Friday, November 9, 2007

Re: [BLUG] Xen's September Benchmarks

A fun benchmark for me is that I now have more Xen virtual machines
running on Suso than you have dogs. 18. ;-)

On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 06:05:20PM GMT, Pawsitive Results [pawsitiveresults@gmail.com] said the following:
> The United Kennel Club has updated their online New Titles page at
> http://ukcdogs.com/DENewt.htm
>
> Select Agility, then in the right hand column, under United Agility I,
> scroll down to Border Collies, and there she is, Norwood's Linux
> Hypervisor.
>
> Her next test will be November 17-18, for her first Canine Performance
> Events benchmarks.
>
> Ana, Jett & Xen
> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
>

--
Mark Krenz
Bloomington Linux Users Group
http://www.bloomingtonlinux.org/
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] Xen's September Benchmarks

Congratulations!

-- Steven Black

On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 01:05:20PM -0500, Pawsitive Results wrote:
> The United Kennel Club has updated their online New Titles page at
> http://ukcdogs.com/DENewt.htm
>
> Select Agility, then in the right hand column, under United Agility I,
> scroll down to Border Collies, and there she is, Norwood's Linux
> Hypervisor.
>
> Her next test will be November 17-18, for her first Canine Performance
> Events benchmarks.
>
> Ana, Jett & Xen
> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

[BLUG] Xen's September Benchmarks

The United Kennel Club has updated their online New Titles page at
http://ukcdogs.com/DENewt.htm

Select Agility, then in the right hand column, under United Agility I,
scroll down to Border Collies, and there she is, Norwood's Linux
Hypervisor.

Her next test will be November 17-18, for her first Canine Performance
Events benchmarks.

Ana, Jett & Xen
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

[BLUG] environmentalism and limiting pop growth.

The vast majority of the numbers listed in this discussion so far are WAY off from the actual rates of population growth in the world. 5 children is almost completely unheard of in America anymore. There are a few exceptions, but by and large 0-3 is the standard. Take a quick look at the Total Fertility Rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

These numbers are based on the average number of children that each female has. So approximately 2 is exactly replacement fertility. Ignoring imbalance between male and female population, and ignoring general death rates. Note how much of this list is below 2. A HUGE amount. And many of the countries who are above 2 have death rates based on lack of modern health services that account for those numbers. In fact if you look at the rates of fertility historically there is a direct correlation between higher life expectancy and lower fertility rates. We are in fact self regulating, and in some places like Japan over self regulating.

Population is indeed an issue, but not the world devastating issue that people are making it out to be.

Also that I have 80 great grand children. One that number assume NO DEATH pre fertility AT ALL. That is an idealized number beyond imagination. So bring that down a touch, then remember that that great grandchild of yours has 2 parents, and 4 grandparents, and 8 great grandparents. So work in death, account for average fertility rates in the country you're talking about, and I think you will find the overall generational populations aren't increasing. I have 6 biological cousins and 1 sister, but 5 sets of aunts and uncles. That is well below the replacement fertility for my parents generation. If you look at my parents generation which was the generation after life expectancy had actually gone up, but before people had lived long enough for people to notice and stop having so many kids you realize they resulted in a jump in population, but even if my family is on the low side of American fertility by the full margin of error for such things we still aren't looking at!
any sort of long term problem.

Where the problem lies is in countries where the life expectancy went up, but cultural requirements to have kids were so high that fertility did not adjust. China and India are perfect examples. China took care of their problem through totalitarian means, and no one in the free world has been particular approving. I sadly know less about the way things are developing in India other than fertility rates are way out of line with their life expectancy. Those are however, isolated countries. World population trends are very different.

Finally I'd like to point people to the World average fertility number in the link from above. It was 2.8 in 200 and is now 2.59. Most of the world has lower life expectancy than we enjoy, and the number is going down. I think those specific statistics speak for themselves.

PS: For anyone who doesn't trust Wikipedia, click on the source link at the top, check the URL and browse through that PDF for verification.

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] environmentalism and limiting pop. growth (was NOV meeting topic)


On Nov 8, 2007 8:42 PM, Simón Ruiz <simon.a.ruiz@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 8, 2007 12:24 PM, Steven Black < blacks@indiana.edu> wrote:
> Actually, an equilibrium need never be reached. The typical model for
> uncontrolled breeding involves a massive die-off, followed by a return
> to uncontrolled breeding. It is a cycle with no natural equilibrium,
> particularly when age and disease are the primary killers.

I suppose equilibrium wasn't the word I was looking for. I don't mean
so much a stable, balanced state so much as a dynamic, constant
balancing.

Perhaps you meant homeostasis instead of equilibrium?

