There are millions of Macs out there, and growing. But they're harder to compromise by design. The elusive "Mac virus threat" remains largely a marketing device for Symantec.
Not really. There is absolutely nothing on a current MacOS X system that prevents users from running shit they download from the net. And now you're going to go "But... but..." thinking that somehow they're magically protected cause they don't run as administrator. Of course the second anyone wants to do anything, they just create a situation where the user expects a dialog asking for root's password and they happily provide it. But even in that case, it's a totally moot point. You don't have to be root to run software on Mac OS X that connects to the network. Fuck, let's try and have a little perspective and give it even a small amount of thought. Lay off the anti-Microsoft fanboi cookies.
In other words, stupid people and people who dont care about security punish the rest of us. How nice.
Yeah. But we can't ban bittorrent. In all seriousness, how is someone being infected with something like the storm bot punishing you? Presumedly you care about security and aren't stupid. So you're all patched up, have at least a basic firewall, and won't be opening up emails from Alice BigTits with a subject of "Wet teens big c0cks!!!!" and won't be double clicking on files named "RobMaldaToplessAndPlugged.jpg<lotsa spaces>.exe"
At the end of the day how is storm traffic any more punishing to you than any other traffic you don't give a shit about? Or any more punishing than millions of Radiohead downloads? Or WoW patches? Or linux distros? Or for that matter, absolutely anything that anyone else does that isn't related to you?
Great, so how do you pull a single database record out of that file and merge it into the currently running database with one click?
You can do this with one click for any database that runs on MacOS X, I'll give you $5,000.
All Apple has done here is added an API for the recovery side. When the app vendors implement it it'll be more impressive. But even that's not new. VMS (along with others) had file versioning built into the OS years ago. Personally, I'm more interested in a robust system than an API that is supported by a handful of apps.
- everyone had hotmail ids once; it would seem webmail was/their/ world. no one would say that now. - most people never heard of another OS than Windoze. it would seem PCs were/their/ area. i doubt it now. - IE was the browser king. it would imply that they owned all of www. is IE doing that well now? - let's not even get started on zune..
99% of people pick the email provider based on the name part of the email. If you go to hotmail looking for firstname.lastname@hotmail.com the odds are really good that somebody already has it. So check yahoo. So check gmail.
Microsoft owns the PC market. This is a simple fact. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional.
IE is by far still the #1 browser. Again a simple fact.
Enterprise storage systems have done this for years. They just don't market it as a consumer product because at their level disk space isn't cheap. Or just go download Solaris 10 or OpenSolaris and setup a ZFS filesystem. ZFS makes it very easy to build something like this if you care to. You need about one line of bourne shell to take the snapshot and probably a few dozen to clean them up over time or when disk space gets low.
When you want to get the old version of the file you're looking for, just cd into the snapshots directory and there is your entire filesystem as it existed at that time.
Viruses need to self replicate. Social Enginnering 'OMG Download this cool app d00dz' doesnt count.
Why? Because it doesn't fit with some particular definition you prefer to use? You do realize that the first computer viruses involved users sticking a floppy disk with a "cool app" in a drive and running the program which happened to be infected by the virus. In fact the traditional virus would attach itself to other programs and had zero to do with the infection vector.
The Morris Worm on the other hand had a lot more to do with automatically spreading itself.
I'm a lot more worried if this is the Canter & Siegel moment for cellphones. If so then I'm going to find those wankers at Google and shake my finger under their noses. And possibly pee on their sneakers.
I wasn't responding that $20k is minimum wage. I was responding to someone who said "a living wage you stupid arrogant fuck" and then dropped the number $20k as being unlivable. I believe that $20k is definitely livable if you are willing to live it.
1. Pay for housing 2. Buy food 3. Get healthcare 4. Get heat 5. Support a child 6. Have enough time to spend with that child
$20k/year doesn't even buy rent and health insurance. For one person. Let alone someone trying to support a family.
My total expenses are $33k/year. And I have a $500/mo car payment + $100/mo car insurance. I have $90/mo cell phone bill and a $90/mo cable bill. And of course $1400/mo in rent. In Seattle. When I lived in another state I was paying $800/mo in rent for a two bedroom apartment. If I wasn't making way more than my living expenses I could reduce it below $20k/year. If I had a family to support I wouldn't even be paying any taxes. I guess my point is is that $20k/year is certainly a living wage. You won't be drowning in luxuries and you won't be able to live in Manhattan, but don't act like it's impossible to live on a very modest amount of money if you have the will to do it.
