I wish I had mod points to give you today, that's a very good answer.
To it, I'd like to add that it depends on what the desired outcome is. If the desired outcome is to keep Linux for specialists only (and I have to confess that it was a lot more fun 10 years ago, when most of the user base were people with previous experience/expertise in UNIX, so while I don't support that idea I do have some sympathy for it), then keeping it pure is probably essential to that goal If the desired outcome is to have Linux used as widely as possible and get as many people on the path to software freedom, then yeah, it's important to run the software, proprietary or otherwise, until such time as there is a Free alternative that is as good or better than the proprietary one. At that point, you cut over.
And of course, keep trying to put influence vendors to open their specs so Free drivers can be written, or to open their own drivers, preferably under the GPL, so they can ship with Linux.
Mostly you've gotten crap responses that can be summarized as "get a real router." Sheesh, if people have no clue or anything useful to say, they ought to STFU. But, this is Slashdot. Fortunately, you got at least one clueful response.
That was from the guy who suggested it could be a power problem. I have a WRT54G that I bought in 2003. It does internal routing on my network, and is downstream for a USR 8xxx (something) that's even older than the Linksys. I've used them in five locations now with no problems at all, and the current connection is 15 megabits down and 512 kbits up. Load is sporadic, but can saturate the inbound link. Mostly downloads via http, but sometimes ISOs over BT. I regularly VPN (Cisco client) to my office with no problems.
These devices are on UPS and always have been. I think you really need to take a look at the power quality. If your gear isn't on UPS, dig one up somewhere and plug them into it and see if that helps out.
If it doesn't, also take a look at what kind of traffic is on your network, as some have suggested. It could be that something from the inside is causing the stability issues. Finally, there is merit to the idea of separating the wireless from the routing, although for most people that should be fine. My current setup has it separated, but I used to use the WRT54G as my gateway device and that setup was also problem-free.
And for you "Shoulda got a real router" trolls, I *work* for Cisco and even I don't bother using a Cisco for my home network edge (I have a 2621 taking up space on my shelf, though); it's just not necessary. Sure, the 2621 is better than the Linksys (for many values of "better"), but it's simply not necessary for a home network.
Good luck, and maybe you could post again with more info about your network. That would help with troubleshooting.
For starters, you're barking up the wrong tree. A non-compete doesn't stop you from showing code samples of work you did for someone else. An NDA does, and frankly, an NDA is not an unreasonable thing to have to sign before working on someone's proprietary code base. It simply provides a legal remedy to the code owner if you fail to honor your moral and legal obligations to keep confidential that which is confidential. I see nothing wrong with that.
Next, here in California (and some other places; ask your lawyer about your place), non-competes are pretty unenforceable. When I left my previous position, I had a two-year non-compete and was considered a key employee but I went straight to work for a direct competitor anyway. Now, I didn't tell them where I was going (unenforceable or not, I saw no sense in potentially provoking anyone; I gave my new employer a copy of the non-compete as required in the non-compete; they didn't care, and that was all that mattered to me). It was about a year before anyone there who would tell or might care found out where I was working. I don't know if they told, but no one cared. I'm now a few months short of the end of the non-compete. If anyone at my former employer were to now object, my current employer would most likely flip them the legal bird (they have deep enough pockets for that).
Next, in many places - even California - most employers will ask you to sign a non-compete, even though their legal departments know (or should know, if they are at all competent) that California courts have held NCs to be generally unenforceable. Employers lobbied hard for California to be a right-to-work state, then later found out that's a sword that cuts both ways. Because so many employers (at least in tech industries) will ask you to sign an NC, it's not signing the NC that makes you bound to a master for life, unemployable, stuck in your job, etc. It's refusal to sign one that will do those thing;, if you won't sign one, you will probably find yourself remaining in your current job for a *long* time while you look for an employer that won't ask you to sign an NC.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. If you are thinking of breaking a non-compete, you might want to talk to a lawyer first, even in California. If you live in a place were non-competes are enforceable, you might want to consider having your lawyer read it before you sign it.
Of course, if you actually RTFA, you find that their current prototype still had 92% of initial efficiency after three months of exposure. That's pretty good, much better than anything done so far in that area, but they say themselves that that isn't good enough. Yet. They are confident they can improve that to the point of being commercially viable and expect a marketable product in three years.
Of course, they could encounter an insurmountable obstacle during those three years, but they're confident enough in this that they're spinning off a company to make it. From the claims in TFA, it sounds like they've really got something there. This *is* a major breakthrough, and they believe it will be a marketable one.
That's the first thing I checked too was the role-call vote to see how Obama voted. He voted for the bill. So much for change. My mistrust of Obama is clear not misplaced. Not that I support McCain either, mind you. Once again, we have to decide which turd is th least smelly.
No, Oakland has a horrendous amount of crime because it has a horrendous amount of criminals. You don't live around here, do you?
I'm going to put the ball in your court here. Please explain what you think was total crap about:
-The car with the passenger's seat removed and the floor wet as if it had been washed, found on an Oakland street yet not reported stolen
-Nina's vehicle, also found on an Oakland street but not reported stolen
-The blood
-The fact that he was the last person known to have seen her alive
-His testimony, which was probably more damning than much of the other evidence. OK, I think his testimony was crap too, and from a getting away with it perspective he was an idiot to take the stand, but I don't think it was crap the way you think it was crap. You seem to have believed him. Maybe you still believe him, even though he has now confessed and her body has been found.
The thing about a body of circumstantial evidence is, when you have a lot of it, it tends to be highly accurate in aggregate. For example, let's say there's a historical record that when you have a vehicle found like that, in 60% of those cases (just to pull a number from my ass) the suspect provably did it. To make it simple, also 60% for finding blood, for finding the victim's vehicle abandoned in the area, for the suspect being the last known person to see the victim alive, 60% for someone with a personality like Reiser's, and 60% for ridiculous testimony including a theory that the victim is really just hiding somewhere and trying to frame the suspect for murder.
Singly, each of those 60% points is pretty weak, and no juror in her/his right mind would convict, but taken together, they paint a very different picture. That's five data points, each with a 60% likelihood of indicating guilt. Suddenly, things look very different. I work in the email security industry, and I can tell you that when you can identify 5 60% spammy characteristics in a message, that message almost always turns out to be spam.
Or put another way, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."
