> Yeah... it NFS just has plenty of holes of its own.
NFS uses ONC RPC. ONC RPC supports any security flavor the ONC RPC library implementor choses. RFC 2203 is an security flavor that supports GSS-API, which works over Kerberos and Public Key Infrastructure. Solaris, AIX, NetApp, EMC, Hummingbird have NFS/Kerberos via RFC 2203. The bits are sort of there in Linux 2.6, and should be there for when Red Hat and Suse release enterprise editions of Linux 2.6.
They started doing it for Solaris 7, it took a long time, Solaris 8 then shipped, and in the end they did a one time source release of Solaris 8 (minus lots of bits held back for reasons of 3rd party intellectual property rights and crypto export controls). I still have a Solaris 8 source CD.. cost under $100 at the time as I recall (source code was free, "media kit", was not).
The license for the Solaris 8 source was restrictive, and given the limited source code it wasn't useful for community source development which was the original idea.
We'll see if Solaris 10 community source works out.
But having the source code is still very useful for understanding how stuff works, so I'll be plopping another $100 or so for S10 drop.
Solar - inefficient, one of the most expensive methods of generating electricity, although prices are dropping.
Of the ones on your list, this is still the least
evil, and least intractible. Right now, to
meet the USA's energy needs it would at least
15 *trillion* dollars to set up enough
photo-electric collectors. This is about
1.5 times the USA's annual GDP, [293027571 * 37800 / 10^12 = 11.07 trillion dollars ]
and so, is a tad expensive, though when one
considers that most people own houses with
mortgages that far exceed their annual personal
incomes, not totally out of line.
Still with a combined 10X improvement in photo
electricity (cost and efficiency) and/or
conservation, it becomes a no-brainer
(modulo the environmental
effects of solar energy taking heat from
the ground, but we can always add some
CO2 to the atomosphere if we cool the planet down too much).
Calculations for those interested (I am
assuming centralized solar plants in the deserts
of the USA):
http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1. html
says the 1998 U.S. energy consumption was about 94 quadrillion BTUs.
Assuming 8 * 365 hours of decent sunshine in the desert year around, and round 94 up to 100,
that's 100 * 10^15 / (8 * 365 ) = 34 * 10^12 BTUs/sunshine hour.
(34 * 10^12 ) / (682.4 ) = 49 * 10^9 square metres
= 49 * 10^9 / 10^6 = 49000 square kilometres = 223 KM by 223 KM
or 140 miles by 140 miles for a single central
power plant.
http://store.yahoo.com/sancor/50w.html
will sell you a 502mm x 939mm for $519, or
519 / (502 * 939) * 1000000 = $1101 per sq metre.
Let's be hopeful that in quantity, wholesale lots, we
could buy this for $300 per sq metre. So
49 * 10^9 * 300 = 14.7 trillion dollars.
> I'm pretty sure if we had massive solar panels all over the place, that'd effect the temperature by taking sunlight that would have heated the ground and diverting it.
On the other hand, some amount of panels would cause the net heat added/subtracted by human civilization to be balanced. Today, most of our energy comes from burning fossil fuels, which add heat, and also add CO2 that makes the green house hotter. Use solar energy, and we add less heat, and less CO2. Use too much, and we perhaps cool the planet too much.
Ultimately though, our energy foot print is a function of how many of us there are on this planet, or at least, how much of our energy is produced on this planet. Either reduce the population (which the recent Wired issue says is happenning anyway), or collect solar energy in space, and microwave it down to collectors on the surface.
Commercial UNIX vendors once boasted of their server wins, and in the end, MS ate their workstation business, then went on to feast on the low end server business.
Good news would be that Dell and SUSE teamed up to support Linux on desktops and laptops. Linux is gaining server share for sure, but unless there is attention on the desktop side, Linux will ultimately be marginalized on the low end, and become a "luxury" server O/S in the commercial space.
You'd think Dell would see this, and use desktop Linux to force Microsoft to drive its prices down.
> The founding protocols for the internet, stuck in some university lab, do no one any good. The internet simply could not have existed without broad government funding, and that was brought about by Gore. End of story.