The jury didn't decide if she was guilty of perjury, but they absolutely can take into account her attitude and demeanor. A defendant who doesn't show remorse always gets the iron fist while a defendant that does usually gets the soft glove. It's not that complicated.
The very first thing I noticed when I saw the article was that this was a black woman in Minnesota. We're not talking Mississipi, but I have to imagine the possibility that race played a role, given what I know about Minnesota.
First, you should immediately go see an eye doctor. She's not black. Second, you should immediately go live some life and get a little perspective before it's becomes too much of a habit of playing the race card immediately when you sit down at the table.
You're an idiot. Go read the filed documents and come back and make comments once you have a clue as to where that $222,000 number comes from. Because it wasn't the RIAA that wrote that on an invoice and mailed it to her. It was the jury. The jury that had to listen to this woman lie under oath in court. They decided that she had to pay up, not the RIAA. The RIAA just presented their facts and the jury decided that this stupid woman violated the law. If she wanted to take the easy way out and only pay a few hundred or thousand dollars she should have taken the usual offer that the RIAA makes before filing the case.
I keep seeing people say "it's the hard drive (manufacturers) fault." No it's not. You don't ask a hard drive to go into ultra low power mode if you are planning on coming back to it in just a few seconds. Ubuntu needs to pull it's head out of it's backside and stop and think about how often it hits the drive after it suggests to the drive that it's not going to be used with any frequency. This is entirely a ubuntu problem or perhaps more generally a linux problem.
No, I'm pointing out the pansy word games that a lot of OSS advocates play in order to maintain their self induced blindness to flaws in their position. The truth is is that the word linux means an entire collection of software ranging from boot loaders through the kernel up into end user applications. Over 99% of the time whenever someone says linux they don't mean the kernel alone. Get over it.
Except when the kernel would like to use a usb device. Or when the USB device is just an interface to another type of device, such as a serial port or network device. Then it'd sure be handy to, you know, have the kernel sort of present a single API to applications? I mean it'd be awesome as hell to not have to reimplement then entire 802.11 wireless stack in userland just because it's a USB adapater. Oh wait, one doesn't have to do that because the kernel actually handles this shit directly in the kernel. And provides such support for a broad range of devices from USB network adapters to USB video capture to USB serial ports to USB keyboards to USB storage.
It's funny you link to libusb because it's not meant to be any kind of core USB userland driver wonderland. It's merely an abstraction of generic USB access APIs for a number of OS. The only reasons to ever use a generic USB userland library for a device is because you are just learning the device or the because the kernel just doesn't support the entire class of devices. Using such a library at any other time is a complete moron maneuver.
Well, the issue here is that what "everyone else" thinks is wrong. LINUX IS THE KERNEL. Period. End of story.
I'm curious. Where are you when all the stories saying linux is better/faster/more stable than windows get posted? Or when people bitch about DRM preventing them from playing mp3s on linux? I would think that when people are talking about LINUX THE KERNEL doing things that LINUX THE KERNEL clearly can't do, you'd want to be right there fighting the good fight. On the other hand LINUX THE KERNEL is nothing compared to even the shittiest versions of Windows or even DOS. I mean a particular arrangement of bits on a hard drive that is entirely unable to load itself into memory, or even create a filesystem in the first place, is entirely useless and valueless.
Or do you only turn into a pedantic snobbish asshat when it's convenient to dodge criticism of your preciousssss.... preciousssss...
Yes, this is off topic and perhaps a bit of flame bait, but the entire loser crowd who jumps in and declares that linux is just a kernel whenever anyone says anything slightly critical of "linux", is tired and pathetic.
That's the point. The majority of IE is the dynamically loaded libraries. They are used by more than just the web browser. Jesus how hard is that to understand. I've been saying it all through this thread.
If you want to compare dick sizes, I'm willing to bet that code I've contributed to XFree86 and FreeBSD is still around and running on more systems that anything you've written.
I interpreted "the problem" to be green house gases/CO2 not other environmental damage. Burning plants leaves a net zero CO2 in the atmosphere if averaged over the lifespan of the plant. Burning oil increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But if you are worried about anthropogenic global warming you need to worry about green house gases, not about CO2.
