Slashdot Mirror

Maybe, if they are sending out data. The standby power use of TVs and such is greater.

Sun's David Douglas, VP Eco Responsibility, estimates that the cost of running computers (power use) will exceed the cost of buying computers in about 5 years: http://www.ase.org/uploaded_files/geed_2007/dougla s_sun.pdf. This site has more (mainly corporate) musings on energy efficiency: http://www.ase.org/content/article/detail/3531.
--
Get abundant, get solar. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

There's a Gizoogle new machines on line!

I upgraded to vista, but I have to disable my sound card in the device manager before rebooting or Vista will not start up. The sound card driver is provided by MS from Windows Update. Why would they provide a driver that crashes the system, and even alerts you that it is not made for vista?

I wrote about it here, if anyone cares.

http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/2007/02/i-dont- want-blackberry.html

I'll stick with my paper planner. It doesn't beep at me when I'm relaxing.

they simply call you once then disconnect your HSI the next month even if you have reduced your usage. I've written a blog to keep track of what I've experienced and what other's have passed along.

The sad thing is it may be perfectly legal. Too bad companies such as Comcast aren't upgrading their old infrastructure so it can handle the increased usage. After all, today's files are getting larger and larger. Zudeo for instance has a number of DVD movies you can legally download via bit torrent (yes, you can legally use bit torrent ::grinz::). "Reign of the Fallen" is by far my favorite.

Anyway, My blog is here.

I wish to get the word out and yes, it's accurate despite Comcast's allegation that it's not. I'm the author and maintainer for the blog. Everything can be proven. I've documented my whole experience so other's won't have to go through the garbage I have. I'm also pushing for real competition as I believe it will make even a mega corp reconsider unfair business practices and improve.

Some kids at my college built a K'Nex computer for their CompArch class. The prof recommended this or a water one as a nifty project, and has been doing so for a few years. No one took him up on it till this year.

Why make it easier for the bad guys to send secret messages in pictures?
See:
http://labnol.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-hide-sec ret-documents-or.html
or any article on steganography.

Ever? Why don't you do a little research, rather than repeating the same meme you've heard someone else say?

Many bandwidth problems can be solved by sneakernet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakernet. This is what netflicks does. For very high throughput, use snailmail. This also goes for meaningful (other than just "Hello, we're here.") intersteller communications absent much more powerful signals than we use today.

In the case of a flu epidemic, sneakernet is not so attractive, but much communication will be one way, and will come over broadcast media. A can of lysol kept handy by the mailbox might still handle the odd DVD or two worth of data that you just can't do without.
--
Solar, broadband power. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

What we need here is a new incentive program for therapy discovery. In a blog post of mine I've outlined a way we could reward researchers for discovering cures, not just for finding new patentable molecules.

Take a look and see if you can find any holes in my idea, and leave comments either here or on the blog if you have any more ideas.

Thanks!

As this discussion shows, Amazon would do much better to suck it up. They are the ones to lose when (even marginally legitimate) customer complaints are not addressed. This one is quite legitimate. A deal's a deal. If you want to do well in business, you have to maintain the customer relationship. Getting all squirrelly about one purchase means a loss of future business from that customer.
--
Solar without the up front cost. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Well, the theory I was thinking of is more involved that single interactions. At that level a single interection is going to look a lot like a thermal interaction and so like the sense of smell theory, the quantum nature is a happenstance rather than crucial.

Penrose suggests coherence states that manage to handle much more processing than would be otherwise possible. You can look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR to see what you think.
--
Solar, take a quantum leap http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

http://bullsworld.blogspot.com/2007/02/nasa-world- wind-14-released.html

Here's a good comparison of the two approaches:
http://glinden.blogspot.com/2006/05/c-store-and-go ogle-bigtable.html
(per my post below, Vertica is a commercial version of MIT C-Store: http://db.lcs.mit.edu/projects/cstore/ )

As I was attempting to determine what the maximum windows experience rating is for a computer, With skepticism I hit with the F1 key to see if "help" had been improved. Low and behold - I got my answer.

There were a couple other instances where help actually worked as advertised.

Who on earth would really read a manual supplied by msft?

