memory usage was one of the biggest reasons i went from FF to IE
On the graph, IE has a smaller footprint and no evidence of memory leaks.
Its also obvious from the graph that those FF2 being a leaky ol' memory hog are spot on the money.
We should go through the comments here on slashdot and make sure all those complaining about FF2 memory use have the meaning of the slope and shapes on these graphs carefully explained to them.
Not so much of a problem for me, either its working, as in playing a DVD or whatnot and your attention is focused on whatever you are doing/watching, or 'hdparm -S5/dev/hdb' has been my friend and parked the thing (but beware, KDE likes to access the hd, so log off). I guess an in-bedroom system that comes alive at night with torrents and podcasts might be a problem.
Why was it a binary choice? Plenty of companies have released games that run natively on Win, Lin and Mac, or run successfully under Wine or Cedega.
If you were telling programmers that you were going to target Linux and only Linux, I'm not surprised that they took one look at your plans and were deafened by the alarm bells.
It does sound like many in-store customers, who probably have zero knowledge of computers and have only brand recognition to guide them, simply wern't going to take a punt on an unknown brand. Perhaps some also returned them after discovering that they wouldn't run Word or play some games.
Online, however, you can phone a relative, or ask someone knowledgeable before buying, and its not a wasted trip to the store.
Clearly, those are water channels running into the crater.
Obviously at some point Mercury was hollow and covered by an ocean, then an asteroid hits, punctures the surface, and the ocean drains into the center of the planet, creating the channels we see today.
Now, I know there are those who will say "but liquid water cant exist that close to the sun". Well, to those people I say "Its not called Mercury for nothing".
Phoenix were not involved in the 1.0 specifications.
Phoenix was involved in the 1.0 spec, regardless of what that PDF says. Most of the work for ACPI was done by Intel and Phoenix.
Your assertion is simply not backed up by available evidence. The best I can find is that Phoenix "contributed" to the 1.0 spec, and produced BIOSes that implemented the early specs. There is no evidence I can find that Phoenix was a leading player in the 1.0 spec. Perhaps you could supply some evidence?
Microsoft were not getting "broken DSDT tables" from manufacturers. Microsoft were shipping software that generated broken DSDT tables.
Do you even know what a DSDT table is? It's a compiled table that describes the system. It's written in a custom language called ASL (ACPI Source Language) and is compiled into AML (ACPI Machine Language) by the compiler. Back in 1998 Microsoft was sent broken ASL from the manufacturers that would not compile unless they tweaked the compiler. If they DIDN'T tweak the compiler ACPI features would not work in Windows (just like they don't work in Linux). What the fuck were they supposed to do?
Nowadays, manufacturers just compile the DSDT tables themselves using MS' compiler, instead of Intel's, because it's EASIER. Once again, how is this the fault of Microsoft? The manufacturers certainly CAN write proper ASL source and they CAN compile them with the more stringent Intel compiler. The fact they the choose not to do so is NOT MICROSOFT'S FAULT. It certainly CAN be done, presumably Apple did this for MacOS.
"Microsoft was sent broken ASL from the manufacturers" makes no sense at all. You are suggesting that manufacturers sent ASL tables to Microsoft for them to compile into binaries, which get sent back to the manufacturer. This picture is utterly wrong.
Microsoft and Intel produced compilers that the manufacturersdownload. Intel's compiler was written correctly, and gave error messages so that the manufacturers could correct the ASL source and recompile. Microsoft's compiler appears to have been designed to only flag faults that were significant to Microsoft's own OS, and I have supplied evidence that this may have been done on purpose, instigated at board level within Microsoft.
Intel's compiler is available Unix and Linux systems. Linux uses the Intel tools (to create fixed DSDTs), as well as its own code for implementing ACPI functionality.
I would imagine that Apple used Intel's compiler as it would probably work for OSX. Its also very apparent that installing OS-X on non-apple approved hardware will result in exactly the same issues as Linux finds, specifically a series of hardware problems as Apple's AppleACPIPlatform driver trips over buggy DSDT tables.
You will have to supply evidence that using Microsoft's compiler is easier, as both a trivial downloads, and I have used iasl on Linux with no hardships. You will also have to supply evidence that manufacturers are moving to Microsoft's compiler, as my feeling (I cant find evidence either way) is that the big players are moving to iasl as they start offering Linux. I know Compaq used the Microsoft ASL compiler, and clearly people stopped buying their kit for some reason.
