date:20060303

We use the most up to date av products

-Original Message-
From: "Hayes Elkins"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 3/3/06 9:04:12 PM
To: "hardware@hardwaregroup.com"
Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus

v10.0.2? (there is a significant difference in 10 vs the past versions)


>From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: The Hardware List 
>To: "The Hardware List" 
>Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:39:00 -0800
>
>Yes it's the corporate edition
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hayes Elkins
>Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:28 PM
>To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
>Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
>
>Are you specifically testing SAVCE, not Norton AV, but the latest SAVCE
>client v10.0.2?
>
>
> >From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: The Hardware List 
> >To: "The Hardware List" 
> >Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
> >Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:59:55 -0800
> >
> >Well I see malware daily as part of my job and I see the results of AV
> >vendors against those pieces of malware and Symantec is terrible from
> >what I have seen. And what I have seen is definitely things in the wild
> >regardless if its on the wild list or not.
> >
> >And like I said earlier scanning a system for malware and seeing which
> >vendors catch what is not a very accurate test because you actually
> >don't know what is on the system and how many pieces of malware are
> >there. So the fact that some other scanner caught 10 and then Symantec
> >comes and finds 2 is not good because you don't know if both scanners
> >are missing 100 pieces of malware. You only know what the scanners are
> >reporting to you and there has even been a controversy in that because
> >some scanners report false positives on purpose so that their scanning
> >can seem more accurate. But that happens more with the anti spyware
> >scanners.
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart
> >Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:10 PM
> >To: The Hardware List
> >Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus
> >
> >Have you used it? It has caught malware on my machines that many of the
> >other popular anti-spyware tools missed...
> >
> >That test link someone provided also shows it does a nice job at
> >anti-malware.
> >
> >So, care to qualify your statement?
> >
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:02 PM
> >Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus
> >
> >
> > > Where did you hear that because its definitely not the case
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: "Greg Sevart"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: 3/3/06 10:16:07 AM
> > > To: "The Hardware List"
> > > Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus
> > >
> > > I can confirm.
> > > SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer
>grade
> >
> > > stuff
> > > that is Norton branded.
> > > 10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I
> >don't
> > > consider very bad.
> > >
> > > I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it
> >just
> > > isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good
>reason)
> >
> > > hate
> > > the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is
> > > related...but nothing could be further from the truth.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective
> >malware
> > > scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this
>task.
> > >
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Hayes Elkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: 
> > > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM
> > > Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
> > >
> > >
> > >> The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client
>(10.0.2.2020)
> > >> takes
> > >> about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a
>much
> > >> better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it
> >will
> > >> get
> > >> more false positives.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>From: Jin-Wei Tioh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >>>Reply-To: The Hardware List 
> > >>>To: The Hardware List 
> > >>>Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
> > >>>Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600
> > >>>
> > >>>At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:
> > Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection
> >accuracy.
> > >>>
> > >>>Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always
>hated
> > >>>the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I
> > >>>switched to Kaspersky.
> > >>>
> > >>>--
> > >>>JW
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: Cooking was Re: cars was [H] google search

2006-03-03 Thread Stan Zaske

Definitely hood down for baked at 60 MPH, get toasted for sure and let 
the passengers flip the burgers. I mean, who's going to talk on the cell 
if not the driver.



Wayne Johnson wrote:


At 12:58 AM 3/4/2006, Stan Zaske typed:

Mmmm Auto Fuel! Does this mean I can drive my car *and* cook supper 
at the same time?



Would that be hood up for fried & down for baked ?  One might want to 
be toasted before they start flipping burgers at 60mph tho. ;-)



--+--
   Wayne D. Johnson
Ashland, OH, USA 44805

Re: Cooking was Re: cars was [H] google search

2006-03-03 Thread Wayne Johnson


At 12:58 AM 3/4/2006, Stan Zaske typed:
Mmmm Auto Fuel! Does this mean I can drive my car *and* cook supper 
at the same time?


Would that be hood up for fried & down for baked ?  One might want to 
be toasted before they start flipping burgers at 60mph tho. ;-)



--+--
   Wayne D. Johnson
Ashland, OH, USA 44805

Re: Cooking was Re: cars was [H] google search

2006-03-03 Thread Stan Zaske

Mmmm Auto Fuel! Does this mean I can drive my car *and* cook supper at 
the same time?



Hayes Elkins wrote:


Save the grease!



From: Jim Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Cooking was Re: cars was [H] google search
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:26:49 -0500

Mmmm Chicken wings!

RE: [H] Antivirus


v10.0.2? (there is a significant difference in 10 vs the past versions)



From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: "The Hardware List" 
Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:39:00 -0800

Yes it's the corporate edition

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hayes Elkins
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:28 PM
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus

Are you specifically testing SAVCE, not Norton AV, but the latest SAVCE
client v10.0.2?


>From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: The Hardware List 
>To: "The Hardware List" 
>Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:59:55 -0800
>
>Well I see malware daily as part of my job and I see the results of AV
>vendors against those pieces of malware and Symantec is terrible from
>what I have seen. And what I have seen is definitely things in the wild
>regardless if its on the wild list or not.
>
>And like I said earlier scanning a system for malware and seeing which
>vendors catch what is not a very accurate test because you actually
>don't know what is on the system and how many pieces of malware are
>there. So the fact that some other scanner caught 10 and then Symantec
>comes and finds 2 is not good because you don't know if both scanners
>are missing 100 pieces of malware. You only know what the scanners are
>reporting to you and there has even been a controversy in that because
>some scanners report false positives on purpose so that their scanning
>can seem more accurate. But that happens more with the anti spyware
>scanners.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart
>Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:10 PM
>To: The Hardware List
>Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus
>
>Have you used it? It has caught malware on my machines that many of the
>other popular anti-spyware tools missed...
>
>That test link someone provided also shows it does a nice job at
>anti-malware.
>
>So, care to qualify your statement?
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:02 PM
>Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus
>
>
> > Where did you hear that because its definitely not the case
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: "Greg Sevart"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: 3/3/06 10:16:07 AM
> > To: "The Hardware List"
> > Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus
> >
> > I can confirm.
> > SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer
grade
>
> > stuff
> > that is Norton branded.
> > 10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I
>don't
> > consider very bad.
> >
> > I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it
>just
> > isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good
reason)
>
> > hate
> > the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is
> > related...but nothing could be further from the truth.
> >
> > Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective
>malware
> > scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this
task.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Hayes Elkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM
> > Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
> >
> >
> >> The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client
(10.0.2.2020)
> >> takes
> >> about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a
much
> >> better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it
>will
> >> get
> >> more false positives.
> >>
> >>
> >>>From: Jin-Wei Tioh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>Reply-To: The Hardware List 
> >>>To: The Hardware List 
> >>>Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
> >>>Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600
> >>>
> >>>At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:
> Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection
>accuracy.
> >>>
> >>>Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always
hated
> >>>the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I
> >>>switched to Kaspersky.
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>JW
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

RE: [H] Antivirus

Yes it's the corporate edition

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hayes Elkins
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:28 PM
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus

Are you specifically testing SAVCE, not Norton AV, but the latest SAVCE 
client v10.0.2?


