Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Solidarity, Friction, Dreams

More on power woes in California; a ray of light to all the would-be Delux DVD players in the audience; snappy comebacks from Sega; and some updates on the ever-intriguing Project Pengachu. Mmmmmm. All below, so use that mouse finger.

Good reason to stay on the 3rd coast, Bruce. Steven Johnson of Feed writes: "hey man, here's an excellent one for you: Bruce Sterling on the thirteen causes behind the California power crisis. All about how it's the result of treating energy networks like information networks. Classic Sterling. Enjoy!"

No accounting for taste, but on a length / goodness ratio basis, this is perhaps my new favorite Sterling article ever, too. Bam.

I'll believe it when that inventory is replenished. Patrick writes: "It's off the front page so no one will see an update or comment, but [this site] has the official statement from Sega. FYI"

The points made in this statement still don't say that Sega will continue to produce Dreamcast consoles past March (or any other time), but do emphasize that Sega has no intention of stopping the supply of games for their console, and are "currently in negotiations" to provide games for Game Boy Advance and PlayStation 2. Also, the affirm previous reports that Sega is promoting the Dreamcast's architecture for use in PCs and other places.

aztektum points somewhat more directly to the Sega statement (in Japanese, that is), with a link he claims was found on IGN.

The Wailing Walls have ears. Adam Alexander, webmaster of Dulux Consumer Support, writes to assure Slashdot readers that despite his site's name,"My site is not an advertisement for the company; in fact many parts of it are very critical of the company. The purpose is to help people who have already ordered the product in getting the product or getting a refund. My site discourages new orders at this time, at least until the old orders are taken care of."

As the introduction to that site puts it, the page "has been created to serve as a central location for interaction between people who placed orders for a Dulux DVD/MP3/Karaoke/Game Player and would like to share customer service or product information."

That sounds pretty smart. Any class-action lawyers around?

I would not name a daughter this. PSUdaemon writes "Back in November there was a post about Pengachu. A project to provide cheap wireless internet in a handheld. The handhelds are designed with the Linux coder in mind. With ports for an external keyboard and mouse, you can take your projects anywhere. There is a Web Page now with lots of details and pictures. Unfortunately I couldn't find a link to buy one..."

I'd like to suggest a slogan for the wildly successful spin-off this project deserves to spawn: "It's from MIT, so it's got to be good!" Certainly a good step toward ubiquity.

158 comments

  1. What by atrowe · · Score: 1

    Pengachu, I choose you!

    --

    -atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.

    1. Re:What by SloWave · · Score: 1

      Pengachu, Pengachu
      Pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty Pengachu
      Oh Penga, my Pengachu
      Well I love you girl
      And I need you Pengachu

      (Sorry Buddy)

  2. Sega never made moeny on the dreamcast unit by hooded1 · · Score: 1

    I read somewhere that Sega never actually made any moeny on the dreamcast, only on the liscensing of games. It cost them something like $250 to manufacture and they sold it for 200. If anything this announcment means they will be making more money because they will only be making games

    --
    A rabbit in the hand is worth 4 in the cage
    1. Re:Sega never made moeny on the dreamcast unit by Sealoth · · Score: 1

      This is typical of game console manufacturers. I'm guessing that they weren't able to balance the cost of producing consoles with the revenue from licensing games. Which is too bad, because I'd hate to see Sony the megacorporation take over the console market again. Oh well.

      --

      All information in this post is true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense.
    2. Re:Sega never made moeny on the dreamcast unit by Urban+Existentialist · · Score: 5
      Yes, they didn't make any money off the hardware directly. However, every game released by a games company for the Sega platform had to have liscense money payed to Sega, even if the develepors were not related to Sega at all. This made up a fairly large chunk of Sega's cashflow. In addition, they made money from their own games that they wrote for their platform. The situation is similar for Sony.

      Now that Sega will be developing games for the PSX2, this is very good news for Sony, as they will make money off every Sega game released for the PSX2, and it will give their product better games (imagine what Sonic the Hedgehog on the PSX2 would do for sales). I don't know if they will release thier major games characters for other platforms, or if they will restrict themselves to consoles only, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Their brands are their strong suit..

      You know exactly what to do-
      Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-

      --

      You know exactly what to do-
      Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
      I think of little else but you.

    3. Re:Sega never made moeny on the dreamcast unit by GuavaBerry · · Score: 1

      Consoles have ALWAYS been sold at a loss. This has been true from the days of the Famicom (Nintendo's 8-bit NES). You know what? Sega/Nintendo/Sony don't care about the profit margin on the consoles themselves, because their business model works on the huge margins involved in software sales. It's a lot like your local burger joint. They don't make a whole lot of money selling burgers and fries. It's the markup on the drinks you buy that keeps their lights on.

    4. Re:Sega never made moeny on the dreamcast unit by JesseL · · Score: 1

      Sega would have done just fine selling dreamcasts if hadn't been for all those thousands of thieving bastards installing Linux and NetBSD on them.
      </SARCASM>

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    5. Re:Sega never made moeny on the dreamcast unit by The+NT+Christ · · Score: 1

      Maybe this should be in a FAQ somewhere, but isn't it technically illegal to "dump" products on the market, meaning to sell them at below cost price?

      --

      I didn't pay for my operating system either

    6. Re:Sega never made moeny on the dreamcast unit by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Actually, the markup on the fries is pretty damn close to the markup on the drinks.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    7. Re:Sega never made moeny on the dreamcast unit by Yogger · · Score: 1

      I've heard this one somewhere before as well. I think it had something to with trying to drive another company group out of business. Like companies A and B both sell Mr. Widget (TM). It costs both company roughly the same (say $5) to make them. Company A sells them for $7 while Company B is rich and sells them at $1 per because they can absorb the loss w/o a problem and want to drive company A out of business.

      Then again, I could have that completely wrong.

    8. Re:Sega never made moeny on the dreamcast unit by Hieronymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      This only applies if the company sells the product for a profit in one country, and at a loss in another country. If it sells at a loss everywhere it isn't considered dumping.

    9. Re:Sega never made moeny on the dreamcast unit by Decimal · · Score: 1

      But don't forget, this is all based on a rumor that Sega has denied.

      --

      Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
  3. Sega made good move... by 11thangel · · Score: 1

    If profits are falling, yeah, cancel the most expensive thing. But what some people don't see is that this will drive up prices of the remaining stock of dreamcasts through the roof. People will be scrambling to buy one, just as the people in the 1930's were scrambling to sell stock. Retailers can and will make a fortune if production stops.

