Btw, it is interesting that if you go to the Science/Nature section on bbc, there are 8 articles dealing with energy crisis/global warming currently, and that number was higher a few days ago when I first checked.
Yeah. Riiiiight. Tom Lantos is hungarian born and still has active connections with hungarian life, so as a hungarian let me tell you something about him.
While he may condemn WWII and concentration camps, while he may have supported so called hungarian "liberal" circles, he also supports post-communist politicians and parties in my country. Talking about hypocrisy.
So, if its about nazis, its bad, if its about gitmo, its good, if its about hungarian ex communists and their practices, then its good, if its about China, then its bad?
And just the other day, I was watching downloaded David Attenborough documentaries, and the name "Sony" popped up on one of the special cameras used there - I exclaimed "No way!" and used mencoder to edit the relevant part out right away. That'll teach 'em!
approach to meet our increasing energy demands. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
(*) Reserves on paper don't necessarily translate to barrels.
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(*) The market is not omnipotent and has failed before.
( ) It will delay the crisis by two weeks and then we'll be worse off when started
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(*) You base conclusion on 19th century science.
(*) Oil has no economically scalable alternative as of today
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(*) Huge/Impossible infrastructural investment required to use alternatives to oil
(*) Discovery of new oil sources surpassed by consumption in the 80s and its effects today
(*) Effects of 33 out of the 44 main oil producing countries already in a decline
(*) EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) ratio of alternative energy sources
(*) The amount of energy provided by alternative energy sources vs. the energy needed by global economy
(*) Transportation/conservation issues of alternative energy sources
(*) Alternative energy sources requiring hidden oil investment (shadow power generators for wind energy, fertilizers for ethanol production, etc.)
(*) Huge reserves of oil in oil sand/shales have very small EROEI ratio compared to traditional oil sources and no sizeable infrastructure is in place.
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Not everyone wants to return to an agrarian/feudal/stone aged civilization
(*) Environmental issues would arise or cause serious problems because of the proposed solution
(*) Ideas similar to yours are often repeated, yet none have ever been shown to be working under the condictions we face.
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
(*) Convincing ourselves that $Deity or $Mysterious_force will take care of our $Problem may be comforting, but is not in our best interest.
(*) Putting faith in the mass wisdom of people when monetary and economic factors are in play is stupid.
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(*) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
(The following form has been adapted by me from the Automated Spam Response form and is in public domain)
'In 1855, an advertisement for Kier's Rock Oil advised consumers to "hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature's laboratory."'
Since when do you believe an advertisement?
"In 1874, the state geologist of Pennsylvania, the nation's leading oil-producing state, estimated that only enough U.S. oil remained to keep the nation's kerosene lamps burning for four years."
Even though this is not an advertisement it was in the 19th century. Technology and science progressed enormously since then.
"In May 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the world's total endowment of oil amounted to 60 billion barrels."
The USGS was proven to be wildy inaccurate even in their own country, I quote: "As recently as 1972, the USGS was releasing circulars that estimated US domestic oil production would not peak until well into the 21st century, and possibly not until the 22nd century. (See Theobald, Schweinfurth & Duncan, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 650)
This was despite the fact US production had already peaked in 1970, just as Hubbert had predicted. Richard Heinberg reminds us, "in 1973, Congress demanded an investigation of the USGS for its failure to foresee the 1970 US oil production peak.""
You say, that: "In 1950, geologists estimated the world's total oil endowment at around 600 billion barrels.
From 1970 through 1990, their estimates increased to between 1,500 and 2,000 billion barrels."
Source?
"In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment."
Actually, no. Please see this link, I quote: "The USGS 2000 divides the petroleum assessments into 'categories of probability': F95, F50 (i.e. median), F5, and Mean (i.e. arithmetic mean). "F" means fractile, as defined by the USGS", and then "TOTAL GCOE at F95 = (approx.) 2,000 Gb
TOTAL GCOE at F50 = (approx.) 2,700 Gb
TOTAL GCOE at F5 = (approx.) 4,900 Gb
TOTAL GCOE Mean = (approx.) 3,000 Gb".