-=-=-=-=-
Check out my new AMD FX70 system build, now with Vista. http://amd4x4.blogspot.com/

I suppose you were being humorous, right? They're the same case, just read TFAs. Or check http://googleblog.blogspot.com/

In Elektra v. Barker, where the RIAA was arguing that merely 'having the song files available' in a shared files folder was a copyright infringement, the Government distanced itself from that position by specifically stating in its brief that it had NEVER prosecuted anyone for "making available". See Statement of Interest of United States of America (pdf) at page 5, footnote 3.

Check the leading gurus - Jeremiah Grossman and RSnake - they put this dude to shame http://www.matasano.com/log/699/did-idg-bet-1000-t hat-acunetix-cant-steal-credit-cards-from-random-w ebsites/ http://jeremiahgrossman.blogspot.com/2007/02/acune tix-networkworld-and-1000-oh-my.html http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20070214/1000-to-steal-da ta-from-30-of-sites/

I would tend to agree with Google that a lawsuit was not necessary. Too often I see a lawsuit where a simple direct contact would have been sufficient. I do not claim to be familiar with the specifics of this case...so sue me (that's a joke).

The fight for the next-generation connector is now between HDMI and DisplayPort.

DisplayPort was in good part started as a reaction against HDMI's control by Intel & Silicon Image, and the associated licensing fees. Intel tried to counter it with UDI, basically HDMI without the licensing issues, but failed. DisplayPort had issues with the proposed DRM, proposed by Philips for a non-trivial amount of money. Much stronger than HDCP, but also more costly in silicon real estate.

Intel killed the UDI effort and pushed for HDCP to be used instead in DisplayPort. The Philips DRM remain an option, but I doubt it will ever be used since it is way more expensive and not required to comply with Hollywood's requirements. Thankfully HDCP is seen as "good enough" by the MPAA. That's nice, given how weak it really is.

Reference on UDI being dead
HDMI is trying to spin its current wins to prepare the battle against DisplayPort

Personally I am rooting for DisplayPort to kill DVI and hopefully make enough headway on TVs to also (very long term) kill HDMI. I am looking forward to DisplayPort 2.0 (expected in 2008), this should enable high-resolution displays with a single (thin) cable. Think 4K / 2160p at greater than 60Hz and greater than 24bits/pixel.

But who will sign the VMs and OS emulators?

More like who will sign M$'s OS, which would be run within the VM/emulator that controls the simulated environment. The BIOS is what starts the whole trusted process, but you can replace that if you own it. You could do it with an Xbox as well but you first need to spend the time to figure out how it works. Emulated hardware can basically lie to the OS living on top of it, and any attempt to 'discover' it can be hooked and mitigated if you have control of the real/physical hardware. Both Xbox and PS3 will be hacked for you, give it time.

But who will sign the VMs and OS emulators?

More like who will sign M$'s OS, which would be run within the VM/emulator that controls the simulated environment. The BIOS is what starts the whole trusted process, but you can replace that if you own it. You could do it with an Xbox as well but you first need to spend the time to figure out how it works. Emulated hardware can basically lie to the OS living on top of it, and any attempt to 'discover' it can be hooked and mitigated if you have control of the real/physical hardware. Both Xbox and PS3 will be hacked for you, give it time.

But who will sign the VMs and OS emulators?

More like who will sign M$'s OS, which would be run within the VM/emulator that controls the simulated environment. The BIOS is what starts the whole trusted process, but you can replace that if you own it. You could do it with an Xbox as well but you first need to spend the time to figure out how it works. Emulated hardware can basically lie to the OS living on top of it, and any attempt to 'discover' it can be hooked and mitigated if you have control of the real/physical hardware. Both Xbox and PS3 will be hacked for you, give it time.

At the danger of being modded O/T, I'm going to post some of the research I did regarding medical patents in general.

I'm against patents for medical technology, because the incentives to the drug companies barely match the desires of the patients. As I recently showed in my blog, only 14% of drug revenue goes towards R & D, half of this 14% is wasted by looking for new drugs which don't treat diseases better than old ones (but are patentable, hence profitable), and the remaining 7% funds research skewed towards untested, patentable treatments even if well-known drugs might do as good or better a job. We've set up incentives for drug companies to find patentable tech they can then market to us. I think we need an entirely new incentive system, and I think we can do it and still have a free-market-friendly environment for research companies.