I guess I'm saying that it's incumbent upon the Linux people to work around the problems in MS' compiler by re-implementing ACPI in Linux, make their own compiler, or convince the manufacturers to write proper ASL.
Linux has been working around the problem, by supplying corrected DSDT tables where appropriate, and blacklisting ACPI on unfixable hardware.
Microsoft were very much involved in attempting to create a windows specific specification.
You have no idea what you're talking about. If the manufacturers made PROPER DSDT tables they would work just fine with Microsoft's compiler. Microsoft tweaked their compiler to deal with all the broken DSDT tables they were getting from the manufacturers (particularly the the Taiwanese manufacturers), NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. That's a FACT.
This shows a complete ignorance on what a compiler does.
Compilers are supposed to throw out messages when they detect an error. Microsoft's compiler only threw out errors if it was part of the specification that Microsoft's OS needed.
Microsoft were not getting "broken DSDT tables" from manufacturers. Microsoft were shipping software that generated broken DSDT tables.
Sure the manufacturers are lazy, but it still remains that Microsoft lead the development of a hard to implement standard, and then supply substandard tools to aid the use of the standard.
Except Microsoft were unlikely to have been 'lazy' about producing a substandard compiler, but actively seeking to cause manufacturers to create hardware that did not play nice with non-Microsoft operating systems.
I run Linux, but one of the things I'm least happy about is the horrible support for power management. None of the sleep, hibernate, etc., options work on my machine at all.
I once had a problem with this, and decided to investigate.
So I went through the forums and found that the problem was that the manufacturer of the laptop supplies a dsdt table that does not follow the published standards for dsdt tables.
So I found a corrected table for my laptop and suspend/resume now works. But I was interested as to why a manufacturer would supply a DSDT that didnt follow the specs. And heres what I found:
The ACPI standard is rather complicated, almost as if it was disigned to be hard to implement. Checking to find who the major players in defining the specification, I find my fist clue: "Conceived by Intel, Microsoft and Toshiba"
So why would they create such a complicated specification? My next clue was that Microsoft was the developer of one of two major 3DSDT compilers.
It appears that the DSDT compiler Microsoft created is very forgiving of errors that other compilers (such as from Intel) would flag.
I don't believe it is coincidence that the parts of the ACPI specification parsed strictly by the Microsoft compiler are those needed by Microsoft operating systems.
So Microsoft create a complicated specification, probably taking care to leave out important implementation details. Then they ship a compiler for the specification that only checks parts of the specification used by their own software. And thats why Linux has issues with suspend/resume on some hardware.
Not only that, but the spare "cores" can become CPUs or IO channels. Also, with parrallel sysplex, you can shunt work between boxes on-the-fly. This means you can steal your test or other non-essential systems for mission-critical work.
I dont know whether this is possible with zLinux partitions, as alot of the moving about of stuff is very much a z/OS function, I.e. done by the OS, not the hardware or virtualisation.
Having seen some internal development practices round here, internal apps that don't play well with Firefox also don't play well with IE7. In particular, fonts have changed, and several subtle workarounds for IE6 have been broken.
I guess IT departments will stay at IE6 for as long as possible, but eventually something will have to give, and an upgrade to Firefox will be as good as an upgrade to IE7, particularly as IE6 and Firefox can co-exist, whereas IE6/IE7 are mutually exclusive.
Dumb mods. For their education, this thread is about usability issues caused by increasingly wide screens and the inability of old-media to break out of a narrow-columns mindset. TFA links to a website designed to be taller than it is wider, and that website is showing a monitor that is very much wider than it is tall. This is irony of a very mild sort.
The problem is that huge lines of text aren't practical to read - after some experimentally verifiable length, it's too far for your eye to follow down back to the start of the next line.
Somewhere about 15 words per line is optimum. It cuts both ways, as making lines too short increases eyeball 'flyback', which reduces reading speeds and hinders comprehension.
Things get even worse when you have to re-aquire you position in a document after scrolling text into view.
Go to the BBC, who show as little as 4 words per line. Note how they actually cause line breaks in the top and most popular stories columns.
Now go to Ars where they have 3 strips of banner across the top, meaning I have to scroll them off the screen to see an article posted 2 hours ago. Also see how the middle column causes flyback at about 5 words, making scanning the text harder. Many readers simply will not bother to look at content that is in too narrow a column.
