Will you move your forests too? Most of the arable land on the planet is already being used for farming. As the fertile farm land gets dry and unusable forests in the cooler places will have to be cut down for farming becuase the forests will not be able to "move" fast enough to keep up with temprature changes.
Also consider the the huge cost of migrating millions of people and industries inland. What will happen to million dollar seaside properties? All around the world the most expensive property is along the shoreline. The cost to dismantle and move those propertied even a mile inland will be in the trillions.
So there you have it. Deforestation will increase in pace and trillions of dollars will be spent to move people, buildings and industry. This will have a devestating effect on the worldwide economy.
I think people are right to distrust Mr. O'Dell and his company. If he was building vacuum cleaners then I might not object too much but he is building voting machines. Certainly rigging voting machines is in his power. He could do it secretly too if he wanted to. He could hide it from his own board by getting a couple of engineers to do it on the side.
Beyond that I don't trust any corporation to do an honest job. Yes Mr. Odell is a rabid republican but there are also rabid democrats out there too.
The software should be open source. There is no other real alternative. If Diebold wants to make the hardware then fine as long as they don't get to touch the bios or the software. There is no reason not to use openbios, linux/freebsd, and an open source solution being shepherded by a non profit agency like the FSF or Apache group.
Democracy is too important to leave to corporations.
Failures in punch cards and broken voting machines etc are likely to occur randomly. They are equally likely to harm or help one of the political parties.
In this case there is real and ligitemate fear that the voting machines may be rigged to help one party and hurt another one. Look at some of the statements and actions made by the CEO of Diebold and you'll understand why people object so vehemently.
Yes tell MS you'll never buy anything from them again. I hope you don't hear the snickers coming in when the tech yells that out in the helpdesk room and everybody starts cracking up.
I'll give it another look. I had all kinds of problems with it first time I tried.
As for the hierarchy I am less concerned about that. Pkgsrc (netbsd) puts everything in the/usr/pkg prefix. That's because it strives to be platform independent. The debian folks are very strict about hierarchy as are the freebsd folks.
Sad to say Mac OS X is a weird mishmash of stuff. Some logs are in/var/log some logs are in with the application. Same with config files. Mac OS X being what it is I almost prefer that the package distro uses their own prefix for everything. That way I know it won't effect the core system.
DOn't listen to the people who harp. Just listen to the scientists. If they are harping then perhaps it's time be concerned.
An overwhelming majority of climatalogists agreee that global warming is occuring. Surely not all of them are democrats or commies or liberals or pinkos.
What you say is pretty much true for the client but the mac os x server needs some serious work IMHO.
I am waiting for the Mac OS X server administration book. The PDFs at the apple web site are lame and only walk you through the GUI.
As long as I am griping... When is Apple going to get off their ass create a ports collection for apple. For those who are wondering here is the current state of the art for mac flavor of bsd.
Darwinports: Does not resolve dependencies. Very limited. Fink: Does resolve dependencies and less limited but still fewer ports then freebsd. Pkgsrc: Lots of ports, resolves depencies but you are likely to get lots of errors when building them on mac.
"Which has nothing to do with anything. The original poster claimed that Bush and Company were out to reap profits by continuing to encourage everyone to drive big SUVs. I pointed out that he's the only President who has ever given government funding to alternative fuel sources. Period."
OK. Now I am asking you to provide a link to back up your assertion that Bush is the ONLY president who has ever given government funding to alternative fuel sources.
Once again you are talking about the border cases. I don't dispute what you say (and actually I don't think you are disputing what I say). It's simply that the oil will be pulled out as fast as we can sell it. Once the wells are dry (or almost dry) the market will crash abruptly. We are not going to ration it voluntarily unless there is some sort of a governmental intereference.
Left to the whims of laizer faire it will be sucked up at full speed till we crash.
My point is that Carter was intensely intenterted in energy policy. It is inconcevable that Bush is the only president in history to provide funding for alternative fuel sources.
I am simply asking for a citation from a non right wing source.
"All while Bush is the only president to ever provide funding for alternative fuel sources. "
Really? Didn't Carter provide funding for alternative energy? He was the one who put in the alternative energy tax credit.
Do you have a link to a non right wing source that backs up your statement that bush is the ONLY president to provide funding for alternative energy.
"Or we could simply realize that as the problem gets worse economic pressures will naturally solve the problem."
Or maybe it won't. You have no guarantee of that.
The problem is that the price of natural resources fluctuates according to extraction and not total volume. For example if we increase logging in all national forests the price of wood will go down because the supply will increase. The supply is not increasing because there are more trees in the world it's increasing because they are being cut faster.
In our current scenario we will see the rate of extraction continue at current levels until there is no more and then the market will crash. In other words rationing will not be made in a sane and gradual manner it will come abruptly when we run out.
Finally the atmosphere may go out of whack way before we run out of any fuel. I don't think that it will happen gradually either.
