Slashdot Mirror

20% effciency means 20% of what the Sun provides. If you look a little deeper, the solar number is for a concentrator and such thermal plants are being built with thermal storage. No batteries, just dispatchable solar power with a good match to changes in seasonal demand. And, that 80 by 80 miles covers the whole energy use of the entire country, not just Nevada and not just electric generation. It is just an example. Other places will use panels, that is kind of the point of looking at what roof space is available. As pointed out, the batteries to make panels work 24/7 come basically as a freebee from transportation.

Nuclear power has economic, environmental, safety, proliferation and sustainablility issues that are intelocking and have not been adequately addressed. In my opinion, the economic issues, together with operational costraints http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-renewables -displace-nukes-first.html will lead to much less nuclear power in the future. It will be displaced by renewable energy. Take a look at the numbers again. Remember that wind is cheaper than nuclear power by a lot and solar will be even cheaper than wind shortly. Thin film solar is already on the market and growing rapidly. One more pass, and I think you'll be persuaded. I don't have a crystal ball, but when money is involved, you can usually tell which way things will go.
--
Get going with solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

20% effciency means 20% of what the Sun provides. If you look a little deeper, the solar number is for a concentrator and such thermal plants are being built with thermal storage. No batteries, just dispatchable solar power with a good match to changes in seasonal demand. And, that 80 by 80 miles covers the whole energy use of the entire country, not just Nevada and not just electric generation. It is just an example. Other places will use panels, that is kind of the point of looking at what roof space is available. As pointed out, the batteries to make panels work 24/7 come basically as a freebee from transportation.

Nuclear power has economic, environmental, safety, proliferation and sustainablility issues that are intelocking and have not been adequately addressed. In my opinion, the economic issues, together with operational costraints http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-renewables -displace-nukes-first.html will lead to much less nuclear power in the future. It will be displaced by renewable energy. Take a look at the numbers again. Remember that wind is cheaper than nuclear power by a lot and solar will be even cheaper than wind shortly. Thin film solar is already on the market and growing rapidly. One more pass, and I think you'll be persuaded. I don't have a crystal ball, but when money is involved, you can usually tell which way things will go.
--
Get going with solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

The article was written by a journalist for Forbes. It also says nowhere that this is the only way to use the storage.

How cowardly to make such accusations, and how inaccurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn. Getting a complete collection of elements requires a breeder. Nice try.
--
Get fusion on your roof: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

That is kind of a neat way of estimating the roofs. You can find a caluculation that takes a different approach here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/roof-pitch.htm l. You'll see that you are incorrect is saying that the area needed is the size of Arizona. An area that is 80 by 80 miles will do it.

You are also incorrect on the durability of solar panels. They last 25 years at better than 80% rated capacity and will likely last 100 years at better than 40%.

On wind, current capacity is 74 thousand MW, so your contention that thousands of megawatts can't be generated seems a little strange given that it is already happening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power.

Nuclear power is a little bit inflexible. Choosing plants that are on the seacoast may not be the best example of a reliable energy source: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/cliffhanger.ht ml.

Once you see the problem with your calcualtions, I think you'll be much more optimistic about the renewable energy future.
--
Save money with solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

That is kind of a neat way of estimating the roofs. You can find a caluculation that takes a different approach here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/roof-pitch.htm l. You'll see that you are incorrect is saying that the area needed is the size of Arizona. An area that is 80 by 80 miles will do it.

You are also incorrect on the durability of solar panels. They last 25 years at better than 80% rated capacity and will likely last 100 years at better than 40%.

On wind, current capacity is 74 thousand MW, so your contention that thousands of megawatts can't be generated seems a little strange given that it is already happening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power.

Nuclear power is a little bit inflexible. Choosing plants that are on the seacoast may not be the best example of a reliable energy source: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/cliffhanger.ht ml.