This means, by their EXTREMELY flawed logic, that if they take the probabilities and get a mean value from them, then thats how many oil is out there, while anything below F50 probability is wishful thinking only, if not outright dreaming. I'd say that the quote: "and the estimates for the world Grown Conventional Oil Endowment will converge somewhere between 2000 and 2200 BBO (i.e. near the F95 estimate in the USGS 2000 report). The peak of world oil production is within sight." is very accurate in describing the real reserves.
"By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced. Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels. If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world's oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056."
The problem is not that oil is gone, but that consumption is bigger than production and that production cannot be increased by any significant numbers!
We currently need 83.5 million barrels per day. We are projected to need 120 million barrels per day by 2020. On the other hand, when|since we hit peak oil production (will) decrease by around 1 million barrels per day of production per year. We just cannot tap into the remaining oil reserves quickly enough and in such way that it would be worth the costs (in monetary and energy terms)!
Dick Cheney said, that "By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent
annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead,
along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline
in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we
w
Actually the two months is only a tiny fraction of the timescale involved. What I am saying is, that if you see steady growth for what, 100 years, then you see a huge decline in growth and a steady increase in consumption, then you draw the conclusion.
One of the other posts mentioned that there are less than 2 months of worth supplies in OECD reserves at all times, and a bit more than a month of worth of emergency stockpiles. I think two months is exactly the time needed to evaluate changes in the system.
"DON'T PANIC! Even if we have reached "peak oil," however that is defined, it will be a long process. Production will start a long, slow decline, and prices will start a long, steady rise."
You obviously don't know the effect what happens if the prof's findings are true and this gets to the mainstream media. Governments, companies and people will start stockpiling and prices will skyrocket. People WILL panic, no matter what anyone says.
If you need security badly enough that you need to encrypt something, then transparency of source code and algorythm level is essential. OSX is no better than Microsoft on this respect ("oh wait, you mean it was in reality an 8 bit XOR encryption instead, what do you mean a company has lied to me?!").
fixing the practically fixable bugs (not the design decisions)
making code performance improvements (faster, with less memory!)
security auditing
...for a half year or a year. I don't need new features, I'm currently happy with the ones I have and I'd prefer the current features working securely, in a speedy fashion and mostly without bugs. This time period would also give enough time for extensions to mature more.
Before someone jumps at my throat, it's just a description what I'd like to see, but of course its all up to the developers, they decide what to code and do with their time. It is just simple user feedback.
There is a reason why the USA slipped of course and ranks at 44th place, but abuses of press get a lot more press if it happens in the USA. The only way to know about these abuses is more or less the same mechanism that the report is criticizing.
Take for example Hungary, my home country at the 12th place. Now, around 80-90% of the media here is owned by ex-communist leaders who transferred their political power into economic one. That makes for a pretty biased press. I'm not sure if I would take the USA's press over what we have here, but I'd take the UK's press any day (especially the beeb) and they got the 24th place while Hungary is 12 places higher.
This freedom of press report should be taken with a pinch of salt. I'm no expert on press in most of the world, but based on how it represents local press I have to conclude it to be pretty inaccurate.
Exactly. I don't understand the protests about that ID card.
In Hungary, I had an ID card since I was 14. In the last TEN years I've never been asked by a police officer or any law enforcment personnel to show my ID (In Hungary it is required by law that you have at least one document officially capable of proving your identity and to carry it with you).
I have an ID card, a driving license, a passport, a student ID card, a tax ID card and a social security ID card oh and I have an online account which I can use with an online portal to deal with my official business like filling in taxes, etc. (I could use any of the first four to identify myself).
I don't understand the people recalling WW2 and nazi death camps and SS when talking about ID. It is perfectly normal for me to have one.