The purpose of those types of rules is to preserve jobs. Sometimes you as a worker have to inconvenience yourself to protect the job of a fellow worker. In turn that worker promises to do the same when the corporation you work for goes after you.
Unions are nothing more then free association and collective bargaining. Your company managers get together and collude on how they are going to cut costs by firing people, denying people benefits, cutting down on safety equipment etc. If the workers don't get together and collude on how they will fight back then they will get shafted.
Maybe you are too valuable to your company and your company will never do anything to screw you but that's pretty rare. Most people are disposable "human resources". If they don't band together they will get screwed.
If reading slashdot is any indicator IT people hate unions. Don't expect one anytime soon.
Maybe it would be more palatable if you did not call it a union. Call is an "association" like the doctors (AMA) and the lawyers (ABA) do. It does not seem so low class when you call your union an association. After all the people in unions drive chevys people in associations drive BMWs.
Why do you care so much? Honestly. Do you get this upset if people make fun of maytag or toshiba? How come MS holds such a special place in your heart that you deeply care about somebody desacrating their name with dollar signs?
While forking may offer some stability advantages none of what you say actually disputes my post. I simply stated that not being multi threaded limits the performance of postgres.
Apache is slower then aolserver. Maybe it's more robust or resilient to crashes (don't really know) but it's certainly slower.
Finally there is no law that says that threaded applications are inherently less stable. As I said virtually every other database in the marketplace is multithreaded including some renknowned for their stability and reliability like oracle, db/2, mssql server, mysql etc.
If forking were truly advantagous you'd think oracle or IBM would have made their database forking by now.
"Being multithreaded means your are prone to data corruption and total RDBMS failure."
Please. Postgres is the only database in wide use which is not multithreaded. Don't make up lame excuses as to why it's better then multi threaded databases.
If pre-forking was so great then all the databases would be written that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the dinosaurs are dead.
Will you move your forests too? Most of the arable land on the planet is already being used for farming. As the fertile farm land gets dry and unusable forests in the cooler places will have to be cut down for farming becuase the forests will not be able to "move" fast enough to keep up with temprature changes.
Also consider the the huge cost of migrating millions of people and industries inland. What will happen to million dollar seaside properties? All around the world the most expensive property is along the shoreline. The cost to dismantle and move those propertied even a mile inland will be in the trillions.
So there you have it. Deforestation will increase in pace and trillions of dollars will be spent to move people, buildings and industry. This will have a devestating effect on the worldwide economy.
Enjoy your beer though.
I think people are right to distrust Mr. O'Dell and his company. If he was building vacuum cleaners then I might not object too much but he is building voting machines. Certainly rigging voting machines is in his power. He could do it secretly too if he wanted to. He could hide it from his own board by getting a couple of engineers to do it on the side.
Beyond that I don't trust any corporation to do an honest job. Yes Mr. Odell is a rabid republican but there are also rabid democrats out there too.
The software should be open source. There is no other real alternative. If Diebold wants to make the hardware then fine as long as they don't get to touch the bios or the software. There is no reason not to use openbios, linux/freebsd, and an open source solution being shepherded by a non profit agency like the FSF or Apache group.
Democracy is too important to leave to corporations.
There is a difference.
Failures in punch cards and broken voting machines etc are likely to occur randomly. They are equally likely to harm or help one of the political parties.
In this case there is real and ligitemate fear that the voting machines may be rigged to help one party and hurt another one. Look at some of the statements and actions made by the CEO of Diebold and you'll understand why people object so vehemently.
The bottom line is that the parties have given up on a fair and accurate voting system.
They are both trying very hard to introduce backdoors into the process to give themselves an advantage in the election.
At this time the republicans are in power and the voting machines are being made by companies with sympathies to the republican party.
That's a problem if you are a democrat. It's great if you are a republican.
You will have to retrain your uses when they switch to XP anyway. Every MS upgrade to office also will require re-training.
Re training is a fact of life in corporations. Just a cost of doing business.
Yes tell MS you'll never buy anything from them again. I hope you don't hear the snickers coming in when the tech yells that out in the helpdesk room and everybody starts cracking up.
I'll give it another look. I had all kinds of problems with it first time I tried.
/usr/pkg prefix. That's because it strives to be platform independent. The debian folks are very strict about hierarchy as are the freebsd folks.
/var/log some logs are in with the application. Same with config files. Mac OS X being what it is I almost prefer that the package distro uses their own prefix for everything. That way I know it won't effect the core system.
As for the hierarchy I am less concerned about that. Pkgsrc (netbsd) puts everything in the
Sad to say Mac OS X is a weird mishmash of stuff. Some logs are in
Oh I see. It's not fuel unless you say it's fuel.
DOn't listen to the people who harp. Just listen to the scientists. If they are harping then perhaps it's time be concerned.
An overwhelming majority of climatalogists agreee that global warming is occuring. Surely not all of them are democrats or commies or liberals or pinkos.
What you say is pretty much true for the client but the mac os x server needs some serious work IMHO.
