While SPAM is really anoying there seems to be lack of proportion between the fines or penalties compared to other crimes. SecurityFocus has a column on that:
As the benefit to US citizens would far outweigh the detriments, the US government has no right to ratify the treaty.
What do you mean no right. The US government has every right to sign international treaties, there is no constitutional right that is being violated, there is no human right being violated. Does the state have the right to regulate smoking in public places?
Overall the economy would become weaker, since we would have to spend resources reducing our emissions of CO2... The immediate impact would likely be skyrocketing energy prices leading to stagflation...
No, the investments will spur development of new businesses. It will move spending from oil to sustainable technology. It may ofcourse lead to stagnation in the oil industry. Secondly you seem to be arguing that US will make transition any time later when there is no more oil. Obviously rapid transition is more costly and has greater impact on economy. You are arguing against taking preemptive steps and securing american lifestyle on a longer perspective because it will hurt you right here and now.
Kyoto is overly focussed on CO2. If we lower our CO2 emissions at the expense of other environmental pollution (like radioactive contamination), which will almost surely be required in order to come into compliance...
Apparently you have a short memory, the whole thread has been focused on increasing efficiency, this means NOT replacing one energy source by another, but reducing the need for energy. By reducing energy consumption you will not have to by CO2 quotas from other countries either.
Secondly, Kyoto was never meant to be the final solution to world environmental problems. It is the first international agreement trying to set up a frame for negotiation and development. By blocking this US is effectively blocking further international coorperation.
From outside this very much confirms the image of US as "international agreements are OK, as long as it is about you agreeing with us", which completely undermines US credibility. When US refused to accept any international agreement arrived at by democratic negotiation and vote it makes US talks about freedom and democracy rather hull. This neglicience of respect for other countries spurs anti-american movements, boycot of american goods, ritual descruction of american businesses and symbols etc.
The problem is that it would cost too much to solve this.
You have been accusing me for presenting flawed reasoning, bad data, rough calculations and crude assumptions etc. Yet you do not hessitate to present completely undocumented claims with no backing reasoning what so ever.
What is "too much"? Investing in improved efficiency never pays of on short term, that investment pays of due to the savings in the years to come. If your time span is sufficiently short you will always end up that investments does not pay of, this is simply short sighted and appears mostly to be the easy way of discarding evident problems. Secondly, when "calculating" the "cost" did you take into account the losses due to the world turning away from supporting american goods and products?
It appears to me that you are more against "whatever" for the sake of being against.
Wouldn't consumption be a measure of the output, and production be a measure of the input?
I certainly understand that US opose to the Kyoto protocol if this is how you interpret those words:-) You have it exactly reversed, maybe consult a dictionary or the wikipedia.
EN: "However, I do not believe that these differences are so big that they disqualify my conclusion"
Based on what? Just raw speculation?
Yes, I thought that 60% better effeciency in EU would leave enough room to errors that these should not alter my overall conclusion. I didn't write a docterate.
I think you're trying to enforce your own particular view of quality of life, and I don't think that is appropriate, at least not in this particular situation.
You mentioned the SUV as a quality of life which is highly subjective. I wrote my subjective opinion on that. I think that was clear from my choice of words. I did also refer to a more objective qualities of life: "not being killed in trafic". I think "not being killed" is a quite universal quality of life - but that may just be everywhere else in the world. BTW: Be carefull about accusing others for imposing their point of view on US. It may boomerang.
My issue was with your framing of the situation as one where we were wasting energy for no reason.
I do not indicate that US is burning oil for the sake of getting rid of it. I argue that there are likely huge benefits to be gained by investing in more efficient technology. Refusing to upgrade to more efficient technology when such alternatives exists does however indicate deliberate wastefull behaviour. I am aware that such investments are allways subject to a cost benefit analisys - when will the investment pay back?
Europe has been investing hugely in this, I will not make the claim that this investment alone accounts for the better efficiency, but I do claim that it accounts for some of the better efficiency.
I am suggesting that US could follow a more proactive policy for the benefit of all instead of just rejecting any international agreement that will influence US domestic politics.
Everyone will benefit: US economy will become stronger, more competitive and less dependent on oil imports. World environment will benefit - even if the impact at first is neglicible. US will gain credibility as world leader and be able to rebuild aliances - currently this credibility is close to non-existent.
I assume you made a typo somewhere there, because that sentence doesn't make logical sense. If you cut consumption, and maintain the production level, then you've decreased efficiency.
OK, there you lost me. Improved efficiency means that you increase the output for the same input. Equivalently, you can decrease input and maintain same output. I argue that this is in fact posible.
