Really? Switching to text files would magically fix this??
This flaw is not related to how the registry is loaded and/or interpreted, actually it's not the fault of the registry at all - it's a kernel exploit. The mitigation is to tweak *permissions* on a couple of reg keys that should have been tightened up in the first place. It's akin to allowing SUID root on the sudoers file and a kernel vulnerability that allows $BAD_GUY to use that fact - it's not the file itself.
Whether the info is in a database of binary values or a database composed of text files laying around a hard disk is immaterial - the permissions to change said config info would have made this a non issue.
Yes, Microsoft have been idiots, but they are trying to clean up thier act. If you're going to dis them, dis them for missing the reg key permissions, not the registry itself - al much more valid argument.
Snuffing it on facebook before your time is not much of an issue, as they explicitly don't disable the account's ability to actually log in. If you wake up one day to find out you're dead, you can still log in, and that provides a pretty decent avenue for contesting the claim.
And I'd rather not go into how I know.
Lemme guess - You're Jesus and after Your resurrection Facebook screwed you over?
This should be a holiday before Prog-Rammers get one. After all, we're left cleaning up the mess that these people make of our systems.
(Yeah yeah, I know - the endless recursive fork() was a typo, you need root to make your job easier, you need more CPU, the SAN sucks, etc. Give me your budget and I'll do something about all that, K? HTH, HAND.)
Yes, I'm trolling, but without us on the job the Prog-Rammers would be staring at a black or blue screen.
...and the answer is "Didn't you do a risk analysis of the provider you hosted your income bearing site with?".
Darwin, dude - if you didn't know that your provider was seriously at risk of being taken out by the feds due to the actions of whom you were sharing space with, then your stupid ass starves as does your family's. Just Darwin at work.
You're not pushing a cpu, it was designed to run faster! Just bined lower.
You're not overclocking overclocking ram at 2v. Its designed to run with that voltage!
This isn't an overclocking issue, its a design flaw by Intel. Not our fault you can't see the forest for the trees.
Run a CRC on your brain, sparky, you dropped a bit or two.
The Nehalem CPU is designed to run at JDEC Spec of 1.5V, but can handle 1.65 without being binned. Yes, the RAM is designed for 2V, but the CPU wasn't - use the RAM, take a chance on killing the CPU and voiding your warranty.
60nm parts have 25% more area in which to absorb electrons and 25% more dielectric between elements than a 45nm part, so of course they could handle more voltage without damage. It's a design flaw in material physics, not the processor.
Re:Is the problem one of craft or mentality?
on
Clean Code
·
· Score: 1
The needed book I think is for the manager: psychology of the antisocial geek
That being said, most geeks aren't truly anti-social - they just work differently. Being cut from a different cloth means that you can't always tailor them to your needs - you may have to modify your pattern a tad.
I've seen where giving an uber-hacker an inexperienced but - and this is key - very bright geek to teach brought them out of their shell a bit. Mostly because he n00b was able to not only learn the methods in coding, but how to properly speak to the geek and have them communicate.
Even then, don't expect them to always fit in a team or be able to communicate exactly what they're thinking. The latter is usually due to bandwidth limitations - hard to explain 500 ideas all at the same time without frustrating the person they're communication with.
I'm still mad at Bill for the last commercial, in which he said nothing except, "I have a lot of money and now I'm going to wiggle my ass in your face, nyah nyah". If Bill wants to be a celebrity then he can just "leak" a homemade sex tape like the others do.
And I'm really pissed at you there, Ethanol-fueled dude. Some of us are visual and were eating lunch.
*Throws 3/4s of a bowl of beans and rice into ethanol-fueled's face*
Asshole.
(Dear $deity: These ads are sooo bad, and yet the ad agency and Microsoft Marketing considers them a success due to the "buzz" they created. Please, please PLEASE don't let anyone from that agency read about this se*choke*, er, se*YAK*, AHEM, ethanol-fueleds "idea", lest there be wailing and gouging out of eyes.)
The last key is that it's very, very likely that Microsoft and any of their technologies are not needed at all by Google. If MS were to go away, Google would carry on as if nothing happened.