Once you see the problem with your calcualtions, I think you'll be much more optimistic about the renewable energy future.
--
Save money with solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

That is kind of a neat way of estimating the roofs. You can find a caluculation that takes a different approach here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/roof-pitch.htm l. You'll see that you are incorrect is saying that the area needed is the size of Arizona. An area that is 80 by 80 miles will do it.

You are also incorrect on the durability of solar panels. They last 25 years at better than 80% rated capacity and will likely last 100 years at better than 40%.

On wind, current capacity is 74 thousand MW, so your contention that thousands of megawatts can't be generated seems a little strange given that it is already happening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power.

Nuclear power is a little bit inflexible. Choosing plants that are on the seacoast may not be the best example of a reliable energy source: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/cliffhanger.ht ml.

Once you see the problem with your calcualtions, I think you'll be much more optimistic about the renewable energy future.
--
Save money with solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

In addition, DX10 is already being backported to XP whether microsoft wants it or not over at http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/

In addition, DX10 is already being backported to XP whether microsoft wants it or not over at http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/

Solar and wind power fit the bill of being clean and local. A lot of our nuclear fuel these days comes from Russian weapons stockpiles. But the process of diluting it back down from weapons grade to fuel grade is not going all that well. In an accident in Tennessee last year that was covered up until congress stepped in, the plant managers thought that a big spill of highly enriched uranium soulution, enough to cause the kind of accident that killed 2 people in Japan 1999, was natural uranium. There were two places where the spill might have accumulated and cause criticality. That is pretty poor materials control if you don't know what it is that you are working with.

Uranium reserves are estimated to be about 85 years at present use. Plans to extend the life of nuclear power all pretty much include breeder reactors (such as thorium reactors) and have unresolved fuel cycle problems. Fast breeder reactors are also illegal in the US owing to proliferation concerns. Their prototypes have also tended to melt down.

The new reactor being planned for Calvert Cliffs has an estimated price tag of $2.50/Watt for construction alone, though with federal loan guarranties included in the Senate Energy Bill, this price will likely rise substantially. The price compares poorly with wind and solar, both at about $1.30/watt to build, but with much less in the way of operating costs, and obviously no fuel or long term waste disposal costs.

The level of effort put into fusion has not really been that large. You hear about it, but compared to the Manhatten Project, out of which nuclear power came, it gets much less in the way of GDP. Renewables get even less than that. This was deliberate. The idea was to give it enough effort so that it would be ready when oil and coal ran out. The problem is that at the time, the growth in the use of coal and oil was not foreseen. So, fusion is actually right about on schedule. When it is here, there may be some trouble siting it since nuclear power plants squat on some of the better cooling resources and our storage in place policy for nuclear waste may keep these prime resources tied up for hundreds of years. But, wind was 20% of new generation in 2006 and is growing at 50% per year, while solar is growing at 30% per year and this should accelerate as the silicon purification bottleneck clears. So, fusion may enter a market that is already dominated by clean inexpensive power and thus find only niche applications in any case.
--
Go solar the easy way: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

That seems to be our problem right now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/cliffhanger.ht ml and http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-mexicans-c onspire.html. That last one is meant partly in fun. The Sierra Club likes Bill Richardson's energy policy.

That seems to be our problem right now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/cliffhanger.ht ml and http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-mexicans-c onspire.html. That last one is meant partly in fun. The Sierra Club likes Bill Richardson's energy policy.

Gen IV does not finish design for 25 years. The new reactor that is moving forward the fastest is Calvert Cliffs 3, a run-of-the-mill light water reactor. I suspect this one will have trouble. While the nuclear power industry is talking about global warming all the time now, they seem pretty foolish to be betting on a sea level reactor as their first new project since the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters made clear what a problem nuclear power is. The rise in sea level is 5 cm every 15 years and the rate is doubling every 15 years, so from its current level http://www.realclimate.org/images/sealevel_2.jpg, in 45 years you get 35 cm of sea level rise, enough to make the foundations pretty soggy. That would be about halfway through the life of the plant. 90 years out you get more than 3 meters with a doubling projection. That makes a very difficult mess to clean up. Think New Orleans Lower Ninth Ward. There is more to read about this problem here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/cliffhanger.ht ml, including a link to a study on proposed sea level reactors in the UK.