My assumptions would be that A) there are real differences between Europe and the United States such as population density and B) Americans don't value energy conservation as highly as Europeans which in its essense is a quality of life issue. We like SUVs.
My numbers are crude estimates and so are my assumptions, I did not make a scientific investigation, nor did I claim that. However I believe that my result is so significant that the overall conclusion still holds - even if you make the scientific investigation and calculate to 10th decimal accuracy. Just to take an example: Since the dollar has lost about 30% its value over the last two years, this actually means that EU economy has grown 30% from US perspective. This adds in favour of my conclusion.
A) There are real differences, I don't deny that, in particular when it comes to the need for transport and infrastructure. However, I do not believe that these differences are so big that they disqualify my conclusion: That investment in improved efficiency can take US far.
B) Getting from point A to point B is a necesity, getting there in a SUV is not. SUV's and 4x4's have their place in special conditions, but are not the inteligent choice for normal transportation. I do not consider lack of SUV's to be a significant decrease of quality of life. In fact, roads become safer without SUV's and I consider lack of road kills an increase in life quality (I can agree to call it a tie if you insist:-)
Improving efficiency should not be restricted to industries. Each consumer has a responsibility before the world when making a choice and considering the environmental impact of the choice should not be neglected from that responsibility.
Government can aid the consumer making good choices by informing the consumer and by favoring the better product or penalizing the bad through taxes. This is often the only way that consumption can move towards more sustainable products since poluting usually pais on short term. In Europe gas price is 3-4 times times that in US, which explains why SUV's are not so popular.
Moving the rest of the world into the 21st century at the expense of increased CO2 production? I'm not convinced this would be a bad thing.
Well, even if CO2 is not a problem, if you did base such a transition on fosil fuel, gas prices would sky-rocket as demand would 4-5 double, hence bringing your lifestyle (and SUV) under significant pressure. For this reason US has a huge interest in keeping the poor countries poor - in fact, an american (republican) I met claimed that the whole point of the Iraq war was to keep China from getting access to oil to fuel the industrial development.
Please read the whole post, you seem to indicate that I suggest US should cut energy consumption to 20% of current level and hence also cut production.
The whole point of my post is that US can cut energy consumption AND maintain current production level by investing in efficient production methods. I have assumed that US and EU are comparable in economic and industrial development, quality of life etc.
The Bush administration has actively supported ineffective production in US by adding special taxes on steel imports to protect ineffective american industry.
This was a popular move because it saved jobs in the steel industry, what is less known is that it cost more jobs in the car manufacturing industry due to higher prices and hence reduced sale.
EU has invested hugely to improve efficiency and was outcompeeting US industry. The import tax was ruled illegal by the WTO, and resulted in counter meassures, hurting american industry - again.
Many ask, why do US have to reduce emissions and China or India not? Well, there you have it, if the whole world consumed the amount same of energy per person as US, the consumption would 5-double.
Just to compare, EU represents about 6% of the world population, and consumes 16% of the worlds energy, hence the average european consumes only 40% of the energy resources of the average american. China, about 25% of the world population consumes 10% of the energy. (see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/euro.html)
Comparing the EU and US economies, they are about equal size. This means european energy to money conversion is about 40% more effective than US. Taking into account the larger population of Europe the production per capita is about 65% of US, but the average efficiency per capita (that is the conversion of energy to money per capita) is some 60% better (consuming 40 units of the energy to produce 65 units of value).
In other words, US can do a lot to improve efficiency! If US were as efficient as EU, US would maintain BNP and comply with Kyoto.
So what's the problem? Who has the interest of keeping US production inefficient?
The short answer: If it's supported it just works. The general question is if your particular piece of hardware is supported. If you're going to buy check a few nics if they are supported, and ask for any end user experiences.
The recent 5.x FreeBSD includes what's known as "The Evil Project" - it's code that allows use of Windows NDIS drivers when no native drivers are available. This is not totally straight forward, but it should be a working alternative. I think it is being ported to other BSD's and even Linux.
Generally, due to the momentum/hype of Linux manufacturers are begining to distribute binary linux drivers, while ignoring BSD. For this reason you may find hardware supported on Linux, not supported on BSD.
However, it is my impression that it is mostly inexpensive crap that isn't supported anyway. Stay away from D-Link.
1) Haven't tried NetBSD or Dragonfly. But, I think FreeBSD is by far the general purpose server OS, and also I believe the easiest to pick up coming from Linux.
2) If I am not completely wrong, then you can mount ext3 as ext2 with the price of not having the journaling. If so, your file system will be mountable as ext2 under FreeBSD.
He he, OK I admit, this is getting off topic, but since you mention the polls outside US. In Denmark a major danish newspaper has made a poll and the result is not surprisingly 81% for Kerry.
