Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2009:November:23 Monday <Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2009/11/23-30 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:53539 Activity:high
11/22   What no chatter about the Climate Hack?  MOTD, I'm so diappointed
        \_ What is impressive about breaking onto an academic server? I
           broke onto the Astronomy machines when I was a sophmore.
           \_ Way to miss the point. The hack itself was not impressive.
              The information that was exposed, however, make the above
              thread kind of moot.
              \_ No, it did not. Global warming is becoming more and more
                 obviously a real problem. There are still a few nutters
                 that claim that it isn't happening, but there are people
                 who don't believe in evolution either.
                 \_ Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
                    I'm going to continue eating imported wagyu beef and
                    leaving my PC on 24/7. I'm thinking about buying an SUV
                    next year.
                    \_ You don't even have to be a scientist to see the obvious
                       effects of global warming anymore. Just look at the
                       rising sea levels, the shrinking polar ice caps, etc.
                       \_ Except that none of this is new. The poles
                          have been completely free of ice in the past,
                          for instance. I was reading an article about
                          icebergs as far north as New Zealand intended
                          to serve as a data point about global warming,
                          except that the article said that this last
                          happened in the 1920s. Was it global warming
                          then, too? I personally believe humans are
                          affecting the environment in a big way -
                          probably not a way that benefits us, but I am not
                          sure we can make that claim definitively as it's a
                          complicated system (maybe we are preventing the
                          Earth from cooling off too much). However, the
                          Earth has been warming and cooling for millions
                          of years and it's hard to separate the natural
                          effects from those we caused let alone predict the
                          \_ Global warming is undeniable, and though there are
                             still many of people like you who try to deny
                             still many people like you who try to deny
                             the fact that the earth is warming, the
                             evidence is pretty overwhelming. It seems from
                             your statements above that you are backtracking
                             on your earlier insistence that those who see
                             this for what it is are blind zealots. The exact
                             causes are open for debate, though it seems
                             like human beings have at the very least some
                             impace on the climate.
                             impact on the climate.
2009/11/23-12/2 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Reference/RealEstate] UID:53540 Activity:moderate
 11/23  "Warming's impacts sped up, worsened since Kyoto"
        \_ what do you propose we average Joes do about climate warning?
           Oh really? Yeah, exactly.
           \_ Make life choices which reduce your carbon impact.  Communicate
              with your representatives that you consider this an important
              and urgent issue.  What else would average Joes do about
              anything?  -tom
              \_ the average Joe will not give up his/her SUV and living
                 in suburbs and ex-urbs (which are the reasons that increase
                 our needs for energy).
                 \_ Some average Joe/Jane won't give up loving in suburbs
                    while willing to give up his/her SUV; Some average
                    Joe/Jane won't give his/her SUVs while willing to
                    telecommunte twice a week; some average Joe/Jane won't
                    telecommute while willing to become vegetarian; etc.
                    And, like you said, some average Joe/Jane won't give up
                    anything.  Ideally, the problem can be very easily solved
                    by everyone giving up N things.  But very few people in
                    the free world would be willing to do that.  So we'll have
                    to rely on most people giving up 1 or 2 things out of their
                    own list of N things.  (For me, I didn't give up living
                    in suburbs.  But I wear a jacket at home in winter instead
                    of turning on the heat, use a fan in summer instead of AC,
                    line-dry my laundary in the backyard instead of using the
                    gas dryer, skip the plastic or paper bags when grocery-
                    shopping, gave up my SUV and got a Prius, and literally
                    dig through the household trash to find recyclable and
                    compostable items that my wife and in-laws fail to
                    separate out.) --- OP
                 \_ The average Joe will do whatever is effectively marketed
                    to him.  SUVs and suburbs have been effectively marketed
                    to average Joes.  We are starting to see better marketing
                    of environmental and quality-of-life issues, but we need
                    more.  Also, we need to stop subsidizing carbon production,
                    which is where legislative action is needed; if the
                    suburb dwellers were paying the true cost of their
                    lifestyle, it would be much less attractive.  -tom
                    \_ I get what you are saying, but this could be said
                       about any group. "Bike riders will do whatever is
                       effectively marketed to them".  Otherwise the
                       marketing wouldn't have been effective. -- jwm
                       \_ That's a bit tautalogical, sure.  But my
                          point is that the idea that everyone should
                          live in a big house in a faceless suburb
                          with two SUVs (or now, an SUV and a Prius)
                          is the result of 60 years of corporate
                          marketing, and corporations are really the
                          only beneficiaries.  Just as corporate marketing
                          changed what the average Joe wanted, marketing
                          of social responsibility can change what the
                          average Joe wants.  -tom
                          \_ I agree. The way we as a society have used
                             marketing has been damaging. --jwm
                          \_ I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that "corporations
                             are really the only beneficiaries." I really
                             like having land around my house. I use it to
                             grow food, for recreation, and for privacy. I
                             went to my coworkers ultra-chic condo which
                             cost over $1M and had koi and Italian fountains
                             everywhere, but I wouldn't care for living in
                             close quarters like he does. He even told me
                             he is looking for a single family home for
                             various reasons all related to the density of
                             the housing. You may think there's no benefit
                             to a SFR, but millions of Americans disagree
                             and that is how most Americans lived 200
                             years ago. I think that mixed-use/loft/high
                             density housing is something pushed on us by
                             corporations and SFR more closely reflects
                             the rural areas most Americans lived in prior
                             to the Industrial Revolution.