Radiation is not just photons. There is a good point here. While there are very few nuclear reactions going on on the surface of the Sun, mainly spalations from accelerated protons, there are accelerated protons from the corona (the same) that impinge on the Earth's magnetosphere and are deflected. It is the Sun's magnetic field, rather than escaping fusion products, that are responsible for the high energy particle flux.

There are also possible photon-magnetic field interactions though with a low coupling: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=&articleID =0006BA85-FC58-1492-BAAC83414B7F0000.
--
Get fusion on your roof:http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot- users-selling-solar.html

You want to be careful with that stuff. There was a boy who built a breeder in his mother's shed in the ninties using thorium. He was arrested again at the beginning of this month for stealing smoke detectors. He does not look so healthy in his mugshot: http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200708 03/NEWS04/70803062. Sad story. There just isn't any such thing as clean fission. It makes a mess every time.
--
Get clean energy: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Don't know the difference between a Climatologist, and a Meteorologist, do you?

Easy. A meteorologist has a significantly shorter period of time between prediction and verification than the climatologist. Therefore, his ability to predict accurately improves measurable within single human life spans. Climatologists have to wait much longer to discover how wrong they are and why, so their predictions are often ridiculously inaccurate.

As an example, climatologists predicted over thirty years ago that "the CO2 greenhouse effect warming trend should first become evident in the Southern Hemisphere." Actual observation over the last 25 years with NASA satellite data shows the exact opposite. No word, that I know of, as to why they were completely wrong.

Another example... In 1995, the IPCC revised warming estimates downward by 30% because the predicted temperature increases of 1.3 to 2.3 degrees C made five years earlier only turned out to be about half a degree. Apparently, they forgot to consider sulfate aerosols in their computer models... That's the stated reason, but I'd wager they forgot a lot more than that.

In a knee-jerk reaction to hurricane Katrina, climatologists and media everywhere were blaming global warming for increased frequency and severity of hurricanes. The world's foremost authority on atlantic hurricanes was crucified as a heritic when he called bullshit on them. Now, a new peer reviewed article in Nature by Quirin Schiermeier seems to dispute that claim as well. Run Quirin, run! Here comes a mob with pitchforks and torches... Apparently, we've been very fortunate for the past couple of decades and storm frequency and intensity is only now returning to historic averages. In the meantime, as GP poster pointed out... the past two hurricane season have been complete duds.

Having gotten so much egg on their faces in the past 40 years is bringing about a change in tactics though. I've noticed many climatologists' recent predictions are so far into the future, we'll all be dead before they can be verified.

It's easy enough to predict warming. The planet has been warming for the past 18000 years. It's going to get warmer? Ya don't say?! Warming thus far has only made the planet more habitable for human beings. Pardon me if I don't fall to my knees and repent to the holy mother Earth when a climatologist starts preaching fire and brimstone about future warming.

Interesting that Huricane Flossie http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_ep4+shtml /204039.shtml?5day?large#contents has grown in strength of the last 6 hours with maximum sustained winds up 10 mph to 85 mph. It is heading roughly in the direction of Hawaii. Its path looks a little like what I remember from Iniki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iniki_1992_trac k.png. Might want to wait to the end of the season before counting up the storms.
--
Rent solar power and keep you beer cold after a storm: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

The Forbes article didn't link to it, so here's the official announcement from Google:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/simple-way- to-get-more-storage.html

Also, here's the link for actually purchasing the additional space:

https://www.google.com/accounts/PurchaseStorage

At the time being, this doesn't seem to be a standalone storage service (the summary was kind of ambiguous about this), but rather a way to upgrade the space you have on additional Google services (gmail, Picasa, etc.). In any case, I'd really love it if they eventually came out with a storage service that you could use as a CVS/SVN repository.

Sigh...