>From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: The Hardware List 
>To: "The Hardware List" 
>Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:59:55 -0800
>
>Well I see malware daily as part of my job and I see the results of AV
>vendors against those pieces of malware and Symantec is terrible from
>what I have seen. And what I have seen is definitely things in the wild
>regardless if its on the wild list or not.
>
>And like I said earlier scanning a system for malware and seeing which
>vendors catch what is not a very accurate test because you actually
>don't know what is on the system and how many pieces of malware are
>there. So the fact that some other scanner caught 10 and then Symantec
>comes and finds 2 is not good because you don't know if both scanners
>are missing 100 pieces of malware. You only know what the scanners are
>reporting to you and there has even been a controversy in that because
>some scanners report false positives on purpose so that their scanning
>can seem more accurate. But that happens more with the anti spyware
>scanners.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart
>Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:10 PM
>To: The Hardware List
>Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus
>
>Have you used it? It has caught malware on my machines that many of the
>other popular anti-spyware tools missed...
>
>That test link someone provided also shows it does a nice job at
>anti-malware.
>
>So, care to qualify your statement?
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:02 PM
>Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus
>
>
> > Where did you hear that because its definitely not the case
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: "Greg Sevart"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: 3/3/06 10:16:07 AM
> > To: "The Hardware List"
> > Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus
> >
> > I can confirm.
> > SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer
grade
>
> > stuff
> > that is Norton branded.
> > 10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I
>don't
> > consider very bad.
> >
> > I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it
>just
> > isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good
reason)
>
> > hate
> > the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is
> > related...but nothing could be further from the truth.
> >
> > Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective
>malware
> > scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this
task.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Hayes Elkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM
> > Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
> >
> >
> >> The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client
(10.0.2.2020)
> >> takes
> >> about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a
much
> >> better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it
>will
> >> get
> >> more false positives.
> >>
> >>
> >>>From: Jin-Wei Tioh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>Reply-To: The Hardware List 
> >>>To: The Hardware List 
> >>>Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
> >>>Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600
> >>>
> >>>At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:
> Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection
>accuracy.
> >>>
> >>>Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always
hated
> >>>the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I
> >>>switched to Kaspersky.
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>JW
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: [H] Antivirus

That was my question as well. As we know, NAV <> SAVCE.

Greg

- Original Message - 
From: "Hayes Elkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 6:28 PM
Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus

Are you specifically testing SAVCE, not Norton AV, but the latest SAVCE 
client v10.0.2?

From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: "The Hardware List" 
Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:59:55 -0800

Well I see malware daily as part of my job and I see the results of AV
vendors against those pieces of malware and Symantec is terrible from
what I have seen. And what I have seen is definitely things in the wild
regardless if its on the wild list or not.

And like I said earlier scanning a system for malware and seeing which
vendors catch what is not a very accurate test because you actually
don't know what is on the system and how many pieces of malware are
there. So the fact that some other scanner caught 10 and then Symantec
comes and finds 2 is not good because you don't know if both scanners
are missing 100 pieces of malware. You only know what the scanners are
reporting to you and there has even been a controversy in that because
some scanners report false positives on purpose so that their scanning
can seem more accurate. But that happens more with the anti spyware
scanners.

RE: [H] Antivirus

Are you specifically testing SAVCE, not Norton AV, but the latest SAVCE 
client v10.0.2?

From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: "The Hardware List" 
Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:59:55 -0800

Well I see malware daily as part of my job and I see the results of AV
vendors against those pieces of malware and Symantec is terrible from
what I have seen. And what I have seen is definitely things in the wild
regardless if its on the wild list or not.

And like I said earlier scanning a system for malware and seeing which
vendors catch what is not a very accurate test because you actually
don't know what is on the system and how many pieces of malware are
there. So the fact that some other scanner caught 10 and then Symantec
comes and finds 2 is not good because you don't know if both scanners
are missing 100 pieces of malware. You only know what the scanners are
reporting to you and there has even been a controversy in that because
some scanners report false positives on purpose so that their scanning
can seem more accurate. But that happens more with the anti spyware
scanners.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:10 PM
To: The Hardware List
Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus

Have you used it? It has caught malware on my machines that many of the
other popular anti-spyware tools missed...

That test link someone provided also shows it does a nice job at
anti-malware.

So, care to qualify your statement?

- Original Message -
From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus

> Where did you hear that because its definitely not the case
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Greg Sevart"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: 3/3/06 10:16:07 AM
> To: "The Hardware List"
> Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus
>
> I can confirm.
> SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer grade

> stuff
> that is Norton branded.
> 10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I
don't
> consider very bad.
>
> I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it
just
> isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good reason)

> hate
> the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is
> related...but nothing could be further from the truth.
>
> Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective
malware
> scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this task.
>
> Greg
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Hayes Elkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM
> Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
>
>
>> The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client (10.0.2.2020)
>> takes
>> about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a much
>> better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it
will
>> get
>> more false positives.
>>
>>
>>>From: Jin-Wei Tioh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Reply-To: The Hardware List 
>>>To: The Hardware List 
>>>Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
>>>Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600
>>>
>>>At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:
Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection
accuracy.
>>>
>>>Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated
>>>the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I
>>>switched to Kaspersky.
>>>
>>>--
>>>JW
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

RE: Cooking was Re: cars was [H] google search


Save the grease!



From: Jim Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Cooking was Re: cars was [H] google search
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:26:49 -0500

Mmmm Chicken wings!

RE: [H] Antivirus

Well I see malware daily as part of my job and I see the results of AV
vendors against those pieces of malware and Symantec is terrible from
what I have seen. And what I have seen is definitely things in the wild
regardless if its on the wild list or not. 

And like I said earlier scanning a system for malware and seeing which
vendors catch what is not a very accurate test because you actually
don't know what is on the system and how many pieces of malware are
there. So the fact that some other scanner caught 10 and then Symantec
comes and finds 2 is not good because you don't know if both scanners
are missing 100 pieces of malware. You only know what the scanners are
reporting to you and there has even been a controversy in that because
some scanners report false positives on purpose so that their scanning
can seem more accurate. But that happens more with the anti spyware
scanners.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:10 PM
To: The Hardware List
Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus

Have you used it? It has caught malware on my machines that many of the 
other popular anti-spyware tools missed...

That test link someone provided also shows it does a nice job at 
anti-malware.

So, care to qualify your statement?

- Original Message - 
From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus

> Where did you hear that because its definitely not the case
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Greg Sevart"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: 3/3/06 10:16:07 AM
> To: "The Hardware List"
> Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus
>
> I can confirm.
> SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer grade

> stuff
> that is Norton branded.
> 10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I
don't
> consider very bad.
>
> I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it
just
> isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good reason)

> hate
> the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is
> related...but nothing could be further from the truth.
>
> Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective
malware
> scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this task.
>
> Greg
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Hayes Elkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM
> Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
>
>
>> The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client (10.0.2.2020) 
>> takes
>> about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a much
>> better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it
will 
>> get
>> more false positives.
>>
>>
>>>From: Jin-Wei Tioh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Reply-To: The Hardware List 
>>>To: The Hardware List 
>>>Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
>>>Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600
>>>
>>>At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:
Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection
accuracy.
>>>
>>>Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated
>>>the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I
>>>switched to Kaspersky.
>>>
>>>--
>>>JW
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Cooking was Re: cars was [H] google search

2006-03-03 Thread Jim Edwards


Mmmm Chicken wings!