What is surprising though is that Ralph Nader 8% is more popular than Bush - and even "none of the above" is more popular, 6%. Bush gets only 5%. I don't know if this can be extrapolated into Denmark prefers US without a president rather than Bush...?
Was this some sort of ironic post? All your blames against the enviro-extremists, can be equally repeated. Negate through your own post and you have pretty much what can be said about the ignorant american techno fanatism that works to destroy the world for its own benefit claiming that if you can earn money then it must be good.
Just to compare, EU represents about 6% of the world population, and consumes 16% of the worlds energy - the average european consumes only 40% of the energy resources of the average american. China, about 25% of the world population consumes 10% of the energy. (see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/euro.html)
Comparing the EU and US economies, they are about equal size. This means european energy to money conversion is about 40% more effective than US. Taking into account the larger population of Europe the production per capita is about 65% of US, but the average efficiency per capita (that is the conversion of energy to money per capita) is some 60% better (consuming 40 units of the energy to produce 65 units of value).
In other words, US can do a lot to improve efficiency!
Continuing with status quo, America has a lot to loose if the world should even out the energy consumption to countries like China, India and the rest of the developing countries.
If everyone in the world consume the same ammount of energy as the average american then the consumption would 5-double. This is both far beyond sustainable consumption and production capacity. If the rest of the world get such access to energy resources, prices would skyrocket and this would put the american lifestyle under pressure.
This is why american anti-enviro extremists regard any movement towards sustainable development as anti-american. US has a huge interest in keeping the rest of the world poor.
I met a guy - he claimed to be internationally minded because he had a stamp in his passport - he was republican, and told me that going into Iraq was a brilliant move. Not because US needed the energy, but because there were plans building a pipeline from China. So the war was really about preventing other potential consumers getting access, or put another way, keep developing countries poor. "Brilliant", he said.
Appaerently you think it is unfair that others get a piece of the cake. This is why people favoring a sustainable development regard american policies as anti-world, and this also explains why americans are becomming increasingly less popular if at all welcome in the rest of the world.
The american lifestyle is not sustainable and the only way that the world as a whole can become a better place is if America gives up wasting energy and resources.
I'm European, I'm not particular anti-american, I'm just pro-world.
Let me give you an example: It has been comfirmed by numerous studies that sunbathing increases the risk of skin cancer due to the ultraviolet radiation in normal sunlight.
Earlier this year, I read about a new study: "Sunbathing topless increases the risk of cancer on the breast."
First, this headline can easily create worries that we are talking about breast cancer which has a much higher mortality rate - typical journalists trying to push things into sensations.
Secondly, reading the article, it was about skin cancer. Given the previous studies, this is simply not surprising at all.
This is no-news or obvious science: If increased exposure to ultraviolet light increases the risk of skin cancer on the exposed areas, then sunbathing topless (hence exposing the breasts to increased ultraviolet radiation) increases the risk of skin cancer on the breasts. It would have been absolutely breaking new science if the oposite conclusion were found, but it was not.
Unfortunately there are tons of this kind of studies that blur the public information and education.
True, there exists basic statements where the proof may not be that straight forward, if it exists at all. But the existence of such example does not exclude the existense of obvious science as you state.
It is amazing that there are people getting paid for stating the very obvious. I can't help thinking of Douglas Adams' theory that people need to state and repeat the very obvious or else their brain might start working.
So, to the list:
* High intake of any substance, exceeding some limit, will kill you.
* Low intake of some substances will kill you.
* It is generally not a good idea to be where the plane crashes.
* You may die from other causes than planes crashing on you.
* Nuclear weapons may be dangerous in the hands of kids (needs futher experimental confirmation).
1. OSCE has no legal power to decide the validity of the election - true. What OSCE can do is to decide wether the rest of the world should respect the outcome. The OSCE will affect the future presidents posibility of (re-)building relations with foreign countries.
2. The involvement of OSCE reflects an increased interest in the american election. Take a look at www.betavote.com. The rest of the world can't vote, yet the outcome has a huge impact on the state of security and future development or regress. The only thing that can be done is to make sure that the presidential election can be trusted and hence that the president elected is legitimate. If not, there will be no basis to build international relations - or it will be the same as that of Pres. Kabila in the so called democratic republic of Congo (sorry).
3. The claim that USA is the worlds oldest and most stable democracy may be a problem because USA is caught in ancient laws and regulations that are not appropriate for a modern democracy. Spain is one of the newer democracies of Europe and the only to have the human rights as part of the constitution. Human rights did not exist when you wrote your constitution - nor when we did some 70 years later (DK).