    --

    I am !amused.
    1. Re:Sega made good move... by gtx · · Score: 3

      i don't honestly think that people will be rushing to buy up hardware that sega is discontinuing.

      that said, the prices probably will only go down, as nobody will want to buy hardware that the company won't even make anymore. may i refer you to the sega saturn (got mine for $35 off the shelf) the sega genesis (last seen on store shelves for $20) and the sega master system (which hit the $50 mark and then just disappeared.) when a company stops producing hardware, people (rightly so) lose faith in the hardware.


      "I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears

      --


      "I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
    2. Re:Sega made good move... by mikegross · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but... no. If Sega stops selling Dreamcasts, game companies will stop making games, so people won't want to buy a system with no backing. These aren't standard pieces of electronics, they're game systems. If they were, for example, Roland TR-909 drum synths, which will always make that old-school hip-hop sound, then yeah, there will be a great demand for the small supply. But if Sega stopped making the Dreamcast (which it isn't), nobody would want one because there would be no more games being released. When it comes to entertainment technology, people want the biggest and the best, not the old and nostalgic.

      --
      What's brown and sounds like a bell? Dung! --Eric Idle
    3. Re:Sega made good move... by zhensel · · Score: 1

      How much can you get a sega nomad for now-a-days anyway? It'd be pretty cool to play sega hockey (or whatever the real name is) while on a bus or something.

    4. Re:Sega made good move... by The+NT+Christ · · Score: 1
      By that logic, all discontinued products should go up in price the closer you get to selling the final one.

      Last time I bought a discontinued model CD player, it was actually cheaper than the new model.

      I appreciate your appeal to the law of supply and demand, but here it's lack of demand that's driving supply down, not lack of supply driving demand down. The former causes prices to drop; the latter causes them to rise.

      --

      I didn't pay for my operating system either

    5. Re:Sega made good move... by gtx · · Score: 2

      i haven't seen many of those. they're pretty rarified due to their horrible construction.
      don't get me wrong -- the display is really good for a video game system, but a huge, unwieldly beast. it gets even bigger if you use batteries, because you have to attach an awkward, ill-fitting battery pack on the back if you want to use batteries of any variety. also, the cartridge port on the top is poorly designed to the point where the cartridges will wiggle around easily, resetting the system frequently with some games.


      "I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears

      --


      "I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
    6. Re:Sega made good move... by Alatar · · Score: 1

      I picked up a Nintendo Virtual Boy when Blockbuster Video was liquidating their stock of rental units. $29.99 and all the games in the bargain bin for $5. Every system Nintendo makes they dust off the old crappy Mario Tennis and sell it for the same price as the real cartridges that are actually fun. Of course, in the Virtual Boy's case, there weren't many. It was a cool idea, though.

    7. Re:Sega made good move... by xjimhb · · Score: 1

      Ya know what, I don't care. I just found my old Sega Genesis behind some stuff when moving furniture, and hooked it up. I am now happily playing Phantasy Star III and enjoying it immensely - it's been long enough that I don't remember enough to spoil it. By today's standards the graphics suck, but it just doesn't matter - I like text adventures, too. I just wish I could figure out a way to reverse-engineer/port the game to Linux, that would be w4y k00l!

  4. PDA. by garcia · · Score: 2

    even though there are some pictures, I don't see any concrete evidence that this will become anything more than vaporware.

    I really would like to see a Linux based handheld that has built in wireless Internet but that seems like a pipedream for now.

    Continued development of projects such as PocketLinux is where it's at AFAIAC but what do I know?

    I think that if they ever do get this thing up to presentable status, they should hold a contest on a new name and mascot ;-)

    1. Re:PDA. by hooded1 · · Score: 1

      I personally don't think a pocket linux is that feasable. The console is one of linux's most powerful features. Considering how tedious it is to enter characters on a pda, it would be impractical to use linux in console mode. Linux is also good because of it's developement enviroment and its excellence at running servers. Again neither of these would work well on a PDA. For the same reason you can't use a console on a PDA it would also be hard to program. Running a server would be an absurd thing to do on a PDA, because they are mobile, very rarely do they have a constant internet connection. Although it would be great to have an open source OS on a PDA i don't think linux is the right answer.

      --
      A rabbit in the hand is worth 4 in the cage
    2. Re:PDA. by suwain_2 · · Score: 1
      I don't see any actually pictures. I see some 3D renderings. There was another company, something like PanoramTech, that had nothing but 3D renderings of their products. (I think they've changed that.)

      I'm always wary of buying something with no pictures...

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    3. Re:PDA. by suwain_2 · · Score: 1
      I agree. One of the first things I do whenever I log into a UNIX machine is to bring up an xterm. Eterm is in my .xinitrc. UNIX has some great GUIs, but there a trillions of occasions when I just bring up a terminal.

      The PDA's that have successfully gotten X Windows running generally have good handwriting recognition, but I've never seen anything but "ls". Suppose you need to shut it down real quick. Somehow, "shutdown -h now" doens't sound that appealing... And I won't get into trying to use something like vi. Is that even possible?

      What I propose is an on-screen keyboard. Windows CE has something like this, as does PalmOS. But what I'd like to see is something that is semi-translucent, and has a UNIX-style keyboard. One that is optimized for the console.

      Also, the other thing I've always wondered is three-button mouse support. The implementations of X I've seen seem to have just a left click -- you just put the stylus somewhere, and a left-click event is triggered...

      You also mention servers... A while ago I looked into getting a PDA. I ended up not getting one, but one thing I had considered doing if I got one was setting it up with tons of server and client apps -- I wanted to be able to ftp/telnet/ssh into it, and into my desktop. I also wanted a web browser and Apache, along with sendmail... It sounds like an absurd slew of useless features, but they're all pretty useful for remote access.

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    4. Re:PDA. by garcia · · Score: 2

      PocketLinux is attempting to make a graphical based PDA running on Linux. so it would have nothing to do w/Console...

      honestly, no input system is good for a PDA. I bought a KB for my PDA so that any large amounts of input would be easy.

    5. Re:PDA. by The+NT+Christ · · Score: 1
      The console is one of linux's most powerful features

      Sorry, that just made me laugh. The console was one of DOS's most powerful features too ;)

      --

      I didn't pay for my operating system either

    6. Re:PDA. by artg · · Score: 1

      We haven't seen them in the UK yet, but what is the Cybiko like ? Is it worth hacking ?

      It's probably not up to running Linux (H8, 512k flash, 512k RAM, small screen) but it's cheap ($100), has some short-range wireless networking, and it's not vaporware.