I think your wrong about Al Gore, he is not proposing a 'tax' rather he is promoting the IPCC's proposal of a 'rationing' scheme for emmisions, ie: auction the right to pollute by the ton and limit the amount of tons emitted globally to match what the biosphere can physically absorb (~2.5Gt/pa). The idea is commonly known as "cap and trade", unfortunately it looks like the powerfull polluters such as US, India, Russia & China want the "cap" based on GDP (as opposed to the actual physical limit that exists in nature).
I don't understand that at all. In a democratic sense everybody has the same right to emit CO2. If you want to limit the total CO2 emissions to some arbitrary amount (i.e. the amount the environment can handle) then everybody should get a particular fraction thereof and if they choose to sell it great. However it's complete bullshit to auction it off to the highest bidders. That would lead to increased costs for everything as the "noble" class who purchased up tons and tons of indulgences resell them to actual businesses that create products. It's not terribly complicated to see that the very idea is just bad.
Al Gore however personally lives too profligately to be taken seriously by anyone who is willing to apply some critical thinking to both his lifestyle and message. I notice that I left off part of my statement in a previous post. Al Gore uses more energy in a month at one of his houses than the average American household uses in a year. And his response is that he buys indulgences, I mean carbon offsets from himself. Which means the various organizations that are paying him to go somewhere and give a speech, such as the film company that he worked with for the development and promotion of his film, give money to his company that sells carbon offsets. Which company then turns around and gives some small fraction of that money to organizations in africa for the purpose of planting non-indigenous vegetation. Of course this doesn't sequester the carbon away. When the tree dies in a few years it will release all that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Gore is basically putting the problem onto the shoulders of the next generation so he can act pious and sell carbon credits and making a tidy profit for himself.
I'm not sure where I gave the idea that people are not entitled to opinions.
To repeat your own line - don't be ignorant. Only a total idiot would require all the functionality be bundled intoloadable one monolithic program, when they can separate it into various libraries. You know, dlls under windows, classes in java, or.so in linux.
I'm not ignorant and it has nothing to do with a big monolithic program and everything to do with modularity.
Sorry, but anyone who thinks microsoft did this by accident doesn't know crap about coding.
I'm not sure if you are referring to the search issue or IE. But if you are referring to IE, of course they did it on purpose. It's the smart way to develop code. If you have a chunk of code for doing something that you're going to find use for in lots of different programs it is clearly smart to modularize it and use it in lots of different programs.
I'm not arguing about the search situation. I don't know enough about it. I was pointing out that your blathering about IE was nonsensical and uninformed, i.e. ignorant.
There's no dependency on IE per se. IE is just a small program that utilizes a large package of libraries. The problem is people saw this 12 MB download and said "there! that is IE." When in reality it was a bunch of updated and new components required to implement IE. A bunch of useful components for lots of different types of applications. And when some dumb asses came along and said remove all that stuff that was installed when they "installed IE" they couldn't comprehend that Microsoft and third party developers had been coding to those new libraries and there was no rational way to rip it all out and have the system continue to work in any sensible fashion.
What? You are the ignorant one if you think that what you said makes any sense. There is absolutely NO reason for IE to be fully integrated into the OS. It is perfectly reasonable to have the libraries you mentioned separately bundled with the OS without the IE GUI even existing. Thats how most operating systems work: they may have a browser, but it can be removed without destroying the OS web libraries and other essential functionality.
You want to go delete iexplore.exe? Go ahead. You want to reuse the windows control that renders HTML? Go head you can do that too. And you aren't integrating with IE. You are using the a documented API to a code module that MS delivers. The demand that MS allow people to remove every little bit of code that executes when you are using IE is stupid. There's a lot of good code in there that is useful for things other than the traditional web browsing experience.
And it is a pretty good example of modularization, abstraction and code reuse. And it's the smart way to go.
Another "defective by design" product. Same as "We can't take Internet Exploder out because its integrated into the OS."
Don't be ignorant. IE is made up of many components such as HTML parsers, HTML renderers, XML parsers, network protocol handlers, GUI management. Only an absolute idiot would suggest reinventing the wheel every time that functionality was needed. It is absolutely true that "Internet Explorer" (all the code that actually implements the web browser functionality) is integrated into the OS (OS in the sense that the majority of people understand it) and there are very sound and smart reasons for it to be the way it is. From a design perspective it's pretty much in line with best practices for abstraction and code reuse.