Excactly what do you mean by that? The only correct answer to the question would be a binary single digit number. Even Microsoft users would most often reply 0.
Something more accurate would be: "How many times in the last year have you been faced with a problem due to a flaw in the code (and not your configuration)?"
But - I get your point:-) at least I think...
Then your sig:
> Being a girl should get my posts moderated up > regardless of how inane they are, right? I > mean... I'm a girl.."
I think that you should be modded up if: A) you write something intelligent or B) you are a girl.
To prove A simply post an intelligent comment. To prove B post a DNA analysis that proves you have not been contaminated with Y-chromosomes, and remember also to proof that it is YOUR DNA profile.
Do whichever you find the easiest, and I am sure you will get some good karma;-)
First, I browsed the ietf-list discussion initated by Richard Stallmans post. One states that the group has made Microsoft aware that the licence is not acceptable, and Microsoft must resolve these issues.
AFAIK the licence terms presented are not final, and I assume that Apache and Debian rejects the Sender-ID licence in its current form.
Secondly, Sendmail is working to support it. Will this mean that Sendmail will no longer be Open Source?
Lastly, I recall some recent post stating that many spam mails now produce valid sender ID. If spammers include valid sender ID's there is really not much use of this technology in the first place, why bother to addopt it?
First: The original subject actually mentions a comparison of FreeBSD vs. Linux stating:
Andre claims that FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps.
While the pure anouncement is indeed purely FreeBSD - and not OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin or Linux, the comparison was founded at the very top.
Second: I was offended by the part quoted from the previous post. It is nothing special to do comparisons, we all do it all the time. But some advocates are hugely annoyed when the comparison is not in their favor.
A previous post wrote "This stems from their Linux envy, and their hounding desire for their operating system to be *better* than something, rather than just being satisfied with it being good in its own right."
My "This all stems from the Windows envy because Linux will never become as popular..." is a complete analogy - just with a change of names. I wrote it in anoyance that some of these advocates appears to reserve the right to lobbyism and advocacy.
Finally, my end line: "who cares about inferior systems as long as you are not using them?:-)". First, note the smiley. Second, this can be used by anyone regardless of which system you use. You have the freedom to choose, and assuming you make the best choice for you, why do you put so much energy into whatever is irrelevant to your system? Let people choose whatever you think is inferior, the freedom to choose includes the right to make a bad choice from whichever perspective you have.
I agree with you that the thread is largely throwing mud against whoever throws mud at you. Before you mud me down:-) - note that I abstained from participating in that part of the game - my previous post was intended to throw oil on the water.
This stems from their Linux envy, and their hounding desire for their operating system to be *better* than something, rather than just being satisfied with it being good in its own right.
As if it is specific to BSD to do a comparison. AFAIK linux advocates spends a lot of resources proving that linux is better, more secure, cheaper, etc. than certain comercial products.
And if certain vendors present studies that proves otherwise, these same advocates will imidiately claim that the studies were conducted to arrive at a certain conclusion.
This all stems from the Windows envy because Linux will never become as popular...
Well, I use FreeBSD - who cares about inferior systems as long as you are not using them?:-)
I think that the developing countries in this area have a real advantage: Since the dependency of IT in the public sector is far behind the industrial countries, they have not been locked in! They have the full freedom to choose without having to consider huge migration costs.
Microsoft is aware of this, I guess that's why they have made light versions available in some asian countries and are planning to sell this product in more countries. Also, they will probably benefit from the lockin due to software piracy.
Even if pirate copies are available, or Microsoft offers software for free, there are numerous examples of developing countries taking a step in direction of OSS. They have seen the long term consequences of M$ lockin.
Since we're at it, let's just once and for all finish the job, lets kill all those who don't shave them selves, and all those who shaves those who don't shave them selves, and all those who don't shave, and...
If we have a good extintion program, we'll only have polar bears left when we're done...
I'm a polar bear.
Fair enough, so they spend millions misleading people through their advertisment, how about they spend the same amount denouncing their adds in the same media: "We are sorry, we lied to you... Microsoft".
Slashdot Mirror
Multiply by 1.36 to get USD.
While SPAM is really anoying there seems to be lack of proportion between the fines or penalties compared to other crimes. SecurityFocus has a column on that:
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/287
Edgar Codd, mathematician, published in the 70es his paper "A relational model of data for large Shared Data Banks":
http://www.acm.org/classics/nov95/toc.html
SQL was then developed by Chamberlin and Ray Boyce. I see them all absent from the list.
As the benefit to US citizens would far outweigh the detriments, the US government has no right to ratify the treaty.