Sure, the police focused the investigation on Reiser. Not because they failed to do their jobs, but because they did do their jobs and after looking at all available evidence, were sure he did it. Heh. Turns out they were right. The fact is, people being wrongfully charged with crimes is pretty rare, and being wrongfully convicted is rarer still. It happens, and sometimes it is even willfully done by corrupt police, but it's not common.
Of course, your leftist brain probably has trouble wrapping itself around that fact.
He wasn't convicted without evidence. He was convicted without a body. The evidence may have been largely circumstantial, but there was a great deal of it, and it was strong. The fact that she was missing. The car with a seat removed and the appearance of having been washed out, the ditched on the street. Her vehicle, also ditched on the street. The blood, which you mention (that's more forensic than circumstantial). Heck, that crazy defense theory that she was hiding in Russia probably even led to his conviction, in part, as did his own testimony. The fact is, Reiser comes across like a nutcase, and taking the stand himself did nothing to improve his chances of getting away with it.
It's entirely possible to convict based solely on circumstantial evidence. It takes a lot of it, and it has to be very convincing - pretty much to the point where any reasonable person would conclude that the prosecution was right - but it can be done. The fact that they had almost as much evidence on Reiser (accept a body) as they did on OJ and as they did on Robert Blake, doesn't mean Reiser's jury got it wrong or that he was convicted without evidence. It means OJ's jury and Blake's jury almost certainly reached an incorrect verdict. OJ has essentially confessed in "If I Did It." While Blake still maintains his innocence, I think he's probably guilty. At least he had a more plausible defense than Reiser had, so I can understand the jury's result, even if I disagree with it.
I live in the Bay area, where the trial was very well covered by local media (sfgate.com was excellent), and while it sounded unlikely to me at first, as the trial unfolded I became certain that he was guilty. And now he gives up the body, showing that his *evidence-based* conviction was spot-on.
You sound like you're just another of the many people who *wanted* Reiser to be innocent and were therefore willing to ignore the body of evidence against him. I wish he had been innocent, too, but he wasn't, and I was sure of that before the trial was over. I don't wish it for the reasons a lot of people here probably wish it - that ReiserFS may be history and that a lot of people who had not heard of Linux or open source before now have heard of it because a well-known open source developer killed his wife while his kids were upstairs in their rooms - but because a family has lost their daughter, two children have lost their mother, and those children have to go through life knowing that their dad killed her, then lied to them and the whole world about it.
Reiser may think he got something by negotiating a 15-to-life deal, but he's not getting out in 15 years. No parole board would go for it. I doubt he'll get out in 25, either. He's going to find that what may look to him like some kind of victory is no victory at all. If he ever leaves prison, it will be as a very old man.
Considering the tremendous porn applications of a camera like this, I rather imagine "raw" is just what they'll be shooting
Medium format cameras are certainly in the price range where they'll have internal hard drives and/or firewire or USB connections for external drives. This isn't really intended for putting imagines on flash cards. Medium format cameras are used by professionals and very serious amateurs.
There was an interview/article not too long ago in which Microsoft basically said that UAC was intended to do just that - be really annoying and cause users to bother vendors to code better software. The big flaw in that plan is that most users are A) Don't care (or know) nearly enough to act on that, even if they understood what it was, and B) Microsoft didn't make it expressly clear that that's what it was for (probably to avoid angering third-party vendors) so that the minority of users who do know and care enough can act on it.
Result: it blows up in Microsoft's face and everyone blames them for UAC being an annoying piece of crap which does little nothing to improve security. The fact that it was *supposed* to be an annoying piece of crap that didn't really help with security only makes it worse.
I'm also a long-time KDE fan and a Kubuntu user. I have both 4.x and 3.5.9 installed on my system. The best things I have to say about 4.1 is that at least it co-exists happily with the 3.5 series (at least in Kubuntu) and 4.1 beta 2 doesn't suck as much as the 4.0.x series does. So far, the longest amount of time I've been able to spend using it before I couldn't stand it anymore is around 2 hours.
I've been using KDE since 3.0, when I was so impressed by 3.0 that I switched over from what I was using before. I'm so underwhelmed by 4.x that it's actually got me looking around for something else. So far, XFCE looks kind of promising, although I don't like any of the GTK-based stuff as well as I like KDE 3.5.9. I hope KDE 4.x will someday be good, and it probably someday will be. The difficult spot I'm in is that someday looks like it's at least as far away as 4.2, and probably farther. Support of the 3.5.x line isn't going to go that far, so I either have to stay frozen in time with it and hope no really serious vulnerabilities pop up, or move to something else until such time as KDE 4.x is really complete enough to replace 3.5.x.
I agree. My wife is a semi-pro poker player, and I have seen her lay down pocket aces. It's rare, but I've seen it, and having to go all-in pre-flop with them is one of those situations. I play myself (not as well as she does, but well enough to finish in the money most of the time in low-stakes small tournaments), and I am also willing to lay down pocket aces early in a tournament if the only other option were to go all-in.
The goal of a tournament is, of course, to finish in the money, and being all-in early, even with pocket aces, puts that goal at risk. It's true that most of the time, pocket aces will be good, but they do get cracked. Especially in low-stakes games, it usually seems to happen at the hands of some donk who goes all-in with cards he shouldn't even play, let alone go all-in with. Then he flops two pair or a set and the aces are done. I actually feel really uncomfortable to get pocket aces or kings early in a tournament because it can put me into a situation where I have to either fold them (don't want to do that) or call a really large bet (don't want to do that early, either).
Sure, if you go all-in and the aces are good, you can relax after that and really pick and choose your hands. If you go all-in and the aces get cracked, you get to watch from the sidelines. Better to make a strong raise with pocket AA and get one or maybe two callers. If I bet 4x or 5x the big blind and somebody jumps over me all-in and it's early, I'll probably lay the aces down rather than take the chance.
Uhhh, in poker, you don't play against the house. You play against other players, and the house takes a cut of the pot from each hand (ring game) or a set fee (tournament).
I apologize if I came on too strong; my ire was mostly really directed at the famous/. clueless moderators. OTOH, the writing was already on the wall for the untenability of the Linux boxed set business model back when Red Hat stopped selling it in 2001 or 2002 and moved to the RHEL model, so I found it at least a little bit hard to believe that someone was really that in the dark about it. Again, I apologize if you weren't trolling.