I most certainly understand if you are worried about the abuses with a computerized database, but it is a whole different issue! Fight the huge Orwellian database handling and not the ID cards...
Here is a snippet from wikipedia that sums up my view about the issue: "Argumentation about identity cards is largely limited to anglo-saxonic common-law countries. In most countries where an ID system is present, it is seen as a commonplace item that nobody argues about."
I have never even heard before of abuse related to ID cards in Hungary.
"But the link you posted has this following code: mail("ideirj@szerver.hu", "Hibabjelentes", $message, "From \"$_POST[nick] It clearly allows posted data in the header."
The reason I underlined the necessity of hungarian because the author of the post clearly underlines, that only the body of the email was non-hardcoded.
Thanks for providing me the link I've already included in one of my parent posts already, but as I've said the bug is in PHP which was even reported to the authors, because if the from, to and subject fields are hardcoded, PHP still allows sending multiple emails!
Let's see, with hardcoded to, from, subject values, how is it not a PHP bug if multiple emails can be sent with a specially crafted body? I'd _expect_ no less than binary level operation, so even if I assign a binary file to that body, the mail() function should still send it properly and ONCE.
The sad truth is that aside from security issues PHP is a very badly designed language.
Yes. I've read it on the Hungarian Unix Portal. (you could obviously try googling too, if you don't speak hungarian.:]) A quick googling turned up this aswell.
That was the reference and proof. Obviously spammers not only know about this technique but use it to spam effectively and quite anonymously (spammers use windows zombies to flood vulnerable php forms). With a smart google query you could turn up hundreds of vulnerable php forms.
But you shouldn't look so suprised. PHP is a security mess, even the Secure PHP effort is basically offering workarounds only. Serious users should avoid PHP and use Perl, Python or Ruby.
Disney's character was an improvement over Oswald's character. That is precisely the behaviour we'd like to encourage if we would want developments to happen. Mozart and Bach anyone?
The biggest problem with IP as of today is that it doesn't support group development. It was all fine and dandy to patent and copyright stuff in the 18th century where you could invent something just based on your own effort, but today it is very rarely possible any more. Humans need to work in groups (~scientific community) to be able to progress human knowledge and copyright and patents discourage that.
I agree with your second sentence though, but it is only the corporate greedy reaction to the current atmosphere IP laws create.
The issue with the mail function is that PHP grabs the four variables specified when calling the mail() function, then puts it into a template and pushes it to sendmail/postfix/qmail/etc stdin. Someone can include a template inside the template and php happily treats it as a separate mail even with a totally different from and to field.
The easiest workaround is that you configure your mailserver that the www-data/php user can only send mail to the local network.
More workarounds here. Some discussion about the issue here.
Note: It is possible to exploit this vulnerable mail() implementation even if you hardcode everything but the body.
PHP has this vulnerability in 3-5.
Oracle is a quite good company producing quality database applications.
The problem with them? They don't give a rat's ass about security. 600+, 800+ days of unfixed exploits? Who cares! Their security track record is much worse than that of Microsoft's.
The people who fork out a lot of cash to Oracle could rightfully demand that they receive quick fixes for these things.
Oracle teaming with PHP? The worst security nightmare ever. PHP is absolutely craptastic from a security viewpoint (insecure default configuration, etc.), for example the mail() function makes it the favorite of spammers, because you can use it to spam a lot with it - because the mail() function's broken implementation allows spammers to send out mail in the thousands. Working around it is possible, but cumbersome - 99% of the people using the function doesn't even know about the issue, so its a spam-haven.
Slashdot Mirror
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4720536. stm
Btw, it is interesting that if you go to the Science/Nature section on bbc, there are 8 articles dealing with energy crisis/global warming currently, and that number was higher a few days ago when I first checked.
Nothing better than to see a historical troll on a quiet sunday afternoon. ;)
I know A'rpi from mplayer.
'Nuff said.