  5. Have to laugh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lining up to buy a DVD/MP3/Game/Karaoke player that looks like a chinese-forced-labor-camp-built electronic piano, paying a company you've never before heard of IN ADVANCE, and it's name is "Dulux" or "Hokka"? SUCKAZ!

    Anyone who hasn't seen the shots of the product, take a look HERE, and giggle uncontrollably! I've seen better plastics on Walmart toasters. Hokka loogey!

    1. Re:Have to laugh.... by anotherone · · Score: 1
      Doesn't really look that bad to me...

      Of course, anything that will let me play DVDs and MP3s and whatnot would be pretty cool, regardless of what it looks like. My current MP3 player is a caseless mobo sitting on top of my stereo with a big ugly power supply next to it, so the Hokka whatever thing would be a HUGE improvement appearence-wise.

      -------

      --
      Username taken, please choose another one.
    2. Re:Have to laugh.... by topham · · Score: 1

      I just purchased a DVD player on Sunday. I've been checking some information about it on the Internet since and have come across some interesting information.

      I purchased a Sylvania DV-2000. This DVD player uses the Zoran chipset (Vaddir III I believe). This is common in low-end DVD players (and some others as well). Has excelent picture quality. Plays CD-R/RWs as well, and plays MP3s. Why is this relevent to this discussion? Because it uses the same chipset that the Durun/Hokka, etc. (Not hard to tell, Zoran includes 2 games on the DVD chipset itself, Othello and Tentris. (NOTHING special, no sound effects even). Do a search on google and you'll find a huge list of players that use Zoran (bets search is DVD and Tetris or Othello; it isn't common to anything else).

      As an MP3 player it isn't bad, but it doesn't shuffle/randomize. It looks like it supports ISO9660 long filenames, but I haven't tested that yet. Anything with a funny character (tilde for instance) reverts to "SONG 001, SONG 002" etc...

      I'll be doing some further tests, but to deal with the lack of randomization I was going to create multiple directories pointing to the same files, but in a different order. Not perfect, but might work ok.)

      I've seen a number of DVD players marketed on the net with this chipset that also support the Sega games as described. It does look like the product is legit, licensing issues aside.

    3. Re:Have to laugh.... by Bilestoad · · Score: 1

      The presence of a Zoran chipset shouldn't indicate a cheap player. Arcam use a Zoran in their DV88 player, by all reviews one of the best players available at any price. You can find out more about it at the distributor's web site, and you'll also find links to reviews there.

      And if you read the reviews carefully, you'll find some information about the backdoor in some Zoran chipsets allowing you to select your region with the remote... ssshh :-)

      But on the subject of the Dulux/Hakko linked - those pictures do look like crap.

  6. Solidarity, Friction, Dreams... by djocyko · · Score: 3
    Is it me, or is Tim trying to get a subliminal message across?

    Either that, or it's his subconcious...

  7. A different view of the California power problems. by Spamuel · · Score: 5

    "California's utilities have lost billions and billions. They owe it to people who (a) aren't Californian and (b) aren't kidding about collecting that debt."

    I happen to live in Canada, and our local utility company is owed a fair amount of money for providing power to California. Unfortunatly the Californian utility we sold power to is now declaring bankruptcy, leaving our utility company screwed out of millions of millions of dollars (guess who's going to pay for that loss). So Californians and their utility companies aren't the only ones getting screwed over...

  8. Lol! Agreed. by Ando[evilmedic] · · Score: 1

    I think Tim's been spending too much time in solidarity...

    - Ando

  9. Public Utilities owned by the people by SubtleNuance · · Score: 4

    hey man, here's an excellent one for you: Bruce Sterling on the thirteen causes behind the California power crisis. All about how it's the result of treating energy networks like information networks.

    Correct me if I am wrong - but werent Californians enjoying fine, reliable, reasonably-priced utilities before they deregulated?

    Couldnt one argue that a utility should be held in the public domain? In times like these where prices are high the Utility companies take it up the duff - when wholesale prices are low they make out like bandits... its balanced. When the public owns the utility this is acceptable, knowing that the good comes w/ the bad and 'vica-versa'. But when the companies are owned by profit-hungry MultiNational cartels, they MUST have a profit, every quarter - and each quarter must be more profitable than the last... it is a little silly to assume they will act in the best interest of Californians... so, why again did you decide to sell off your once reliable, affordable public utility?

    1. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      Yes - I invite it. ;)

    2. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by Tam-Lin · · Score: 1

      No, they weren't owned by the people. What the regulation part meant was that the amount of profit they could make was regulated: they invested x amount of money for something, and the amount they could make was limited to xy, where y was something like 1.1.

      --

      Silly signature limit . . .
    3. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

    4. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by nels_tomlinson · · Score: 5
      The short answer is: "if Marxism-Leninism was a good idea, the USSR would be the richest nation on the planet, at least in the sense of the standard of living for the average guy." The long answer to "could a utility be held in the public domain?" is no. If utilities are publically owned, the decisions about how much to produce, how, and who gets it are made politically. Trust me, that's bad. (Trust me, I'm an economist...)

      The problems in CA stem from political action. California chose to deregulate the wholesale market, without deregulating the retail market. Thus, consumers had no incentive to conserve when supplies got tight, while the utilities had to keep buying power to meet demand, however high the prices got. That was only the second mistake. They didn't understand the economics of these markets yet, and did some rather stupid things with zonal pricing which aggravated the problem. William Hogan has an interesting paper on his website, in particular this one.

      Those links don't seem to be working in the preview, so here they are in cut-and-paste form:
      http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.whogan.cbg.ksg/
      and
      http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.whogan.cbg.ksg/zonal_ Feb11.pdf

      What was the first mistake? Their stupid, infeasible environmental laws, which are really about social and technological ignorance and NIMBY rather than any realistic concern for the human environment. It would be irresponsible to invest any money in power generation or transmission facilities in the People's Republic of California, and the fact that there hasn't been much such investment in recent decades shows that most gereration company CEO's have good sense.

      You mention that it's silly to assume that the multinationals would act in the best interests of the Californians. That's sort of right, except that what they are doing is really in the long term best interests of the Californians. By driving up the prices of power, they give incentives to build more generation and transmission facilities in California. The State Government is of course trying to counteract these incentives, with talk of "nationalization" and price caps.