No. If you can make fuel from vegetation without adding in something extra (like the NOX I mentioned previously) then it's a good idea. Because every plant on the surface of the earth today took all the carbon in that plant from the atmosphere. The problem without is that all that carbon wasn't in the atmosphere, it was instead locked away "safely" underground.
But, people like Al Gore who emits more carbon in one month from just one of his multiple homes and then says it's all ok, he's neutral because he's paying his own company to pay someone to plant eucalyptus trees in Africa. He's a complete dick. He's trying to get into the business of selling indulgences to the rich allowing them to live profligate lifestyles while subjecting the middle class to burdensome carbon taxes. And of course those considered "poor" wouldn't be required to pay that particular tax because it wouldn't be fair to them.
You need to get off the CO2 bandwagon. It's not CO2 that is a problem. It's any high concentration of greenhouse gases. European ethanol emits more NOX than they thought it would by a factor of 2 (like 4% instead of 2% of the fertilizer they put on the crop makes its way into the fuel) and thus that little bump causes more greenhouse gas problems that just burning straight oil would. NOX being 300 times more of a greenhouse gas than carbon. I point out European because that's the article I read.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. There is absolutely nothing on a current MacOS X system that prevents users from running shit they download from the net. And now you're going to go "But... but..." thinking that somehow they're magically protected cause they don't run as administrator. Of course the second anyone wants to do anything, they just create a situation where the user expects a dialog asking for root's password and they happily provide it. But even in that case, it's a totally moot point. You don't have to be root to run software on Mac OS X that connects to the network. Fuck, let's try and have a little perspective and give it even a small amount of thought. Lay off the anti-Microsoft fanboi cookies.
Yeah. But we can't ban bittorrent. In all seriousness, how is someone being infected with something like the storm bot punishing you? Presumedly you care about security and aren't stupid. So you're all patched up, have at least a basic firewall, and won't be opening up emails from Alice BigTits with a subject of "Wet teens big c0cks!!!!" and won't be double clicking on files named "RobMaldaToplessAndPlugged.jpg<lotsa spaces>.exe"
At the end of the day how is storm traffic any more punishing to you than any other traffic you don't give a shit about? Or any more punishing than millions of Radiohead downloads? Or WoW patches? Or linux distros? Or for that matter, absolutely anything that anyone else does that isn't related to you?
You can do this with one click for any database that runs on MacOS X, I'll give you $5,000.
All Apple has done here is added an API for the recovery side. When the app vendors implement it it'll be more impressive. But even that's not new. VMS (along with others) had file versioning built into the OS years ago. Personally, I'm more interested in a robust system than an API that is supported by a handful of apps.
99% of people pick the email provider based on the name part of the email. If you go to hotmail looking for firstname.lastname@hotmail.com the odds are really good that somebody already has it. So check yahoo. So check gmail.
Microsoft owns the PC market. This is a simple fact. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional.
IE is by far still the #1 browser. Again a simple fact.
Yeah, they're having problems with Zune.
Enterprise storage systems have done this for years. They just don't market it as a consumer product because at their level disk space isn't cheap. Or just go download Solaris 10 or OpenSolaris and setup a ZFS filesystem. ZFS makes it very easy to build something like this if you care to. You need about one line of bourne shell to take the snapshot and probably a few dozen to clean them up over time or when disk space gets low.
When you want to get the old version of the file you're looking for, just cd into the snapshots directory and there is your entire filesystem as it existed at that time.
Why? Because it doesn't fit with some particular definition you prefer to use? You do realize that the first computer viruses involved users sticking a floppy disk with a "cool app" in a drive and running the program which happened to be infected by the virus. In fact the traditional virus would attach itself to other programs and had zero to do with the infection vector.
The Morris Worm on the other hand had a lot more to do with automatically spreading itself.
I'm a lot more worried if this is the Canter & Siegel moment for cellphones. If so then I'm going to find those wankers at Google and shake my finger under their noses. And possibly pee on their sneakers.
Inconsistent by doing the same thing it did before?
Well, yeah. Bad things happen with your networked drive goes away.
I wasn't responding that $20k is minimum wage. I was responding to someone who said "a living wage you stupid arrogant fuck" and then dropped the number $20k as being unlivable. I believe that $20k is definitely livable if you are willing to live it.