Re: cars was [H] google search for "failure"

2006-03-03 Thread Analyst


Hayes,


> Exceptyou do not need soybeans to make biodiesel! Pretty much any
> vegetable oil can be used at this point 

Or grapeseed oil, canola oil, peanut oil, and many others.


Vince

Re: [H] google search for "failure"

2006-03-03 Thread Analyst

On 3 Mar 2006 at 8:45, FORC5 wrote:

> also takes more energy to produce then gas

Actually not.

"The US Department of Agriculture reports a net energy balance for ethanol 
production of 1.67. In other words, for every one unit of energy used to 
produce ethanol and its 
accompanying co-products, 1.67 units of energy results. However, the US 
Department of Energy reports that petroleum refining can actually have a 
negative energy balance. For 
example, every unit of energy expended in gasoline production is reported to 
result in only 0.79 units of energy in the form of gasoline."  

http://www.cleanairchoice.org/outdoor/E85Background.asp


Vince

RE: [H] google search for "failure"

2006-03-03 Thread Analyst


Chris,

> Everyone is so terrified of Nuclear Power, which numerous other places
> in the world use to great success, that they are willing to do almost
> anything else with other permanent damage because they find it much
> easier to "sell".

Without the major federal subsidies (meaning your tax dollars as Corporate 
Welfare), "Nuclear Power" is one of THE most expensive forms of energy.


Vince

Re: [H] Antivirus

Have you used it? It has caught malware on my machines that many of the 
other popular anti-spyware tools missed...


That test link someone provided also shows it does a nice job at 
anti-malware.


So, care to qualify your statement?


- Original Message - 
From: "Mesdaq, Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus



Where did you hear that because its definitely not the case

-Original Message-
From: "Greg Sevart"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 3/3/06 10:16:07 AM
To: "The Hardware List"
Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus

I can confirm.
SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer grade 
stuff

that is Norton branded.
10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I don't
consider very bad.

I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it just
isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good reason) 
hate

the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is
related...but nothing could be further from the truth.

Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective malware
scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this task.

Greg

- Original Message - 
From: "Hayes Elkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus


The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client (10.0.2.2020) 
takes

about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a much
better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it will 
get

more false positives.



From: Jin-Wei Tioh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600

At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:

Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy.


Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated
the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I
switched to Kaspersky.

--
JW

Re: [H] google search for "failure"

PS:  and if anyone thinks I was joking

 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4741On 3/3/06, G.Waleed Kavalec <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

We need a (really hefty) Ansari X-Prize for the one who invents "Mr. Fusion".
On 3/3/06, Greg Sevart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> We have to use more nuclear power. I applaud efforts to add wind, thermal,> and solar generation, but I just don't see those every becoming large scale
> enough to make an appreciable dent. (incidentally, did you see that KCP&L is> building a wind generation station out west?)>> Nuclear power, properly regulated and standardized, is incredibly safe and
> clean. The fuel issue will become a nonissue once breeder reactors are> further developed and build en masse.>> Russia figured out that nuclear is the future. They're building 2 new> reactors per year to reach 25% nuclear generation (currently 16%) by 2030.
>> China announced plans to quadruple nuclear power output over the next 20> years--to the tune of 30 new reactors.>> We're starting to move, of course. 16 new reactors are on the drawing
> boards. Orders are expected in late 2007. But we need to get serious...I> would like to see around 50% (20% now) of our KWH coming from nuclear> sources.>> Greg>> - Original Message -
> From: "Chris Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: "'The Hardware List'" > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 7:06 AM> Subject: RE: [H] google search for "failure">>> > The reality is, though, the electric type cars, etc. all require you to
> > create energy somewhere.. I'm laughing a bit at places like Montana where> > you've got a Governor asking to open up strip mining for more "coal based> > solutions".> >
> > Everyone is so terrified of Nuclear Power, which numerous other places in> > the world use to great success, that they are willing to do almost> > anything> > else with other permanent damage because they find it much easier to
> > "sell".> >> > CW> >> > -Original Message-> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of FORC5> > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 7:40 PM> > To: The Hardware List
> > Subject: Re: [H] google search for "failure"> >> > I'm interested in what the greenies are going to do when all those> > batteries> > hit the scrap pile.> > IMO large vehicles keep gas prices lower, big oil is not going to live
> > with> > lower profits which is what would happen if all cars got 50mph, they would> > raise the rates to keep profits the same, we would get 50 mph but would> > still cost us the same each year to operate. >:-}
> >> > fp> >> > At 06:17 PM 3/2/2006, Greg Sevart Poked the stick with:> >> >>I'd prefer an electric vehicle. When they finally figure out that the real> > solution is all-electric with nuclear, wind, solar, and hydrothermal power
> > sources, and put a decent sized motor in a car with a Li-Ion battery that> > uses the nanotech Panasonic invented, and can do so without being $80,000,> > I'm there. Until then, I'm going to buy vehicles with big fat V8's.
> >>> >>Greg> >> > --> > Tallyho ! ]:8)> > Taglines below !> > --> > Think much, speak little, and write less.> >> >
>>>--G. Waleed Kavalec-Why are we all in this handbasket  and where is it going so fast?
http://www.kavalec.com/thisisislam.swf--  G. Waleed Kavalec-Why are we all in this handbasket  and where is it going so fast?
 http://www.kavalec.com/thisisislam.swf

[H] hardware - but a bit OT

An Oxford University physicist sees the future of nanotechnology in the workings of one of Nature's tiniest motors

An
Oxford University physicist sees the future of nanotechnology in the
workings of one of Nature's tiniest motors, that which allows some
bacteria to swim by rotating slender filaments known as flagella.

'The
bacterial flagellar motor is an example of finished bio-nanotechnology,
and understanding how it works and assembles is one of the first steps
towards making man-made machines on the same tiny scale,' said Dr
Richard Berry, a Tutorial Fellow in Physics at Oxford University. 'The
smallest man-made rotary motors so far are thousands of times bigger.'

This
motor has the same power-to-weight ratio as an internal combustion
engine, spins at up to 100,000 rpm and achieves near-perfect
efficiency. Yet at only 50 nanometres across, one hundred million would
fit onto a full-stop. The only other natural rotary electric motor is
in the enzyme ATP-synthase.

Dr
Berry is a member of the Rotary Molecular Motors Group in the Oxford
Department of Physics. He presented his research at the Biophysical
Society's Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Sunday 19
February.

The
physicist and his Japanese colleagues changed the proteins normally
found in the motor of E Coli to make it run on sodium instead of
hydrogen ions. This allowed them to reduce its speed of rotation by
lowering the level of sodium ions present. They also made the actions
of the motor more easily detectable by attaching tiny beads to stubs of
flagella. Ultimately 26 distinct steps could be observed in each of its
revolutions.

'The
motor runs on electric current, the flow of hydrogen or sodium ions
across the cell membrane, and each step may be caused by one or two
sodium ions passing through the motor,' explained Dr Berry.

The
tools involved included optical tweezers, which employ light beams to
hold and to measure transparent particles, and a high-speed
fluorescence microscope which can capture 2500 images per second.