    5. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 2

      Do you think that a free-market is more viable than a controlled economy? Personally, I wouldn't want my community controlling my internet access. Especially if you lived in the "Bible Belt". I think that the answer to California's problem is to let the buisness that is in place try to make money. If they but electricity at $10/kilowatt-hour, what is wrong with them selling it to you for $12, or $15, or even $100? Let the buisness make money.

      Now, I know that California has probs building a new power plant. Would you want a new coal-plant near your house, or a concrete damn on your favorite river? A truly free market will give the citizens a TRUE choice. It will let them VOTE WITH THEIR WALLETS. If you don't want a new power station, fine...that will be $100/kw-h. Oh, what's that? You don't mind nuclear power so much now do you? Or coal stacks? Or a nice new lake.

      All I am trying to say is...Let the buisnessmen run the buisness and keep the power in the hands of the consumer where it belongs...and tell the politicians to get bent.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    6. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 4

      Don't trash the environmentalists (does that sound right? who knows). Environmentalists, feminists, NRA, PETA. All these groups are the core of our real political process. While it is true that these groups seem to dominate your government...that is how it is SUPOSED to be.

      If you want something, say openDVD, you can go to your senator and ask him for it, or you and 900 friends can e-mail him (Kurt-the-Pope can then be hired to filter your DoS attack), or you can form a political action group based on open standards and get 30 seconds on CNN. Which has more power? Which has the best chance of achiveing your goals?

      Remember...political action groups are there because they work. Find a group that supports YOUR goals, and join.

      Just try to remember to fight the cause, not the group. It isn't the environmentalists you dislike, but the lack of new power stations...

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    7. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      Trust me, I'm an economist...

      Whew, that's a relief. For a second there I was worried you might be just talking out your ass.

      Ever hear the old joke about putting two economists in a room and getting three opinions?

    8. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by Arandir · · Score: 2

      California chose to deregulate the wholesale market, without deregulating the retail market.

      Close, but no cigar. The fact is that they didn't even deregulate the wholesale market. All the did was open up that segment to competition. Removing one or two regulations while keeping thirty million regulation in place is not deregulation.

      It's sort of like NAFTA. By attaching the term "free trade" to a managed trade agreement, the politicians have managed to forever sully that phrase in the public's mind. Now they are doing the same thing with "deregulation". It doesn't matter that PG&E has to get government permission to change its rates, the public heard the word "deregulate" from Gray Davis' mouth, so it must be true.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    9. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by piecewise · · Score: 1

      It's totally the result of a terrible setup. It's not necessarily deregulation itself. I live in Pennsylvania, and we've been deregulating for the past two years. It's great! Never any problems. You can't blame increasing competition. What you *can* blame is doing it poorly, not being prepared, and not having contingency plans.

      --
      The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    10. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by Hexact · · Score: 1

      The long answer to "could a utility be held in the public domain?" is no

      Well, when your public utility sells to the retail market at $0.06/kWh and still manage to make profits, some of which get put back into the government general fund, then the short answer is a clear and loud YES!

      Trust me, I'm an economist..

      That's like saying "Trust me, I know Tarot".

      You might be interested in looking at this: Comparison of Electricity Prices in Major North American Cities (pdf). It's self congratulatory but it contains interesting numbers.

      Clem.

    11. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by Gorobei · · Score: 1
      Nice post.

      The problems in CA stem from political action. California chose to deregulate the wholesale market, without deregulating the retail market. Thus, consumers had no incentive to conserve when supplies got tight, while the utilities had to keep buying power to meet demand, however high the prices got. That was only the second mistake. They didn't understand the economics of these markets yet, and did some rather stupid things with zonal pricing which aggravated the problem. William Hogan has an interesting paper on his website, in particular this one.

      We should also bear in mind that the US has three electricity markets: retail, wholesale, and transmission.

      Retail is insane: must deliver means that a commodity trading at $25/MWh can spike to its cap of $15000/MWh or so in many areas. Many consumers would sell an option to lose power for a few hours in any month in exchange for a big discount on their bill throughout the year.

      Wholesale is far more rational: producers can hedge in the oil markets, sell calls to profit from holding expensive-to-generate plants, etc.

      Transmission is a chaos of regulation: intrastate vs interstate regulations, tranches of tranmission rights, and a current infrastructure that has not adapted to competition. Many states would be better off building big transfer facilities to transfer power between their neighbors than increasing their internal generating capabilities. Two years ago, electricity spot went NEGATIVE in parts of the US because transmission was happily moving power between low-profit areas while the midwest sweltered in a heat wave.

    12. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by James+Ensor · · Score: 1
      Trust me, I'm an economist...

      Well, you certainly have Chutzpah... :)

    13. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by delong · · Score: 1

      "Correct me if I am wrong - but werent Californians enjoying fine, reliable, reasonably-priced utilities before they deregulated?"

      No, they had all the problems you see now. You see, CA has yet to deregulate power. That's right kiddo, no deregulation going on there. Unless you consider price controls, state controlled spot markets, and state mandated property sell-offs deregulation. California's power problems are the result of political bungling, strangleholding utilities, and NIMBYism.

      Here's some food for thought:

      http://www.fool.com/news/foth/2001/foth010112.ht m
      http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-17-01.html

      Derek

    14. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by mcdurdin · · Score: 1

      The problem with Marxism-Leninism, and equally the problem with the solutions proposed by many economists today is what their ideologies cover.

      Marxism-Leninism puts everything under the power of the government -- this is obviously bad. However, the reasoning you give puts everything in the control of those who must make money -- the capitalists. I would say this is equally bad.

      Why can't there be a happy medium? Some functions of government belong in the government, and not in the private sector. For instance, policing, defense, justice are obvious candidates (I won't explore reasons here). I would say that utilities -- power, water, gas, mail all belong in the government.

      Yes, this means that these organisations may be inefficient, bureaucratic or even corrupt to some degree. But more importantly, it also means equitable access for all, and we have much more of a say in how these sectors are run.

      Here in Australia, the privatisation of Telstra (Australia's telecommunications giant) has had good and bad ramifications. It has made the organisation more efficient (cut the number of jobs by thousands [query: is this a good thing?]) and opened up the market to competition -- lower prices, etc. But: rural Australia lost out. And so do those on lower incomes, as they do not qualify for many of the schemes (such as combining mobile and home phone bills for large discounts). Telstra's service record has also declined, and the government has had to place many new restrictions and requirements on the commercial Telstra so that it will even service rural and low-income areas (who are *loss making*).

      In the end, is paying less money for something, or making more money, the most important thing in the world? Will this really make people's lives better?