In this blog post, I outline a way for drug companies to get rewarded based on how much good their research does for humanity, using an Mprise-like system. Companies would get rewards proportional to how much better their treatment was shown to be over the current best treatment.

I have some ideas on how to implement this system so that everybody wins (yes - everybody - don't forget the parable of the broken window), but I would love some input from /.ers to help refine the details. You're always good at spotting holes in arguments, and I'd love to find them to see if they can be plugged.

Thanks!

At the danger of being modded O/T, I'm going to post some of the research I did regarding medical patents in general.

I'm against patents for medical technology, because the incentives to the drug companies barely match the desires of the patients. As I recently showed in my blog, only 14% of drug revenue goes towards R & D, half of this 14% is wasted by looking for new drugs which don't treat diseases better than old ones (but are patentable, hence profitable), and the remaining 7% funds research skewed towards untested, patentable treatments even if well-known drugs might do as good or better a job. We've set up incentives for drug companies to find patentable tech they can then market to us. I think we need an entirely new incentive system, and I think we can do it and still have a free-market-friendly environment for research companies.

In this blog post, I outline a way for drug companies to get rewarded based on how much good their research does for humanity, using an Mprise-like system. Companies would get rewards proportional to how much better their treatment was shown to be over the current best treatment.

I have some ideas on how to implement this system so that everybody wins (yes - everybody - don't forget the parable of the broken window), but I would love some input from /.ers to help refine the details. You're always good at spotting holes in arguments, and I'd love to find them to see if they can be plugged.

Thanks!

The article says that the chip will work at 300 teraflops. The human brain might be rated at 100,000 teraflops http://www.setiai.com/archives/000035.html so there is still quite a lot of speed to make up. However, it seems to me that through state saving (paging) one could simulate the connections between many more that a million neurons using this device. If you virtualize as a cube 3000 deep and track connections between these layers in software then processing over the virtual layers can proceed sequentially. So, it seems as though it won't take all that much more hardware development to get to simulations on the human scale owing to the higher frequency of individual operations.
--
Solar, a bright idea http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

The strongest argument though for wind (with regard to golbal warming) is that it displaces fossil fuel use and thus greenhouse gas emissions. Your argument about direct energy input is a less important effect. Had it been important it would have been included in Fig. 2 here http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf though the number is getting to be a little bit like the value for the change in the solar irradiance so that at a finer level of detail you are correct that it probably should be included. If so, it is important to subtract the contribution of hydro, biofuels, tidal, solar and wind from the total energy use because, while your previous correspondent was correct that all of it degrades to heat anyway so that there is no real cooling from using these sources, what you are getting at is that there is no additional heating.

I think it makes sense to bring in additional arguments in this debate but when they are physical arguments they need to be kept in a physical perspective. There are philosophical arguments as well for renewable energy use that can be taken as independent of the global warming problem though I'd guess that the warming has had something to do with their application. Have a look at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-is-real-e nergy.html to see how William McDonough's thinking might work into this.

The lawsuits are what destroy people (or attempt to) when they drag out the proceedings with dirty bastard SCO-like maneuvers. The settlement offers, by contrast, merely extort people so as to look good when compared to the prospects of a lawsuit.

They play hardball in court, as you can see--they'll go after you viciously even if they have good reason to think you're innocent, go after your kids even if there's little reason to think they're involved, and run away attempting to leave you stuck with thousands in legal fees if things start to look bad for them in court. I mean, we have at least one case where they're trying to extort a sick old lady who doesn't know anything about computers; they don't seem to employ ANY common sense in picking their cases and I've seen WAY too many times where they've misidentified files and filed DMCA takedown notices over crap they definitely don't own to believe that they put any effort into making sure they actually have a case.

Which is why I'm glad to have good lawyers like these guys fighting the heartless bastards.

Ed Brown see: http://questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/

maybe someone has pointed this out - but the reason the FPS suck is not because vista sucks - but becuase the hardware manufacturers have failed to provide stable drivers for much of their hardware.

the 8800 gtx has terrible support at the momement with a number of users threating nvidia through www.nvidiaclassaction.org. in general NVidia has been doing a poor job of supporting their hardware, for example under XP 64 the drivers are equally bad - barely implementing what is needed to perform well. at the vista launch a large portion of their motherboards (680a, 680i, NForce4)did not have WHQL drivers relased.

many software publishers have clearly not tested their software with vista as well making things less smooth.

vista has been under development for an extrodinarily long time - give then ease of aquiring the OS (CTP releases, RC releases), and wide availability of development tools that contain support for vista, the blame falls squarely on the hardware and software vendors who have not updated their software for this release.