The "new ice age" thing was believed by very few scientists, unlike the consensus regarding anthropomorphic global warming by climate scientists now. The "Mars getting hotter" thing is supported by very very little evidence in comparison to the evidence for what's going on with the Earth's climate. Also, the sun is being watched very closely and it is not sufficent to explain the warming trend of our planet. Please look here for more details. You'll find other myths regarding climate change debunked there and at realclimate.org as well. The same ones that are repeated over and over here and often modded up by the ignorant.

Interesting that the 16 coldest years occured before 1980 in the US. Globally, there is only one year as warm as the coldest year after 1990 prior to 1970. The trend is a lot stronger than the noise.
--
Solar power with no installation cost: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Do you suggest otherwise? The issue raise here is about the hottest year, not the hottest decade. As noted in the article, the trend is not affected by the corrections. In the present work, 2001 goes off the top 10 list and 1938 comes on. The statement half of the 10 hottest years on record have occured in the 90s or latter becomes 40% have. With this window (ten hottest years) you need only wait a year or two to get back to the same statement. 1938 is unlikely to remain on the list for long. A more interesting question is how soon 1934 rolls of that list. With an accelerated warming trend, how's three decades sound? That's right. The forecast with the greatest limitation on future CO2 emissions that I know of, by Dave Rutledge, has 0.6 degrees of warming by 2037: http://rutledge.caltech.edu/. That makes a year with the temperature of 1934 a 0.7 degree excursion, below the current list cutoff. Warming is better than steroids at making records fall.
--
Switch to solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

It's not that 'communist' as you might think, it runs on capitalists' Windows CE!! (j/k)

The following the specifications of miniOne(previously known as Meizu M8):

Specification: (Source)


Networking: GSM + TD-SCDMA
Processor:ARM11 + video CODEC
Operating system: WIN CE 6.0
Touchscreen: 3.32" VGA+ 720x480 16K 3:2
Twin-camera: 3MP + 0.3MP
Wireless: Bluetooth
Memory card: SD
Size: 57x105x11.5mm
Connectors: 30PIN TV OUT, LINE IN/OUT
Two versions:
Entry M8: no camera or earphone: 4GB 1499 / 8GB 2199 RMB (1 RMB = 0.132031 US dollar)
Standard M8: with camera and earphones: 4GB 2380 / 8GB 3080 RMB
However, soon miniOne will have a 16GB version, but it'd cost you US$988.5. This is definitely not a cheap clone (probably because it runs Windows CE? j/k again)

We're not quite there yet, but we can reconstruct what someone is looking at by deconvoluting the reflection in their eye.

BitTorrent, the company, is entirely irrelevant.

I found a few deficit graphs, but they're pretty awful because they ignore "unbudgeted" spending, such as for the past few years of Iraq/Afghanistan. As such, you look at a graph like:

http://www.uuforum.org/Images/deficit.gif

And you might get the idea that George has been improving his bad behaviour in the past few years, when the reality is that the graph is just misleading.

Angry Bear did an interesting graph here:

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/deficit_responsibili ty4.jpg

In this graph, he illustrates what the budget would look like if various Bush policies were revoked (military spending, tax cuts, etc.) and returned to Clinton-era policies. The result is that while the post-9/11 economic problems would have caused a little red ink, we'd be firmly in the black right now, instead of setting new records for red.

I really wish I could say there was some party that tended to actually cut the debt when they have reigns. Unfortunately, the best anybody seems to do is to slow the rate of growth.

I actually think the Clinton years were good not just because of the economy, but also because you had a Democratic president and a Republican congress that was concentrated on giving the impression that they were against wasteful spending.

While there was still plenty of pork in the barrel, the combination meant that Republicans had to go light on pork, because Clinton would squash it, and Clinton had to be reasonable with what he asked for, because Republicans wouldn't deliver otherwise.