    15. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by nels_tomlinson · · Score: 2

      I hadn't noticed that part about negative spot prices... I was taking my prelims about then. But I'm not surprised, in retrospect. All it takes is a loop to make that possible. That means, of course, that folks somewhere are willing to pay to keep power off the lines, to relieve congestion. I've seen examples in the ops research literature, but haven't seen any references to that happening in reality. I don't suppose that you remember what markets?

    16. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by nels_tomlinson · · Score: 3
      Yes, PJM seems to be working out rather well. New Zealand is another example of a market which seems to be working well, and it is truely deregulated! No tariff filings and so on. England and Wales is a second, and Scandanavia is a third. I think that NZ's market is about 5 years old now? E&W is older than that.

      As I said, they seem to have screwed up pretty much everything in CA, but the original sin was not allowing capacity to keep up to demand. The second factor was not giving demand incentives to drop down to equal supply.

      If you interfere with a market, you eventually will go the way of the USSR and California. Even if you find a way to interfere without causing an immediate disaster, you cause some distortion which requires more interference, and on and on until you have rolling blackouts, a state of emergency, and the taxpayers on the hook to pay for the billions of dollars of mistakes made by their "Public Servants".

      As someone pointed out in an earlier reply to my post, it wasn't really deregulation that CA tried, it was an attempt to set up a command-economy market, al la the USSR. So you're right, we certainly can't look at CA and say that deregulation doesn't work.

    17. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by rodgerd · · Score: 1
      Yes, PJM seems to be working out rather well. New Zealand is another example of a market which seems to be working well, and it is truely deregulated!

      So wonderfully deregulated that it took the threat of government intervention to get power companies to allow customers to switch from one company to another.

      Deregulation has been sutch a bodge in New Zealand that even the pro-market party that started it eventually started threatening to re-regulate it.

    18. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by MrGrendel · · Score: 1
      If utilities are publically owned, the decisions about how much to produce, how, and who gets it are made politically.

      First of all, a substantial number of utilities are publically owned. They're everywhere I live, and they work quite nicely. They've been that way for years. The private utilities are also heavily regulated, and they work well, also. So no, I won't trust you because you're an economist. The system works fine the way it is and I would rather not have people tampering with it based on nothing more than a religous belief in the "wisdom of the market."

      The problems in CA stem from political action. California chose to deregulate the wholesale market, without deregulating the retail market.

      This is true, but out of context. The utilities wanted it this way because they knew the public wouldn't go for electric bills that are $100 one month and $500 the next. This isn't something that was forced on the utilities -- they asked for it. Everyone expected the wholesale electricity prices to go up and the utilities were gambling on this expectation to inspire generation companies to build more power plants. The gamble failed.

      One thing that many people don't seem to realize (even though it has been brought up in the news and /. repeatedly) is that there is really not a power shortage at all. This problem started because the generators that supply 25% of CA's power all went offline in the same week, supposedly for maintenance. This did create a temporary shortage. Because of the deregulated wholesale market, the prices went from $25/MWH to over $500/MWH in a couple of days. This caused the utilities to lose millions every day. A couple of weeks of that drove them to the point of bankruptcy. The stations are back in business now, but the wholesalers are refusing to sell to the utilities because of credit problems. Again, the utilities expected some of these price fluctuations, which is why they took the gamble, but they weren't expecting it to be as bad as it was. For anyone wondering why they weren't concerned about fixed prices for consumers when they expected costs to rise, it's because utilites don't make their big money on residential sales. The big money comes from industrial sales, and those contracts are usually based on wholesale costs, so the utilities can't lose. The problem is, if the utilities lose too much on residential, the guaranteed profits from industrial contracts don't matter. I'm not just talking out of my ass, here. I work for a utility and am responsible for some of the software that deals with industrial billing.

      What was the first mistake? Their stupid, infeasible environmental laws, which are really about social and technological ignorance and NIMBY rather than any realistic concern for the human environment.

      There are very real environmental issues associated with power generation. Virutally all atmospheric physicists now agree that global warming is a reality and is being caused by human production of CO2. We should have laws to discourage unnecessary production of CO2. Besides that, the environmental laws of CA are a red herring. The power plants that supply California don't have to be in that state (and many aren't), they just have to be on the same electrical grid.

    19. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by Your+Login+Here · · Score: 1
      It has made the organisation more efficient (cut the number of jobs by thousands [query: is this a good thing?])
      A lot of people seem to think that buisinesses exist primarily to provide jobs for people. However, I'd say it is a good thing.

      If a company keeps uneeded workers then it's basicly putting people on welfare to avoid the trouble of firing them. The cost of this is passed onto consumers, and in the case of a government monopoly society as a whole.

      If you fire them, then it is a huge inconvinence for them... but they should get new jobs reasonably quickly. Since the're now contributing to society instead of taking from it, everyone benefits.

      Now, if you want to start arguing that we don't need all the junk of our consumer society that's a completly different issue. The Ahmish agree with you, but you'll have to give up slashdot.

    20. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by Danious · · Score: 3

      The long answer to "could a utility be held in the public domain?" is no.

      What a load of crap. Lets talk real world examples here. Lets talk New Zealand.

      In NZ, we used to have a 100% publically owned electricity system. The generation and transmission sides were run by central government, the local retail distribution by local government. It ran on a profit-making basis with most profits being ploughed back into expanding the infrastructure in a fairly environmentally-friendly manner, the rest paid to the central/local government as a social or community dividend. Ten years ago, it came out tops in an international survey as the most efficient, cost effective system in the world, not to mention virtually the cheapest as well. It worked well, it was sustainable, we had cheap power and everyone was happy.

      Well, not everyone was happy. Big business wasn't happy, as they paid a higher rate than Joe Public. The economists weren't happy, as it didn't fit their model of competative maketplaces and made them look stupid. The international conglomerates weren't happy, as they didn't own the system and weren't making any money from it. Enter a right-wing, free-market market ideology government, and they set about solving these 'problems'.

      First step, break up the central generator/transmission company into three parts, a transmission company and two competing generating companies, with one being privatised immediately, the other later down the track. This was supposed to reduce prices by introducing competition, but only drove up prices as you had 3 times the administrative overheads, and each company added an increased profit margin onto the cost.

      Second step, force the local councils to privatise the local retail distribution companies, and allow local competition. Again, this was supposed to drive down prices, but instead sent them up through increased profit margins.