What do you mean no right. The US government has every right to sign international treaties, there is no constitutional right that is being violated, there is no human right being violated. Does the state have the right to regulate smoking in public places?
Overall the economy would become weaker, since we would have to spend resources reducing our emissions of CO2 ... The immediate impact would likely be skyrocketing energy prices leading to stagflation ...
No, the investments will spur development of new businesses. It will move spending from oil to sustainable technology. It may ofcourse lead to stagnation in the oil industry. Secondly you seem to be arguing that US will make transition any time later when there is no more oil. Obviously rapid transition is more costly and has greater impact on economy. You are arguing against taking preemptive steps and securing american lifestyle on a longer perspective because it will hurt you right here and now.
Kyoto is overly focussed on CO2. If we lower our CO2 emissions at the expense of other environmental pollution (like radioactive contamination), which will almost surely be required in order to come into compliance...
Apparently you have a short memory, the whole thread has been focused on increasing efficiency, this means NOT replacing one energy source by another, but reducing the need for energy. By reducing energy consumption you will not have to by CO2 quotas from other countries either.
Secondly, Kyoto was never meant to be the final solution to world environmental problems. It is the first international agreement trying to set up a frame for negotiation and development. By blocking this US is effectively blocking further international coorperation.
From outside this very much confirms the image of US as "international agreements are OK, as long as it is about you agreeing with us", which completely undermines US credibility. When US refused to accept any international agreement arrived at by democratic negotiation and vote it makes US talks about freedom and democracy rather hull. This neglicience of respect for other countries spurs anti-american movements, boycot of american goods, ritual descruction of american businesses and symbols etc.
The problem is that it would cost too much to solve this.
You have been accusing me for presenting flawed reasoning, bad data, rough calculations and crude assumptions etc. Yet you do not hessitate to present completely undocumented claims with no backing reasoning what so ever.
What is "too much"? Investing in improved efficiency never pays of on short term, that investment pays of due to the savings in the years to come. If your time span is sufficiently short you will always end up that investments does not pay of, this is simply short sighted and appears mostly to be the easy way of discarding evident problems. Secondly, when "calculating" the "cost" did you take into account the losses due to the world turning away from supporting american goods and products?
It appears to me that you are more against "whatever" for the sake of being against.
Wouldn't consumption be a measure of the output, and production be a measure of the input?
I certainly understand that US opose to the Kyoto protocol if this is how you interpret those words :-) You have it exactly reversed, maybe consult a dictionary or the wikipedia.
EN: "However, I do not believe that these differences are so big that they disqualify my conclusion"
Based on what? Just raw speculation?
Yes, I thought that 60% better effeciency in EU would leave enough room to errors that these should not alter my overall conclusion. I didn't write a docterate.
I think you're trying to enforce your own particular view of quality of life, and I don't think that is appropriate, at least not in this particular situation.
You mentioned the SUV as a quality of life which is highly subjective. I wrote my subjective opinion on that. I think that was clear from my choice of words. I did also refer to a more objective qualities of life: "not being killed in trafic". I think "not being killed" is a quite universal quality of life - but that may just be everywhere else in the world. BTW: Be carefull about accusing others for imposing their point of view on US. It may boomerang.
My issue was with your framing of the situation as one where we were wasting energy for no reason.
I do not indicate that US is burning oil for the sake of getting rid of it. I argue that there are likely huge benefits to be gained by investing in more efficient technology. Refusing to upgrade to more efficient technology when such alternatives exists does however indicate deliberate wastefull behaviour. I am aware that such investments are allways subject to a cost benefit analisys - when will the investment pay back?
Europe has been investing hugely in this, I will not make the claim that this investment alone accounts for the better efficiency, but I do claim that it accounts for some of the better efficiency.
I am suggesting that US could follow a more proactive policy for the benefit of all instead of just rejecting any international agreement that will influence US domestic politics.
Everyone will benefit: US economy will become stronger, more competitive and less dependent on oil imports. World environment will benefit - even if the impact at first is neglicible. US will gain credibility as world leader and be able to rebuild aliances - currently this credibility is close to non-existent.
I assume you made a typo somewhere there, because that sentence doesn't make logical sense. If you cut consumption, and maintain the production level, then you've decreased efficiency.
OK, there you lost me. Improved efficiency means that you increase the output for the same input. Equivalently, you can decrease input and maintain same output. I argue that this is in fact posible.
My assumptions would be that A) there are real differences between Europe and the United States such as population density and B) Americans don't value energy conservation as highly as Europeans which in its essense is a quality of life issue. We like SUVs.