Except they wouldn't need to duck for flying chairs, of course...
As I understand the GPL V2, unless Mr. Toth has actually purchased the products in question the vendor is under no obligation to distribute the source to him.
Refusing to send source to a valid owner is definitely a violation, of course, but if you sell a device that contains GPL code I don't think you are required to give the source to the public at large, just people who bought your product and then request said source.
I wonder if they where given a choice what they would decide? Maybe it is wrong to not give them the choice.
Redundant question. There is no way to give them the choice without "contaminating" them, since you'd have to show them "The Wonders of the Modern Age" to give them the information they need to make a proper choice. Once they know about those, the innocence is gone and their culture changed irrevocably.
Of your "Yes" points, the only one I'm sad to not be able to do is the medicine one. However, maybe they know about medicines we only dream of.
The only one of the four vendors you list produces an operating system. That one exception relies on an open core to their OS, too. IOW, they have little reason at present to try and stop Open Source projects in their tracks. At present, anyway.
Though I wouldn't exactly call any one on your list an Open Source promoter, Microsoft is the only software vendor that would dearly love to kill any software, especially Open Source, that doesn't run exclusively on Windows. They've killed others who've simply threatened Windows in the past, and don't seem to have learned anything from being convicted of abusing their monopoly power to do so. Windows is the core and foundation of the MS domination - open file formats and protocols being the lynch pin. If either falls, so does MS.
I don't think that can be said of any other vendor, even the ones on your list. The problem Microsoft faces with an Open OS is that they can't kill the company behind it, they have to find a way to kill a community - namely slipping a patent encumbered "standard" past a standards body, like OSI.
Thanks again Slashdot for proving the Linux camp really are full of a bunch of anti-Microsoft loonies who read only what they want to read.
It's a/. headline - of course it's alarmist and sensationalist. Anyone with any sense of reality takes such things with a large grain of NaCl.
We all aren't loonies - I'm in a Microsoft shop and tend to have a balanced view (I hope). What this story does is let me know that I need to ensure our WSUS server isn't set to auto-approve rollups (IOW, ensure the guy admining that bit of software hasn't gone bat-shit insane), and that my family and friends have IE7 Block installed (watch out for the Silverlight popup!) - that way my support headaches won't increase.
The quality is mediocre, but what do you expect with socialized medicine.
Just so you know, I'm insured by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. It's what we call a Crown Corporation - a company run for the benefit of the people of my province. It's formed by an act of the Provincial Parliament, and answers to the government, but is in all other aspects a real company - other than it's forbidden by law to make a profit. Yes, part of my Ontario Income Tax is used to fund the company, so I pay my premiums as a matter of course, rather than seperately. Last year I paid about $5500CDN in Ontario tax - total - and I make a pretty good salary. So, the risk you speak of is shared by all in Ontario through having a Crown Corporation. BTW - if it does make a profit, the money is put back into the public purse. People pay what they can afford, and other than having some fat-cat bureaucrats who make inflated salaries, it's cost effective for us - no one is trying to make money for shareholders, they try to give good care.
It's not perfect by any stretch, sure. We don't have enough doctors, but OHIP is trying to remedy that in a reasonable way. Yes, I've waited for hours in an emergency room, but that was after a rather nasty accident on the highway flooded the place with the severely injured and I just had a sore back. I went to a clinic the next day and received the care I needed - I just walked in, showed them my OHIP card and got medical care that fixed me up.
I have choice in health care providers, do need to pay some out of pocket expenses (i.e. prescriptions, crutches etc.), and get excellent care when I really need it. I haven't looked for the numbers, but I'm pretty sure our outcomes are very close to yours. There are horror stories of course, but there are also just as many examples of people getting stellar care.
It works pretty damned well, we get very good care and I don't need to worry that I'll be bankrupted by getting sick and having someone trying to profit from my misfortune. I'll take a little less quality for half the price, thankyouverymuch.
Thanks, I was hoping someone would post this typical elitist BS.
You're welcome. I don't mind being an elitist bastard at all - especially one with with a viable solution to an onerous problem.