Yeah. Riiiiight. Tom Lantos is hungarian born and still has active connections with hungarian life, so as a hungarian let me tell you something about him.
While he may condemn WWII and concentration camps, while he may have supported so called hungarian "liberal" circles, he also supports post-communist politicians and parties in my country. Talking about hypocrisy.
So, if its about nazis, its bad, if its about gitmo, its good, if its about hungarian ex communists and their practices, then its good, if its about China, then its bad?
And just the other day, I was watching downloaded David Attenborough documentaries, and the name "Sony" popped up on one of the special cameras used there - I exclaimed "No way!" and used mencoder to edit the relevant part out right away. That'll teach 'em!
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (*) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to meet our increasing energy demands. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
(*) Reserves on paper don't necessarily translate to barrels.
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(*) The market is not omnipotent and has failed before.
( ) It will delay the crisis by two weeks and then we'll be worse off when started
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(*) You base conclusion on 19th century science.
(*) Oil has no economically scalable alternative as of today
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(*) Huge/Impossible infrastructural investment required to use alternatives to oil
(*) Discovery of new oil sources surpassed by consumption in the 80s and its effects today
(*) Effects of 33 out of the 44 main oil producing countries already in a decline
(*) EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) ratio of alternative energy sources
(*) The amount of energy provided by alternative energy sources vs. the energy needed by global economy
(*) Transportation/conservation issues of alternative energy sources
(*) Alternative energy sources requiring hidden oil investment (shadow power generators for wind energy, fertilizers for ethanol production, etc.)
(*) Huge reserves of oil in oil sand/shales have very small EROEI ratio compared to traditional oil sources and no sizeable infrastructure is in place.
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Not everyone wants to return to an agrarian/feudal/stone aged civilization
(*) Environmental issues would arise or cause serious problems because of the proposed solution
(*) Ideas similar to yours are often repeated, yet none have ever been shown to be working under the condictions we face.
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
(*) Convincing ourselves that $Deity or $Mysterious_force will take care of our $Problem may be comforting, but is not in our best interest.
(*) Putting faith in the mass wisdom of people when monetary and economic factors are in play is stupid.
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(*) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
(The following form has been adapted by me from the Automated Spam Response form and is in public domain)
"16 Feb 2006: Linux boots Linux boots on the 17" iMac Core Duo, due to gimli's work."
Hey you Apple zealots out there, now THIS is proof that Mac OSX got dwarf'd out there!
"I also call bs on the post, but was too lazy to put this together."
I wasn't. (Shameless whoring of my post)
'In 1855, an advertisement for Kier's Rock Oil advised consumers to "hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature's laboratory."'
Since when do you believe an advertisement?
"In 1874, the state geologist of Pennsylvania, the nation's leading oil-producing state, estimated that only enough U.S. oil remained to keep the nation's kerosene lamps burning for four years."
Even though this is not an advertisement it was in the 19th century. Technology and science progressed enormously since then.
"In May 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the world's total endowment of oil amounted to 60 billion barrels."
The USGS was proven to be wildy inaccurate even in their own country, I quote: "As recently as 1972, the USGS was releasing circulars that estimated US domestic oil production would not peak until well into the 21st century, and possibly not until the 22nd century. (See Theobald, Schweinfurth & Duncan, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 650)
This was despite the fact US production had already peaked in 1970, just as Hubbert had predicted. Richard Heinberg reminds us, "in 1973, Congress demanded an investigation of the USGS for its failure to foresee the 1970 US oil production peak.""
You say, that: "In 1950, geologists estimated the world's total oil endowment at around 600 billion barrels.
From 1970 through 1990, their estimates increased to between 1,500 and 2,000 billion barrels."
Source?
"In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment."