However it appears that most are not.
My total expenses are $33k/year. And I have a $500/mo car payment + $100/mo car insurance. I have $90/mo cell phone bill and a $90/mo cable bill. And of course $1400/mo in rent. In Seattle. When I lived in another state I was paying $800/mo in rent for a two bedroom apartment. If I wasn't making way more than my living expenses I could reduce it below $20k/year. If I had a family to support I wouldn't even be paying any taxes. I guess my point is is that $20k/year is certainly a living wage. You won't be drowning in luxuries and you won't be able to live in Manhattan, but don't act like it's impossible to live on a very modest amount of money if you have the will to do it.
The jury didn't decide if she was guilty of perjury, but they absolutely can take into account her attitude and demeanor. A defendant who doesn't show remorse always gets the iron fist while a defendant that does usually gets the soft glove. It's not that complicated.
First, you should immediately go see an eye doctor. She's not black. Second, you should immediately go live some life and get a little perspective before it's becomes too much of a habit of playing the race card immediately when you sit down at the table.
You're an idiot. Go read the filed documents and come back and make comments once you have a clue as to where that $222,000 number comes from. Because it wasn't the RIAA that wrote that on an invoice and mailed it to her. It was the jury. The jury that had to listen to this woman lie under oath in court. They decided that she had to pay up, not the RIAA. The RIAA just presented their facts and the jury decided that this stupid woman violated the law. If she wanted to take the easy way out and only pay a few hundred or thousand dollars she should have taken the usual offer that the RIAA makes before filing the case.
I keep seeing people say "it's the hard drive (manufacturers) fault." No it's not. You don't ask a hard drive to go into ultra low power mode if you are planning on coming back to it in just a few seconds. Ubuntu needs to pull it's head out of it's backside and stop and think about how often it hits the drive after it suggests to the drive that it's not going to be used with any frequency. This is entirely a ubuntu problem or perhaps more generally a linux problem.
No, I'm pointing out the pansy word games that a lot of OSS advocates play in order to maintain their self induced blindness to flaws in their position. The truth is is that the word linux means an entire collection of software ranging from boot loaders through the kernel up into end user applications. Over 99% of the time whenever someone says linux they don't mean the kernel alone. Get over it.
Except when the kernel would like to use a usb device. Or when the USB device is just an interface to another type of device, such as a serial port or network device. Then it'd sure be handy to, you know, have the kernel sort of present a single API to applications? I mean it'd be awesome as hell to not have to reimplement then entire 802.11 wireless stack in userland just because it's a USB adapater. Oh wait, one doesn't have to do that because the kernel actually handles this shit directly in the kernel. And provides such support for a broad range of devices from USB network adapters to USB video capture to USB serial ports to USB keyboards to USB storage.
It's funny you link to libusb because it's not meant to be any kind of core USB userland driver wonderland. It's merely an abstraction of generic USB access APIs for a number of OS. The only reasons to ever use a generic USB userland library for a device is because you are just learning the device or the because the kernel just doesn't support the entire class of devices. Using such a library at any other time is a complete moron maneuver.
I'm curious. Where are you when all the stories saying linux is better/faster/more stable than windows get posted? Or when people bitch about DRM preventing them from playing mp3s on linux? I would think that when people are talking about LINUX THE KERNEL doing things that LINUX THE KERNEL clearly can't do, you'd want to be right there fighting the good fight. On the other hand LINUX THE KERNEL is nothing compared to even the shittiest versions of Windows or even DOS. I mean a particular arrangement of bits on a hard drive that is entirely unable to load itself into memory, or even create a filesystem in the first place, is entirely useless and valueless.
Or do you only turn into a pedantic snobbish asshat when it's convenient to dodge criticism of your preciousssss.... preciousssss...
Yes, this is off topic and perhaps a bit of flame bait, but the entire loser crowd who jumps in and declares that linux is just a kernel whenever anyone says anything slightly critical of "linux", is tired and pathetic.
That's the point. The majority of IE is the dynamically loaded libraries. They are used by more than just the web browser. Jesus how hard is that to understand. I've been saying it all through this thread.
If you want to compare dick sizes, I'm willing to bet that code I've contributed to XFree86 and FreeBSD is still around and running on more systems that anything you've written.