Ironically, the upgrade to Vista on my AMD 4x4 has gone without incident. All of my games continute to work at roughly the same level as before. There are still some performance issues and a few interesting features of vista relating to multicore machines.

Actually the statement from that article is meaningless since 7 years is not an adequate span to see a trend, however 1999 had a lower temperature than 2006 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006 /ann/glob_jan-dec-error-bar_pg.gif and the slope is steeper that the 1970 to 2006 trend.
--
Solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

The Sun is responsible for the energy input, the atmosphere is responsible for keeping the surface of the planet warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. You could use wind energy to convert electricity to light in the optical passband and shine that out into space since it can escape the atmosphere, but the effect would be completely negligible. You other correspondent is correct, just about all of the wind energy turns into heat, but that is basically the just tail end of the solar heating. None of the nuclear, fossil or tidal power we use is of any importance to the heat input, but fossil energy is important in the way it changes the way light passes through the atmosphere at infrared wavelengths.
--
The Sun, ti's what's for energy http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

It looks like other people have had this thought too:

http://6thsenseless.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-much- linux-kernel-code-is-gpl-2.html

Here is an example from someone's blog about the ridiculous lengths people have to go to in order to work around their own AV software. As another example, my mother's Windows machine refuses to run Firefox, and it seems to be because of an AV issue.

The whole thing is nuts. AV software is a total scam. It's inaccurate, it costs money, it uses resources, and it stops people from getting their work done. Many home users also don't seem to keep their definitions up to date, which is like using a condom that you know has holes in it. The real problem is with the design of Windows and Office, which have too many dangerous functions allowed by default.

Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of the most significant compounds have been declining. These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere. By 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole would have reduced by only 1 million km out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer will not occur until the year 2050 or later. Work has suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2068 (Newman et al., 2006).

Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of the most significant compounds have been declining. These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere. By 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole would have reduced by only 1 million km out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer will not occur until the year 2050 or later. Work has suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2068 (Newman et al., 2006).

That's exactly right which, I think, is why the prize conditions stipulate that the method be economically viable. This is why I've settled on fish. We are already geared up to replace the protein in our diet with fuel in our tanks: http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2007/Update63. htm at least for a season. So, a new source of protein looks like it might meet favorable market conditions. The oceans are about tapped out for fish with fisheries collapsing all over http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Fish/Fish_d ata.htm#fig2 while aquaculture is polluting in many aspects. Why not them make the best of it and move the aquiculture out to the desolate regions and call the pollution sequestration? With a major increase in the fish supply, natural stocks can be allowed to recover. The surface area should be adequate given the photosynthetic efficency of single celled organisms http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html, the remaining worry being the mixing of CO2 into the water. However, to win you only need to run the thing for ten years, so disolved CO2 and a little mixing from weather ought ot provide an adequate resevoir for that timescale.

I think your comment about making things convenient is very important especially in getting renewable energy going on a big scale. But, when it comes to food, the political consequences of making anything inconvenient can be severe, so working on assuring an over-supply makes a lot of sense. If Brown is right in the first link here, people are going to be very upset.

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic.
A head of state who actually reads scientific climate studies, and openly questions Al Gore's sanity...

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?
A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists.
...
Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?
A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.
Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?
A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/02/vclav-klaus-abou t-ipcc-panel.html

• First, to deem quotations from a holy text to be "inappropriate content" is outrageous on its face.
• Second, Gisburne was given no warning.
• Third, YouTube didn't just delete the video in question, they deleted Gisburne's entire account.
• And fourth, this makes a mockery of Google's "don't be evil" slogan.
  • There can be no possible reason for this action other than caving to intimidation, and sanctimonious cowardice in the face of oppression is a particularly pernicious breed of evil.
    
    If you share my outrage I urge you to contact YouTube and let them know how you feel.