Here's an initial review of Keynote '08:
http://ernstdehaan.blogspot.com/2007/08/keynote-08 .html

WGA is pretty overblown and intrusive guess he missed that. Seriously I have been using MS stuff since 1991 and I am so done with there lame asses. They used to be customer focused when they were fighting big bad blue. Now they are far worse than big blue was. Total loss of customer focus. Trying to lock customers into bad license subscription deals. Treating all their customers as potential criminals EVERYTIME you download something from them. Vista promised a lot delivered little and is only incrementally better than XP. Basically a company that is so overgrown and bureaucratic that it takes a group of some 43 http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows- shutdown-crapfest.html people working together to munge the shutdown submenu on Vista. lame lame lame Screw Microsoft from an MCSE going back to NT 4.

Wow, that's really interesting! And it seems to be true. Here's a picture, and here's a discussion.

Some people claim that it's legal to do so with a special permit. One possible reason for his doing so might be that his license plates get stolen by fanboys as souvenirs if he leaves them on. Another might be that you can't find out where celebrities live if you can't get their license plate numbers.

Some (two I think) states do split their electoral vote.
--
Yes, APS customers can get solar too! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

I would recommend this blog for very comprehensive coverage of the independent scene globally, they seem to have been in to it for a decently long time too
http://indygamer.blogspot.com/

I'n pretty sure this hurt Nader. People who were willing to trade might have voted for him anyway when it can to election day. And, having several such sites likely meant that some votes traded early and often. Most importantly it hurt the green party because subsequent ballot access can be determined by voting strength in a state. Glad to know it isn't illegal, but I don't think it is good idea either.
--
Did you know APS in Arizona has net metering?http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slash dot-users-selling-solar.html

Maryland just passed a law saying that if enough other state will go along, their electoral college votes will be cast for the nationwide winner rather that the winner of the state.
--
Rent solar power with net metering even in Phoenix: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Not really.

Well, they're trying to send a lot, but with a proper setup at and around your mail server, you will not be seeing much of it anyway.

Simple greylisting helps a lot, supplemented with greytrapping-generated blacklists (with 24 hour expiry) it's even fun to watch. The last 2-3 percent that actually makes it through to be seen by content filtering gets converted back to free electrons.

I've had a series of blog entries over at bsdly.blogspot.com about this and the conclusion is clear - with a competent system administrator, Spam is a solved problem (Links to other refs inside, follow links).

Well, they're trying to send a lot, but with a proper setup at and around your mail server, you will not be seeing much of it anyway.

Simple greylisting helps a lot, supplemented with greytrapping-generated blacklists (with 24 hour expiry) it's even fun to watch. The last 2-3 percent that actually makes it through to be seen by content filtering gets converted back to free electrons.

I've had a series of blog entries over at bsdly.blogspot.com about this and the conclusion is clear - with a competent system administrator, Spam is a solved problem (Links to other refs inside, follow links).

Girly Geekdom have been having a series of constructive discussions on similar lines to this one! http://girlygeekdom.blogspot.com/2007/07/me-tarzan -you-jane.html http://girlygeekdom.blogspot.com/2007/07/geeks-can -be-chicks.html http://girlygeekdom.blogspot.com/2007/08/barriers- in-set-surely-not.html These subjects seem to come round year on year and little seems to happen, however maybe this is the tipping point. The comments here on Slashdot show many issues, a number of potential solutions and a whole host of different view points. It seems to me that women see some discrimination, sometimes they don't help themselves, but sometimes they are just totally put off by the way the industry is as a whole. Some of the stats that people throw around show a decline of women in the tech industry, but what they miss is that young people in general (not just females) are declining tech degrees in favour of others, which suggests that there are wider issues with the tech industry than just the gender issues. Issues that are putting women off are also putting men off too. Why would guys or girls want to be in an industry where it is deemed to be late night working (often a myth in many companies... but not all... just a case of doing your homework!), inflexible (also not always the case with home working these days) and unfriendly (depends on the individuals surely!). Then you add competition into the mix and there's the recipe for disaster. So, how do we fix the issues. Well it seems to me that no one wants this sort of culture, businesses loose out, individuals loose out... and guess what the industry has another skills shortage! The cycles have been seen before, the comments have been raised before and no one is picking up on the obvious. Be flexible, be sensible and be nice to each other. Who cares what gender you are? (or rather who should care... ) A good work culture should encourage people to learn from one another and create a nurturing culture rather than a competitive one. It's about time everyone in the industry demands such things from their organisations, not just women. Lets make the tech industry an interesting, fun, innovative, exciting and enticing place for current and next generation techies to enjoy!