Ludricous. The Internet was being commercialized. E.g. in 1984 Sun Microsystems was selling workstations with a 10mbit ethernet port and TCP/IP out of the box, and business cards from Sun employees had "@sun.com" on them. Those protocols "stuck in a lab" were doing lots of people, plenty good. Remeber NFS?
The Internet took off because of http and web browser. That's the real story.
> He claimed to have been the sole senator responsible for the funding that led to its invention, which is completely accurate, and supported by those who actually did invent the internet.
If that is what he claimed then it is false.
Al Gore was elected senator in 1984. Whereas, the Internet was being invented well before he was elected. E.g.
0894 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over Ethernet
networks. C. Hornig. Apr-01-1984. (Format: TXT=5697 bytes) (Also
STD0041) (Status: STANDARD)
Elections are in November. This was in April. I don't care in those who actually invented the Internet want to credit Al Gore; they are full of it.
> Uh, why? I'm sure all of their important services aren't on their web server.
You like the web-server-based service to donate cash to the campaign? I think that's important, whether I supported Bush or not. (I would think such a service would be important to the Kerry campaign too).
Plus the undecided voters, if they bother to vote, will decide this election. For Bush and Kerry, undecideds need to have access to the campaign materials, such as white papers, platforms, video-on-demand commercials, etc.
There's been a spat of vandalism on Bush campaign offices. The folks who run the campaign are probably calculating that a DoS attack on the web site is likely, and mostly like to originate from foreign countries where Bush is very unpopular. Not having the web site available for the next few days could be devastating.
In his novel Earth he described the effect retirees with nothing better to do had on petty street crime has they walked around with their "TruVues" on which wirelessly spool video to storage on central servers. Would be criminals just simply didn't bother, and elders knew they were untouchable.
> You can thank the insurance companies for the cost of health care today. [...] > IANAL and I don't know about India's legal system, but I don't think they have the sue-for-every-mistake mentality we do here.
So which is? The insurance companies are to blame, or the USA's legal system results in higher malpractice judgements, thereby increasing premiums for doctors?
>> refuses to the let the voter finish without ranking each candidate.
> Great... Now to vote, I'll have to figure out if I prefer the Communist, Socialist, or Prohibition Party.
Gee, in golf people finish tournaments with the same ranking all the time... if say 3 golders are tied for 4th, then they each get an equal share the sum of the prize money for 4th, 5th, and 6th places. So why can't you give equal rank to each of those three fringe parties that you hold in equal disdain.
There's also no reason why an explicit "none-of-the-aboive" can't be a choice, and it could be listed multiple times.
> People have a hard time with something as simple as a butterfly ballot, and now you want them to rank their choices?
Computer aided ballotting, (you could even have a paper trail), would solve this. The software askes, in voice and display, to rank the candidates in order of preference, and refuses to the let the voter finish without ranking each candidate.
However, for this to be fair, each electronic ballot would have to scamble the initial order.
Trust me - if a company started acting responsibly and incurred extra expense from not polluting, and extra cost by not ripping off consumers, and market share losses from not suing your customers RIAA-style, or whatever, you'd be the first person to sell your stock in the company.
Most companies comply with the law, or
do their best to, since there are so many
laws. You are claiming that I would deliberately
invest in companies that knowingly engage in
illegal activity. First, that's a personal
insult, which makes you a jerk, one who
hides behind a keyboard. Second, if
little old me knows illegal stuff is going
on, so does the rest of the world, including
federal and state regulators and police.
I pay a lot of taxes for the police to enforce
the laws. Third I can invest in the most
socially responsible company in the world,
and nothing prevents the CEO or any of its
employees from doing evil. The argument that
I as shareholder have day to day oversight
over a company with thousands of employees
is ludricous.
If the sharedholders didn't care about profit first, then the board would be elected accordingly, and the CEO would be selected from a list of well-known philantropists and not the best graduate of the Enron school of business
It would appear that there is indeed
little separating the LP from the
Green Party.
Ashcroft's son won't be let near the fighting and has next to zero chance of dying.
Tell it to the sailors of the USS Cole.
BTW, technically, at a 1% fatality rate, every U.S. soldier in Iraq has a next to zero chance of dying. Someone once asked me if I'd send my own kid. While I don't send adults into war, and so let them decide that sort of thing on their own, if it were my choice, I'd send him to Iraq instead of Vietnam, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Flanders, Gettysbruge, etc. in a heart beat
If Ashcroft's son was picked up by the insurgents it would be too grand a propaganda coup for the bad guys. Still better than nothing, I suppose.