Dr
Berry and his colleagues have so far determined the torque-speed
relationship of the motor, and that it can have up to twelve
independent 'cylinders.'

'Our
research will allow us to measure the performance of the motor when we
vary things like the driving voltage and number of cylinders, and to
understand the physics of the fundamental torque-generating process,'
said Dr Berry.

http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=2958

Re: [H] Antivirus


At 03:36 PM 03/03/2006, Winterlight wrote:


 or can it be launched from the command line to do an on-demand scan?
T


Yes, or from a batch file, as can all Norten anti virus products and 
NU appellants


Thanks.

T

Re: cars was [H] google search for "failure"


At 03:18 PM 03/03/2006, Hayes Elkins wrote:
In one of the articles you linked earlier - the author mentions that 
even if biodiesel or some other green fuel achieves a perfect 
balance of widespread use with low resources used to cultivate, in 
the end it means nothing unless the population of the earth slows or 
is capped altogether. His suggestions of intelligent contraception 
are spot on - however the biggest roadblock for this is the 
stupidity that is religion.


Very good point.

T

Re: cars was [H] google search for "failure"


At 03:35 PM 03/03/2006, j m g wrote:

So?
I'm sure 150 years ago if someone had done the math all the energy
expended to create steam would have paralyzed people with the fear
that steam was impractical.  None of this stuff happens in a bubble,
we've been stuck with oil/gas and no mass transport for too long.


Huh?  What does the energy to create steam have to do with the delta 
between the energy contained in oil and the energy in virtually 
anything else.  The problem is that oil is such a great energy source 
that virtually nothing compares.


T

Re: [H] google search for "failure"

We need a (really hefty) Ansari X-Prize for the one who invents "Mr. Fusion".



On 3/3/06, Greg Sevart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have to use more nuclear power. I applaud efforts to add wind, thermal,
> and solar generation, but I just don't see those every becoming large scale
> enough to make an appreciable dent. (incidentally, did you see that KCP&L is
> building a wind generation station out west?)
>
> Nuclear power, properly regulated and standardized, is incredibly safe and
> clean. The fuel issue will become a nonissue once breeder reactors are
> further developed and build en masse.
>
> Russia figured out that nuclear is the future. They're building 2 new
> reactors per year to reach 25% nuclear generation (currently 16%) by 2030.
>
> China announced plans to quadruple nuclear power output over the next 20
> years--to the tune of 30 new reactors.
>
> We're starting to move, of course. 16 new reactors are on the drawing
> boards. Orders are expected in late 2007. But we need to get serious...I
> would like to see around 50% (20% now) of our KWH coming from nuclear
> sources.
>
> Greg
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Chris Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'The Hardware List'" 
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 7:06 AM
> Subject: RE: [H] google search for "failure"
>
>
> > The reality is, though, the electric type cars, etc. all require you to
> > create energy somewhere.. I'm laughing a bit at places like Montana where
> > you've got a Governor asking to open up strip mining for more "coal based
> > solutions".
> >
> > Everyone is so terrified of Nuclear Power, which numerous other places in
> > the world use to great success, that they are willing to do almost
> > anything
> > else with other permanent damage because they find it much easier to
> > "sell".
> >
> > CW
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of FORC5
> > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 7:40 PM
> > To: The Hardware List
> > Subject: Re: [H] google search for "failure"
> >
> > I'm interested in what the greenies are going to do when all those
> > batteries
> > hit the scrap pile.
> > IMO large vehicles keep gas prices lower, big oil is not going to live
> > with
> > lower profits which is what would happen if all cars got 50mph, they would
> > raise the rates to keep profits the same, we would get 50 mph but would
> > still cost us the same each year to operate. >:-}
> >
> > fp
> >
> > At 06:17 PM 3/2/2006, Greg Sevart Poked the stick with:
> >
> >>I'd prefer an electric vehicle. When they finally figure out that the real
> > solution is all-electric with nuclear, wind, solar, and hydrothermal power
> > sources, and put a decent sized motor in a car with a Li-Ion battery that
> > uses the nanotech Panasonic invented, and can do so without being $80,000,
> > I'm there. Until then, I'm going to buy vehicles with big fat V8's.
> >>
> >>Greg
> >
> > --
> > Tallyho ! ]:8)
> > Taglines below !
> > --
> > Think much, speak little, and write less.
> >
> >
>
>
>


--

G. Waleed Kavalec
-
Why are we all in this handbasket
  and where is it going so fast?

http://www.kavalec.com/thisisislam.swf

Re: [H] Antivirus

Where did you hear that because its definitely not the case

-Original Message-
From: "Greg Sevart"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 3/3/06 10:16:07 AM
To: "The Hardware List"
Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus

I can confirm.
SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer grade stuff 
that is Norton branded.
10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I don't 
consider very bad.

I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it just 
isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good reason) hate 
the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is 
related...but nothing could be further from the truth.

Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective malware 
scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this task.

Greg

- Original Message - 
From: "Hayes Elkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus

> The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client (10.0.2.2020) takes 
> about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a much 
> better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it will get 
> more false positives.
>
>
>>From: Jin-Wei Tioh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: The Hardware List 
>>To: The Hardware List 
>>Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
>>Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600
>>
>>At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:
>>>Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy.
>>
>>Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated
>>the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I
>>switched to Kaspersky.
>>
>>--
>>JW
>>
>
>
>

Re: [H] Antivirus

2006-03-03 Thread Winterlight




 or can it be launched from the command line to do an on-demand scan?
T


Yes, or from a batch file, as can all Norten anti virus products and NU 
appellants

Re: cars was [H] google search for "failure"

2006-03-03 Thread j m g

So?
I'm sure 150 years ago if someone had done the math all the energy
expended to create steam would have paralyzed people with the fear
that steam was impractical.  None of this stuff happens in a bubble,
we've been stuck with oil/gas and no mass transport for too long.

On 3/3/06, Thane Sherrington (S) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 02:25 PM 03/03/2006, Hayes Elkins wrote:
> >Exceptyou do not need soybeans to make biodiesel! Pretty much
> >any vegetable oil can be used at this point although the refining
> >has been optimized (thus far) for soy. Imagine all the subs paid to
> >farmers to NOT GROW A THING when these farmers could now be biodiesel 
> >sources.
>
> But I'm betting that biodiesel doesn't compare to oil for the amount
> of energy per pound.  According to one of those articles: "the fossil
> fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter 'containing
> 44 x 1018 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net
> primary productivity of the planet's current biota'" - if that's
> true, then even if all the nongrowing farmers grow for biodiesel (a
> good idea, I think) we still aren't going to keep up with our wild
> demands.   Perhaps a shift to better mass transport and smaller, more
> efficient vehicles (all using biodiesel) would make the difference,
> but I don't see that happening, unfortunately - not while we have an
> oilman in the Whitehouse and a Bushophile from Alberta running things up here.
>
> T
>
>


--
-jmg
-sapere aude

Re: cars was [H] google search for "failure"

In one of the articles you linked earlier - the author mentions that even if 
biodiesel or some other green fuel achieves a perfect balance of widespread 
use with low resources used to cultivate, in the end it means nothing unless 
the population of the earth slows or is capped altogether. His suggestions 
of intelligent contraception are spot on - however the biggest roadblock for 
this is the stupidity that is religion.