When I got my first look at the first version of Linspire, I pronounced them DOA for a number of reasons. First, the distro itself was not only not very good, but had failed to deliver on its main selling point, a claim that it would seamlessly run Windows applications. They backed way off of that claim during the beta period and what they released was just regular old WINE with a little window dressing on it. It turns out they'd had some kind of deal going with Code Weavers but it fell apart.
Second, while it was very user-friendly it was also extremely inflexible, something that made me (and a lot of other experienced Linux users) hate it.
Third, by the time they got it out the door, Ubuntu was also getting itself out the door, and was putting its own more user-friendly face on Debian, and it was free.
Finally, there was the "who" of it. Robertson never struck me as someone who "gets" Linux at all. I would have been far more surprised if Linspire had succeeded. It's failure was something I predicted from the first time I tried a beta.
Precisely. I never expected Linspire to succeed, partly because of what they were trying to do, and partly because of who it was that was trying to do it, and partly because of when they were trying to do it - long after the ship for Yet Another Proprietary Linux Distro had already sailed.
Xandros had, in their day, a better shot at what they were trying to do. When Xandros came out, they put some user-friendly wrappings around Debian and took extra care to make it integrate easily and well into a Windows network. The problems they face, as I see it, were:
1) Xandros was too expensive.
2) Very slow release cycle. Xandros releases tend to come so far apart they make Debian look downright speedy.
3) They had proprietary bits, and that tends to make you unpopular with much of the Linux community.
I actually spent a little time with Xandros; my dad had bought a copy of it. Xandros has a lot going for it, but I found it to be inflexible, in large part because of the aforementioned slow release cycle. They were way behind pretty much everyone, and you couldn't point Xandros at some other repositories and bring it up to date without breaking all sorts of stuff. If Xandros had been on the kind of aggressive release cycle that Ubuntu has followed, they might well have been a major success, even allowing for points 1 and 3.
I'm not sure why anyone would mod this Insightful when it's nothing of the sort and may be just a troll, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and answer.
Yes, the money to be made from offering a Linux distro comes mostly from support contracts. Red Hat Enterprise Linux costs what it does not because it's better than free versions such as CentOS - which is an unbranded version of RHEL, recompiled from the RHEL source packages - but because RH provides enterprise-level support for RHEL/RHAS licenses. That includes, I suppose, the theoretical "who do we sue if something goes wrong" that more than a few people fantasize they can do when they buy software licenses. Good luck with that; notice that people have sued Microsoft for a lot of things, sometimes successfully, but not - AFAIK - for software that failed, even if it did so in a way that cost them real money out of pocket.
For many years, Red Hat sold a boxed version of the old Red Hat distro (up through 7.3, at least; maybe 8.0?), but they eventually stopped doing it because there was just no money in it. Now they offer Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and also sell support and professional services. There's a lot of money to be made there; IBM, for example, has a huge professional services division, and I'm sure you've heard of EDS, one of the oldest names in the professional services, AKA outsourcing, business.
Red Had has GPLed every piece of software they've written - or acquired - and they still make money. There is a solid business model for making money in the Linux business, and Red Hat seems to be better at it than anyone.
You're right about Free solutions, though. There are too many free and Free Linux distros that get the job done, and get it done well, for people to make much money trying to sell Linux distros to end users, or even to sell proprietary Linux applications. Mandriva ekes out a living, but they had to merge with Connectiva to have enough critical mass to keep that going. Red Hat get out of the boxed set businesses. Linspire failed to make a go of it. Xandros seems to be pretty much dead on the vine; I was actually surprised to hear they were still enough of a going concern to pick up what was left of Linspire. The Kompany was an abject failure at selling proprietary Linux apps. I'm sure I'm leaving out someone important here. And of course, there's Corel/SCO, the poster child for how not to do a Linux business. Free solutions are not only good enough for most Linux users, even in the enterprise, but they keep getting better all the time. I dual-boot Kubuntu on my MacBook Pro; most things work perfectly, and are most of the way as good as Apple's stuff. The things that don't work perfectly at least partly work, and in a year or two I expect that everything on this machine will pretty much just work under Linux. At that point, I might find myself spending more time in Kubuntu than in OS X.
I think what you meant to say is "A guarantee of 6 nines of uptime is unattainable at reasonable prices for a home user."
I have actually exceeded[1] that with my connection from my local cable provider; I'm at 100% connection uptime for a period exceeding one year.
Now, if I were to go to them and ask for an SLA guaranteeing me five nines or better, their most likely responses would be to either just say "no", fall on the floor laughing, or say "yes" and quote me a price costing more than the service itself.
So getting five nines of uptime is possible, it's getting it guaranteed that's not so easy.
[1] Except for a couple major power outages that were so long my 2200 VA UPS ran out before the power came back on, but I had an Internet connection until the UPS ran out. The cable company's infrastructure was up, so that counts as 100% uptime from their end.
This is mostly accurate, but his problem is almost certainly not on inbound, but on the outbound side of the like (unless he's doing a heck of a lot of BT, anyway). For example, my cable connection is ~15 megabits down and 512K up. Even when downloading something big like a Linux ISO image and saturating the link, voice quality on my Vonage line is fine. But if I have a few torrents running to send those files back out, it really impacts the quality of calls.
Also, if he buys or builds a real router as opposed to a consumer grade broadband box, he should then be able to throttle the outbound link to his cable modem to match the speed of his uplink and slice out a part of that bandwidth for the exclusive use of the Vonage device. It's true that the cable or DSL modem won't care and everything will go out from there at the same priority, but if (say) 20% of his uplink speed is set aside for the use of the ports used by Vonage, it will help by guaranteeing that bandwidth is always available for it. His problem isn't so much Q)S priority as it is a lack of bandwidth.
Or to put it another way - something well-known in networking - throwing more bandwidth at a problem often solves it more effectively than do QOS algorithms. Reserving 20% of his outbound bandwidth between the router and the modem is a way of effectively throwing bandwidth at the problem
Most of that is covered by DNSSEC, as outlined in RFCs 4033, 4034, 4035, 4310, 4641, 5155.
IIRC it doesn't have any hooks for any sort of CA infrastructure, but given all that there is in DNSSEC, it wouldn't be hard to add it.
The problem is that DNSSEC is even farther from actual widespread real world use than is IPV6, for reasons ranging from conflict between various stakeholders to "real" problems like getting it deployed on all the various name servers in the world, getting them compatible with each other, and backward compatible with plain old DNS. There are some very poorly implemented DNS servers out there, and they are very likely to only get worse when a more complex system, such as DNSSEC, gets involved.