Actually, no. Please see this link, I quote: "The USGS 2000 divides the petroleum assessments into 'categories of probability': F95, F50 (i.e. median), F5, and Mean (i.e. arithmetic mean). "F" means fractile, as defined by the USGS", and then "TOTAL GCOE at F95 = (approx.) 2,000 Gb
TOTAL GCOE at F50 = (approx.) 2,700 Gb
TOTAL GCOE at F5 = (approx.) 4,900 Gb
TOTAL GCOE Mean = (approx.) 3,000 Gb".
This means, by their EXTREMELY flawed logic, that if they take the probabilities and get a mean value from them, then thats how many oil is out there, while anything below F50 probability is wishful thinking only, if not outright dreaming. I'd say that the quote: "and the estimates for the world Grown Conventional Oil Endowment will converge somewhere between 2000 and 2200 BBO (i.e. near the F95 estimate in the USGS 2000 report). The peak of world oil production is within sight." is very accurate in describing the real reserves.
"By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced. Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels. If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world's oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056."
The problem is not that oil is gone, but that consumption is bigger than production and that production cannot be increased by any significant numbers!
We currently need 83.5 million barrels per day. We are projected to need 120 million barrels per day by 2020. On the other hand, when|since we hit peak oil production (will) decrease by around 1 million barrels per day of production per year. We just cannot tap into the remaining oil reserves quickly enough and in such way that it would be worth the costs (in monetary and energy terms)!
Dick Cheney said, that "By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we w
Yeah. Don't even worry about that few billions of people who will be be dead/starving/living in the stoneage thanks to that thinking.
What you are saying doesn't _work_ in an economy, that just makes it crash.
Actually the two months is only a tiny fraction of the timescale involved. What I am saying is, that if you see steady growth for what, 100 years, then you see a huge decline in growth and a steady increase in consumption, then you draw the conclusion.
One of the other posts mentioned that there are less than 2 months of worth supplies in OECD reserves at all times, and a bit more than a month of worth of emergency stockpiles. I think two months is exactly the time needed to evaluate changes in the system.
"DON'T PANIC! Even if we have reached "peak oil," however that is defined, it will be a long process. Production will start a long, slow decline, and prices will start a long, steady rise."
You obviously don't know the effect what happens if the prof's findings are true and this gets to the mainstream media. Governments, companies and people will start stockpiling and prices will skyrocket. People WILL panic, no matter what anyone says.
If you need security badly enough that you need to encrypt something, then transparency of source code and algorythm level is essential. OSX is no better than Microsoft on this respect ("oh wait, you mean it was in reality an 8 bit XOR encryption instead, what do you mean a company has lied to me?!").
So who said you can't track business performance with a regular expression, you pointy haired noob?!
Before someone jumps at my throat, it's just a description what I'd like to see, but of course its all up to the developers, they decide what to code and do with their time. It is just simple user feedback.
I wouldn't put too much faith into that list.
There is a reason why the USA slipped of course and ranks at 44th place, but abuses of press get a lot more press if it happens in the USA. The only way to know about these abuses is more or less the same mechanism that the report is criticizing.
Take for example Hungary, my home country at the 12th place. Now, around 80-90% of the media here is owned by ex-communist leaders who transferred their political power into economic one. That makes for a pretty biased press. I'm not sure if I would take the USA's press over what we have here, but I'd take the UK's press any day (especially the beeb) and they got the 24th place while Hungary is 12 places higher.
This freedom of press report should be taken with a pinch of salt. I'm no expert on press in most of the world, but based on how it represents local press I have to conclude it to be pretty inaccurate.
Exactly. I don't understand the protests about that ID card.
In Hungary, I had an ID card since I was 14. In the last TEN years I've never been asked by a police officer or any law enforcment personnel to show my ID (In Hungary it is required by law that you have at least one document officially capable of proving your identity and to carry it with you).
I have an ID card, a driving license, a passport, a student ID card, a tax ID card and a social security ID card oh and I have an online account which I can use with an online portal to deal with my official business like filling in taxes, etc. (I could use any of the first four to identify myself).