From: "Thane Sherrington (S)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: cars was [H] google search for "failure"
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:17:06 -0400

At 02:25 PM 03/03/2006, Hayes Elkins wrote:
Exceptyou do not need soybeans to make biodiesel! Pretty much any 
vegetable oil can be used at this point although the refining has been 
optimized (thus far) for soy. Imagine all the subs paid to farmers to NOT 
GROW A THING when these farmers could now be biodiesel sources.


But I'm betting that biodiesel doesn't compare to oil for the amount of 
energy per pound.  According to one of those articles: "the fossil fuels we 
burn in one year were made from organic matter 'containing 44 x 1018 grams 
of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the 
planet's current biota'" - if that's true, then even if all the nongrowing 
farmers grow for biodiesel (a good idea, I think) we still aren't going to 
keep up with our wild demands.   Perhaps a shift to better mass transport 
and smaller, more efficient vehicles (all using biodiesel) would make the 
difference, but I don't see that happening, unfortunately - not while we 
have an oilman in the Whitehouse and a Bushophile from Alberta running 
things up here.


T

Re: cars was [H] google search for "failure"


At 02:25 PM 03/03/2006, Hayes Elkins wrote:
Exceptyou do not need soybeans to make biodiesel! Pretty much 
any vegetable oil can be used at this point although the refining 
has been optimized (thus far) for soy. Imagine all the subs paid to 
farmers to NOT GROW A THING when these farmers could now be biodiesel sources.


But I'm betting that biodiesel doesn't compare to oil for the amount 
of energy per pound.  According to one of those articles: "the fossil 
fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter 'containing 
44 x 1018 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net 
primary productivity of the planet's current biota'" - if that's 
true, then even if all the nongrowing farmers grow for biodiesel (a 
good idea, I think) we still aren't going to keep up with our wild 
demands.   Perhaps a shift to better mass transport and smaller, more 
efficient vehicles (all using biodiesel) would make the difference, 
but I don't see that happening, unfortunately - not while we have an 
oilman in the Whitehouse and a Bushophile from Alberta running things up here.


T

Re: [H] Antivirus


At 02:15 PM 03/03/2006, Greg Sevart wrote:
I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it 
just isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good 
reason) hate the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the 
corporate stuff is related...but nothing could be further from the truth.
Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective 
malware scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this task.


Is there a command line version or can it be launched from the 
command line to do an on-demand scan?


T

Re: [H] google search for "failure"

We have to use more nuclear power. I applaud efforts to add wind, thermal, 
and solar generation, but I just don't see those every becoming large scale 
enough to make an appreciable dent. (incidentally, did you see that KCP&L is 
building a wind generation station out west?)


Nuclear power, properly regulated and standardized, is incredibly safe and 
clean. The fuel issue will become a nonissue once breeder reactors are 
further developed and build en masse.


Russia figured out that nuclear is the future. They're building 2 new 
reactors per year to reach 25% nuclear generation (currently 16%) by 2030.


China announced plans to quadruple nuclear power output over the next 20 
years--to the tune of 30 new reactors.


We're starting to move, of course. 16 new reactors are on the drawing 
boards. Orders are expected in late 2007. But we need to get serious...I 
would like to see around 50% (20% now) of our KWH coming from nuclear 
sources.


Greg

- Original Message - 
From: "Chris Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'The Hardware List'" 
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 7:06 AM
Subject: RE: [H] google search for "failure"



The reality is, though, the electric type cars, etc. all require you to
create energy somewhere.. I'm laughing a bit at places like Montana where
you've got a Governor asking to open up strip mining for more "coal based
solutions".

Everyone is so terrified of Nuclear Power, which numerous other places in
the world use to great success, that they are willing to do almost 
anything
else with other permanent damage because they find it much easier to 
"sell".


CW

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of FORC5
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 7:40 PM
To: The Hardware List
Subject: Re: [H] google search for "failure"

I'm interested in what the greenies are going to do when all those 
batteries

hit the scrap pile.
IMO large vehicles keep gas prices lower, big oil is not going to live 
with

lower profits which is what would happen if all cars got 50mph, they would
raise the rates to keep profits the same, we would get 50 mph but would
still cost us the same each year to operate. >:-}

fp

At 06:17 PM 3/2/2006, Greg Sevart Poked the stick with:


I'd prefer an electric vehicle. When they finally figure out that the real

solution is all-electric with nuclear, wind, solar, and hydrothermal power
sources, and put a decent sized motor in a car with a Li-Ion battery that
uses the nanotech Panasonic invented, and can do so without being $80,000,
I'm there. Until then, I'm going to buy vehicles with big fat V8's.


Greg


--
Tallyho ! ]:8)
Taglines below !
--
Think much, speak little, and write less.

RE: [H] Antivirus

At 01:30 PM 03/03/2006, W. D. wrote:

At 10:54 3/3/2006, Jin-Wei Tioh, wrote:
>At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:
>>Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy.
>
>Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated
>the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I
>switched to Kaspersky.
>
>--
>JW

How does it compare to AVG Free?

Well for one thing, it works.  If you're using AVG free, you should 
also use the rhythm method, eschew modern medicine for the 
alternative sort, and heat your home in the winter by thinking warm 
thoughts.  

Seriously though, AVG really isn't up to the task of protecting your 
computer.  I get a lot of machines in running AVG Free and loaded 
with viruses (fewer on machines running NOD32 or Norton.)

This chart, posted by Bill:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2006_02.php

Puts AVG Pro at 90.47% effective, and 10% effective against 
polymorphic viruses.  NOD32 comes in at 98.77% and 94.3% against 
polymorphic.  Kaspersky at 99.57% and 99.4% against polymorphic.

While it has improved in recent testing, AVG Pro still regularly 
fails VirusBTN's tests.

And if the for-pay Pro version is this bad, how good is the free one?

NOD32 has a smaller memory footprint than AVG Free.

T

Re: cars was [H] google search for "failure"

Exceptyou do not need soybeans to make biodiesel! Pretty much any 
vegetable oil can be used at this point although the refining has been 
optimized (thus far) for soy. Imagine all the subs paid to farmers to NOT 
GROW A THING when these farmers could now be biodiesel sources.




From: "Thane Sherrington (S)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: cars was [H] google search for "failure"
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 14:26:51 -0400

At 10:16 AM 03/03/2006, Hayes Elkins wrote:
Biodiesel appeals to both sides of the political spectrum. It pleases 
hippies to no end because it is a true "green" fuel, burns cleaner than 
gas and has nearly ZERO emissions that contribute to the greenhouse 
effect. Biodiesel also can be a 100% american product, from harvesting to 
refining. That means no money goes to OPEC and instead goes to american 
labor. Also biodiesel has better lubricating qualities than traditional 
diesel fuel. The lifeblood of our country, the diesel trucking industry, 
are now starting to realize its potential to extend engine life. Imagine 
changing your fuel filter just twice in a span of 500,000 miles? (Assuming 
you use BD from the start, otherwise an older car will need its fuel 
filter changed at first, because BD will loosen all gunk and the filter 
will be full after a few days driving.)


From what I've read, Biodiesel isn't as good as it sounds.  To use it, the 
US would have to convert all farmland to soybeans or buy soybeans from SA.  
Soybean and palm oil farming means more forest land stripped and burnt 
(releasing carbon) to grow it.


http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/archives/101129.asp
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/biodiesel102104.cfm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1659036,00.html
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/6/27/9325/57114



T

Re: [H] Antivirus

It has eliminated the need for any real-time malware scanner product.

From: "Greg Sevart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: "The Hardware List" 
Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 12:15:30 -0600

I can confirm.
SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer grade 
stuff that is Norton branded.
10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I don't 
consider very bad.

I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it just 
isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good reason) hate 
the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is 
related...but nothing could be further from the truth.

Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective malware 
scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this task.

Greg

- Original Message - From: "Hayes Elkins" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus

The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client (10.0.2.2020) takes 
about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a much 
better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it will get 
more false positives.

From: Jin-Wei Tioh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600

At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:

Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy.

Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated
the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I
switched to Kaspersky.

--
JW

Re: cars was [H] google search for "failure"


At 10:16 AM 03/03/2006, Hayes Elkins wrote:
Biodiesel appeals to both sides of the political spectrum. It 
pleases hippies to no end because it is a true "green" fuel, burns 
cleaner than gas and has nearly ZERO emissions that contribute to 
the greenhouse effect. Biodiesel also can be a 100% american 
product, from harvesting to refining. That means no money goes to 
OPEC and instead goes to american labor. Also biodiesel has better 
lubricating qualities than traditional diesel fuel. The lifeblood of 
our country, the diesel trucking industry, are now starting to 
realize its potential to extend engine life. Imagine changing your 
fuel filter just twice in a span of 500,000 miles? (Assuming you use 
BD from the start, otherwise an older car will need its fuel filter 
changed at first, because BD will loosen all gunk and the filter 
will be full after a few days driving.)


From what I've read, Biodiesel isn't as good as it sounds.  To use 
it, the US would have to convert all farmland to soybeans or buy 
soybeans from SA.  Soybean and palm oil farming means more forest 
land stripped and burnt (releasing carbon) to grow it.


http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/archives/101129.asp
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/biodiesel102104.cfm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1659036,00.html
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/6/27/9325/57114



T

Re: [H] Antivirus


I can confirm.
SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer grade stuff 
that is Norton branded.
10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I don't 
consider very bad.


I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it just 
isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good reason) hate 
the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is 
related...but nothing could be further from the truth.


Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective malware 
scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this task.


Greg

- Original Message - 
From: "Hayes Elkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus


The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client (10.0.2.2020) takes 
about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a much 
better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it will get 
more false positives.




From: Jin-Wei Tioh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600

At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:

Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy.


Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated
the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I
switched to Kaspersky.

--
JW

RE: [H] Antivirus

2006-03-03 Thread W. D.

At 10:54 3/3/2006, Jin-Wei Tioh, wrote:
>At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:
>>Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy.
>
>Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated
>the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I
>switched to Kaspersky.
>
>--
>JW 

How does it compare to AVG Free?

Start Here to Find It Fast! -> http://www.US-Webmasters.com/best-start-page/
$8.77 Domain Names -> http://domains.us-webmasters.com/

RE: [H] Antivirus

The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client (10.0.2.2020) takes 
about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a much better 
job than the retail home user version (norton), however it will get more 
false positives.




From: Jin-Wei Tioh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600

At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:

Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy.


Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated
the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I
switched to Kaspersky.

--
JW

RE: [H] Antivirus

2006-03-03 Thread Jin-Wei Tioh


At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:

Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy.


Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated
the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I
switched to Kaspersky.

--
JW

Re: [H] google search for "failure"


As is soy based biodiesel.



From: Ben Ruset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] google search for "failure"
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:13:30 -0500

Corn based ethanol. Soybean based ethanol is efficient.

FORC5 wrote:

also takes more energy to produce then gas
fp

Re: [H] google search for "failure"

2006-03-03 Thread Ben Ruset


Corn based ethanol. Soybean based ethanol is efficient.

FORC5 wrote:

also takes more energy to produce then gas
fp

Re: [H] google search for "failure"

2006-03-03 Thread FORC5

also takes more energy to produce then gas
fp

At 07:58 AM 3/3/2006, G.Waleed Kavalec Poked the stick with:
>As I understand it the real problem with ethanol is that it won't go
>though existing pipelines.
>
>And THAT is a monster of a chicken-egg issue.
>
>
>
>On 3/3/06, j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The funny thing is you have all these american car companies saying
>> it's soo hard to get off gas, do a google on Brazil and Ethanol, you
>> can get a car down there that will switch from deisel or gas to
>> ethanol with the flip of a switch so you can use what's convenient,
>> guess who makes those cars - Ford.
>>
>> And the real kicker, the ethanol they are producing, based off cane
>> not corn packs more of a punch than gas.
>>
>> Yes I realize the whole chicken and the egg, I'm not going to find
>> straight ethanol at the corner gas station.  Yes it would take some
>> sort of government mandate, but before you free market wonks ruffle
>> yourself over that, just don't, not with all the govt handouts being
>> given to the current energy industry.  Why is it that Citgo is being
>> investigated for setting up a program to give discounted oil/gas to
>> low income folks but exxon/mobil got barely a look for price gouging.
>>
>> On 3/3/06, warpmedia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Better we work on filtering technology then creating more nuclear waste
>> > that can't be gotten rid of, only stored. Then there's the issue that a
>> > nuke plant is essentially a dirty bomb ripe to be detonated.
>> >
>> > Fuel-cell + Battery + Ethanol sound like they could be good tech if
>> > that's what the market was buying as a whole for cars. Add to that,
>> > Solar could be viable to power homes.
>> >
>> > Chris Reeves wrote:
>> > > The reality is, though, the electric type cars, etc. all require you to
>> > > create energy somewhere.. I'm laughing a bit at places like Montana where
>> > > you've got a Governor asking to open up strip mining for more "coal based
>> > > solutions".
>> > >
>> > > Everyone is so terrified of Nuclear Power, which numerous other places in
>> > > the world use to great success, that they are willing to do almost 
>> > > anything
>> > > else with other permanent damage because they find it much easier to 
>> > > "sell".
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> -jmg
>> -sapere aude
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>
>G. Waleed Kavalec
>-
>Why are we all in this handbasket
>  and where is it going so fast?
>
>http://www.kavalec.com/thisisislam.swf

-- 
Tallyho ! ]:8)
Taglines below !
--
The true test of giving is when it has no benefit to yourself.

Re: [H] google search for "failure"

As I understand it the real problem with ethanol is that it won't go
though existing pipelines.

And THAT is a monster of a chicken-egg issue.



On 3/3/06, j m g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The funny thing is you have all these american car companies saying
> it's soo hard to get off gas, do a google on Brazil and Ethanol, you
> can get a car down there that will switch from deisel or gas to
> ethanol with the flip of a switch so you can use what's convenient,
> guess who makes those cars - Ford.
>
> And the real kicker, the ethanol they are producing, based off cane
> not corn packs more of a punch than gas.
>
> Yes I realize the whole chicken and the egg, I'm not going to find
> straight ethanol at the corner gas station.  Yes it would take some
> sort of government mandate, but before you free market wonks ruffle
> yourself over that, just don't, not with all the govt handouts being
> given to the current energy industry.  Why is it that Citgo is being
> investigated for setting up a program to give discounted oil/gas to
> low income folks but exxon/mobil got barely a look for price gouging.
>
> On 3/3/06, warpmedia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Better we work on filtering technology then creating more nuclear waste
> > that can't be gotten rid of, only stored. Then there's the issue that a
> > nuke plant is essentially a dirty bomb ripe to be detonated.
> >
> > Fuel-cell + Battery + Ethanol sound like they could be good tech if
> > that's what the market was buying as a whole for cars. Add to that,
> > Solar could be viable to power homes.
> >
> > Chris Reeves wrote:
> > > The reality is, though, the electric type cars, etc. all require you to
> > > create energy somewhere.. I'm laughing a bit at places like Montana where
> > > you've got a Governor asking to open up strip mining for more "coal based
> > > solutions".
> > >
> > > Everyone is so terrified of Nuclear Power, which numerous other places in
> > > the world use to great success, that they are willing to do almost 
> > > anything
> > > else with other permanent damage because they find it much easier to 
> > > "sell".
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> -jmg
> -sapere aude
>
>


--

G. Waleed Kavalec
-
Why are we all in this handbasket
  and where is it going so fast?

http://www.kavalec.com/thisisislam.swf

Re: [H] google search for "failure"

2006-03-03 Thread j m g

The funny thing is you have all these american car companies saying
it's soo hard to get off gas, do a google on Brazil and Ethanol, you
can get a car down there that will switch from deisel or gas to
ethanol with the flip of a switch so you can use what's convenient,
guess who makes those cars - Ford.

And the real kicker, the ethanol they are producing, based off cane
not corn packs more of a punch than gas.

Yes I realize the whole chicken and the egg, I'm not going to find
straight ethanol at the corner gas station.  Yes it would take some
sort of government mandate, but before you free market wonks ruffle
yourself over that, just don't, not with all the govt handouts being
given to the current energy industry.  Why is it that Citgo is being
investigated for setting up a program to give discounted oil/gas to
low income folks but exxon/mobil got barely a look for price gouging.

On 3/3/06, warpmedia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Better we work on filtering technology then creating more nuclear waste
> that can't be gotten rid of, only stored. Then there's the issue that a
> nuke plant is essentially a dirty bomb ripe to be detonated.
>
> Fuel-cell + Battery + Ethanol sound like they could be good tech if
> that's what the market was buying as a whole for cars. Add to that,
> Solar could be viable to power homes.
>
> Chris Reeves wrote:
> > The reality is, though, the electric type cars, etc. all require you to
> > create energy somewhere.. I'm laughing a bit at places like Montana where
> > you've got a Governor asking to open up strip mining for more "coal based
> > solutions".
> >
> > Everyone is so terrified of Nuclear Power, which numerous other places in
> > the world use to great success, that they are willing to do almost anything
> > else with other permanent damage because they find it much easier to "sell".
>
>

--
-jmg
-sapere aude

Re: cars was [H] google search for "failure"

Oh and http://www.biodieselnow.com/

From: "Hayes Elkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: cars was [H] google search for "failure"
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 09:16:29 -0500

The easy answer is to get a vehicle with a diesel engine. That way you can 
now use biodiesel and BD blends, which work in any diesel car and you are 
not paying a four figure premium to use antiquated nickel battery 
technology in these overhyped hybrids.

Biodiesel appeals to both sides of the political spectrum. It pleases 
hippies to no end because it is a true "green" fuel, burns cleaner than gas 
and has nearly ZERO emissions that contribute to the greenhouse effect. 
Biodiesel also can be a 100% american product, from harvesting to refining. 
That means no money goes to OPEC and instead goes to american labor. Also 
biodiesel has better lubricating qualities than traditional diesel fuel. 
The lifeblood of our country, the diesel trucking industry, are now 
starting to realize its potential to extend engine life. Imagine changing 
your fuel filter just twice in a span of 500,000 miles? (Assuming you use 
BD from the start, otherwise an older car will need its fuel filter changed 
at first, because BD will loosen all gunk and the filter will be full after 
a few days driving.)

If you think about it, it's pretty inexcusable why biodiesel is not a 
mainstream fuel already. Win-win for everybody save for OPEC scum.

I bought a Jetta TDI this year and I'm getting around 46mpg real-world, 
which if you put on a lot of highway miles is better efficiency than an 
overpriced Prius.

From: "Greg Sevart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: "The Hardware List" 
Subject: Re: [H] google search for "failure"
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:17:15 -0600

Oh, don't feel too bad. I'm currently at 4100lbs, and am looking at two 
vehicles...one at 4500lbs, the other at 4900lbs.

But I'm not about to feel guilty for buying and driving a vehicle I like 
and can afford.

I'd prefer an electric vehicle. When they finally figure out that the real 
solution is all-electric with nuclear, wind, solar, and hydrothermal power 
sources, and put a decent sized motor in a car with a Li-Ion battery that 
uses the nanotech Panasonic invented, and can do so without being $80,000, 
I'm there. Until then, I'm going to buy vehicles with big fat V8's.

Greg

- Original Message - From: "Ben Ruset" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "The Hardware List" 
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [H] google search for "failure"

Oh. Well then I am even worse.

Greg Sevart wrote:

Hah!
2006 Wrangler...the lightest one (2.4L I4 with manual tranny) is 
3200lbs.

:)

Greg

- Original Message - From: "Ben Ruset" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "The Hardware List" 
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [H] google search for "failure"

Jeep Wrangler!

Greg Sevart wrote:

They make SUVs that are only 2500lbs?
:)

Greg

- Original Message - From: "Ben Ruset" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "The Hardware List" 
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [H] google search for "failure"

I drive my 2500lb SUV 1 mile to get on a bus to NY. Am I green or 
wasteful? :)

Also, my cellphone can take video, so I guess I do have some form of 
video camera.

FORC5 wrote:

I do not have one of those or a video camera.
fp

At 08:33 AM 3/2/2006, Al Poked the stick with:

The scary part is the rest of the world is waking up and saying; 
"Where is my 2500 lb. SUV to drive 1/4 mile to the video store?"

Re: [H] google search for "failure"

2006-03-03 Thread Wayne Johnson


At 09:02 AM 3/3/2006, warpmedia typed:
Better we work on filtering technology then creating more nuclear 
waste that can't be gotten rid of, only stored. Then there's the 
issue that a nuke plant is essentially a dirty bomb ripe to be detonated.


Not really & even if it were true do you know how many components of 
bombs are found in everyday life? Just ask the victim's families of 
the Oklahoma City bombing.  Point is just because the components are 
there doesn't mean they make a good bomb.  The components are there 
in your car but that doesn't mean we should stop driving. Heck one 
could get sun burned if precautions aren't taken. India & Japan all 
use nukes successfully & we're losing ground economically to them 
every day. I know for a fact they weren't designed to the constraints 
that the plants in the US were. Heck in the US plants we designed for 
non radiated water pipes to whiplash & the main turbine to be hit by 
a telephone pole during a tornado & the odds were still very very low 
of radiation leaks. The odds were higher if you step off a curb in bo-dunk.


Fuel-cell + Battery + Ethanol sound like they could be good tech if 
that's what the market was buying as a whole for cars. Add to that, 
Solar could be viable to power homes.


One needs sunlight for that & we certainly don't get enough of that 
in the northern half of the US otherwise people wouldn't suffer from 
blues in the winter.



--+--
   Wayne D. Johnson
Ashland, OH, USA 44805

Re: [H] google search for "failure"

And use more fossil fuels to manufacture than a traditional car.

From: Christopher Fisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: The Hardware List 
Subject: Re: [H] google search for "failure"
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 23:04:44 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, FORC5 wrote:

I'm interested in what the greenies are going to do when all those 
batteries hit the scrap pile.

Those batteries are almost 100% recyclable.

Christopher Fisk
--
Peter Griffin: Lois, the bar has been taken over by a bunch of lousy, 
limey, no-good, tea-sucking British bastards.

Re: cars was [H] google search for "failure"

The easy answer is to get a vehicle with a diesel engine. That way you can 
now use biodiesel and BD blends, which work in any diesel car and you are 
not paying a four figure premium to use antiquated nickel battery technology 
in these overhyped hybrids.


Biodiesel appeals to both sides of the political spectrum. It pleases 
hippies to no end because it is a true "green" fuel, burns cleaner than gas 
and has nearly ZERO emissions that contribute to the greenhouse effect. 
Biodiesel also can be a 100% american product, from harvesting to refining. 
That means no money goes to OPEC and instead goes to american labor. Also 
biodiesel has better lubricating qualities than traditional diesel fuel. The 
lifeblood of our country, the diesel trucking industry, are now starting to 
realize its potential to extend engine life. Imagine changing your fuel 
filter just twice in a span of 500,000 miles? (Assuming you use BD from the 
start, otherwise an older car will need its fuel filter changed at first, 
because BD will loosen all gunk and the filter will be full after a few days 
driving.)


If you think about it, it's pretty inexcusable why biodiesel is not a 
mainstream fuel already. Win-win for everybody save for OPEC scum.


I bought a Jetta TDI this year and I'm getting around 46mpg real-world, 
which if you put on a lot of highway miles is better efficiency than an 
overpriced Prius.



From: "Greg Sevart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List 
To: "The Hardware List" 
Subject: Re: [H] google search for "failure"
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:17:15 -0600

Oh, don't feel too bad. I'm currently at 4100lbs, and am looking at two 
vehicles...one at 4500lbs, the other at 4900lbs.


But I'm not about to feel guilty for buying and driving a vehicle I like 
and can afford.


I'd prefer an electric vehicle. When they finally figure out that the real 
solution is all-electric with nuclear, wind, solar, and hydrothermal power 
sources, and put a decent sized motor in a car with a Li-Ion battery that 
uses the nanotech Panasonic invented, and can do so without being $80,000, 
I'm there. Until then, I'm going to buy vehicles with big fat V8's.


Greg

- Original Message - From: "Ben Ruset" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "The Hardware List" 
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: [H] google search for "failure"



Oh. Well then I am even worse.

Greg Sevart wrote:

Hah!
2006 Wrangler...the lightest one (2.4L I4 with manual tranny) is 3200lbs.
:)

Greg

- Original Message - From: "Ben Ruset" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "The Hardware List" 
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [H] google search for "failure"



Jeep Wrangler!

Greg Sevart wrote:

They make SUVs that are only 2500lbs?
:)

Greg

- Original Message - From: "Ben Ruset" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "The Hardware List" 
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [H] google search for "failure"


I drive my 2500lb SUV 1 mile to get on a bus to NY. Am I green or 
wasteful? :)


Also, my cellphone can take video, so I guess I do have some form of 
video camera.


FORC5 wrote:

I do not have one of those or a video camera.
fp

At 08:33 AM 3/2/2006, Al Poked the stick with:

The scary part is the rest of the world is waking up and saying; 
"Where is my 2500 lb. SUV to drive 1/4 mile to the video store?"

Re: [H] google search for "failure"

2006-03-03 Thread warpmedia

Better we work on filtering technology then creating more nuclear waste 
that can't be gotten rid of, only stored. Then there's the issue that a 
nuke plant is essentially a dirty bomb ripe to be detonated.


Fuel-cell + Battery + Ethanol sound like they could be good tech if 
that's what the market was buying as a whole for cars. Add to that, 
Solar could be viable to power homes.


Chris Reeves wrote:

The reality is, though, the electric type cars, etc. all require you to
create energy somewhere.. I'm laughing a bit at places like Montana where
you've got a Governor asking to open up strip mining for more "coal based
solutions".

Everyone is so terrified of Nuclear Power, which numerous other places in
the world use to great success, that they are willing to do almost anything
else with other permanent damage because they find it much easier to "sell".

RE: [H] google search for "failure"

2006-03-03 Thread Chris Reeves

The reality is, though, the electric type cars, etc. all require you to
create energy somewhere.. I'm laughing a bit at places like Montana where
you've got a Governor asking to open up strip mining for more "coal based
solutions".

Everyone is so terrified of Nuclear Power, which numerous other places in
the world use to great success, that they are willing to do almost anything
else with other permanent damage because they find it much easier to "sell".

CW

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of FORC5
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 7:40 PM
To: The Hardware List
Subject: Re: [H] google search for "failure"

I'm interested in what the greenies are going to do when all those batteries
hit the scrap pile.
IMO large vehicles keep gas prices lower, big oil is not going to live with
lower profits which is what would happen if all cars got 50mph, they would
raise the rates to keep profits the same, we would get 50 mph but would
still cost us the same each year to operate. >:-}

fp

At 06:17 PM 3/2/2006, Greg Sevart Poked the stick with:

>I'd prefer an electric vehicle. When they finally figure out that the real
solution is all-electric with nuclear, wind, solar, and hydrothermal power
sources, and put a decent sized motor in a car with a Li-Ion battery that
uses the nanotech Panasonic invented, and can do so without being $80,000,
I'm there. Until then, I'm going to buy vehicles with big fat V8's.
>
>Greg

-- 
Tallyho ! ]:8)
Taglines below !
--
Think much, speak little, and write less.

Re: [H] google search for "failure"

2006-03-03 Thread FORC5

that would be great, guess I need to do some homework on this it is just 
because they do not seem to be able to build a decent battery anymore ( outside 
of Optima ) that will last.
fp

At 09:04 PM 3/2/2006, Christopher Fisk Poked the stick with:
>On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, FORC5 wrote:
>
>>I'm interested in what the greenies are going to do when all those batteries 
>>hit the scrap pile.
>
>Those batteries are almost 100% recyclable.
>
>
>Christopher Fisk
>-- 
>Peter Griffin: Lois, the bar has been taken over by a bunch of lousy, limey, 
>no-good, tea-sucking British bastards.

-- 
Tallyho ! ]:8)
Taglines below !
--
Shareware, crippleware, annoyware, underwear.

Re: [H] google search for "failure"