Girly Geekdom have been having a series of constructive discussions on similar lines to this one! http://girlygeekdom.blogspot.com/2007/07/me-tarzan -you-jane.html http://girlygeekdom.blogspot.com/2007/07/geeks-can -be-chicks.html http://girlygeekdom.blogspot.com/2007/08/barriers- in-set-surely-not.html These subjects seem to come round year on year and little seems to happen, however maybe this is the tipping point. The comments here on Slashdot show many issues, a number of potential solutions and a whole host of different view points. It seems to me that women see some discrimination, sometimes they don't help themselves, but sometimes they are just totally put off by the way the industry is as a whole. Some of the stats that people throw around show a decline of women in the tech industry, but what they miss is that young people in general (not just females) are declining tech degrees in favour of others, which suggests that there are wider issues with the tech industry than just the gender issues. Issues that are putting women off are also putting men off too. Why would guys or girls want to be in an industry where it is deemed to be late night working (often a myth in many companies... but not all... just a case of doing your homework!), inflexible (also not always the case with home working these days) and unfriendly (depends on the individuals surely!). Then you add competition into the mix and there's the recipe for disaster. So, how do we fix the issues. Well it seems to me that no one wants this sort of culture, businesses loose out, individuals loose out... and guess what the industry has another skills shortage! The cycles have been seen before, the comments have been raised before and no one is picking up on the obvious. Be flexible, be sensible and be nice to each other. Who cares what gender you are? (or rather who should care... ) A good work culture should encourage people to learn from one another and create a nurturing culture rather than a competitive one. It's about time everyone in the industry demands such things from their organisations, not just women. Lets make the tech industry an interesting, fun, innovative, exciting and enticing place for current and next generation techies to enjoy!

Girly Geekdom have been having a series of constructive discussions on similar lines to this one! http://girlygeekdom.blogspot.com/2007/07/me-tarzan -you-jane.html http://girlygeekdom.blogspot.com/2007/07/geeks-can -be-chicks.html http://girlygeekdom.blogspot.com/2007/08/barriers- in-set-surely-not.html These subjects seem to come round year on year and little seems to happen, however maybe this is the tipping point. The comments here on Slashdot show many issues, a number of potential solutions and a whole host of different view points. It seems to me that women see some discrimination, sometimes they don't help themselves, but sometimes they are just totally put off by the way the industry is as a whole. Some of the stats that people throw around show a decline of women in the tech industry, but what they miss is that young people in general (not just females) are declining tech degrees in favour of others, which suggests that there are wider issues with the tech industry than just the gender issues. Issues that are putting women off are also putting men off too. Why would guys or girls want to be in an industry where it is deemed to be late night working (often a myth in many companies... but not all... just a case of doing your homework!), inflexible (also not always the case with home working these days) and unfriendly (depends on the individuals surely!). Then you add competition into the mix and there's the recipe for disaster. So, how do we fix the issues. Well it seems to me that no one wants this sort of culture, businesses loose out, individuals loose out... and guess what the industry has another skills shortage! The cycles have been seen before, the comments have been raised before and no one is picking up on the obvious. Be flexible, be sensible and be nice to each other. Who cares what gender you are? (or rather who should care... ) A good work culture should encourage people to learn from one another and create a nurturing culture rather than a competitive one. It's about time everyone in the industry demands such things from their organisations, not just women. Lets make the tech industry an interesting, fun, innovative, exciting and enticing place for current and next generation techies to enjoy!