I am waiting for the Mac OS X server administration book. The PDFs at the apple web site are lame and only walk you through the GUI.
As long as I am griping... When is Apple going to get off their ass create a ports collection for apple. For those who are wondering here is the current state of the art for mac flavor of bsd.
Darwinports: Does not resolve dependencies. Very limited.
Fink: Does resolve dependencies and less limited but still fewer ports then freebsd.
Pkgsrc: Lots of ports, resolves depencies but you are likely to get lots of errors when building them on mac.
And how is solar power not alternative fuel source?
I guess your statement that Bush was the first president to fund alternative fuel sources was wrong.
"But as the previous post pointed out, it will get more and more expensive to extract."
It won't get hard until you get to the last 1%. Until then it will continue to be easy to extract the oil.
Maybe you think we won't use the last 1% fast enough to cause a crash but I do.
"Which has nothing to do with anything. The original poster claimed that Bush and Company were out to reap profits by continuing to encourage everyone to drive big SUVs. I pointed out that he's the only President who has ever given government funding to alternative fuel sources. Period."
OK. Now I am asking you to provide a link to back up your assertion that Bush is the ONLY president who has ever given government funding to alternative fuel sources.
Once again you are talking about the border cases. I don't dispute what you say (and actually I don't think you are disputing what I say). It's simply that the oil will be pulled out as fast as we can sell it. Once the wells are dry (or almost dry) the market will crash abruptly. We are not going to ration it voluntarily unless there is some sort of a governmental intereference.
Left to the whims of laizer faire it will be sucked up at full speed till we crash.
My point is that Carter was intensely intenterted in energy policy. It is inconcevable that Bush is the only president in history to provide funding for alternative fuel sources.
I am simply asking for a citation from a non right wing source.
"All while Bush is the only president to ever provide funding for alternative fuel sources. "
Really? Didn't Carter provide funding for alternative energy? He was the one who put in the alternative energy tax credit.
Do you have a link to a non right wing source that backs up your statement that bush is the ONLY president to provide funding for alternative energy.
"Or we could simply realize that as the problem gets worse economic pressures will naturally solve the problem."
Or maybe it won't. You have no guarantee of that.
The problem is that the price of natural resources fluctuates according to extraction and not total volume. For example if we increase logging in all national forests the price of wood will go down because the supply will increase. The supply is not increasing because there are more trees in the world it's increasing because they are being cut faster.
In our current scenario we will see the rate of extraction continue at current levels until there is no more and then the market will crash. In other words rationing will not be made in a sane and gradual manner it will come abruptly when we run out.
Finally the atmosphere may go out of whack way before we run out of any fuel. I don't think that it will happen gradually either.
"Your point is?"
My point is simple. I will state it once again even though I have already stated it many times.
In this case the lack of multithreading has hurt the performance of postgres.
I know it's a straw man but what the hell.
The purpose of those types of rules is to preserve jobs. Sometimes you as a worker have to inconvenience yourself to protect the job of a fellow worker. In turn that worker promises to do the same when the corporation you work for goes after you.
Unions are nothing more then free association and collective bargaining. Your company managers get together and collude on how they are going to cut costs by firing people, denying people benefits, cutting down on safety equipment etc. If the workers don't get together and collude on how they will fight back then they will get shafted.
Maybe you are too valuable to your company and your company will never do anything to screw you but that's pretty rare. Most people are disposable "human resources". If they don't band together they will get screwed.
If reading slashdot is any indicator IT people hate unions. Don't expect one anytime soon.
Maybe it would be more palatable if you did not call it a union. Call is an "association" like the doctors (AMA) and the lawyers (ABA) do. It does not seem so low class when you call your union an association. After all the people in unions drive chevys people in associations drive BMWs.
Why do you care so much? Honestly. Do you get this upset if people make fun of maytag or toshiba? How come MS holds such a special place in your heart that you deeply care about somebody desacrating their name with dollar signs?
While forking may offer some stability advantages none of what you say actually disputes my post. I simply stated that not being multi threaded limits the performance of postgres.
Apache is slower then aolserver. Maybe it's more robust or resilient to crashes (don't really know) but it's certainly slower.
Finally there is no law that says that threaded applications are inherently less stable. As I said virtually every other database in the marketplace is multithreaded including some renknowned for their stability and reliability like oracle, db/2, mssql server, mysql etc.
If forking were truly advantagous you'd think oracle or IBM would have made their database forking by now.
Apache pre forks and this fact is reflected in all those benchmarks where aolserver and iis beat the crap out of it in performance.
Maybe pre-forking makes apache more stable and solid but it certainly does have a performance penalty.
"Being multithreaded means your are prone to data corruption and total RDBMS failure."
Please. Postgres is the only database in wide use which is not multithreaded. Don't make up lame excuses as to why it's better then multi threaded databases.
If pre-forking was so great then all the databases would be written that way.
"Thus performance isn't the issue - features, stability, ACID compliance, etc. is."
It depends on your application I guess. For most applications performance is very important.