Your attitude is that users who aren't tech-savvy enough to prevent things like this from happening deserve to suffer
Not really. I'm saying that until the average computer user experiences real pain, not just inconvenience from leaving themselves open to nefarious programs running on their machine the situation will not improve. Did Joe User cause Microsoft to make security a priority? No, it was businesses who had to pay a lot of dough to get things fixed that forced Bill and Co. to do the right thing. A bill from TW they didn't expect will give the home user the same type of wakeup call, and something will get done for a change.
-- and like it's going to help TW's bottom line if they lose a customer permanently because he's outraged that they charged him $300 without (from his perspective) warning, and possibly lose some other customers because this one guy convinces them TW sucks, and engender loads of ill will.
Not if they're smart about it. OK, TW gives them the bill, but with a 1-800-HOLY-FCK help line at the bottom. When the customer calls, TW explains the bill, why they were sent the bill and helps the user fix the problem. When the problem is fixed, TW says "We'll give you this one for FREE, and have a jim-dandy kinda day." The user is helped (likely loving TW at this point), TW gets their 'bandwidth' back and a spammer is pissed - all is right with the world.
The fact is there are a lot of people who are intelligent and not tech-savvy, either because they grew up too late and are stuck in a pre-Internet mindset, or just don't have the aptitude for tech; but these people still have plenty to contribute online, and cutting them off just because you think they're "lusers" is foolish and short-sighted.
Did I say "lusers" out loud? Sorry - my bastard was showing.
Anyway, anyone should be savvy enough with their kit that they don't ruin things for others - the Internet is a commons (at present, anyway) after all. If they aren't savvy enough, they should get help. If not - out of the memory pool, you're hurting the Internet. And how tech-savvy do you have to be to install AVG anyhow?
At present, what does it cost Joe Luser if he gets nailed with a spambot and spews a few gigs of SPAM onto the Internet? Nothing extra (maybe a bit of speed on his connection) and he likely won't even really know he's been pwned.
This way, when he gets a $300 bill for over using his bandwidth, he'll most likely fix the damned problem and take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again so he doesn't get blindsided by a lage ISP bill.
Or, he'll blame the ISP and get off the net - either way the spammers lose a spambot, and we admin types win. Bring it on, TW!
The simple solution would be to use an electronic voting machine to make the voting process easy, provide a print out via laser, allow the voter to verify that his/her vote is correctly marked on the ballot before dropping it into - right underneath the machine - a locked vote collection box.
Why should the rich have any greater right to jeopardize human and environmental health and safety? Especially when comparing the wealth of people in different parts of the world; you can't say that the comparative net worth of a particular American vs. a particular Indian have anything to do with individual merit.
From what I've observed, the USA equates rich and privilege - if you're rich, you fscking well earned it and deserve the right to plunder more. If that $PERSON_FROM_OTHER_COUNTRY were worth anything, they'd have enough money/influence/power to compete, nevermind the huge disparity in resources.
Yes, I do understand. As an American I find the prospect of equal access to natural resources for everybody on earth very frightening, because I am accustomed to our position of privilege. But I won't try to rationalize that selfish and irrational sentiment.
As a Canadian, (where we produce more CO2 per capita than the US - no lily-green condescension here) I fear that situation more. We're in no position to defend ourselves if we become "hostile to American interests", especially if those interests are Big Oil, since we have what they want in spades. Granted, it seems that a less hostile approach *cough*Stephen Harper*COUGH* is being taken, but we are a different lot up here - eventually, we _will_ have a conflict where the US wants our water or oil or trees or whatever, and will take it in whatever means they determine necessary against our will or better judgement. Just so you know - I don't think it will be the majority of Americans who will want to do that, just the moneyed few who will lose control unless they do so, and so will sell it to the American public as "The Right Thing".
In summation - we live in a global plutocracy, where being a USasian or Canoodian or Belizian matters not a whit, only how much money you have and what you can do to further the cause of the privileged few. The trick is to turn (a) green technology(ies) into something they need to hold on to power - then it'll be invested in and promoted like nothing else./takes off tinfoil hat
I wonder what the profit margins for the fluorescents are? I bet they're higher. Congress rarely does anything unless money changed hands somewhere. Personally I've been buying the fluorescents becuase they are supposed to last a lot longer and I hate having bulbs burn out on me, and I've found them ok for the most part anyway. However I have not bought them to replace all of my light bulbs. There are a few places where the incandescents are better suited such as my dimmer lights and in the bathroom.
They are nice - no flicker anymore, you can put a 150W equivalent in a 60W socket and only be using 23W - makes the bathroom much brighter. As well, a quick search shows that there's lots of dimmers for the new bulbs. Profit margins? Who gives a fuck when we're talking about something that's less than $10 and you buy once every 3 years, instead of every 6 months.
The market would have sorted this all out eventually and we would have wound up with better bulbs of both types. Instead now the game has been called off and we'll wind up with more expensive crappier products. Eventually they'll ban all incandescents except for speciality applications and the pressure for the fluorescents to have to compete and improve and become cheaper to displace incandescents will be gone.
*Sigh* Once again it is shown that we (in America) are all now living under a regime of soft fascism.
The 'market' is getting a push in the right direction by having efficiency standards enforced on it. That says nothing about what the tech is, just that it has to be efficient or not be sold. Yes, you spend a few more dollars up-front to acquire the new technology, but then recoup that in energy savings and not replacing bulbs so often. Other than needing a better way of disposing of broken fluorescent bulbs (i.e. Hg), I see very little downside here.
How you go from something that's beneficial to everyone inside and outside of the US to "soft fascism" is beyond me - other than perhaps pandering to Slashthink and karma-whoring.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Switching to text files would magically fix this??
This flaw is not related to how the registry is loaded and/or interpreted, actually it's not the fault of the registry at all - it's a kernel exploit. The mitigation is to tweak *permissions* on a couple of reg keys that should have been tightened up in the first place. It's akin to allowing SUID root on the sudoers file and a kernel vulnerability that allows $BAD_GUY to use that fact - it's not the file itself.
Whether the info is in a database of binary values or a database composed of text files laying around a hard disk is immaterial - the permissions to change said config info would have made this a non issue.
Yes, Microsoft have been idiots, but they are trying to clean up thier act. If you're going to dis them, dis them for missing the reg key permissions, not the registry itself - al much more valid argument.
Keith is already dead, his brain just don't know it yet. The D&R license is likely for him, I think.
Lemme guess - You're Jesus and after Your resurrection Facebook screwed you over?
This should be a holiday before Prog-Rammers get one. After all, we're left cleaning up the mess that these people make of our systems.
(Yeah yeah, I know - the endless recursive fork() was a typo, you need root to make your job easier, you need more CPU, the SAN sucks, etc. Give me your budget and I'll do something about all that, K? HTH, HAND.)
Yes, I'm trolling, but without us on the job the Prog-Rammers would be staring at a black or blue screen.
...and the answer is "Didn't you do a risk analysis of the provider you hosted your income bearing site with?".
Darwin, dude - if you didn't know that your provider was seriously at risk of being taken out by the feds due to the actions of whom you were sharing space with, then your stupid ass starves as does your family's. Just Darwin at work.
#00ff00 maybe?
Thank you, I'll be here all week! Try the #00ff00 eggs and ham.
T, FTF Sam-I-AM.
Sorry, Jobs himself killed all the Apple clones...
Push what limits?
You're not pushing a cpu, it was designed to run faster! Just bined lower.
You're not overclocking overclocking ram at 2v. Its designed to run with that voltage!
This isn't an overclocking issue, its a design flaw by Intel. Not our fault you can't see the forest for the trees.
Run a CRC on your brain, sparky, you dropped a bit or two.
The Nehalem CPU is designed to run at JDEC Spec of 1.5V, but can handle 1.65 without being binned. Yes, the RAM is designed for 2V, but the CPU wasn't - use the RAM, take a chance on killing the CPU and voiding your warranty.
60nm parts have 25% more area in which to absorb electrons and 25% more dielectric between elements than a 45nm part, so of course they could handle more voltage without damage. It's a design flaw in material physics, not the processor.