My numbers are crude estimates and so are my assumptions, I did not make a scientific investigation, nor did I claim that. However I believe that my result is so significant that the overall conclusion still holds - even if you make the scientific investigation and calculate to 10th decimal accuracy. Just to take an example: Since the dollar has lost about 30% its value over the last two years, this actually means that EU economy has grown 30% from US perspective. This adds in favour of my conclusion.
A) There are real differences, I don't deny that, in particular when it comes to the need for transport and infrastructure. However, I do not believe that these differences are so big that they disqualify my conclusion: That investment in improved efficiency can take US far.
B) Getting from point A to point B is a necesity, getting there in a SUV is not. SUV's and 4x4's have their place in special conditions, but are not the inteligent choice for normal transportation. I do not consider lack of SUV's to be a significant decrease of quality of life. In fact, roads become safer without SUV's and I consider lack of road kills an increase in life quality (I can agree to call it a tie if you insist :-)
Improving efficiency should not be restricted to industries. Each consumer has a responsibility before the world when making a choice and considering the environmental impact of the choice should not be neglected from that responsibility.
Government can aid the consumer making good choices by informing the consumer and by favoring the better product or penalizing the bad through taxes. This is often the only way that consumption can move towards more sustainable products since poluting usually pais on short term. In Europe gas price is 3-4 times times that in US, which explains why SUV's are not so popular.
Moving the rest of the world into the 21st century at the expense of increased CO2 production? I'm not convinced this would be a bad thing.
Well, even if CO2 is not a problem, if you did base such a transition on fosil fuel, gas prices would sky-rocket as demand would 4-5 double, hence bringing your lifestyle (and SUV) under significant pressure. For this reason US has a huge interest in keeping the poor countries poor - in fact, an american (republican) I met claimed that the whole point of the Iraq war was to keep China from getting access to oil to fuel the industrial development.
Please read the whole post, you seem to indicate that I suggest US should cut energy consumption to 20% of current level and hence also cut production.
The whole point of my post is that US can cut energy consumption AND maintain current production level by investing in efficient production methods. I have assumed that US and EU are comparable in economic and industrial development, quality of life etc.
The Bush administration has actively supported ineffective production in US by adding special taxes on steel imports to protect ineffective american industry.
This was a popular move because it saved jobs in the steel industry, what is less known is that it cost more jobs in the car manufacturing industry due to higher prices and hence reduced sale.
EU has invested hugely to improve efficiency and was outcompeeting US industry. The import tax was ruled illegal by the WTO, and resulted in counter meassures, hurting american industry - again.
Many ask, why do US have to reduce emissions and China or India not? Well, there you have it, if the whole world consumed the amount same of energy per person as US, the consumption would 5-double.
US has about 4% of the world population, yet consumes more than 25% of world energy production according to this statistics http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1. html
(1998).
Just to compare, EU represents about 6% of the world population, and consumes 16% of the worlds energy, hence the average european consumes only 40% of the energy resources of the average american. China, about 25% of the world population consumes 10% of the energy. (see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/euro.html)
Comparing the EU and US economies, they are about equal size. This means european energy to money conversion is about 40% more effective than US. Taking into account the larger population of Europe the production per capita is about 65% of US, but the average efficiency per capita (that is the conversion of energy to money per capita) is some 60% better (consuming 40 units of the energy to produce 65 units of value).
In other words, US can do a lot to improve efficiency! If US were as efficient as EU, US would maintain BNP and comply with Kyoto.
So what's the problem? Who has the interest of keeping US production inefficient?
a bot President. They are still working on getting the illogical circuits right.
The short answer: If it's supported it just works. The general question is if your particular piece of hardware is supported. If you're going to buy check a few nics if they are supported, and ask for any end user experiences.
The recent 5.x FreeBSD includes what's known as "The Evil Project" - it's code that allows use of Windows NDIS drivers when no native drivers are available. This is not totally straight forward, but it should be a working alternative. I think it is being ported to other BSD's and even Linux.
Generally, due to the momentum/hype of Linux manufacturers are begining to distribute binary linux drivers, while ignoring BSD. For this reason you may find hardware supported on Linux, not supported on BSD.
However, it is my impression that it is mostly inexpensive crap that isn't supported anyway. Stay away from D-Link.
1) Haven't tried NetBSD or Dragonfly. But, I think FreeBSD is by far the general purpose server OS, and also I believe the easiest to pick up coming from Linux.
2) If I am not completely wrong, then you can mount ext3 as ext2 with the price of not having the journaling. If so, your file system will be mountable as ext2 under FreeBSD.
He he, OK I admit, this is getting off topic, but since you mention the polls outside US. In Denmark a major danish newspaper has made a poll and the result is not surprisingly 81% for Kerry.