Now worship at Jakob's Altar See how its far easier to read with the wider columns. The actual articles are shown absent of sidebars, at about 15 words/line.
That's why I didn't bother buying a widescreen monitor - mostly I'm reading or writing, with some gaming and TV watching. For reading, the vertical pixels are much more useful, since they let you see more on the screen at a time. Perhaps if we begun to see webbrowsers which displayed two consecutive pages side-by-side then we'd be on to something, but 1440 pixels divided into two page widths is a measly 720 pixels each, minus borders and scroll bars. Even a midrange 1600 pixel widescreen sets you back to the days of 800x600.
Im at 2080x1024, and some web pages and applications that were designed on an A4 pad suffer usability issues. In particular, PDF documents and Excel seem determined to show as little on the screen as possible. This is just going to get worse as screens get wider.
These guys (disclaimer: I'm not one of them and in fact haven't owned any stock for over 20 years) always say that you should pick a stock with a dividends to price ratio if ten to one or better.
TMF employs several contributors who espouse several differnt investment approaches, and also runs many discussion boards where many investment strategies are discussed.
Many of the strategies are yield or value based, and indeed Microsoft (or any other company trading at a high P/E) would be unlikely to appear as a recommended share for HYP or value strategies.
Some strategies are growth based, which means looking at companies and analysing whether they are likely to improve profits. It is entirely feasible that MSFT would get recommended at some point by TMF followers of growth or recovery strategies. However, most growth strategies focus on small companies as these are simpler to analyse.
FWIW, I have an HYP portfolio as proposed by TMFPyad on the Fool UK site.
As an aside, I see we are dealing with yet another IIS server. What is it with IIS installations and dodgy security?
You are either trolling or know nothing of web security. This kind of vulnerability is caused by a lack of code in the web application - it has nothing to do with the web server or platform. There should be code present to check that the credentials of the logged on user are valid to access the data that is requested - in this case that code is missing.
It is a very common vulnerability and is the fault of the web developers who wrote and tested the code, this class of vulnerability can exist on any platform from IIS to PHP on Apache to JSP on proprietary platforms.
I know this type of problem can occur on any platform. But the fact remains that most security fubars this year have occurred on IIS hosted sites. I suspect its something to do with the type of organisation that defaults to solutions pedalled by the big vendors, I.E. organisations with weak IT departments.
Mods missed the point, all 3 of the sites listed in the article appear to be using Apache or similar on the front page. IIS is more often associated with IT meltdown and security breaches (Monster.com, etc).
And the author misses some important info. The front page loads OK, but search and payments are slow. Its not the web servers that are the problem, but the backend database and transaction systems. These are going to be stuff like DB2 on IBM mainframes, high-end Oracle systems, or 3rd party transaction processing systems (like Visa and Mastercard).
Its just the web equivalent of the wait I had at the petrol station last week. It took 2 tries and 2 minutes to get my card accepted and debited. Not the stations fault, its just that every Visa payment goes via Basingstoke, and if Basingstoke is busy everyone has to wait.
More interestingly, www.newegg.com runs IIS and the front page is still loading slowly.
My last remark in that comment was based on my immediate perception of the USA from Europe, sorry.
Hmmm... Let's list the first nation with an emission test for vehicles. (California 1966, USA 1968)
How about the first legislation on auto manufacturers for fuel efficiency (USA 1975)
Now, just to be sure, let's list the top five carbon emitting nations - per capita.
Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Luxembourg, Trinidad and Tobago (weird)
I hope this helps to change your perception. Granted, some of our policies are misguided, or downright stupid, but that's a lot different than intentionally negligent.
And lets observe that the top 9 have a population of about 12million, and are all island, desert or city states.
Let us also observe that the major European states (UK, Germany, France, Spain) all have half the per-capita figures of the USA.
The reason the US eneacted those laws before Europe is because Europe was going for small and efficient anyway (E.g. by producing the Mini and VW beetle, and there was already pressures on fuel efficiency via fuel taxes and fuel rationing (during the war).
This attempt at spinning the figures, plus trying to shift the focus away from yourselves and small countries, most of whom are producing oil for the industrialised nations anyway, will only reinforce many perceptions about Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the ars comments:
memory usage was one of the biggest reasons i went from FF to IEOn the graph, IE has a smaller footprint and no evidence of memory leaks.
Its also obvious from the graph that those FF2 being a leaky ol' memory hog are spot on the money.
We should go through the comments here on slashdot and make sure all those complaining about FF2 memory use have the meaning of the slope and shapes on these graphs carefully explained to them.
Not so much of a problem for me, either its working, as in playing a DVD or whatnot and your attention is focused on whatever you are doing/watching, or 'hdparm -S5 /dev/hdb' has been my friend and parked the thing (but beware, KDE likes to access the hd, so log off). I guess an in-bedroom system that comes alive at night with torrents and podcasts might be a problem.
Why was it a binary choice? Plenty of companies have released games that run natively on Win, Lin and Mac, or run successfully under Wine or Cedega.
If you were telling programmers that you were going to target Linux and only Linux, I'm not surprised that they took one look at your plans and were deafened by the alarm bells.
It does sound like many in-store customers, who probably have zero knowledge of computers and have only brand recognition to guide them, simply wern't going to take a punt on an unknown brand. Perhaps some also returned them after discovering that they wouldn't run Word or play some games.
Online, however, you can phone a relative, or ask someone knowledgeable before buying, and its not a wasted trip to the store.
I had a similar problem with Mandriva and mythbuntu, it is possibly the install using video modes unsupported by the monitor.
I used drakx11 to get things working
For most journeys, a car is overboard. But they dominate the transport infrastructure because:
Clearly, those are water channels running into the crater.
Obviously at some point Mercury was hollow and covered by an ocean, then an asteroid hits, punctures the surface, and the ocean drains into the center of the planet, creating the channels we see today.
Now, I know there are those who will say "but liquid water cant exist that close to the sun".
Well, to those people I say "Its not called Mercury for nothing".
Phoenix were not involved in the 1.0 specifications.
Phoenix was involved in the 1.0 spec, regardless of what that PDF says. Most of the work for ACPI was done by Intel and Phoenix.
Your assertion is simply not backed up by available evidence. The best I can find is that Phoenix "contributed" to the 1.0 spec, and produced BIOSes that implemented the early specs. There is no evidence I can find that Phoenix was a leading player in the 1.0 spec. Perhaps you could supply some evidence?
Microsoft were not getting "broken DSDT tables" from manufacturers. Microsoft were shipping software that generated broken DSDT tables.
Do you even know what a DSDT table is? It's a compiled table that describes the system. It's written in a custom language called ASL (ACPI Source Language) and is compiled into AML (ACPI Machine Language) by the compiler. Back in 1998 Microsoft was sent broken ASL from the manufacturers that would not compile unless they tweaked the compiler. If they DIDN'T tweak the compiler ACPI features would not work in Windows (just like they don't work in Linux). What the fuck were they supposed to do?
Nowadays, manufacturers just compile the DSDT tables themselves using MS' compiler, instead of Intel's, because it's EASIER. Once again, how is this the fault of Microsoft? The manufacturers certainly CAN write proper ASL source and they CAN compile them with the more stringent Intel compiler. The fact they the choose not to do so is NOT MICROSOFT'S FAULT. It certainly CAN be done, presumably Apple did this for MacOS.
"Microsoft was sent broken ASL from the manufacturers" makes no sense at all. You are suggesting that manufacturers sent ASL tables to Microsoft for them to compile into binaries, which get sent back to the manufacturer. This picture is utterly wrong.
Microsoft and Intel produced compilers that the manufacturers download. Intel's compiler was written correctly, and gave error messages so that the manufacturers could correct the ASL source and recompile. Microsoft's compiler appears to have been designed to only flag faults that were significant to Microsoft's own OS, and I have supplied evidence that this may have been done on purpose, instigated at board level within Microsoft.
Intel's compiler is available Unix and Linux systems. Linux uses the Intel tools (to create fixed DSDTs), as well as its own code for implementing ACPI functionality.
I would imagine that Apple used Intel's compiler as it would probably work for OSX. Its also very apparent that installing OS-X on non-apple approved hardware will result in exactly the same issues as Linux finds, specifically a series of hardware problems as Apple's AppleACPIPlatform driver trips over buggy DSDT tables.
You will have to supply evidence that using Microsoft's compiler is easier, as both a trivial downloads, and I have used iasl on Linux with no hardships. You will also have to supply evidence that manufacturers are moving to Microsoft's compiler, as my feeling (I cant find evidence either way) is that the big players are moving to iasl as they start offering Linux. I know Compaq used the Microsoft ASL compiler, and clearly people stopped buying their kit for some reason.
I guess I'm saying that it's incumbent upon the Linux people to work around the problems in MS' compiler by re-implementing ACPI in Linux, make their own compiler, or convince the manufacturers to write proper ASL.
Linux has been working around the problem, by supplying corrected DSDT tables where appropriate, and blacklisting ACPI on unfixable hardware.
Bitching about MS doesn't accomplish any
I'm not convinced IE7 is better. I find IE7 crashes alot more than IE6, and things are pretty ugly, as well as slower.
I suspect they just wedged more features into IE6 to get IE7, without addressing underlying architectural and memory management issues.
Just in case a casual reader passes by here and thinks you are not a misinformed troll.
Phoenix were not involved in the 1.0 specifications.
Microsoft were very much involved in attempting to create a windows specific specification.
You have no idea what you're talking about. If the manufacturers made PROPER DSDT tables they would work just fine with Microsoft's compiler. Microsoft tweaked their compiler to deal with all the broken DSDT tables they were getting from the manufacturers (particularly the the Taiwanese manufacturers), NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. That's a FACT.
This shows a complete ignorance on what a compiler does.
Compilers are supposed to throw out messages when they detect an error. Microsoft's compiler only threw out errors if it was part of the specification that Microsoft's OS needed.
Microsoft were not getting "broken DSDT tables" from manufacturers. Microsoft were shipping software that generated broken DSDT tables.
Sure the manufacturers are lazy, but it still remains that Microsoft lead the development of a hard to implement standard, and then supply substandard tools to aid the use of the standard.
Except Microsoft were unlikely to have been 'lazy' about producing a substandard compiler, but actively seeking to cause manufacturers to create hardware that did not play nice with non-Microsoft operating systems.
I run Linux, but one of the things I'm least happy about is the horrible support for power management. None of the sleep, hibernate, etc., options work on my machine at all.
I once had a problem with this, and decided to investigate.
So I went through the forums and found that the problem was that the manufacturer of the laptop supplies a dsdt table that does not follow the published standards for dsdt tables.
So I found a corrected table for my laptop and suspend/resume now works. But I was interested as to why a manufacturer would supply a DSDT that didnt follow the specs. And heres what I found:
So Microsoft create a complicated specification, probably taking care to leave out important implementation details. Then they ship a compiler for the specification that only checks parts of the specification used by their own software. And thats why Linux has issues with suspend/resume on some hardware.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Not only that, but the spare "cores" can become CPUs or IO channels. Also, with parrallel sysplex, you can shunt work between boxes on-the-fly. This means you can steal your test or other non-essential systems for mission-critical work.
I dont know whether this is possible with zLinux partitions, as alot of the moving about of stuff is very much a z/OS function, I.e. done by the OS, not the hardware or virtualisation.
Having seen some internal development practices round here, internal apps that don't play well with Firefox also don't play well with IE7. In particular, fonts have changed, and several subtle workarounds for IE6 have been broken.
I guess IT departments will stay at IE6 for as long as possible, but eventually something will have to give, and an upgrade to Firefox will be as good as an upgrade to IE7, particularly as IE6 and Firefox can co-exist, whereas IE6/IE7 are mutually exclusive.
Dumb mods. For their education, this thread is about usability issues caused by increasingly wide screens and the inability of old-media to break out of a narrow-columns mindset. TFA links to a website designed to be taller than it is wider, and that website is showing a monitor that is very much wider than it is tall. This is irony of a very mild sort.
The problem is that huge lines of text aren't practical to read - after some experimentally verifiable length, it's too far for your eye to follow down back to the start of the next line.Somewhere about 15 words per line is optimum. It cuts both ways, as making lines too short increases eyeball 'flyback', which reduces reading speeds and hinders comprehension.
Things get even worse when you have to re-aquire you position in a document after scrolling text into view.
Go to the BBC, who show as little as 4 words per line. Note how they actually cause line breaks in the top and most popular stories columns.
Now go to Ars where they have 3 strips of banner across the top, meaning I have to scroll them off the screen to see an article posted 2 hours ago. Also see how the middle column causes flyback at about 5 words, making scanning the text harder. Many readers simply will not bother to look at content that is in too narrow a column.
Now worship at Jakob's Altar See how its far easier to read with the wider columns. The actual articles are shown absent of sidebars, at about 15 words/line.