No kidding. I left Japan in 2002, but even at my thinnest (which was 155 pounds) I had a 34-inch waist. You'd think they'd use something more accurate, like body mass index, instead of a simple waist measurement. All even a Japanese needs to do to be beyond 33.6 inches is be tall enough/large enough, without being fat.
What I find even more disturbing, though, is that even with all the weight I've gained since getting married in 2002 (my wife is a great cook, and our kids absorb all the time I used to spend working out:p) I'm still 3 inches below the US male average and I'm at least 20 pounds overweight:p
You're not thinking in a sufficiently long term. Yes, my wife and I only watch videos of our kids when they were babies a couple times a year. Our kids are 4 and 5 now, and they love seeing themselves as babies, that's one of the best parts of the experience.
*But* - the real value of those videos will come much farther on. My wife enjoys seeing what I looked like as a baby and a young kid, and I enjoy seeing what she was like then, too. Our kids' future spouses may enjoy seeing their baby videos, but even that isn't a long enough term
The real value of those videos will come long after the OP is dead and gone. For example, my mom's dad died relatively young (his early 50s), before my parents even knew each other. He was an extremely skilled hunter and fisherman, and I marvel at the stringers of fish I see in pictures of him with his friends, for both the size and the quantity of the fish. He hunted all sorts of birds, raccoons, just about anything but deer. My mom says he wouldn't hunt deer because too many deer hunters would shoot at anything that moved in the bush without even seeing what it was. But he shot enough raccoons that my mom and my grandmother both had raccoon coats (a fashion at the time, but theirs were all made from coons my grandfather shot with his side by side 12-gauge).
I'm the only one in my family who fishes. I taught myself. I would have loved to have learned to hunt, too, and I'm sure I would have learned from my grandfather if he'd lived longer. I love all those old pictures of him. Sadly, my mom sold his old fishing gear, and shotgun, and marbles (what a collection! Like I've never seen before or since) when I was too young to even realize that I could/should object and say "Hey, keep that stuff! I want it!" It all went to an antique dealer. A bamboo baitcasting rod. Original Creek Chub Bait Company lures from the 1920s and 1930s, most still with their original boxes. His Pikie Minnow was in near-new condition, I remember.
So (everyone) by all means, preserve those family videos on a number of media. Hard drive. DVD. Blu-Ray. Whatever comes after Blu-Ray. DLT (been around a long time, and will be for a long time to come), flash drive, etc. If possible, pass down to your children not only the media, but devices capable of reading them.
In the even longer term, like hundreds of years from now, if a lot of video from the present day is preserved, the archeologists of the future will have a much easier time seeing what our times were like than archeologists today have of seeing what times just a few hundred years gone were like.
And yes, that means I think humans will be around for a long time to come. We're the most successful species in the history of the planet and we're not going away. I'll even make a bold prediction: 20 years from now, the air and water will both be cleaner than they are today. If anyone doubts this, let me tell you that I grew up in southern California in the 1970s, and despite the fact that California's pupulation has roughly doubled in that time, the number of cars on the roads has more than doubled, the air is better now than it was then. We've yet only scratched the surface of alternative fuel vehiclesf, and emissions of internal combustion engines can still be improved. 20 years from now, vehicles that use only an internal combustion engine for power will be in the minority. They might even be downright rare. And the air then will be as much better than the air now as the air now is better than the air in the 1970s in LA.
Don't know if I'll be around to see it, since I'm almost 50, but it's the world I want to leave for my kids. Along with their baby videos:)
I'd mod you up if you weren't already at 5. I'm a cyclist myself, which probably makes me more observant of the stupid behavior of many cyclists than if I only drove my car. I'm also a (former) motorcyclist, and I agree with your point on motorcyclists too, with one exception: so many of them lane split, even on the freeway. Ignoring whether or not that counts as rude (I say it does, YMMV), it's extremely dangerous to pass between cars using the empty space at the edges of their lanes.
Considering the astonishingly stupid and dangerous things I see many bicyclists and more than a few motorcyclists do, I'm just amazed that a lot more of us don't get killed on the road.
This doesn't exonerate car drivers - I seem them do a lot of dangerous and stupid things around two-wheeled vehicles and that's why I'm a former motorcyclist - but many car/bike accidents are the fault of the cyclist doing one or more stupid things. You have to be an extremely defensive and cautious driver on two wheels, yet many of us ride as if our vehicles could get the better of a collision with a tank.
I am a real estate licensee, and I can tell you that I get metric assloads of spam from people that I most definitely do not know, have never heard of, and most certainly have never had any business relationship with. I have never signed up on any real estate related mailing list, and have never authorized the sale or sharing of my email address. Yet I still get a steady stream of RE spam from shady loan outfits, home insurance, home inspectors, agents three states away with property in the middle of BFE that they're trying to unload, etc. You name it, I'm getting spammed with it.
And yes, I do know what I'm talking about when I say this is spam of the UCE/UBE flavor. My $DAY_JOB is with one of the largest companies in the email security industry.
RE the specific lists you talk about, they actually may be spam. Unless those people signed up *with your firm* to receive that information and did so by informed consent (as opposed to, say, failing to notice the pre-checked box in 3 point type that says you'll send them commercial ads unless they uncheck it) or not noticing you have a policy tucked away on your web site that says you'll send commercial emails to anyone who emails you about anything - both of which are highly unethical and fit most definitions of spam even if the (YOU-)CAN-SPAM Act gives them a pass), then they are getting spammed. Commercial email sent without the informed consent of the recipient is spam. Period.
When you take the process all the way through to refining the product into gasoline and burning the gasoline in your car, it may well be no longer carbon negative, maybe not even neutral. It would be interesting to see the numbers on that. However, when the baseline is the way it's produced now (every stage of the process, starting with drilling, is carbon-positive), it has to at least produce less carbon than the way it's done now, even if the overall process is still a net producer of carbon.
Another interesting question is that if they can really produce fake crude for $50- $70/barrel and produce enough of it to significantly supplant supplies of natural crude, or depress the price of it to match, will people still be as interested in green technologies such as hybrid and fully electric cars, solar generation, etc., as they are now?
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I had mod points to give you today, that's a very good answer.