For the love of $DEITY, do not listen to ESR.
That being said, most geeks aren't truly anti-social - they just work differently. Being cut from a different cloth means that you can't always tailor them to your needs - you may have to modify your pattern a tad.
I've seen where giving an uber-hacker an inexperienced but - and this is key - very bright geek to teach brought them out of their shell a bit. Mostly because he n00b was able to not only learn the methods in coding, but how to properly speak to the geek and have them communicate.
Even then, don't expect them to always fit in a team or be able to communicate exactly what they're thinking. The latter is usually due to bandwidth limitations - hard to explain 500 ideas all at the same time without frustrating the person they're communication with.
I'm still mad at Bill for the last commercial, in which he said nothing except, "I have a lot of money and now I'm going to wiggle my ass in your face, nyah nyah". If Bill wants to be a celebrity then he can just "leak" a homemade sex tape like the others do.
And I'm really pissed at you there, Ethanol-fueled dude. Some of us are visual and were eating lunch.
*Throws 3/4s of a bowl of beans and rice into ethanol-fueled's face*
Asshole.
(Dear $deity: These ads are sooo bad, and yet the ad agency and Microsoft Marketing considers them a success due to the "buzz" they created. Please, please PLEASE don't let anyone from that agency read about this se*choke*, er, se*YAK*, AHEM, ethanol-fueleds "idea", lest there be wailing and gouging out of eyes.)
Soko
The last key is that it's very, very likely that Microsoft and any of their technologies are not needed at all by Google. If MS were to go away, Google would carry on as if nothing happened.
Except they wouldn't need to duck for flying chairs, of course...
Thanks for the clarification. 3a and 3b did seem at odds - hard to parse legalese I guess.
Soko
As I understand the GPL V2, unless Mr. Toth has actually purchased the products in question the vendor is under no obligation to distribute the source to him.
Refusing to send source to a valid owner is definitely a violation, of course, but if you sell a device that contains GPL code I don't think you are required to give the source to the public at large, just people who bought your product and then request said source.
Yes, I'm being pedantic, but lawyers are worse.
Soko
I wonder if they where given a choice what they would decide? Maybe it is wrong to not give them the choice.
Redundant question. There is no way to give them the choice without "contaminating" them, since you'd have to show them "The Wonders of the Modern Age" to give them the information they need to make a proper choice. Once they know about those, the innocence is gone and their culture changed irrevocably.
Of your "Yes" points, the only one I'm sad to not be able to do is the medicine one. However, maybe they know about medicines we only dream of.
Who is this Wieers fellow?
He's a maintainer of a major Fedora repository. Dag's been around for quite a while now.
What exactly did Shuttleworth propose?
That the major free linux distros sync release cycles, so other vendors can target a more homogeneous environemnt.
What's the point of syncing Enterprise Linux releases?
Less difference in the distro underpinnings means less to maintain for third party vendors, making Linux a more attractive dev target.
What is and why is Wieers making this big stink?
What else do assholes do?
I doubt it.
"You wanna do it without a condom? It'll cost you..."
The only one of the four vendors you list produces an operating system. That one exception relies on an open core to their OS, too. IOW, they have little reason at present to try and stop Open Source projects in their tracks. At present, anyway.
Though I wouldn't exactly call any one on your list an Open Source promoter, Microsoft is the only software vendor that would dearly love to kill any software, especially Open Source, that doesn't run exclusively on Windows. They've killed others who've simply threatened Windows in the past, and don't seem to have learned anything from being convicted of abusing their monopoly power to do so. Windows is the core and foundation of the MS domination - open file formats and protocols being the lynch pin. If either falls, so does MS.
I don't think that can be said of any other vendor, even the ones on your list. The problem Microsoft faces with an Open OS is that they can't kill the company behind it, they have to find a way to kill a community - namely slipping a patent encumbered "standard" past a standards body, like OSI.
Go get 'em, Bruce.
Thanks again Slashdot for proving the Linux camp really are full of a bunch of anti-Microsoft loonies who read only what they want to read.
/. headline - of course it's alarmist and sensationalist. Anyone with any sense of reality takes such things with a large grain of NaCl.
