for their own purposes while maintaining a level playing field where no company is advantaged over IBM because of IBM's work. This is a great example of Adam Smith's idea of self-interest vs self-interest. In this case, the GPL plays on this conflict to actually promote mutual benefits to all parties. The GPL is a marvelous example of how free market, capitalist forces can actually benefit the all participating parties under certain conditions.
Turning back to IBM and the GPL, if IBM had invested in FreeBSD, for example, then everything IBM did would be used to compete directly with IBM--they would be forging the very weapon that could be wielded against them. If you use a more liberal code license, the only way for a company like IBM to invest in it safely is to completely fork the code. This is what Apple did, and it has worked fine for them, except that they had to shoulder the entire burden of development now, and basically given up the existing community. Had Apple simply built on FreeBSD rather than fork it, Apple's investment would end up as a weapon used back against themselves.
Thus Eric is wrong, but maybe for different reasons than most people think. Having watched what IBM has done with linux lately, I can say with some confidence that Linux would be dead right now had it not been for the GPL. If not dead, as insignificant as *BSD.
Have you ever used a java program under OS X? If the program follows OS X conventions and uses Swing, Java apps look and feel just like normal mac applications. No Java hasn't failed on the desktop. Java on the OS X looks and feels like a first-class application environment.
NeoOffice/J only uses java to implement some things and doesn't use swing. Therefore at this point, it's simply OpenOffice/X11 with the X11 parts replaced with Java drawing code and a native menu (as well as finder integration).
Does anyone know if it is possible to boot knoppix via pxelinux, perhaps nfs-mounting the iso image which is then loop-back mounted instead of having the CD in the drive? That would be incredibly useful.
Michael
Well, seeing as I can't fly gas airplanes at my local city park, LiPolys are as good as I can get right now. I don't see children's toys burning gasoline yet. Maybe safe fuel cells in the future...
Compared to a few years ago, performance is pretty cool. In fact before the widespread adoption in RC of NiMH and LiPoly, electric-powered RC planes just didn't exist like they do now. Many RC fliers can get their electrics up over 1000' altitudes and some planes fly up over 50 mph.
The 1500 mAh is the amount of current you can draw from the battery before the low-voltage threshold is reached. Almost all R/C electronic speed controls have a cut-off to kill your prop motor before the voltage drops too low which keeps you from ruining your batteries and insures you have enough power to control the servos to get you down. Judging by the computer's readout on my charger, I typically drain about 1300 mAh of power on each cycle.
NiMH batteries are also rated similarly. In other words, 1800 mAh of power before the cell drops below 1 V or something. Batteries are elastic, so really these numbers are estimations of usable voltage.
I've been using Lithium Polymer batteries for quite some time on my electric remote control airplanes. They are amazingly light weight, pack a lot of energy and can handle enormous current loads. My airplanes draw up to 10 Amps of steady current from my 7.4V 1500 mAh batteries, although typical flights use much less, about 12 to 14 minutes per charge of constant flying.
The downsides to LiPoly are the same as LiIon. They are expensive and don't have an operational lifetime that is very long. They wear out just sitting on the shelf. I anticipate having to replace my airplane batteries every year or so. LiPoly batteries also take a long time to completely charge. Filling an empty 1500 mAh battery takes almost one and a half hours at 1.5 A charging current. Also if a LiPoly is every discharged below a certain voltage, the cells are ruined.
There seems to be this common fallacy going around that people these days believe. That is that combustion=bad. Well we have news for you. Everything from bacteria to human bodies employs combustion as the primary means of energy production. That's right. Our bodies burn carbohydrates with oxygen producing carbon dioxide.
The number one way of producing energy always will involve burning something. Naturally burning fossil fuels will always be a dirty afair and one that puts billions of previously contained CO2 into the atmosphere. Biodiesel on the other hand releases no (zero) net CO2. There are particulate emissions still, but that is mainly ash and we'll learn how to clean that up eventually. We'll also have to learn how to prevent nitrous oxide emission and other things. But we can do it. Our cars will be burning fuel for many many years, although we hope it will not be fossil fuels and that it will be cleaner than today.
I am amused by all the call for hydrogen or electric vehicles as if either was really a true source of power. They are not. They are energy storage mechanisms, and not very good at that (for hydrogen, E=MC2). Batteries are certainly improving, but in the process they are now more toxic and harder to dispose of than ever before.
I agree that we have to eliminate fossil fuels from our lifestyles. I call on the government to stop keeping our gas prices artificially low. Once they come up to a more realistic level of say $4 a gallon or so, then we will start seeing people take it seriously. Also we need to get the old cars either off the road or modified to meet modern emission standards. Ten high-mileage hybrid car do little good when one old gas-guzling, poluting clunker is still on th road.