To it, I'd like to add that it depends on what the desired outcome is. If the desired outcome is to keep Linux for specialists only (and I have to confess that it was a lot more fun 10 years ago, when most of the user base were people with previous experience/expertise in UNIX, so while I don't support that idea I do have some sympathy for it), then keeping it pure is probably essential to that goal If the desired outcome is to have Linux used as widely as possible and get as many people on the path to software freedom, then yeah, it's important to run the software, proprietary or otherwise, until such time as there is a Free alternative that is as good or better than the proprietary one. At that point, you cut over.
And of course, keep trying to put influence vendors to open their specs so Free drivers can be written, or to open their own drivers, preferably under the GPL, so they can ship with Linux.
Mostly you've gotten crap responses that can be summarized as "get a real router." Sheesh, if people have no clue or anything useful to say, they ought to STFU. But, this is Slashdot. Fortunately, you got at least one clueful response.
That was from the guy who suggested it could be a power problem. I have a WRT54G that I bought in 2003. It does internal routing on my network, and is downstream for a USR 8xxx (something) that's even older than the Linksys. I've used them in five locations now with no problems at all, and the current connection is 15 megabits down and 512 kbits up. Load is sporadic, but can saturate the inbound link. Mostly downloads via http, but sometimes ISOs over BT. I regularly VPN (Cisco client) to my office with no problems.
These devices are on UPS and always have been. I think you really need to take a look at the power quality. If your gear isn't on UPS, dig one up somewhere and plug them into it and see if that helps out.
If it doesn't, also take a look at what kind of traffic is on your network, as some have suggested. It could be that something from the inside is causing the stability issues. Finally, there is merit to the idea of separating the wireless from the routing, although for most people that should be fine. My current setup has it separated, but I used to use the WRT54G as my gateway device and that setup was also problem-free.
And for you "Shoulda got a real router" trolls, I *work* for Cisco and even I don't bother using a Cisco for my home network edge (I have a 2621 taking up space on my shelf, though); it's just not necessary. Sure, the 2621 is better than the Linksys (for many values of "better"), but it's simply not necessary for a home network.
Good luck, and maybe you could post again with more info about your network. That would help with troubleshooting.
There are a few things wrong with your post.
For starters, you're barking up the wrong tree. A non-compete doesn't stop you from showing code samples of work you did for someone else. An NDA does, and frankly, an NDA is not an unreasonable thing to have to sign before working on someone's proprietary code base. It simply provides a legal remedy to the code owner if you fail to honor your moral and legal obligations to keep confidential that which is confidential. I see nothing wrong with that.
Next, here in California (and some other places; ask your lawyer about your place), non-competes are pretty unenforceable. When I left my previous position, I had a two-year non-compete and was considered a key employee but I went straight to work for a direct competitor anyway. Now, I didn't tell them where I was going (unenforceable or not, I saw no sense in potentially provoking anyone; I gave my new employer a copy of the non-compete as required in the non-compete; they didn't care, and that was all that mattered to me). It was about a year before anyone there who would tell or might care found out where I was working. I don't know if they told, but no one cared. I'm now a few months short of the end of the non-compete. If anyone at my former employer were to now object, my current employer would most likely flip them the legal bird (they have deep enough pockets for that).
Next, in many places - even California - most employers will ask you to sign a non-compete, even though their legal departments know (or should know, if they are at all competent) that California courts have held NCs to be generally unenforceable. Employers lobbied hard for California to be a right-to-work state, then later found out that's a sword that cuts both ways. Because so many employers (at least in tech industries) will ask you to sign an NC, it's not signing the NC that makes you bound to a master for life, unemployable, stuck in your job, etc. It's refusal to sign one that will do those thing;, if you won't sign one, you will probably find yourself remaining in your current job for a *long* time while you look for an employer that won't ask you to sign an NC.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. If you are thinking of breaking a non-compete, you might want to talk to a lawyer first, even in California. If you live in a place were non-competes are enforceable, you might want to consider having your lawyer read it before you sign it.
Of course, if you actually RTFA, you find that their current prototype still had 92% of initial efficiency after three months of exposure. That's pretty good, much better than anything done so far in that area, but they say themselves that that isn't good enough. Yet. They are confident they can improve that to the point of being commercially viable and expect a marketable product in three years.
Of course, they could encounter an insurmountable obstacle during those three years, but they're confident enough in this that they're spinning off a company to make it. From the claims in TFA, it sounds like they've really got something there. This *is* a major breakthrough, and they believe it will be a marketable one.
Why a right-winger? Left-wingers are at least as hostile to freedom of speech when the speech is something they dislike.
That's the first thing I checked too was the role-call vote to see how Obama voted. He voted for the bill. So much for change. My mistrust of Obama is clear not misplaced. Not that I support McCain either, mind you. Once again, we have to decide which turd is th least smelly.
No, Oakland has a horrendous amount of crime because it has a horrendous amount of criminals. You don't live around here, do you?
I'm going to put the ball in your court here. Please explain what you think was total crap about:
-The car with the passenger's seat removed and the floor wet as if it had been washed, found on an Oakland street yet not reported stolen
-Nina's vehicle, also found on an Oakland street but not reported stolen
-The blood
-The fact that he was the last person known to have seen her alive
-His testimony, which was probably more damning than much of the other evidence. OK, I think his testimony was crap too, and from a getting away with it perspective he was an idiot to take the stand, but I don't think it was crap the way you think it was crap. You seem to have believed him. Maybe you still believe him, even though he has now confessed and her body has been found.
The thing about a body of circumstantial evidence is, when you have a lot of it, it tends to be highly accurate in aggregate. For example, let's say there's a historical record that when you have a vehicle found like that, in 60% of those cases (just to pull a number from my ass) the suspect provably did it. To make it simple, also 60% for finding blood, for finding the victim's vehicle abandoned in the area, for the suspect being the last known person to see the victim alive, 60% for someone with a personality like Reiser's, and 60% for ridiculous testimony including a theory that the victim is really just hiding somewhere and trying to frame the suspect for murder.
Singly, each of those 60% points is pretty weak, and no juror in her/his right mind would convict, but taken together, they paint a very different picture. That's five data points, each with a 60% likelihood of indicating guilt. Suddenly, things look very different. I work in the email security industry, and I can tell you that when you can identify 5 60% spammy characteristics in a message, that message almost always turns out to be spam.
Or put another way, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."