I don't understand that at all. In a democratic sense everybody has the same right to emit CO2. If you want to limit the total CO2 emissions to some arbitrary amount (i.e. the amount the environment can handle) then everybody should get a particular fraction thereof and if they choose to sell it great. However it's complete bullshit to auction it off to the highest bidders. That would lead to increased costs for everything as the "noble" class who purchased up tons and tons of indulgences resell them to actual businesses that create products. It's not terribly complicated to see that the very idea is just bad.
Al Gore however personally lives too profligately to be taken seriously by anyone who is willing to apply some critical thinking to both his lifestyle and message. I notice that I left off part of my statement in a previous post. Al Gore uses more energy in a month at one of his houses than the average American household uses in a year. And his response is that he buys indulgences, I mean carbon offsets from himself. Which means the various organizations that are paying him to go somewhere and give a speech, such as the film company that he worked with for the development and promotion of his film, give money to his company that sells carbon offsets. Which company then turns around and gives some small fraction of that money to organizations in africa for the purpose of planting non-indigenous vegetation. Of course this doesn't sequester the carbon away. When the tree dies in a few years it will release all that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Gore is basically putting the problem onto the shoulders of the next generation so he can act pious and sell carbon credits and making a tidy profit for himself.
I'm not sure where I gave the idea that people are not entitled to opinions.
I'm not ignorant and it has nothing to do with a big monolithic program and everything to do with modularity.
I'm not sure if you are referring to the search issue or IE. But if you are referring to IE, of course they did it on purpose. It's the smart way to develop code. If you have a chunk of code for doing something that you're going to find use for in lots of different programs it is clearly smart to modularize it and use it in lots of different programs.
I'm not arguing about the search situation. I don't know enough about it. I was pointing out that your blathering about IE was nonsensical and uninformed, i.e. ignorant.
There's no dependency on IE per se. IE is just a small program that utilizes a large package of libraries. The problem is people saw this 12 MB download and said "there! that is IE." When in reality it was a bunch of updated and new components required to implement IE. A bunch of useful components for lots of different types of applications. And when some dumb asses came along and said remove all that stuff that was installed when they "installed IE" they couldn't comprehend that Microsoft and third party developers had been coding to those new libraries and there was no rational way to rip it all out and have the system continue to work in any sensible fashion.
You want to go delete iexplore.exe? Go ahead. You want to reuse the windows control that renders HTML? Go head you can do that too. And you aren't integrating with IE. You are using the a documented API to a code module that MS delivers. The demand that MS allow people to remove every little bit of code that executes when you are using IE is stupid. There's a lot of good code in there that is useful for things other than the traditional web browsing experience.
And it is a pretty good example of modularization, abstraction and code reuse. And it's the smart way to go.
Don't be ignorant. IE is made up of many components such as HTML parsers, HTML renderers, XML parsers, network protocol handlers, GUI management. Only an absolute idiot would suggest reinventing the wheel every time that functionality was needed. It is absolutely true that "Internet Explorer" (all the code that actually implements the web browser functionality) is integrated into the OS (OS in the sense that the majority of people understand it) and there are very sound and smart reasons for it to be the way it is. From a design perspective it's pretty much in line with best practices for abstraction and code reuse.
No. If you can make fuel from vegetation without adding in something extra (like the NOX I mentioned previously) then it's a good idea. Because every plant on the surface of the earth today took all the carbon in that plant from the atmosphere. The problem without is that all that carbon wasn't in the atmosphere, it was instead locked away "safely" underground.
But, people like Al Gore who emits more carbon in one month from just one of his multiple homes and then says it's all ok, he's neutral because he's paying his own company to pay someone to plant eucalyptus trees in Africa. He's a complete dick. He's trying to get into the business of selling indulgences to the rich allowing them to live profligate lifestyles while subjecting the middle class to burdensome carbon taxes. And of course those considered "poor" wouldn't be required to pay that particular tax because it wouldn't be fair to them.
You need to get off the CO2 bandwagon. It's not CO2 that is a problem. It's any high concentration of greenhouse gases. European ethanol emits more NOX than they thought it would by a factor of 2 (like 4% instead of 2% of the fertilizer they put on the crop makes its way into the fuel) and thus that little bump causes more greenhouse gas problems that just burning straight oil would. NOX being 300 times more of a greenhouse gas than carbon. I point out European because that's the article I read.