I would just like to thank the person modding the parent of this comment "flamebait" for inspiring me to do a blog post and making me think twice about that word.

I am kind of curios what this comment will be modded now, having a good enough karma to not have to care all that much is really a blessing ;)

The motivation for this kind of scheme is that we are already messing with the ecosystem in a big way. That said, the space based things seem very expensive and looking at alternative desperate measures first, or more seriously makes sense. The first thing we could do is stop messing with the ecosystem. It is already clear that this costs much less than continuing to do so. But, what if that is not enough because we've gone too far already? Thinking about these kinds of options is important just to show how truely desperate they are.
--
Solar:http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/sl ashdot-users-selling-solar.html

Actually, this can also be reversed to spur action. May businesses say they don't mind regulation, they just want it to be consistent and predicatable so that they may plan. There have been more and more businesses calling for national legislative action on GHG emissions because ad hoc state-by-state efforts make for a complex market. You could call them lazy, but not always opposed to change.
-
Rethink solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

http://erratasec.blogspot.com/

Its not a buffer overflow, its just unvalidated input.

Please have a look at a presentation I gave in the EP to interested assistants and MEPs about this. Although it may not be that clear without the accompanying commentary, I hope it still can clarify some of the important points.

Basically, the problem is that it does not only apply to commercial scale copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting, but also criminalises

• Alleged trademark confusion, e.g. Burger King v. Wholebake, or L'oreal SA & Ors v Bellure NV & Ors

• Infringements on database rights. As you may know, database rights only apply in case a "substantial investment" occurred, but how is a competitor supposed to know this in advance? Further, case law on this new "right" is still very much in development (slides 14-15 of the presentation, e.g. a case about a company selling an electronic version of a phone directory )

• Non-piracy related copyright infringements: e.g. Deutsche Bahn (the German national railway corporation) has been convicted for copyright infringement, because it altered the plans of the architect which designed their new Berlin railway station in a way which the architect considered to be infringing on his copyright. Another very nice on: a museum which is being sued for repairing an artwork which consisted of a urinal, because that person who destroyed it considered the "destroyed urinal" as a work of art in itself.

• Then there are also registered and unregistered design rights, which like database rights are not examined at all for validity. If you start threatening criminal prosecution for infringing on "right" which may not be valid in the first place, you get really chilling effects in the market place.

If you have time to read only one background paper on this completely idiotic and misguided directive, have a look at the position paper of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys. But those of the Law Society of England and Wales and Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law are also very good. You can find a lot more position papers on FFII's IPRED2 workgroup page under "External opinions"

Unlike the software patents directive, this is not a case of big companies vs small ones. Pretty much everyone except for the IFPI (music publishing industry) are trashing this directive like there's no tomorrow. And if you want to know why it is nevertheless being pushed through by the Commission, read my ENDitorial in the previous EDRI-gram.

The energy distribution of cosmic radiation is pretty steep and its is the low energy end that is affected by the magenetic field transported away from the Sun by the solar wind. So, in a way you can say that the Sun's wind affects the most abundant cosmic rays. This is a plus for the theory. The history of of the cosmic ray flux can be reconstructed from ice core measurements of beryllium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_ Proxies.png suggesting that, for example, the Sun's magnetic cycle continues even when sunspot activity is reduced. C14 can also be used albeit at a lower time resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon-14_with_ activity_labels.png. Note that Years Before Present can be ambiguous.

The reason this theory can be excluded from the recently released report on climate change is that the report looks at warming after 1750 where the solar activity has had lower variability, modulo the 22 year cycle (Be data). This means the variables (cosmic radiation and GHG concentration) are seperable in modern times (because we've changed the CO2 concentration so much). The effect of the Sun is small compared to what we are doing ourselves in the current warming http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/executive-summ ary.html.

It seems to me that the link in the original article must be misrepresenting the recent IPCC climate report so while the experiment is certainly interesting, not much can be said regarding its impact on the conclusions drawn there http://www.ipcc.ch/.
--
Get solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

The energy distribution of cosmic radiation is pretty steep and its is the low energy end that is affected by the magenetic field transported away from the Sun by the solar wind. So, in a way you can say that the Sun's wind affects the most abundant cosmic rays. This is a plus for the theory. The history of of the cosmic ray flux can be reconstructed from ice core measurements of beryllium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_ Proxies.png suggesting that, for example, the Sun's magnetic cycle continues even when sunspot activity is reduced. C14 can also be used albeit at a lower time resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon-14_with_ activity_labels.png. Note that Years Before Present can be ambiguous.