It's a
We all aren't loonies - I'm in a Microsoft shop and tend to have a balanced view (I hope). What this story does is let me know that I need to ensure our WSUS server isn't set to auto-approve rollups (IOW, ensure the guy admining that bit of software hasn't gone bat-shit insane), and that my family and friends have IE7 Block installed (watch out for the Silverlight popup!) - that way my support headaches won't increase.
Soko
The quality is mediocre, but what do you expect with socialized medicine.
Just so you know, I'm insured by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. It's what we call a Crown Corporation - a company run for the benefit of the people of my province. It's formed by an act of the Provincial Parliament, and answers to the government, but is in all other aspects a real company - other than it's forbidden by law to make a profit. Yes, part of my Ontario Income Tax is used to fund the company, so I pay my premiums as a matter of course, rather than seperately. Last year I paid about $5500CDN in Ontario tax - total - and I make a pretty good salary. So, the risk you speak of is shared by all in Ontario through having a Crown Corporation. BTW - if it does make a profit, the money is put back into the public purse. People pay what they can afford, and other than having some fat-cat bureaucrats who make inflated salaries, it's cost effective for us - no one is trying to make money for shareholders, they try to give good care.
It's not perfect by any stretch, sure. We don't have enough doctors, but OHIP is trying to remedy that in a reasonable way. Yes, I've waited for hours in an emergency room, but that was after a rather nasty accident on the highway flooded the place with the severely injured and I just had a sore back. I went to a clinic the next day and received the care I needed - I just walked in, showed them my OHIP card and got medical care that fixed me up.
I have choice in health care providers, do need to pay some out of pocket expenses (i.e. prescriptions, crutches etc.), and get excellent care when I really need it. I haven't looked for the numbers, but I'm pretty sure our outcomes are very close to yours. There are horror stories of course, but there are also just as many examples of people getting stellar care.
It works pretty damned well, we get very good care and I don't need to worry that I'll be bankrupted by getting sick and having someone trying to profit from my misfortune. I'll take a little less quality for half the price, thankyouverymuch.
Soko
Thanks, I was hoping someone would post this typical elitist BS.
You're welcome. I don't mind being an elitist bastard at all - especially one with with a viable solution to an onerous problem.
Your attitude is that users who aren't tech-savvy enough to prevent things like this from happening deserve to suffer
Not really. I'm saying that until the average computer user experiences real pain, not just inconvenience from leaving themselves open to nefarious programs running on their machine the situation will not improve. Did Joe User cause Microsoft to make security a priority? No, it was businesses who had to pay a lot of dough to get things fixed that forced Bill and Co. to do the right thing. A bill from TW they didn't expect will give the home user the same type of wakeup call, and something will get done for a change.
-- and like it's going to help TW's bottom line if they lose a customer permanently because he's outraged that they charged him $300 without (from his perspective) warning, and possibly lose some other customers because this one guy convinces them TW sucks, and engender loads of ill will.
Not if they're smart about it. OK, TW gives them the bill, but with a 1-800-HOLY-FCK help line at the bottom. When the customer calls, TW explains the bill, why they were sent the bill and helps the user fix the problem. When the problem is fixed, TW says "We'll give you this one for FREE, and have a jim-dandy kinda day." The user is helped (likely loving TW at this point), TW gets their 'bandwidth' back and a spammer is pissed - all is right with the world.
The fact is there are a lot of people who are intelligent and not tech-savvy, either because they grew up too late and are stuck in a pre-Internet mindset, or just don't have the aptitude for tech; but these people still have plenty to contribute online, and cutting them off just because you think they're "lusers" is foolish and short-sighted.
Did I say "lusers" out loud? Sorry - my bastard was showing.
Anyway, anyone should be savvy enough with their kit that they don't ruin things for others - the Internet is a commons (at present, anyway) after all. If they aren't savvy enough, they should get help. If not - out of the memory pool, you're hurting the Internet. And how tech-savvy do you have to be to install AVG anyhow?
HTH, HAND.
Soko
Problem? This is not a problem - it's a benefit.