I invite the folks in this thread to take a look at the latest issue of wie http://www.wie.org/j38/?ifr=hp-art, also available at bloomingfoods and other fine stores in the area. There is an article in there about a new face of environmentalism and sustainability that is worth a read.

Of particular note in the article is integral-laden notion that people don't respond very well moralistic scolding, so it's not a very good way to activate change, even if that change is relatively or absolutely "Better" for those involved.

For example, if you tell someone that overpopulation is doing the planet in and the solution is to remove human beings from the equation, even if that thought is "right" on any level, it wont make it very far into most peoples' heads. It'll get just past the ear before it runs into the self-preservation defense system. Unless that system has been entangled in rational thought long enough to be disabled, the notion falls right back out of the ear as soon as it gets in and notional antibodies will spring up in its place to prevent further such "attacks".

The vhem  movement suffers from this because unless you're already onboard with its ideas, no amount of rational explanation is going to change the physical, evolutionary, and spiritual feeling that it's main focus is anti-being-alive rather than pro-planet.

For instance, my defenses ring with this kind of response: "well any source that is spouting that kind of nonesense obviously doesn't have children, obviously doesn't understand the compassionate role of the human being to do good in the world, obviously has no faith in the creativity and adaptability of mankind, obviously doesn't have faith in any higher power or self, and oddly seems to think that wiping out a tiny, insignificant planet really is a big deal in the huge scheme of the universe. I mean aren't we just a few specs on a big rock? Who cares if the rock warms up a few degrees? Enjoy it while you can and let your kids decide if they want to, too. At least give them the choice." Obviously those are just defensive reactions and any rational being can (d|r)eflect them with formal argument about why they are baseless, delusional, or just plain wrong. That's what rational beings do. But reason alone can't undo decades of habit and generations of culture. To do that requires something more fundamental. It requires something that can surround me, seep into my daily life and be assimilated by my underconscious mind to carry me in the right direction despite my reactionary head.

The article talks about an alternative "brighter green" that is definitely not being sold as something non-hippy, non-activist, and non-green, but instead is centered around the notion of actually using technology and human creativity to dive right into changing the planet in a positive, sustainable way rather than trying to butt heads with how wrong everything everyone else is doing or trying to avoid doing certain things. Positive reinforcement works much better than negative reinforcement, aparently, and making positive changes apparently does more good than using up those resources to disable negative changes.

The article suggests doing this more fundamental kind of changing through the channels that are deemed important to the industrialized countries: style, culture, and media. In short, if green is cool, and people want to be cool, people will act green and the planet will benefit (at least in the short term). If green is fashionable and people respond to fashion (as apparently many do), then people will be brightened towards green. I think that we'll be seeing a whole lot of this now that the media has latched onto the "green" meme. The very idea that it's doing so to support its own agenda and profit is what is going to carry it forward. It's basically an environmental trojan in the capitalOS. Inevitably, it will be abused and the green meme will be trashed, just like Wal*mart will trash the Organic meme, but in its place I have no doubt in the fountainhead of creativity that human beings corral is already coming up with something far better, and that its temporary reign will have left a beneficial mark on the planet's history.

anyhoo, it's an interesting read :)

:g



Thursday, November 8, 2007

Re: [BLUG] environmentalism and limiting pop. growth (was NOV meeting topic)

On Nov 8, 2007 12:24 PM, Steven Black <blacks@indiana.edu> wrote:
> Actually, an equilibrium need never be reached. The typical model for
> uncontrolled breeding involves a massive die-off, followed by a return
> to uncontrolled breeding. It is a cycle with no natural equilibrium,
> particularly when age and disease are the primary killers.

I suppose equilibrium wasn't the word I was looking for. I don't mean
so much a stable, balanced state so much as a dynamic, constant
balancing.

The reason the planet is becoming overpopulated is because it has the
capacity (at least in the short term) to sustain that extra
population. When either too many people are made, or the planet's
capacity to sustain the people that we already have changes, either
people will die or more people will be made.

I'm guessing this has something to do with this massive die-off you're
predicting?


> > Those elders didn't have 2-3 children, I'd wager; they had 8-12.
>
> If I have 5 children (like my father did, and my wife's parents did)
> and each of those 5 children have 5 children then I have 25
> grandchildren. If those 25 grandchildren have 5 children a piece,
> I have 125 great-grandchildren.

*sNiP math*

> However, the numbers look much worse when you plan for the future,
> by which I mean 7 generations or about 140 years. Heck, plan for one
> near-future life expectancy of 100 years and 5 generations and the
> numbers are bad enough.

Both of my parents are the eldest of eight.

However...

My mother had 3 children, my father had four. I have four siblings,
and I'm the youngest at 24 (my oldest brother is 45). Of the five of
us, I have a niece and a nephew.