That's why I didn't bother buying a widescreen monitor - mostly I'm reading or writing, with some gaming and TV watching. For reading, the vertical pixels are much more useful, since they let you see more on the screen at a time. Perhaps if we begun to see webbrowsers which displayed two consecutive pages side-by-side then we'd be on to something, but 1440 pixels divided into two page widths is a measly 720 pixels each, minus borders and scroll bars. Even a midrange 1600 pixel widescreen sets you back to the days of 800x600.Im at 2080x1024, and some web pages and applications that were designed on an A4 pad suffer usability issues. In particular, PDF documents and Excel seem determined to show as little on the screen as possible. This is just going to get worse as screens get wider.
So will Gizmodo take a hint and develop a website that looks good in a short and wide window?
I get sick of having to scroll vertically stacked content into view when I'm on a wide-screen display.
Maybe someone could memo the BBC and Ars about this too.
Trains are also risky for critical scheduled services.
Many countries have continual problems with rail strikes.
Thats why the Thatcher government encouraged road transport, much harder to disrupt.
TMF employs several contributors who espouse several differnt investment approaches, and also runs many discussion boards where many investment strategies are discussed.
Many of the strategies are yield or value based, and indeed Microsoft (or any other company trading at a high P/E) would be unlikely to appear as a recommended share for HYP or value strategies.
Some strategies are growth based, which means looking at companies and analysing whether they are likely to improve profits. It is entirely feasible that MSFT would get recommended at some point by TMF followers of growth or recovery strategies. However, most growth strategies focus on small companies as these are simpler to analyse.
FWIW, I have an HYP portfolio as proposed by TMFPyad on the Fool UK site.
I've done some careful research on this, and I believe the Africans got to Africa before the Europeans.
I'd like opengl in the GIMP layers dialog, to expand the layers in a 3D/isometric view.
It is a very common vulnerability and is the fault of the web developers who wrote and tested the code, this class of vulnerability can exist on any platform from IIS to PHP on Apache to JSP on proprietary platforms.
I know this type of problem can occur on any platform. But the fact remains that most security fubars this year have occurred on IIS hosted sites. I suspect its something to do with the type of organisation that defaults to solutions pedalled by the big vendors, I.E. organisations with weak IT departments.
The article you link to was published yesterday. Exactly how recent does news have to be to escape your oldnews epithet?
As an aside, I see we are dealing with yet another IIS server. What is it with IIS installations and dodgy security?
Mods missed the point, all 3 of the sites listed in the article appear to be using Apache or similar on the front page. IIS is more often associated with IT meltdown and security breaches (Monster.com, etc).
And the author misses some important info. The front page loads OK, but search and payments are slow. Its not the web servers that are the problem, but the backend database and transaction systems. These are going to be stuff like DB2 on IBM mainframes, high-end Oracle systems, or 3rd party transaction processing systems (like Visa and Mastercard).
Its just the web equivalent of the wait I had at the petrol station last week. It took 2 tries and 2 minutes to get my card accepted and debited. Not the stations fault, its just that every Visa payment goes via Basingstoke, and if Basingstoke is busy everyone has to wait.
More interestingly, www.newegg.com runs IIS and the front page is still loading slowly.
Get a couple of USB external drives. Put an encrypted filesystem on them. rsync your data onto them, and image your windows partitions onto them.
keep. them. off. site.
Using a NAS storage device in the same building as your primary data is just putting all of your eggs in a bigger basket.
Hmmm... Let's list the first nation with an emission test for vehicles. (California 1966, USA 1968)
How about the first legislation on auto manufacturers for fuel efficiency (USA 1975)
Now, just to be sure, let's list the top five carbon emitting nations - per capita.
Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Luxembourg, Trinidad and Tobago (weird)
I hope this helps to change your perception. Granted, some of our policies are misguided, or downright stupid, but that's a lot different than intentionally negligent.
Actually, lets list them all
And lets observe that the top 9 have a population of about 12million, and are all island, desert or city states.
Let us also observe that the major European states (UK, Germany, France, Spain) all have half the per-capita figures of the USA.
The reason the US eneacted those laws before Europe is because Europe was going for small and efficient anyway (E.g. by producing the Mini and VW beetle, and there was already pressures on fuel efficiency via fuel taxes and fuel rationing (during the war).
This attempt at spinning the figures, plus trying to shift the focus away from yourselves and small countries, most of whom are producing oil for the industrialised nations anyway, will only reinforce many perceptions about Americans.