                             \_ Who said anything about condos?  I live in
                                a house in a city (Oakland).  -tom
                                \_ Plus the Richmond and Sunset Districts in
                                   SF are also primarily houses.  -- !PP
                                   \_ So are Hancock Park and Beverly Hills
                                      in LA, but most people can't afford
                                      to live there. If they want a nice house
                                      with land they have to leave the city.
                                \_ The complaint was against a "big house in a
                                   faceless suburb." How can you possibly
                                   argue that a big house in Oakland is
                                   somehow superior to a big house in a
                                   suburb like Lafayette? Same damn thing.
                                   \_ 1) The house in Oakland is smaller.
                                      2) The house in Oakland requires less
                                      Pretty simple, really.  -tom
                                      \_ Neither of these are necessarily true.
                                         \_ They are both true as averages.
                                            \_ They don't _have_ to be.
                                               These are external to the
                                               idea of suburbs. You can
                                               build smaller houses in
                                               the suburbs. You can take
                                               BART to SF from Lafayette
                                               as surely as you can from
                                               Oakland. One thing you _cannot_
                                               do is build affordable SFR in a
                                               city, which takes us back
                                               to condos.
                                               \_ You're right, if reality were
                                                  completely different than it
                                                  is, houses would be smaller
                                                  in Lafayette and people
                                                  in suburbs would drive less
                                                  than people in cities.  But
                                                  on this planet, houses are
                                                  larger in suburbs and people
                                                  drive more.  -tom
                                                  \_ I think you need to
                                                     focus on the problems
                                                     you are trying to
                                                     address and "suburbs"
                                                     and "housing density"
                                                     are not them. You can
                                                     live in the city and
                                                     drive a lot (reverse
                                                     commute, which some
                                                     people do) and you
                                                     can build a huge
                                                     energy sucking house
                                                     in the city, too, if
                                                     you are rich.
                                                     \_ I said "make life
                                                        choices that reduce
                                                        your carbon impact";
                                                        someone else asserted
                                                        that "average Joes"
                                                        would not give up
                                                        their SUVs in the
                                                        suburbs.  I'm pointing
                                                        out that that assertion
                                                        is unfounded.  -tom
                             \_ I think that most people want both the
                                advantages of density (short commutes, walkable
                                neighborhoods, more community) as well as lots
                                of space for themselves personally. Most people
                                just want more of everything, but the planet
                                cannot support this kind of lifestyle for
                                6 billion people. This is just a simple fact
                                of physics, not something that has anything
                                to do with corporations. The earth is probably
                                already past its carrying capacity, according
                                to many scientists.
                                \_ The idea that people should live in
                                   identical large houses with large yards
                                   and large fences, a long drive away
                                   from the places they want to go, was
                                   basically invented in the 50s by and
                                   for corporations.  Before that virtually
                                   all development was mixed-use, and
                                   our population was denser despite being
                                   much smaller.  From 1950 to 1990, Bay
                                   Area population more than doubled,
                                   while density actually decreased.  Most
                                   of that change was due to the construction
                                   of freeways and related destruction of urban
                                   neighborhoods, with housing moving from
                                   urban, mixed-use to suburban and isolated.