      The consequences? Power prices have sky-rocketed for Joe Public. It also killed off the social and community dividend that went into funding public goods. The only winners are big business, who can negotiate bulk purchases for cheap prices, and the big American corporates who now own most of our power infrastructure, along with the rest of the country. The other supposed pay-off of increased investment in the infrastructure isn't eventuating either, as the rate of return on the investment isn't good enough.

      But this was all predictable. After all, the first law of business is to maximise your profits, and all too often these days that means in the short term. Serving the public good by providing a cheap, sustainable utility or infrastructure just doesn't figure in the equation.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not agaist open markets and competition (I loath M$ as much as the next guy), just don't set up the system in such a way that it destroys the public good in the process. That applies as much to water, roads, schools, the internet, etc as it does to power. Sometimes, the perfect market is not the answer. It's a narrow-minded, one-size-fits-all ideology that's every bit as wrong as the narrow-minded, one-size-fits-all communist ideology. Choose the solution that best fits the problem.

    21. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by TheFinn · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that we *should* allow the government to be run by soft money and extremists?

      We have seen that email/s-mail/fax campaigns on issues are worthless in real issues. The likelihood of a senator to change his/her mind because of a handfull of their millions of constituents is absurd. You haven't seen the senators that California keeps electing. It's shameful (and no I didn't vote for either of them).

      The PACs and related organizations have created monsters out of good people. Corruption is rampant because of these organizations. We have over 6GW of power laying in waste because those plants have exausted their "air-pollution" credits. Granted that is only about half of what we need extra over what we have, but PG&E and SPE wouldn't be bankrupt (yet *P).

      I believe the PACs should have their say in a public forum that is paid attention to by government officials. But I strongly disagree with the allowable system that has destroyed the accountability of the elected officials. We are not in a democracy. We are a Republic. If we can't trust our elected officials to do our bidding, we have no voice.

      California has some of the more deepseated problems of the nation. It will take decades to undo what has been done in the last 15 years. This power crisis is just the beginning. Corporate is already abandoning California (Barrett (Intel) said that he will build no more facilities in CA). I am waiting for Old Money corps to do the same.

      What we need is 6 carbon copies of Diablo Nuclear Power Plant. No waste is transported offsite. No air pollution, no water pollution. It holds most/all of the world records for safety and uptime (90% uptime). Runs like a clock. This will hold us over until enough money gets properly dumped into Fusion research. Sandia will have a facility built capable of high-yield fusion this or next year. Once it is proven, 1/2 of DoE's money needs to go there. 20 years with the right money. Just in time to replace the Diablo clones.

      The gas problem is political more than technical. So it is much messier, and won't entertain a solution ATM. I wish I knew a quick fix, I don't like getting a US$147 gas bill for 103 therms. Last year it was US$27.

      Do it right the first time and you won't see this happen.

      TheFinn
      End of line.

      --
      ---- fnord
    22. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by Danious · · Score: 1

      New Zealand is another example of a market which seems to be working well.

      ROFL!

      Seems the free-market idealogue's propaganda machine has been feeding you their carefully crafted crap. Don't believe everything you read, go talk to the locals (and I don't mean big business), and see what they have to say about the mess...

    23. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by FreezerJam · · Score: 1

      The problem you'll run into is that nobody wants energy to be a perfect free market. Doing that would require accepting that someone is going to freeze to death in the dark (I'm in Canada) because the market didn't have enough supply to satisfy demand, and the poor frozen stiff got outbid.

      It's ok to consider the electricity to run your computer and special high-power outdoor lights to be subject to a free market. But the electricity to provide basic lighting, keep your food cold and then cook it, and the natural gas to keep your dwelling warm enough to avoid freezing you? All of these may be wished by the majority to be an essential service - one that should be priced affordably, not efficiently.

      Of course, the electrons don't actually care, which makes it difficult to separate the two types of economic structures.

      So - what do you do?

      P.S. Is this the same NZ that dropped Auckland's central into a blackout for several weeks when all the supply cables failed? Is this an acceptable consequence of truly unregulated market?

    24. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by Detritus · · Score: 2
      Besides that, the environmental laws of CA are a red herring. The power plants that supply California don't have to be in that state (and many aren't), they just have to be on the same electrical grid.

      Some would argue that this is just exporting the negative aspects of power generation, such as pollution, to neighboring states. This can become a volatile political issue when citizens of other states believe that their state is, sometimes literally, becoming a dumping ground. Similar disputes over trash disposal are common where I live. Everyone wants trash collection, but put the landfill out of sight and mind in some distant location.

      An electrical grid also needs transmission facilities to transfer power between regions. The same people who killed the nuclear power industry with pseudo-scientific propaganda will do anything to keep high voltage transmission lines out of their neighborhood.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    25. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by Detritus · · Score: 2

      It sounds like residential rates were being heavily subsidized by the commercial customers. This could have been the result of rational social policy or political self-interest on the part of the government. Based on my experience with utility regulation by state governments in the USA, I would pick political self-interest. Are artificially low residential rates really in the best long term interest of the country? Why conserve if you are shielded from the true costs of producing and distributing power?

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    26. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by deathcubek · · Score: 1

      Don't trash the environmentalists (does that sound right? who knows). Environmentalists, feminists, NRA, PETA. All these groups are the core of our real political process. While it is true that these groups seem to dominate your government...that is how it is SUPOSED to be.

      The day environmentalists and feminists start to dominate the political process instead of big business will be the day the govenment makes it illegal to be an enviromentalist or a feminist.

      --

      New worlds are not born in the vacuum of abstract
      ideas, but in the fight for daily bread
      --Rudolf Rocke
    27. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by donux · · Score: 1

      Trust me, I'm an economist...

      I don't trust you - particularly because you're an economist, and trite ideological sniping doesn't impress me.

      What're you doing at /. anyway? I thought I was surfing at 4+ to avoid this kind of stuff.

    28. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by f5426 · · Score: 2

      > Trust me, I'm an economist...

      This is fucking hilarious.

      In the same vein, we can have:

      "Trust me, I'm a statistician..."
      "Trust me, I'm a lawyer..."
      "Trust me, I'm a politician..."

      ...

      Cheers,

      --fred

      --

      1 reply beneath your current threshold.

    29. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by Oscar26 · · Score: 1

      Pennsylvania Deregulated 3 years ago, and we are doing just fine. I enjoy being about to choose my energy provider. Currently I'm with Green Mountain, 100% renewable energy. It costs a little more than the others, but prices fell so I'm paying about the same per KW as I did 3 years ago. We allowed utilities to raise rates.

      Now, please explain to me how by having a government run utility you would prevent the rolling blackouts? Governments might force lower prices (but you still pay the higher price through taxes) but a blackout means that they cannot produce more power, period.