What is surprising though is that Ralph Nader 8% is more popular than Bush - and even "none of the above" is more popular, 6%. Bush gets only 5%. I don't know if this can be extrapolated into Denmark prefers US without a president rather than Bush...?
Was this some sort of ironic post? All your blames against the enviro-extremists, can be equally repeated. Negate through your own post and you have pretty much what can be said about the ignorant american techno fanatism that works to destroy the world for its own benefit claiming that if you can earn money then it must be good.
. html
America has about 4% of the world population, yet consumes more than 25% of world energy production according to this statistics http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1
(1998).
Just to compare, EU represents about 6% of the world population, and consumes 16% of the worlds energy - the average european consumes only 40% of the energy resources of the average american. China, about 25% of the world population consumes 10% of the energy. (see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/euro.html)
Comparing the EU and US economies, they are about equal size. This means european energy to money conversion is about 40% more effective than US. Taking into account the larger population of Europe the production per capita is about 65% of US, but the average efficiency per capita (that is the conversion of energy to money per capita) is some 60% better (consuming 40 units of the energy to produce 65 units of value).
In other words, US can do a lot to improve efficiency!
Continuing with status quo, America has a lot to loose if the world should even out the energy consumption to countries like China, India and the rest of the developing countries.
If everyone in the world consume the same ammount of energy as the average american then the consumption would 5-double. This is both far beyond sustainable consumption and production capacity. If the rest of the world get such access to energy resources, prices would skyrocket and this would put the american lifestyle under pressure.
This is why american anti-enviro extremists regard any movement towards sustainable development as anti-american. US has a huge interest in keeping the rest of the world poor.
I met a guy - he claimed to be internationally minded because he had a stamp in his passport - he was republican, and told me that going into Iraq was a brilliant move. Not because US needed the energy, but because there were plans building a pipeline from China. So the war was really about preventing other potential consumers getting access, or put another way, keep developing countries poor. "Brilliant", he said.
Appaerently you think it is unfair that others get a piece of the cake. This is why people favoring a sustainable development regard american policies as anti-world, and this also explains why americans are becomming increasingly less popular if at all welcome in the rest of the world.
The american lifestyle is not sustainable and the only way that the world as a whole can become a better place is if America gives up wasting energy and resources.
I'm European, I'm not particular anti-american, I'm just pro-world.
Let me give you an example: It has been comfirmed by numerous studies that sunbathing increases the risk of skin cancer due to the ultraviolet radiation in normal sunlight.
Earlier this year, I read about a new study: "Sunbathing topless increases the risk of cancer on the breast."
First, this headline can easily create worries that we are talking about breast cancer which has a much higher mortality rate - typical journalists trying to push things into sensations.
Secondly, reading the article, it was about skin cancer. Given the previous studies, this is simply not surprising at all.
This is no-news or obvious science: If increased exposure to ultraviolet light increases the risk of skin cancer on the exposed areas, then sunbathing topless (hence exposing the breasts to increased ultraviolet radiation) increases the risk of skin cancer on the breasts. It would have been absolutely breaking new science if the oposite conclusion were found, but it was not.
Unfortunately there are tons of this kind of studies that blur the public information and education.
True, there exists basic statements where the proof may not be that straight forward, if it exists at all. But the existence of such example does not exclude the existense of obvious science as you state.
It is amazing that there are people getting paid for stating the very obvious. I can't help thinking of Douglas Adams' theory that people need to state and repeat the very obvious or else their brain might start working.
So, to the list:
* High intake of any substance, exceeding some limit, will kill you.
* Low intake of some substances will kill you.
* It is generally not a good idea to be where the plane crashes.
* You may die from other causes than planes crashing on you.
* Nuclear weapons may be dangerous in the hands of kids (needs futher experimental confirmation).
1. OSCE has no legal power to decide the validity of the election - true. What OSCE can do is to decide wether the rest of the world should respect the outcome. The OSCE will affect the future presidents posibility of (re-)building relations with foreign countries.
2. The involvement of OSCE reflects an increased interest in the american election. Take a look at www.betavote.com. The rest of the world can't vote, yet the outcome has a huge impact on the state of security and future development or regress. The only thing that can be done is to make sure that the presidential election can be trusted and hence that the president elected is legitimate. If not, there will be no basis to build international relations - or it will be the same as that of Pres. Kabila in the so called democratic republic of Congo (sorry).
3. The claim that USA is the worlds oldest and most stable democracy may be a problem because USA is caught in ancient laws and regulations that are not appropriate for a modern democracy. Spain is one of the newer democracies of Europe and the only to have the human rights as part of the constitution. Human rights did not exist when you wrote your constitution - nor when we did some 70 years later (DK).
total perspective vortex??? (maybe reversed..)