This points out yet another
fallacy in your argument. It wouldn't just
be a propaganda coup, but it would be a security
risk if he were taken hostage by terrorists.
Ashcrofot's judgement to perform in office
would be impaired. This is why we should be happpy that the
Bush twins, etc. are not in the Army, Which
would be a completely stupid anyway... what would the Secret Service to protect here
if Jenna was laying seige to Najaf.
And for this reason, Americans should be glad
that the high profile Congressman's son, then
an ambassador's son, was not sent to Vietnam.
Lets send the kids of the oil company executives off to war.
So now you've nuanced your view from
not sending kids of high ranking officials,
which is stupid, into harms way, to just sending
the kids of executives of companies you find socially irresponsible. I find the ACLU to be irresponsible, can we sent the kids of the ACLU
national director?
Drafting and then sending a kid to the front because who is father is appalling.
So why should people who are single, in a same sex or polyamorous relationship, support the costs or monogamous opposite-sex couples getting married?
I agree that they should not.
However, getting the government out the business
of subsidizing traditional marriage is
something that is not going to happen
anytime soon. Be practical, and don't
use the "two wrongs make a right" argument
to extend this to subsidizing non-traditional
marriages.
You earlier wrote in the post I was responding to:
It seems only fair that the children or grandchildren of these fine folks should be given a chance to die for their country just like the rest of us. Maybe it would make their parents think a little longer about the need to go to war and then do a better job of planning for the occupation afterword.
And you've got the gall to say:
Do not qoute part of an argument out of context and pretend that by answering that that you have debunked the argument. The whole argument is that Bush's cronies are doing nothing to shoulder any of the burden of the Iraq war. A draft would force them to take their chances along with the rest of us.
That wasn't your entire argument, was it?
Ashcroft's son is taking the chance to die
for his country, as you insinuating he was not. Period. Your argument is
straw.
Slashdot Mirror
> India is progressing nicely, I don't think they need our Western standards to intefer with a job they are doing.
Excellent. Then India can stop needing foreign aid
too.
If they can afford to subsidize space flight, they
don't need aid from the treasuries of other
countries.
Indeed, they don't need aid from the charities
I contribute too.
> Yeah... it NFS just has plenty of holes of its own.
NFS uses ONC RPC. ONC RPC supports any security
flavor the ONC RPC library implementor choses.
RFC 2203 is an security flavor that supports
GSS-API, which works over Kerberos and
Public Key Infrastructure. Solaris, AIX, NetApp,
EMC, Hummingbird have NFS/Kerberos via RFC 2203.
The bits are sort of there in Linux 2.6, and
should be there for when Red Hat and Suse release
enterprise editions of Linux 2.6.
> But [NFS} does have a bunch of its own, some of them uncorrectable as they are design issues.
Such as?
They started doing it for Solaris 7, it took a .. cost under $100 at the
long time, Solaris 8 then shipped, and in the
end they did a one time source release of
Solaris 8 (minus lots of bits held back for
reasons of 3rd party intellectual property rights
and crypto export controls). I still have
a Solaris 8 source CD
time as I recall (source code was free, "media
kit", was not).
The license for the Solaris 8 source was
restrictive, and given the limited source code
it wasn't useful for community source development
which was the original idea.
We'll see if Solaris 10 community source works
out.
But having the source code is still very useful
for understanding how stuff works, so I'll
be plopping another $100 or so for S10 drop.
Of the ones on your list, this is still the least evil, and least intractible. Right now, to meet the USA's energy needs it would at least 15 *trillion* dollars to set up enough photo-electric collectors. This is about 1.5 times the USA's annual GDP, [293027571 * 37800 / 10^12 = 11.07 trillion dollars ] and so, is a tad expensive, though when one considers that most people own houses with mortgages that far exceed their annual personal incomes, not totally out of line.
Still with a combined 10X improvement in photo electricity (cost and efficiency) and/or conservation, it becomes a no-brainer (modulo the environmental effects of solar energy taking heat from the ground, but we can always add some CO2 to the atomosphere if we cool the planet down too much).