      Does the state of California have a magic power wand? No. Deregulation or not, they would still have the same problems today no matter what. Except people would be claiming the opposite, that the state should have deregulated instead of continuing to operate the utilities.

      And what is wrong with making a profit? When demand is that high wouldn't you raise your prices? For example, if you bought 100 PS2's back in October for $300, and could sell them for $600, what would you do? Higher prices will cause the state to be more efficient. I bet more solar panels (sp?) will be going on roofs, and it's my meager understanding that Calif, especially southern Calif is one of the best places for Solar energy (more direct rays or something like that)

    30. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      It will let them VOTE WITH THEIR WALLETS.

      The catch with this "voting with your wallet" business that free-market zealots are always bandying around is: sucks for you if you don't have any money in your wallet!

      Basic human needs and rights should not be voted with money. Although I wouldn't consider utilites a right, they are undoubtably necessary...it is pretty impractical to "opt-out" of using electricity or hot water. When it comes to basic services and facilities all citizens should have access to, the political process *is* the process that should decide these things (however ugly and corrupt it may be -- most often corrupted by big business in the first place).

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    31. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by nels_tomlinson · · Score: 2
      Who's talking about the environmentalists? Those laws come from the State's elected officials and beaurocrats, who found it expedient to work with the demagogs who make up the "leadership" of the environmental movement.

      The ordinary folks who make up the rank and file of the environmental movements are mostly useful fools, to quote Lenin. They know a whole lot that just ain't so, and they are willing to listen to any fast-talking liar who promises utopia. These grass-roots environmentalists aren't to blame, except in the sense that they are, like all citizens, responsible for their government.

      The solution to this problem of political decisionmaking isn't to "join a group" but to reduce the power of government, so that there is less scope for demagogs and useful fools to do harm in the political arena. To get some idea about why the "dive head-first into the manure pile" approach won't actually clean things up, you might want to read a little book by Frederick Bastiat, titled The Law. It's almost as short as the title, and well worth the time it takes to read it. Whatever you may believe about the state of the environment, the environment is far to important to leave to political whimsy.

    32. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by JWhitlock · · Score: 2
      Trust me, I'm an economist

      ...and a comedian! LOL!!!

      With California's growing population, they better think long and hard about air and water quality. If it's bad having rolling blackouts, it's even worse to have the water turned off for a day, or to burden the state with health care costs for lung cancer for prisoners, which will make up half the population by 2050.

      As an economist, you must be familiar with the theory that says the difference between a luxury and a necessity is just a matter of time. Indoor plumbing, electricity, high quality food, vacations and holidays, and a hundred other things were once luxuries only kings could afford, but now are part of everyday life.

      I believe there is a path from luxury to neccesity:

      Luxury - Only the rich and powerful can afford it. Because of it's luxury status, the few manufacturers can charge huge margins, because the rich will pay for it anyway. Because they are not made in bulk, the overcharge is necessary. ("Wired" houses, luxury import cars, etc)

      Leisure item - It's nice, but not necessary, so the upper-middle class gets it. It still works as a status symbol, justifying low production and high costs. Imitators start introducing low-cost versions. (Boats, luxury cars, SUVs?, etc.)

      Consumer item - Everyone wants it. Bulk manufacturing makes it cheaper, and there is true competition, so prices stay close to their ideal point. Government regulation starts. (Cars, Air Conditioning, etc.)

      Neccesity - The product becomes so necessary for society that the government, for the common good, has to regulate it, so that everyone has it, and the product is of good quality. (Electricity, indoor plumbing, trash service, etc.)

      I believe electricity is now a neccessary item, and it was irresponsible to de-regulate it without extreme government oversight. Of course, this really isn't deregulation, but tough shitskis. If we had true de-regulation, the poor would be suffering without electricity, while the rich would paying a premimium to keep it coming. The corporations would keep prices at just the level that the middle class could afford it, but no lower.

    33. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Make the transmission lines DC and run them in the ground instead of up on poles. That seems to make most people happy. And yes, the technology is there to do it at least with 100kV lines. 400kV are AFAIK still a challenge, but it's being worked on.

      Oh and while the initial cost is higher, there is less maintenance.

      Benny

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    34. Re:Public Utilities owned by the people by mge · · Score: 1
      Trust me, I'm an economist...

      ROTFLMAO... Joke of the day...

      All software is flawed. All hardware is flawed. If you haven't learned that yet,

  10. Sega??? by phoxix · · Score: 2
    Hey all

    Sega used to be a great company, it really was

    Back in the days when Sega and Nintendo were in the biggest war ever, and it was all "do or die"

    But now when i look at Sega, I wonder to myself, what went worng?

    No offense to anyone, but Sega was truly too arrogant, not only did they fail to understand the industry that they were involved it, but they failed to understand the gamer

    who here actually wanted to buy the Saturn for $400?? ... exactly....

    Look at Nintendo, sure they came out with a cartridge based system, that cost more and blah blah blah

    but they still turned out alright ...

    Hopefully the future will be much brighter for Sega and related

    1. Re:Sega??? by interiot · · Score: 2
      but Sega was truly too arrogant, not only did they fail to understand the industry that they were involved it, but they failed to understand the gamer

      Hrm, let's see...

      PS2: DVD capabilities. Terrific polygon counts. Hard to program for. Few games have been able to use the PS2's full potential. Few games that are really good.

      DC: No DVD capabilities. Less polygon count. Tons of games (which is what pays the bills), even if you only count their first couple months. Games look just as good as what's been released for PS2. Costs half as much.

      How again did they fail to understand the gamer?

      From what I can tell, the problem was more business related rather than anything to do with the quality of the product produced.
      --

  11. Gamedvd Player by snubber1 · · Score: 1

    I mentioned before that you can find the so-called game dvd player at a more reputable site: http://www.lik-sang.com/ under the name Shinco 868.

    --
    I don't really mind double posts on //..
    1. Re:Gamedvd Player by MoOsEb0y · · Score: 1

      www.lik-sang.com is currently down, but they are just a retail outlet for www.likko.com. The relevant page describing this system is http://www.likko.com/en/product/LKM014.htm.
      -Moose
      -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
      Version 3.12

  12. Cisco and the proposed Power Plant by LameBrain · · Score: 2

    "Cisco moved heaven and earth to make sure there was no ugly power plant near their sparkly new headquarters..."

    i don't know who was behind this fiasco. i suppose it may have been Cisco, but i do know this, one of the reasons this power plant was cancelled was because the groups that opposed it claimed that there was... (get this) "no need for additional power in this area." can you believe that crap. i live near that area and received many flyers in my mailbox opposing this project. the power plant itself was a natural gas burning plant, one of the cleanest fossil fuels available.

    i'm all for environmentalism but misinformed environmentalists like the ones who got this project cancelled are actually causing more harm than good. they are damaging the environment and their own cause.