Sure, the police focused the investigation on Reiser. Not because they failed to do their jobs, but because they did do their jobs and after looking at all available evidence, were sure he did it. Heh. Turns out they were right. The fact is, people being wrongfully charged with crimes is pretty rare, and being wrongfully convicted is rarer still. It happens, and sometimes it is even willfully done by corrupt police, but it's not common.
Of course, your leftist brain probably has trouble wrapping itself around that fact.
He wasn't convicted without evidence. He was convicted without a body. The evidence may have been largely circumstantial, but there was a great deal of it, and it was strong. The fact that she was missing. The car with a seat removed and the appearance of having been washed out, the ditched on the street. Her vehicle, also ditched on the street. The blood, which you mention (that's more forensic than circumstantial). Heck, that crazy defense theory that she was hiding in Russia probably even led to his conviction, in part, as did his own testimony. The fact is, Reiser comes across like a nutcase, and taking the stand himself did nothing to improve his chances of getting away with it.
It's entirely possible to convict based solely on circumstantial evidence. It takes a lot of it, and it has to be very convincing - pretty much to the point where any reasonable person would conclude that the prosecution was right - but it can be done. The fact that they had almost as much evidence on Reiser (accept a body) as they did on OJ and as they did on Robert Blake, doesn't mean Reiser's jury got it wrong or that he was convicted without evidence. It means OJ's jury and Blake's jury almost certainly reached an incorrect verdict. OJ has essentially confessed in "If I Did It." While Blake still maintains his innocence, I think he's probably guilty. At least he had a more plausible defense than Reiser had, so I can understand the jury's result, even if I disagree with it.
I live in the Bay area, where the trial was very well covered by local media (sfgate.com was excellent), and while it sounded unlikely to me at first, as the trial unfolded I became certain that he was guilty. And now he gives up the body, showing that his *evidence-based* conviction was spot-on.
You sound like you're just another of the many people who *wanted* Reiser to be innocent and were therefore willing to ignore the body of evidence against him. I wish he had been innocent, too, but he wasn't, and I was sure of that before the trial was over. I don't wish it for the reasons a lot of people here probably wish it - that ReiserFS may be history and that a lot of people who had not heard of Linux or open source before now have heard of it because a well-known open source developer killed his wife while his kids were upstairs in their rooms - but because a family has lost their daughter, two children have lost their mother, and those children have to go through life knowing that their dad killed her, then lied to them and the whole world about it.
Reiser may think he got something by negotiating a 15-to-life deal, but he's not getting out in 15 years. No parole board would go for it. I doubt he'll get out in 25, either. He's going to find that what may look to him like some kind of victory is no victory at all. If he ever leaves prison, it will be as a very old man.
Considering the tremendous porn applications of a camera like this, I rather imagine "raw" is just what they'll be shooting
Medium format cameras are certainly in the price range where they'll have internal hard drives and/or firewire or USB connections for external drives. This isn't really intended for putting imagines on flash cards. Medium format cameras are used by professionals and very serious amateurs.
There was an interview/article not too long ago in which Microsoft basically said that UAC was intended to do just that - be really annoying and cause users to bother vendors to code better software. The big flaw in that plan is that most users are A) Don't care (or know) nearly enough to act on that, even if they understood what it was, and B) Microsoft didn't make it expressly clear that that's what it was for (probably to avoid angering third-party vendors) so that the minority of users who do know and care enough can act on it.
Result: it blows up in Microsoft's face and everyone blames them for UAC being an annoying piece of crap which does little nothing to improve security. The fact that it was *supposed* to be an annoying piece of crap that didn't really help with security only makes it worse.
I'm also a long-time KDE fan and a Kubuntu user. I have both 4.x and 3.5.9 installed on my system. The best things I have to say about 4.1 is that at least it co-exists happily with the 3.5 series (at least in Kubuntu) and 4.1 beta 2 doesn't suck as much as the 4.0.x series does. So far, the longest amount of time I've been able to spend using it before I couldn't stand it anymore is around 2 hours.
I've been using KDE since 3.0, when I was so impressed by 3.0 that I switched over from what I was using before. I'm so underwhelmed by 4.x that it's actually got me looking around for something else. So far, XFCE looks kind of promising, although I don't like any of the GTK-based stuff as well as
I like KDE 3.5.9. I hope KDE 4.x will someday be good, and it probably someday will be. The difficult spot I'm in is that someday looks like it's at least as far away as 4.2, and probably farther. Support of the 3.5.x line isn't going to go that far, so I either have to stay frozen in time with it and hope no really serious vulnerabilities pop up, or move to something else until such time as KDE 4.x is really complete enough to replace 3.5.x.
I agree. My wife is a semi-pro poker player, and I have seen her lay down pocket aces. It's rare, but I've seen it, and having to go all-in pre-flop with them is one of those situations. I play myself (not as well as she does, but well enough to finish in the money most of the time in low-stakes small tournaments), and I am also willing to lay down pocket aces early in a tournament if the only other option were to go all-in.
The goal of a tournament is, of course, to finish in the money, and being all-in early, even with pocket aces, puts that goal at risk. It's true that most of the time, pocket aces will be good, but they do get cracked. Especially in low-stakes games, it usually seems to happen at the hands of some donk who goes all-in with cards he shouldn't even play, let alone go all-in with. Then he flops two pair or a set and the aces are done. I actually feel really uncomfortable to get pocket aces or kings early in a tournament because it can put me into a situation where I have to either fold them (don't want to do that) or call a really large bet (don't want to do that early, either).
Sure, if you go all-in and the aces are good, you can relax after that and really pick and choose your hands. If you go all-in and the aces get cracked, you get to watch from the sidelines. Better to make a strong raise with pocket AA and get one or maybe two callers. If I bet 4x or 5x the big blind and somebody jumps over me all-in and it's early, I'll probably lay the aces down rather than take the chance.
Uhhh, in poker, you don't play against the house. You play against other players, and the house takes a cut of the pot from each hand (ring game) or a set fee (tournament).
I apologize if I came on too strong; my ire was mostly really directed at the famous /. clueless moderators. OTOH, the writing was already on the wall for the untenability of the Linux boxed set business model back when Red Hat stopped selling it in 2001 or 2002 and moved to the RHEL model, so I found it at least a little bit hard to believe that someone was really that in the dark about it. Again, I apologize if you weren't trolling.