The reason this theory can be excluded from the recently released report on climate change is that the report looks at warming after 1750 where the solar activity has had lower variability, modulo the 22 year cycle (Be data). This means the variables (cosmic radiation and GHG concentration) are seperable in modern times (because we've changed the CO2 concentration so much). The effect of the Sun is small compared to what we are doing ourselves in the current warming http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/executive-summ ary.html.

It seems to me that the link in the original article must be misrepresenting the recent IPCC climate report so while the experiment is certainly interesting, not much can be said regarding its impact on the conclusions drawn there http://www.ipcc.ch/.
--
Get solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

There may be a correlation, but that doesn't mean that there's a cause-effect relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. I've seen it argued that due to things like the 800 year lag, it's unlikely, at least for the first 800 years of the cycle, that CO2 *causes* the temperature increase, and in fact in previous cycles it's probably been the other way around. One theory I read was that with increased temperature the oceans lose their ability to trap CO2 so it gets released into the atmosphere. (Note that the first link I gave above explains why high CO2 levels may still be a problem despite this). Anyway, all I wanted to say was that the relationship is no doubt many times more complex than Al Gore and some other alarmists would have you believe. P.S. I think it's worth pointing out that I'm not a supporter of big-oil or corporate interests or anything like that. I'm only interested in having the full story told. Regardless of the debate I'm still doing everything in my power to reduce my personal contribution to CO2 emissions because I'd rather not take any chances with this planet that we call home. I'd love for it to still be able to support a diversity of life for many years into the future.

True, though only certain editions are virtualization disallowed.

I don't know which, because Vista has a far more complicated edition structure than XP Home / XP Pro did. It may be you have to go all the way up to Ultimate, as this article implies:

http://parallelsvirtualization.blogspot.com/2007/0 1/vista-is-here-so-what-does-it-mean-for.html

Thanks for these links. This is really helpful. I'm trying to collect ideas on enrgy storage at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-renewables -displace-nukes-first.html because this is crucial to converting to renewables. There is a link to a promising flywheel technology there that should be helpful for distibuted storage at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/saving-not-bor rowing.html.

The main article is talking about load shifting rather than energy storage through there is a delta T involved. A number of industries can do this and do when they get discounts. But, at the point where the renewable power sources on the grid can meet total demand at some instant in time, we are going to need a fairly robust energy storage network or else we'll need to leave a portion of the energy unused. This would be a roadblock to making renewables the dominant energy source to further displace polluting energy sources. The traditional way of doing this, using biofuels as storage, could play a big role if we think of these as supplemental rather than replacement sources of energy. I'm not sure I'm saying this clearly: Straight catchem as you can renewables can supply our total energy need while biofuels have an efficiency problem and can't, so it is better not to think of them as a replacement but rather as a useful kluge that can help around the edges. At http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html I sketch out the relative efficiencies of various biofuels and PV solar power.
--
You can get going with solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Thanks for these links. This is really helpful. I'm trying to collect ideas on enrgy storage at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-renewables -displace-nukes-first.html because this is crucial to converting to renewables. There is a link to a promising flywheel technology there that should be helpful for distibuted storage at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/saving-not-bor rowing.html.

The main article is talking about load shifting rather than energy storage through there is a delta T involved. A number of industries can do this and do when they get discounts. But, at the point where the renewable power sources on the grid can meet total demand at some instant in time, we are going to need a fairly robust energy storage network or else we'll need to leave a portion of the energy unused. This would be a roadblock to making renewables the dominant energy source to further displace polluting energy sources. The traditional way of doing this, using biofuels as storage, could play a big role if we think of these as supplemental rather than replacement sources of energy. I'm not sure I'm saying this clearly: Straight catchem as you can renewables can supply our total energy need while biofuels have an efficiency problem and can't, so it is better not to think of them as a replacement but rather as a useful kluge that can help around the edges. At http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html I sketch out the relative efficiencies of various biofuels and PV solar power.
--
You can get going with solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html