                                   Now things are starting to swing back the
                                   other way, which is a good thing.  Very
                                   little of this has much to do with what
                                   the average Joe wants, except insofar as
                                   he's susceptible to marketing.  -tom
                                   \_ This is a lie. Like I said, before the
                                      Industrial Revolution more people
                                      than not lived in large houses with
                                      large yards a long drive away from
                                                         \_ There was driving
                                                            before the Ind.
                                                            \_ certainly not
                                                        autos but I would
                                                        guess PP means horse
                                                        and buggy drives
                                      town. The population was not denser
                                      at all. This era you wax nostalgic for
                                      was an artifact of the Industrial
                                      Revolution where workers moved to slums
                                      in large cities in order to work in
                                      factories. It's laughable that you think
                                      that corporations in the 1950s invented
                                      the suburban lifestyle. What corporations
                                      invented was *DENSE CITIES*. From
                                      1950 to 1990 what we saw was _AN
                                      IMPROVED STANDARD OF LIVING_ and now
                                      that our standard of living is
                                      eroding we are seeing more people
                                      living like cockroaches. Not only
                                      that, _ALL_ of this has to do with
                                      choices people make. You give marketers
                                      _WAY_ too much credit. I live in a
                                      house built at the turn of the century
                                      and it's not hard to see why people
                                      wanted to move to their own brand
                                      new box in a new suburb. (Example:
                                      one bathroom). That's not an
                                      artifact of marketing, buddy.
                                      \_ Overpopulation and resource depletion
                                         leads to a declining standard
                                         standard of living. Why is that
                                         surprising to you? People have lived
                                         in large crowded cities since at least
                                         the Roman Empire, you are nuts to
                                         think that this is a modern invention.
                                         Sure, subsidence farmers lived spread
                                         Sure, subsistence farmers lived spread
                                         out, but cities were denser before
                                         the automobile. Have you been to any
                                         of Europe? I prefer my solidly built
                                         turn of the century house to the ticky
                                         tacky crap that passes for "luxury"
                                         these days. And btw, people used to
                                         live in much smaller houses, so you
                                         are wrong about the "large houses"
                                         part, too. -!tom
                                         \_ 1. I prefer my old house, too,
                                               but that's because I like
                                               the character. You can realize,
                                               though, why post-WW II families
                                               thought that moving to a new,
                                               modern house with a yard and
                                               2 bathrooms was appealing.
                                            2. By "large houses" I mean a
                                               large footprint (less dense).
                                               Houses have gotten larger over
                                               time, but the lots they are
                                               built on has not.
                                               \_ So "large house with large
                                                  yards" really means "small
                                                  house with large yard" in
                                                  your language? Could you
                                                  please clarify which defn
                                                  of "large" you are using next
                                                  time, so I don't get confused?
                                                  Thanks in advance.
                                            3. Large crowded cities were not
                                               a very common way of life.
                                               This is a modern innovation.
                                               From Scientific American,
                                               September 2005:
                                               "From the beginning of the
                                               Christian era to about
                                               1850, the urban population
                                               of the world never exceeded
                                               7 percent. The Industrial
                                               Revolution quickly changed
                                               that--today 75 percent of
                                               people in the U.S. and
                                               other developed countries
                                               live in cities, according
                                               to the United Nations."
                                               You tell me which is more
                                               \_ Prior to the industrial
                                                  revolution, people outside
                                                  of cities were organized
                                                  in family units; multiple
                                                  generations would live
                                                  densely within the same
                                                  house or on the same land.
                                                  The land provided most of
                                                  the daily needs of the
                                                  group, requiring little
                                                  travel relative to current
                                                  practice.  The concept of
                                                  "commuting" is a modern
                                                  invention (and a carbon-
                                                  expensive one).  -tom
2009/11/23-12/6 [Uncategorized] UID:53541 Activity:nil
11/23   Looking for a NAS and SANS combo. I love NAS for its convenience
        and SANS for speed. Ideally I'd like to have both. Ideas?
        \_ NetApp will do both. -ausman
        \_ EMC had a NFS/SAN hybrid that supposedly mixed attributes of both,
           we didn't go with it, and I can't find whitepapers now.  -ERic
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2009:November:23 Monday <Tuesday>