Calculations for those interested (I am assuming centralized solar plants in the deserts of the USA):
http://www.jc-solarhomes.com/solar_energy_facts.ht m
says each square metre can receives
1 KW hr per hr. Assume 20% efficiency for photovoltaics. So 0.2 KW hr per hr per metre.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001729.html says a kw hour is 3412 BTUs, so photo voltaics produce 0.2 * 3412 = 682.4 BTU/hr per square metre.
http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1. html
says the 1998 U.S. energy consumption was about 94 quadrillion BTUs.
Assuming 8 * 365 hours of decent sunshine in the desert year around, and round 94 up to 100,
that's 100 * 10^15 / (8 * 365 ) = 34 * 10^12 BTUs/sunshine hour.
(34 * 10^12 ) / (682.4 ) = 49 * 10^9 square metres = 49 * 10^9 / 10^6 = 49000 square kilometres = 223 KM by 223 KM or 140 miles by 140 miles for a single central power plant.
http://store.yahoo.com/sancor/50w.html will sell you a 502mm x 939mm for $519, or 519 / (502 * 939) * 1000000 = $1101 per sq metre. Let's be hopeful that in quantity, wholesale lots, we could buy this for $300 per sq metre. So 49 * 10^9 * 300 = 14.7 trillion dollars.
> I'm pretty sure if we had massive solar panels all over the place, that'd effect the temperature by taking sunlight that would have heated the ground and diverting it.
On the other hand, some amount of panels would
cause the net heat added/subtracted by human
civilization to be balanced. Today, most of
our energy comes from burning fossil fuels,
which add heat, and also add CO2 that makes
the green house hotter. Use solar energy, and
we add less heat, and less CO2. Use too much,
and we perhaps cool the planet too much.
Ultimately though, our energy foot print is
a function of how many of us there are on
this planet, or at least, how much of our
energy is produced on this planet. Either
reduce the population (which the recent Wired
issue says is happenning anyway), or collect
solar energy in space, and microwave it down
to collectors on the surface.
> Kerry got more votes (55 million) than any
> other president in history too.
There is no other; Kerry is not president.
There is no any; Bush got more than 55 million
votes. Let your subconcious deal with it.
Bottom line. Bush out-GOTV'ed every one in the last 20 years.
Bush's SAT scores (1200 and change) are a
matter of public record. What are Kerry's?
> And you can see how well bombing suspected terrorists in civilian neighborhoods has worked for Israel against the Intifada.
New Republic magazine says Israel has beaten
the Intifada.
Mod parent up. This is crux of issue.
> And NFS has exactly NOTHING to do with the internet, either.
...
2 &h l=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mi nd=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=29&as_maxm=2& as_maxy=1986&selm=91%40Shasta.ARPA&rnum=1
2 &h l=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mi nd=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=29&as_maxm=3& as_maxy=1986&selm=3417%40sun.uucp&rnum=1
It's a protocol that runs over the Internet
Protocol.
> And "@sun.com" came out in 1994, not 1984. 10 years makes a very big difference in this conversation.
You are confusing the Internet with the World
Wide Web.
My email address was "@pyramid.com" in 1989.
I was off by a couple years, more like 1986.
You however
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22sun+com%2
Nowicki talks about moving from SUN.ARPA to
Sun.COM.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22sun+com%2
Chuq has an @sun.com email address.
Commercial UNIX vendors once boasted of their
server wins, and in the end, MS
ate their workstation business, then
went on to feast on the low end server business.
Good news would be that Dell and SUSE
teamed up to support Linux on desktops
and laptops. Linux is gaining server share
for sure, but unless there is attention on
the desktop side, Linux will ultimately be
marginalized on the low end, and become
a "luxury" server O/S in the commercial
space.
You'd think Dell would see this, and use
desktop Linux to force Microsoft to drive
its prices down.
Sound waves carrying across the ocean and ...
the effect on whales
> The founding protocols for the internet, stuck in some university lab, do no one any good. The internet simply could not have existed without broad government funding, and that was brought about by Gore. End of story.
Ludricous. The Internet was being commercialized.
E.g. in 1984 Sun Microsystems was selling
workstations with a 10mbit ethernet port and
TCP/IP out of the box, and business cards from
Sun employees had "@sun.com" on them. Those
protocols "stuck in a lab" were doing lots of
people, plenty good. Remeber NFS?