First the funny part:
... right now?
:-) at least I think...
;-)
> How often
Excactly what do you mean by that? The only correct answer to the question would be a binary single digit number. Even Microsoft users would most often reply 0.
Something more accurate would be: "How many times in the last year have you been faced with a problem due to a flaw in the code (and not your configuration)?"
But - I get your point
Then your sig:
> Being a girl should get my posts moderated up
> regardless of how inane they are, right? I
> mean... I'm a girl.."
I think that you should be modded up if: A) you write something intelligent or B) you are a girl.
To prove A simply post an intelligent comment. To prove B post a DNA analysis that proves you have not been contaminated with Y-chromosomes, and remember also to proof that it is YOUR DNA profile.
Do whichever you find the easiest, and I am sure you will get some good karma
Cheers.
He he, good idea. Encrypt the files and let the user purchase a valid serial number to decrypt the files again.
First, I browsed the ietf-list discussion initated by Richard Stallmans post. One states that the group has made Microsoft aware that the licence is not acceptable, and Microsoft must resolve these issues.
AFAIK the licence terms presented are not final, and I assume that Apache and Debian rejects the Sender-ID licence in its current form.
Secondly, Sendmail is working to support it. Will this mean that Sendmail will no longer be Open Source?
Lastly, I recall some recent post stating that many spam mails now produce valid sender ID. If spammers include valid sender ID's there is really not much use of this technology in the first place, why bother to addopt it?
First: The original subject actually mentions a comparison of FreeBSD vs. Linux stating:
Andre claims that FreeBSD can now route 1Mpps on a 2.8GHz Xeon whilst Linux can't do much more than 100kpps.
While the pure anouncement is indeed purely FreeBSD - and not OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin or Linux, the comparison was founded at the very top.
Second: I was offended by the part quoted from the previous post. It is nothing special to do comparisons, we all do it all the time. But some advocates are hugely annoyed when the comparison is not in their favor.
A previous post wrote "This stems from their Linux envy, and their hounding desire for their operating system to be *better* than something, rather than just being satisfied with it being good in its own right."
My "This all stems from the Windows envy because Linux will never become as popular..." is a complete analogy - just with a change of names. I wrote it in anoyance that some of these advocates appears to reserve the right to lobbyism and advocacy.
Finally, my end line: "who cares about inferior systems as long as you are not using them? :-)". First, note the smiley. Second, this can be used by anyone regardless of which system you use. You have the freedom to choose, and assuming you make the best choice for you, why do you put so much energy into whatever is irrelevant to your system? Let people choose whatever you think is inferior, the freedom to choose includes the right to make a bad choice from whichever perspective you have.
I agree with you that the thread is largely throwing mud against whoever throws mud at you. Before you mud me down :-) - note that I abstained from participating in that part of the game - my previous post was intended to throw oil on the water.
This line is off topic.
As if it is specific to BSD to do a comparison. AFAIK linux advocates spends a lot of resources proving that linux is better, more secure, cheaper, etc. than certain comercial products.
And if certain vendors present studies that proves otherwise, these same advocates will imidiately claim that the studies were conducted to arrive at a certain conclusion.
This all stems from the Windows envy because Linux will never become as popular...
Well, I use FreeBSD - who cares about inferior systems as long as you are not using them? :-)
Obviously noone would look for intelligent life here --- why do you think people are so busy trying to find it elsewhere?
.. that will show them
Some claim that the best proof of extraterrestial intelligence is that they have _NOT_ attempted to contact us...
If extraterrestial lifeforms will ever show up, it will Vogons coming be to clear away this pathetic planet..
Go ahead Bush, don't let them get that chance, blow up the planet
I think that the developing countries in this area have a real advantage: Since the dependency of IT in the public sector is far behind the industrial countries, they have not been locked in! They have the full freedom to choose without having to consider huge migration costs.
Microsoft is aware of this, I guess that's why they have made light versions available in some asian countries and are planning to sell this product in more countries. Also, they will probably benefit from the lockin due to software piracy.
Even if pirate copies are available, or Microsoft offers software for free, there are numerous examples of developing countries taking a step in direction of OSS. They have seen the long term consequences of M$ lockin.
Since we're at it, let's just once and for all finish the job, lets kill all those who don't shave them selves, and all those who shaves those who don't shave them selves, and all those who don't shave, and... If we have a good extintion program, we'll only have polar bears left when we're done... I'm a polar bear.
Fair enough, so they spend millions misleading people through their advertisment, how about they spend the same amount denouncing their adds in the same media: "We are sorry, we lied to you... Microsoft".