For those who don't know: Panem et Circense

Mod parent up as I agree with him. Not only is it senior versus junior, it's specialist versus generalist.

You say that, but I remember just maybe a year ago or so there was a big todo about most guns that were used in crime in the Toronto area were either stolen guns or guns smuggled in across the US-Canada border. There was even a big story about a gun collector that got his entire cache of guns stolen. To say that theives going after people that have lots of guns and are pro-guns, doesn't mean that the theives will just end up shot in the attempt.

A few links on the topic:
http://bcinto.blogspot.com/2006/01/gangs-targeting -gun-owners-homes.html
http://toronto.wordpress.com/2006/02/04/gun-collec tors-a-dying-breed/
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=559
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_gun_registry (apparently all the links to those articles at The Toronto Star are dead links, but you at least have the headlines in the "External Links" section)

There is no way border patrol agents are going to get these LED weapons. In the USA the government prosecutes and locks up any Border Patrol agents who defend our country from drug smugglers and the hordes that are entering illegally. This reasoning is just smoke and mirrors to spend money on a new toy developed by a "friend" of the current administration. It's time to spend our money to fix the national infrastructure (bridges) and give the border patrol agents rifles with scopes and land mines.

Here is a little bit of Truth the left doesn't want you to know.

from: http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2007/08/double-standar ds.html

Here's some interesting news I read in the Star Tribune. In big cities, it seems that women's paychecks are outpacing men's:

        The study by Queens College demographer Andrew A. Beveridge shows that all women from ages 21 to 30 living in New York City and working full time made 117 percent of men's wages, or a median wage of $35,653, and even more in Dallas, 120 percent. Nationwide, that group of women made much less: 89 percent of the average full-time pay for men. The findings were first reported in Gotham Gazette, published online by the Citizens Union Foundation.


The bad news for men?


        Though the analysis showed women making strides, it also showed that men were in some ways moving backward. Among all men -- including those with college degrees -- real wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined since 1970. And among full-time workers with advanced degrees, wages for men increased only marginally even as they soared for women. Nationally, men's wages in general declined while women's remained the same.


The article quickly puts a kibosh on the good news for women by stating:

        Typically, women have fallen further behind men in earnings as they get older. That is because some women stop working altogether, work only part time or encounter a glass ceiling in promotions and raises.


Well, if you stop working or work only part time, of course you don't make as much money--duh. What I find amusing or ridiculous--take your pick--is that many women's groups think women should make as much as men even if they have a family, don't work or work part-time. This is nothing but a sense of entitlement. And if women are single and working full time in the cities, then decide to have a family and move to small towns and work part-time or not at all, of course their wages will go down. That is called a trade-off, not necessarily discrimination.

If men's wages are declining, is this ever called discrimination? No, of couse not. Does anyone care about the reasons that men's wages declined while women's stayed the same? No, probably not. What I find interesting or perhaps hypocritical is that if women earn more than men, the reasons given are justified--smugly, women are seen as go-getters who have advanced degrees with the gumption to move to the big city to avoid the country bumpkins. But if men earn more, it is often because of rampant gender discrimation and not because of particular circumstances that would cause one to earn more such as working harder and longer hours, going where the opportunities are ripe etc. If women start to pull away from men in the earning department, I wonder if we will see any interest in helping men to increase their earnings? I won't hold my breath.

Does anyone see nothing wrong in a professional journalist using a fake anonymous blog to post garbage like this.

'Freetards in deep denial ..'

"Freetard fails to notice the huge hole in his argument which is that -- imagine Sam Kinison screaming now -- fucking Linux is fucking free you fucking idiot! Linux is even cheaper than Windows"

"Think, jackass. Why is it okay for IBM and its Linux puppets to give software away free but not Microsoft?2

"And you guys are starting to sound like the world's biggeest whiners, constantly blaming everyone around you for your own failures. You're the John Kerry of software"

http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/07/freetards-in -deep-denial.html