So, yes, if you and all of your siblings had five kids apiece, and
they had five kids apiece, etc...but I wonder how many nieces and
nephews you have.

> > You might like Orson Scott Card's Ender saga. The solution to
> > over-population in that is to hurl great big chunks of our population
> > out to the stars (of course, we happen to know where to send them,
> > which helps).
>
> Resource scarcity becomes a greater concern the greater the population
> becomes. With insufficient resources there is little anyone will be
> able to do to get off the planet.

Well, those people landed on other planets and started taking
advantage of those resources.

> > My fiancée and I are likely to adopt children; she herself was adopted.
>
> My wife and I are thinking that we may eventually adopt, too.
> There are plenty of children out there that need loving, caring
> families.

The numbers are insane, and the process of adopting a difficult tangle
of red tape. There are actually a huge number of willing families not
allowed to adopt for such genius reasons as "Sorry, you're gay".

> My wife is less dead set against breeding than I am. However we
> both have family histories with unfortunate diseases and disorders.

Also a valid reason to go childless.

> I believe humans should be extinct on Earth. The Earth was a nice
> place to get started, but once we have the technology to live
> sustainably off-planet it is our duty to the biosphere to leave it.

Ack, I can't agree. We're as natural a part of this planet as any
other living being. We simply need to be more responsible stewards.

> That would be a nice goal. I fear that while there remain radical
> religious groups promoting uncontrolled breeding (and not kept at
> bay with legislation) the world will continue to have
> over-population issues.

Legislation? I suppose it may come to that (in that Orson Scott Card
series I mentioned, it does), but before we propose legal restrictions
on personal liberty why don't we see what happens when we, say,
improve the economic situation and the literacy rates of poorer areas
of the world (including poorer areas of our own cities).

> > When there are no more empty spaces, we'll have killed the planet's
> > ability to sustain us. It's as simple as that, as I see it. If we
> > manage to deforest and pave the world, we're done for.
>
> Heh. A place isn't empty if it can't be accidentally destroyed in
> an experiment gone wrong. Such a place may be an oxygen farm or
> what-have-you. However when I talk about empty spaces, I'm talking
> about places that *can* be destroyed when a ship falls out of the
> sky during a test process. (Or better, places empty of even anything
> that can be destroyed.)

I dunno, I think we'll figure getting off-planet out in the
not-too-distant future, and any "learning experiences" with
inter-planetary or inter-stellar travel probably won't land on Earth.

> > However, I think we'd have to pretty much want "voluntary human
> > extinction" to hit that extreme, because it's not like we wouldn't
> > notice the massive consequences of such action happening as we moved
> > toward it.
>
> The key word is "voluntary". If it is a die-off it is involuntary.

Well, if you know the consequences of something like destroying the
rainforests, or pulling the trigger of that gun pressed against your
forehead, and you do it anyway, that's voluntary. That's all I mean.

> Voluntary means having a few children you can take care of well.

Voluntary extinction == suicide. Or is there some sort of linguistic
subtlety I'm missing? What you're describing is more like voluntary
population control.

> Involuntary means having so many children that they all go hungry and
> none of them have clothes that fit. Then they all die when you don't
> have the money to take any of them to a doctor.

Interestingly enough, in that situation people tend to have MORE
children, so they'll have better chances of one of them making it to
adulthood.

> Cheers, (morbid it may be, but we're all friends :)
> Steven

Well, then, cheers!
Simón

> > P.S. I think the only Linux-related thing about all this is that I'm
> > typing it up on Ubuntu...
>
> I believe open source software should be used in the process to get us
> colonizing other planets. Linux is well suited for such a task. :)

Well, that, and Linux is the most efficient user of available resources...

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] environmentalism and limiting pop. growth (was NOV meeting topic)

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Steven Black wrote:

> Resource scarcity becomes a greater concern the greater the population
> becomes. With insufficient resources there is little anyone will be
> able to do to get off the planet.
> ...
> My theory, though, is that we need to treat the planet as basically
> a zero-sum game. It is about maximizing resource utilization and not
> about having more -- as you can't have more, there's a fixed amount.

Gosh Steven where did you get this idea that "there will never be enough"?
People in all but the poorest countries have had a greater standard of
living than ever before, due to the advances in science and technology in
only the last century. Given the current pitiful rate of investment in
"livingry" it's hard to predict what the human race might be capable of if
we actually put our minds to it. Do the advantages of having an extra
seven billion people around outweigh the disadvantages? Nobody seriously
gives this line of thought any consideration. Why?

* http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html
It's important to note that none of the projections on this page rely on
any new technology. Amusing nonetheless.

It's relevant because John McCarthy discovered Lisp which resulted in
Emacs and thus GNU.

-fenn
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug