[oclug]Port 4662

[Brad Barnett]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:40:14 -0500 (EST)
Jon Earle <je_oclug at kronos.honk.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Dave O'Neill wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 12:22:45PM -0500, Jon Earle wrote:
> > >
> > > How can I avoid paying for those packets?
> >
> > If it's a large enough problem that it's noticeably affecting your
> > available bandwidth (or your ISP bill), you'll want to contact your
> > provider and see if there's anything they can do. There's not really
> > anything in the way of a technical solution on your end, as once the
> > packets have crossed your port on the provider's switch, you're
> > probably paying for them.
> 
> Well, I doubt there's enough of them to warrant a refund of any
> description... just makes me concerned when I have 100 or more hosts all
> banging away at that one port.  I'm used to port 137 being banged on
> 24x7, but that's about it.
> 
> > > Q: Could your economic future be negatively affected by Canada's
> > > ratification of Kyoto?
> >
> > Money isn't everything.
> 
> Kyoto is about reducing greenhouse gases, not reducing pollution.  When

This is a good thing.  I'll be the first to say, however, that we have no
proof that global warming is occuring.  We simply don't have enough
environmental data available to us to gauge what is the norm, and what is
not.  Temperature changes over 50 or 100 years means nothing.

However, most people that are in a position to advise on this agree that
it will become an issue, and that we need to take steps now.  CO2 levels
have been constantly and consistantly on the rise, even while the ocean
absorbs massive amounts of it.  There are even studies that show the ocean
may be at the point where it will be unable to absorb such quantities
further.

If this is the case, and this happens, suddenly all that excessive CO2
will end up in your face, flipping the bird at you ;)  

> our ability to live indoors, eat, enjoy life, etc is put at risk because
> of some lame (yet costly) attempt to reduce a few gases, one must ponder
> if any real, tangible benefit will be achieved.  The full economic
> impact has not been determined yet we've gone ahead and said it's a
> terrific idea we should all smilingly embrace.  Have Canadians become so
> stunned that we shoot first and ask questions later?

There will be a benefit from reduced CO2.  Period.

However, what I am concerned about is non-compliance, and non-acceptance. 
Without the US signing, we shouldn't either.  We need to be on the same
playing field with them.  They can't have that advantage.  At the same
time, we should do everything in their power to get them to sign, so we
can too.

As well, we can't allow entire industries (like the auto industry) to be
excluded just so that a particular party can get re-elected.

Either of these two things undermine the accord, and make it virtually
pointless.