When I got my first look at the first version of Linspire, I pronounced them DOA for a number of reasons. First, the distro itself was not only not very good, but had failed to deliver on its main selling point, a claim that it would seamlessly run Windows applications. They backed way off of that claim during the beta period and what they released was just regular old WINE with a little window dressing on it. It turns out they'd had some kind of deal going with Code Weavers but it fell apart.
Second, while it was very user-friendly it was also extremely inflexible, something that made me (and a lot of other experienced Linux users) hate it.
Third, by the time they got it out the door, Ubuntu was also getting itself out the door, and was putting its own more user-friendly face on Debian, and it was free.
Finally, there was the "who" of it. Robertson never struck me as someone who "gets" Linux at all. I would have been far more surprised if Linspire had succeeded. It's failure was something I predicted from the first time I tried a beta.
Precisely. I never expected Linspire to succeed, partly because of what they were trying to do, and partly because of who it was that was trying to do it, and partly because of when they were trying to do it - long after the ship for Yet Another Proprietary Linux Distro had already sailed.
Xandros had, in their day, a better shot at what they were trying to do. When Xandros came out, they put some user-friendly wrappings around Debian and took extra care to make it integrate easily and well into a Windows network. The problems they face, as I see it, were:
1) Xandros was too expensive.
2) Very slow release cycle. Xandros releases tend to come so far apart they make Debian look downright speedy.
3) They had proprietary bits, and that tends to make you unpopular with much of the Linux community.
I actually spent a little time with Xandros; my dad had bought a copy of it. Xandros has a lot going for it, but I found it to be inflexible, in large part because of the aforementioned slow release cycle. They were way behind pretty much everyone, and you couldn't point Xandros at some other repositories and bring it up to date without breaking all sorts of stuff. If Xandros had been on the kind of aggressive release cycle that Ubuntu has followed, they might well have been a major success, even allowing for points 1 and 3.
I'm not sure why anyone would mod this Insightful when it's nothing of the sort and may be just a troll, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and answer.
Yes, the money to be made from offering a Linux distro comes mostly from support contracts. Red Hat Enterprise Linux costs what it does not because it's better than free versions such as CentOS - which is an unbranded version of RHEL, recompiled from the RHEL source packages - but because RH provides enterprise-level support for RHEL/RHAS licenses. That includes, I suppose, the theoretical "who do we sue if something goes wrong" that more than a few people fantasize they can do when they buy software licenses. Good luck with that; notice that people have sued Microsoft for a lot of things, sometimes successfully, but not - AFAIK - for software that failed, even if it did so in a way that cost them real money out of pocket.
For many years, Red Hat sold a boxed version of the old Red Hat distro (up through 7.3, at least; maybe 8.0?), but they eventually stopped doing it because there was just no money in it. Now they offer Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and also sell support and professional services. There's a lot of money to be made there; IBM, for example, has a huge professional services division, and I'm sure you've heard of EDS, one of the oldest names in the professional services, AKA outsourcing, business.
Red Had has GPLed every piece of software they've written - or acquired - and they still make money. There is a solid business model for making money in the Linux business, and Red Hat seems to be better at it than anyone.
You're right about Free solutions, though. There are too many free and Free Linux distros that get the job done, and get it done well, for people to make much money trying to sell Linux distros to end users, or even to sell proprietary Linux applications. Mandriva ekes out a living, but they had to merge with Connectiva to have enough critical mass to keep that going. Red Hat get out of the boxed set businesses. Linspire failed to make a go of it. Xandros seems to be pretty much dead on the vine; I was actually surprised to hear they were still enough of a going concern to pick up what was left of Linspire. The Kompany was an abject failure at selling proprietary Linux apps. I'm sure I'm leaving out someone important here. And of course, there's Corel/SCO, the poster child for how not to do a Linux business. Free solutions are not only good enough for most Linux users, even in the enterprise, but they keep getting better all the time. I dual-boot Kubuntu on my MacBook Pro; most things work perfectly, and are most of the way as good as Apple's stuff. The things that don't work perfectly at least partly work, and in a year or two I expect that everything on this machine will pretty much just work under Linux. At that point, I might find myself spending more time in Kubuntu than in OS X.
I think what you meant to say is "A guarantee of 6 nines of uptime is unattainable at reasonable prices for a home user."
I have actually exceeded[1] that with my connection from my local cable provider; I'm at 100% connection uptime for a period exceeding one year.
Now, if I were to go to them and ask for an SLA guaranteeing me five nines or better, their most likely responses would be to either just say "no", fall on the floor laughing, or say "yes" and quote me a price costing more than the service itself.
So getting five nines of uptime is possible, it's getting it guaranteed that's not so easy.
[1] Except for a couple major power outages that were so long my 2200 VA UPS ran out before the power came back on, but I had an Internet connection until the UPS ran out. The cable company's infrastructure was up, so that counts as 100% uptime from their end.
This is mostly accurate, but his problem is almost certainly not on inbound, but on the outbound side of the like (unless he's doing a heck of a lot of BT, anyway). For example, my cable connection is ~15 megabits down and 512K up. Even when downloading something big like a Linux ISO image and saturating the link, voice quality on my Vonage line is fine. But if I have a few torrents running to send those files back out, it really impacts the quality of calls.
Also, if he buys or builds a real router as opposed to a consumer grade broadband box, he should then be able to throttle the outbound link to his cable modem to match the speed of his uplink and slice out a part of that bandwidth for the exclusive use of the Vonage device. It's true that the cable or DSL modem won't care and everything will go out from there at the same priority, but if (say) 20% of his uplink speed is set aside for the use of the ports used by Vonage, it will help by guaranteeing that bandwidth is always available for it. His problem isn't so much Q)S priority as it is a lack of bandwidth.
Or to put it another way - something well-known in networking - throwing more bandwidth at a problem often solves it more effectively than do QOS algorithms. Reserving 20% of his outbound bandwidth between the router and the modem is a way of effectively throwing bandwidth at the problem
Most of that is covered by DNSSEC, as outlined in RFCs 4033, 4034, 4035, 4310, 4641, 5155.
IIRC it doesn't have any hooks for any sort of CA infrastructure, but given all that there is in DNSSEC, it wouldn't be hard to add it.
The problem is that DNSSEC is even farther from actual widespread real world use than is IPV6, for reasons ranging from conflict between various stakeholders to "real" problems like getting it deployed on all the various name servers in the world, getting them compatible with each other, and backward compatible with plain old DNS. There are some very poorly implemented DNS servers out there, and they are very likely to only get worse when a more complex system, such as DNSSEC, gets involved.