At present, what does it cost Joe Luser if he gets nailed with a spambot and spews a few gigs of SPAM onto the Internet? Nothing extra (maybe a bit of speed on his connection) and he likely won't even really know he's been pwned.
This way, when he gets a $300 bill for over using his bandwidth, he'll most likely fix the damned problem and take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again so he doesn't get blindsided by a lage ISP bill.
Or, he'll blame the ISP and get off the net - either way the spammers lose a spambot, and we admin types win. Bring it on, TW!
Soko
You're close:
The simple solution would be to use an electronic voting machine to make the voting process easy, provide a print out via laser, allow the voter to verify that his/her vote is correctly marked on the ballot before dropping it into - right underneath the machine - a locked vote collection box.
T,FTFY.
Soko
Why should the rich have any greater right to jeopardize human and environmental health and safety? Especially when comparing the wealth of people in different parts of the world; you can't say that the comparative net worth of a particular American vs. a particular Indian have anything to do with individual merit.
/takes off tinfoil hat
From what I've observed, the USA equates rich and privilege - if you're rich, you fscking well earned it and deserve the right to plunder more. If that $PERSON_FROM_OTHER_COUNTRY were worth anything, they'd have enough money/influence/power to compete, nevermind the huge disparity in resources.
Yes, I do understand. As an American I find the prospect of equal access to natural resources for everybody on earth very frightening, because I am accustomed to our position of privilege. But I won't try to rationalize that selfish and irrational sentiment.
As a Canadian, (where we produce more CO2 per capita than the US - no lily-green condescension here) I fear that situation more. We're in no position to defend ourselves if we become "hostile to American interests", especially if those interests are Big Oil, since we have what they want in spades. Granted, it seems that a less hostile approach *cough*Stephen Harper*COUGH* is being taken, but we are a different lot up here - eventually, we _will_ have a conflict where the US wants our water or oil or trees or whatever, and will take it in whatever means they determine necessary against our will or better judgement. Just so you know - I don't think it will be the majority of Americans who will want to do that, just the moneyed few who will lose control unless they do so, and so will sell it to the American public as "The Right Thing".
In summation - we live in a global plutocracy, where being a USasian or Canoodian or Belizian matters not a whit, only how much money you have and what you can do to further the cause of the privileged few. The trick is to turn (a) green technology(ies) into something they need to hold on to power - then it'll be invested in and promoted like nothing else.
That's what you get for writing a universe in C.
Hmmmm... Does the Universe run on a Linux distro?
Soko
I wonder what the profit margins for the fluorescents are? I bet they're higher. Congress rarely does anything unless money changed hands somewhere. Personally I've been buying the fluorescents becuase they are supposed to last a lot longer and I hate having bulbs burn out on me, and I've found them ok for the most part anyway. However I have not bought them to replace all of my light bulbs. There are a few places where the incandescents are better suited such as my dimmer lights and in the bathroom.
They are nice - no flicker anymore, you can put a 150W equivalent in a 60W socket and only be using 23W - makes the bathroom much brighter. As well, a quick search shows that there's lots of dimmers for the new bulbs. Profit margins? Who gives a fuck when we're talking about something that's less than $10 and you buy once every 3 years, instead of every 6 months.
The market would have sorted this all out eventually and we would have wound up with better bulbs of both types. Instead now the game has been called off and we'll wind up with more expensive crappier products. Eventually they'll ban all incandescents except for speciality applications and the pressure for the fluorescents to have to compete and improve and become cheaper to displace incandescents will be gone.
*Sigh* Once again it is shown that we (in America) are all now living under a regime of soft fascism.
The 'market' is getting a push in the right direction by having efficiency standards enforced on it. That says nothing about what the tech is, just that it has to be efficient or not be sold. Yes, you spend a few more dollars up-front to acquire the new technology, but then recoup that in energy savings and not replacing bulbs so often. Other than needing a better way of disposing of broken fluorescent bulbs (i.e. Hg), I see very little downside here.
How you go from something that's beneficial to everyone inside and outside of the US to "soft fascism" is beyond me - other than perhaps pandering to Slashthink and karma-whoring.
Merry Christmas.
Soko