The Internet took off because of http and
web browser. That's the real story.
> He claimed to have been the sole senator responsible for the funding that led to its invention, which is completely accurate, and supported by those who actually did invent the internet.
If that is what he claimed then it is false.
Al Gore was elected senator in 1984. Whereas,
the Internet was being invented well before
he was elected. E.g.
0894 Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over Ethernet
networks. C. Hornig. Apr-01-1984. (Format: TXT=5697 bytes) (Also
STD0041) (Status: STANDARD)
Elections are in November. This was in April.
I don't care in those who actually invented
the Internet want to credit Al Gore; they
are full of it.
Youngster, I was using the
> Uh, why? I'm sure all of their important services aren't on their web server.
You like the web-server-based service to donate
cash to the campaign? I think that's important,
whether I supported Bush or not. (I would think
such a service would be important to the
Kerry campaign too).
Plus the undecided voters, if they bother to
vote, will decide this election. For Bush
and Kerry, undecideds need to have access to
the campaign materials, such as white papers,
platforms, video-on-demand commercials, etc.
There's been a spat of vandalism on
Bush campaign offices. The folks who
run the campaign are probably calculating
that a DoS attack on the web site is likely,
and mostly like to originate from foreign
countries where Bush is very unpopular.
Not having the web site available for the next
few days could be devastating.
In his novel Earth he described the effect
retirees with nothing better to do
had on petty street crime has they
walked around with their "TruVues" on which
wirelessly spool video to storage on central
servers. Would be criminals just simply didn't
bother, and elders knew they were untouchable.
> You can thank the insurance companies for the cost of health care today.
[...]
> IANAL and I don't know about India's legal system, but I don't think they have the sue-for-every-mistake mentality we do here.
So which is? The insurance companies are to
blame, or the USA's legal system results in
higher malpractice judgements, thereby increasing
premiums for doctors?
>> refuses to the let the voter finish without ranking each candidate.
... if say 3
> Great... Now to vote, I'll have to figure out if I prefer the Communist, Socialist, or Prohibition Party.
Gee, in golf people finish tournaments with
the same ranking all the time
golders are tied for 4th, then they each get an
equal share the sum of the prize money for
4th, 5th, and 6th places. So why can't you
give equal rank to each of those three
fringe parties that you hold in equal
disdain.
There's also no reason why an explicit "none-of-the-aboive" can't be a choice, and it could
be listed multiple times.
It's alla small matter of programming.
> People have a hard time with something as simple as a butterfly ballot, and now you want them to rank their choices?
Computer aided ballotting, (you could even
have a paper trail), would solve this. The
software askes, in voice and display, to
rank the candidates in order of preference, and
refuses to the let the voter finish without ranking
each candidate.
However, for this to be fair, each electronic
ballot would have to scamble the initial order.
BTW, technically, at a 1% fatality rate, every U.S. soldier in Iraq has a next to zero chance of dying. Someone once asked me if I'd send my own kid. While I don't send adults into war, and so let them decide that sort of thing on their own, if it were my choice, I'd send him to Iraq instead of Vietnam, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Flanders, Gettysbruge, etc. in a heart beat
This points out yet another fallacy in your argument. It wouldn't just be a propaganda coup, but it would be a security risk if he were taken hostage by terrorists. Ashcrofot's judgement to perform in office would be impaired. This is why we should be happpy that the Bush twins, etc. are not in the Army, Which would be a completely stupid anywayAnd for this reason, Americans should be glad that the high profile Congressman's son, then an ambassador's son, was not sent to Vietnam.
So now you've nuanced your view from not sending kids of high ranking officials, which is stupid, into harms way, to just sending the kids of executives of companies you find socially irresponsible. I find the ACLU to be irresponsible, can we sent the kids of the ACLU national director?Drafting and then sending a kid to the front because who is father is appalling.
However, getting the government out the business of subsidizing traditional marriage is something that is not going to happen anytime soon. Be practical, and don't use the "two wrongs make a right" argument to extend this to subsidizing non-traditional marriages.
And you've got the gall to say:
That wasn't your entire argument, was it?Ashcroft's son is taking the chance to die for his country, as you insinuating he was not. Period. Your argument is straw.