For more on DNSSEC, see http://www.dnssec.net/ or check the Wikipedia entry.
No kidding. I left Japan in 2002, but even at my thinnest (which was 155 pounds) I had a 34-inch waist. You'd think they'd use something more accurate, like body mass index, instead of a simple waist measurement. All even a Japanese needs to do to be beyond 33.6 inches is be tall enough/large enough, without being fat.
:p) I'm still 3 inches below the US male average and I'm at least 20 pounds overweight :p
What I find even more disturbing, though, is that even with all the weight I've gained since getting married in 2002 (my wife is a great cook, and our kids absorb all the time I used to spend working out
And hopefully when it does I'll get first post in the /. article about it.
You're not thinking in a sufficiently long term. Yes, my wife and I only watch videos of our kids when they were babies a couple times a year. Our kids are 4 and 5 now, and they love seeing themselves as babies, that's one of the best parts of the experience.
*But* - the real value of those videos will come much farther on. My wife enjoys seeing what I looked like as a baby and a young kid, and I enjoy seeing what she was like then, too. Our kids' future spouses may enjoy seeing their baby videos, but even that isn't a long enough term
The real value of those videos will come long after the OP is dead and gone. For example, my mom's dad died relatively young (his early 50s), before my parents even knew each other. He was an extremely skilled hunter and fisherman, and I marvel at the stringers of fish I see in pictures of him with his friends, for both the size and the quantity of the fish. He hunted all sorts of birds, raccoons, just about anything but deer. My mom says he wouldn't hunt deer because too many deer hunters would shoot at anything that moved in the bush without even seeing what it was. But he shot enough raccoons that my mom and my grandmother both had raccoon coats (a fashion at the time, but theirs were all made from coons my grandfather shot with his side by side 12-gauge).
I'm the only one in my family who fishes. I taught myself. I would have loved to have learned to hunt, too, and I'm sure I would have learned from my grandfather if he'd lived longer. I love all those old pictures of him. Sadly, my mom sold his old fishing gear, and shotgun, and marbles (what a collection! Like I've never seen before or since) when I was too young to even realize that I could/should object and say "Hey, keep that stuff! I want it!" It all went to an antique dealer. A bamboo baitcasting rod. Original Creek Chub Bait Company lures from the 1920s and 1930s, most still with their original boxes. His Pikie Minnow was in near-new condition, I remember.
So (everyone) by all means, preserve those family videos on a number of media. Hard drive. DVD. Blu-Ray. Whatever comes after Blu-Ray. DLT (been around a long time, and will be for a long time to come), flash drive, etc. If possible, pass down to your children not only the media, but devices capable of reading them.
In the even longer term, like hundreds of years from now, if a lot of video from the present day is preserved, the archeologists of the future will have a much easier time seeing what our times were like than archeologists today have of seeing what times just a few hundred years gone were like.
And yes, that means I think humans will be around for a long time to come. We're the most successful species in the history of the planet and we're not going away. I'll even make a bold prediction: 20 years from now, the air and water will both be cleaner than they are today. If anyone doubts this, let me tell you that I grew up in southern California in the 1970s, and despite the fact that California's pupulation has roughly doubled in that time, the number of cars on the roads has more than doubled, the air is better now than it was then. We've yet only scratched the surface of alternative fuel vehiclesf, and emissions of internal combustion engines can still be improved. 20 years from now, vehicles that use only an internal combustion engine for power will be in the minority. They might even be downright rare. And the air then will be as much better than the air now as the air now is better than the air in the 1970s in LA.
Don't know if I'll be around to see it, since I'm almost 50, but it's the world I want to leave for my kids. Along with their baby videos :)
I'd mod you up if you weren't already at 5. I'm a cyclist myself, which probably makes me more observant of the stupid behavior of many cyclists than if I only drove my car. I'm also a (former) motorcyclist, and I agree with your point on motorcyclists too, with one exception: so many of them lane split, even on the freeway. Ignoring whether or not that counts as rude (I say it does, YMMV), it's extremely dangerous to pass between cars using the empty space at the edges of their lanes.
Considering the astonishingly stupid and dangerous things I see many bicyclists and more than a few motorcyclists do, I'm just amazed that a lot more of us don't get killed on the road.
This doesn't exonerate car drivers - I seem them do a lot of dangerous and stupid things around two-wheeled vehicles and that's why I'm a former motorcyclist - but many car/bike accidents are the fault of the cyclist doing one or more stupid things. You have to be an extremely defensive and cautious driver on two wheels, yet many of us ride as if our vehicles could get the better of a collision with a tank.
I am a real estate licensee, and I can tell you that I get metric assloads of spam from people that I most definitely do not know, have never heard of, and most certainly have never had any business relationship with. I have never signed up on any real estate related mailing list, and have never authorized the sale or sharing of my email address. Yet I still get a steady stream of RE spam from shady loan outfits, home insurance, home inspectors, agents three states away with property in the middle of BFE that they're trying to unload, etc. You name it, I'm getting spammed with it.
And yes, I do know what I'm talking about when I say this is spam of the UCE/UBE flavor. My $DAY_JOB is with one of the largest companies in the email security industry.
RE the specific lists you talk about, they actually may be spam. Unless those people signed up *with your firm* to receive that information and did so by informed consent (as opposed to, say, failing to notice the pre-checked box in 3 point type that says you'll send them commercial ads unless they uncheck it) or not noticing you have a policy tucked away on your web site that says you'll send commercial emails to anyone who emails you about anything - both of which are highly unethical and fit most definitions of spam even if the (YOU-)CAN-SPAM Act gives them a pass), then they are getting spammed. Commercial email sent without the informed consent of the recipient is spam. Period.
When you take the process all the way through to refining the product into gasoline and burning the gasoline in your car, it may well be no longer carbon negative, maybe not even neutral. It would be interesting to see the numbers on that. However, when the baseline is the way it's produced now (every stage of the process, starting with drilling, is carbon-positive), it has to at least produce less carbon than the way it's done now, even if the overall process is still a net producer of carbon.
Another interesting question is that if they can really produce fake crude for $50- $70/barrel and produce enough of it to significantly supplant supplies of natural crude, or depress the price of it to match, will people still be as interested in green technologies such as hybrid and fully electric cars, solar generation, etc., as they are now?