I don't understand the people recalling WW2 and nazi death camps and SS when talking about ID. It is perfectly normal for me to have one.
I most certainly understand if you are worried about the abuses with a computerized database, but it is a whole different issue! Fight the huge Orwellian database handling and not the ID cards...
Here is a snippet from wikipedia that sums up my view about the issue: "Argumentation about identity cards is largely limited to anglo-saxonic common-law countries. In most countries where an ID system is present, it is seen as a commonplace item that nobody argues about."
I have never even heard before of abuse related to ID cards in Hungary.
"But the link you posted has this following code: mail("ideirj@szerver.hu", "Hibabjelentes", $message, "From \"$_POST[nick] It clearly allows posted data in the header."
The reason I underlined the necessity of hungarian because the author of the post clearly underlines, that only the body of the email was non-hardcoded.
Thanks for providing me the link I've already included in one of my parent posts already, but as I've said the bug is in PHP which was even reported to the authors, because if the from, to and subject fields are hardcoded, PHP still allows sending multiple emails!
Let's see, with hardcoded to, from, subject values, how is it not a PHP bug if multiple emails can be sent with a specially crafted body? I'd _expect_ no less than binary level operation, so even if I assign a binary file to that body, the mail() function should still send it properly and ONCE.
The sad truth is that aside from security issues PHP is a very badly designed language.
Yes. I've read it on the Hungarian Unix Portal. (you could obviously try googling too, if you don't speak hungarian. :]) A quick googling turned up this aswell.
That was the reference and proof. Obviously spammers not only know about this technique but use it to spam effectively and quite anonymously (spammers use windows zombies to flood vulnerable php forms). With a smart google query you could turn up hundreds of vulnerable php forms. But you shouldn't look so suprised. PHP is a security mess, even the Secure PHP effort is basically offering workarounds only. Serious users should avoid PHP and use Perl, Python or Ruby.
You're starting to think like "them".
Disney's character was an improvement over Oswald's character. That is precisely the behaviour we'd like to encourage if we would want developments to happen. Mozart and Bach anyone?
The biggest problem with IP as of today is that it doesn't support group development. It was all fine and dandy to patent and copyright stuff in the 18th century where you could invent something just based on your own effort, but today it is very rarely possible any more. Humans need to work in groups (~scientific community) to be able to progress human knowledge and copyright and patents discourage that.
I agree with your second sentence though, but it is only the corporate greedy reaction to the current atmosphere IP laws create.
Sure.
The issue with the mail function is that PHP grabs the four variables specified when calling the mail() function, then puts it into a template and pushes it to sendmail/postfix/qmail/etc stdin. Someone can include a template inside the template and php happily treats it as a separate mail even with a totally different from and to field.
The easiest workaround is that you configure your mailserver that the www-data/php user can only send mail to the local network.
More workarounds here. Some discussion about the issue here.
Note: It is possible to exploit this vulnerable mail() implementation even if you hardcode everything but the body. PHP has this vulnerability in 3-5.
Oracle is a quite good company producing quality database applications.
The problem with them? They don't give a rat's ass about security. 600+, 800+ days of unfixed exploits? Who cares! Their security track record is much worse than that of Microsoft's.
The people who fork out a lot of cash to Oracle could rightfully demand that they receive quick fixes for these things.
Oracle teaming with PHP? The worst security nightmare ever. PHP is absolutely craptastic from a security viewpoint (insecure default configuration, etc.), for example the mail() function makes it the favorite of spammers, because you can use it to spam a lot with it - because the mail() function's broken implementation allows spammers to send out mail in the thousands. Working around it is possible, but cumbersome - 99% of the people using the function doesn't even know about the issue, so its a spam-haven.
I find it hilarious (and sad, but true indication about the subject) that as of now your comment is rated 5, Funny.
Sorry, I can't imagine 23'000 CD-ROM's worth of information, how much is it in the standard Library of Congress format?
You are the battery. Didn't you watch the Matrix?!