    1. Re:Cisco and the proposed Power Plant by LameBrain · · Score: 1

      i remember that quite well. more amazing than that is that Bart wasn't extended to the airports and around the whole bay 15 years ago. it just makes you wonder if the people making these arguments have ever even been on a freeway in this area.

      its my understanding that some of the more upper class communities didn't want Bart coming through because it would bring in the "riff raff." yet another example of the upper class leverging their power in their own self interest and fscking shit up for the other 99% of the population. it seems the trickle down theory failed to take the self interest effect into account.

    2. Re:Cisco and the proposed Power Plant by SEWilco · · Score: 2

      It was quite apparent when the power went out last summer in the Bay area that there was a problem. There was a Report to Governor Davis about it. Plenty of explanation there. Of course, new plants should have been started ten years ago, not summer of 2000.

    3. Re:Cisco and the proposed Power Plant by LameBrain · · Score: 1

      yes, you would think it was obvious right? but they had some rationalization that claimed that that particular blackout was caused by other factors and not by a power shortage. i may have saved some of those fliers maybe i'll dig around for them tonight if i have time.

      yes, we should have started new plants a long time ago. even the proposed plant in South San Jose would not have arrived in time to help us now nevertheless the current situation clearly shows that some of the key arguments for opposing that plant were completely invalid.

    4. Re:Cisco and the proposed Power Plant by Mark+Gordon · · Score: 2

      "Yeah, if they have the train go out to the suburbs, crooks are going to come from the inner city on the train to break into my house, steal my television, and take it home on the train."

      What's scary is that some people actually believe that nonsense. I picked my apartment largely for proximity to a train station.

    5. Re:Cisco and the proposed Power Plant by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      more amazing than that is that Bart wasn't extended to the airports and around the whole bay 15 years ago.

      Well, the original plan was to circle the bay, but then San Mateo county went and voted it down in the 60s. I don't know if Santa Clara even got a chance after that, but all of those folks probably though they'd live in apple orchards forever. And then, after all of the "rampant" development in Walnut Creek surrounding the BART stations in the 1970s (ha, like San Mateo was any different), there was no chance for BART-around-the-bay for 20 more years.

      But at least San Mateo and Santa Clara are getting another chance at that. Unlike poor Marin, who voted it down when there actually *was* a icecube's chance in hell in getting the federal money and political capital it would have taken to put rail on the Golden Gate bridge. Now they can kick themselves forever because they're never going to get it.

      As for Santa Clara -- I-880 is a 4 lane freeway that should have been 8 lanes 10 years ago, and it runs right into downtown San Jose, so, well, people aren't happy. You probably could put a $1 gas tax on the ballot to fix the problem and it would pass with 70%
      --

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    6. Re:Cisco and the proposed Power Plant by 2ms · · Score: 1
      As a mechanical engineer, I'm well familiar with the effects of a detachment from reality observable in proponents of both sides of the environment/costs issue - believe me when I say I agree that misinformed environmentalists are a major problem.

      However, it's also plain to see that something needs to be done to spell out the problems that are our future if a lot isn't done about our energy consumption.

      For example, we've got an arms race on the road with people thinking they are unsafe or uncool if they don't have a 6,000lb, 9mpg, SUV with bumpers that hit cars in the roof! It's as if the ability to conspicuously consume is the measure of individual status in America. Why is this? it's because nobody they respect is saying "what the fuck are you doing?" Everybody just says "whoa, that behomoth's got gold trim and costs $60,000 - the owner must be ludicrously rich which is the only thing that is admirable in this country."

      The public has demonstrated that they don't care about the environment unless they are forced to. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, although it sucks that Californians can't depend on having their electricity right now, at least maybe there's some kind of chance that they'll be touched enough by the consequences of overconsumption to be able to recognize the pertinence of at least their more personal environmental responsibilities.

    7. Re:Cisco and the proposed Power Plant by LameBrain · · Score: 1

      "It's as if the ability to conspicuously consume is the measure of individual status in America."

      well said but it goes a little deeper. its not just a measure of status its a measure of a persons -intrinsic- worth.

      on the issue of "personal environmental responsibilities". for the last 10 years whenever i leave work, i shutdown all of my workstations that aren't crunching data. for the ones that are crunching or serving, i turn off their monitors. i notice a few other people who also do this but there are many, many people who just leave their equipment on all night for no reason. to me this is like not only buying the giant SUV but leaving it running in the driveway all night, every night so you won't have to waste those precious 5 seconds starting it up in the morning.

      i think its mostly an awareness issue. people are just so used to having cheap energy that they don't even realize when they are using it. they are also detached from the fact that electricty is mostly not clean energy. most people don't realize that when they turn on a light, somewhere there's a lump of coal burning and giving off noxious gases to provide that energy.

  13. I know the cause of the Californian Blackouts by hooded1 · · Score: 1

    Might it be possible that the black outs in california are caused by one of the many particle accelerators there. I remember reading about a fusion lab in california which used in one day the same that a city used in a month. This demonstrates that not only does fusion not produce electricity, but causes blackouts in Calfornia. :) p.s. I'm not actually serious

    --
    A rabbit in the hand is worth 4 in the cage
    1. Re:I know the cause of the Californian Blackouts by K-Man · · Score: 2

      One of the biggest power drains, in the Bay Area at least, is the wind tunnels at NASA Ames in Mountain View. These have their own substation, and run at night to avoid the peak. Imagine an 80x120 foot fan, blowing at 200 mph, or pumping a big tunnel up to several atmospheres - that's a lot of energy (particularly if it explodes, which is why the high-pressure tunnel was shut down).

      Maybe now that power is going up to 30 cents per kwh they can test the planes with their engines on, and use the fans as generators. I doubt if they'll do much aeronautical research.

      --
      ---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
  14. I have to say, I agree with Bruce... by Thalia · · Score: 4

    I think the #1 reason, and the one Mr. Sterling lists as unlucky #13 is:

    13. This is unlucky 13, the grand finale. Californians feel lambasted, defrauded, and bamboozled by Old Economy "pirate generators" such as (let's name names here) Reliant Energy, El Paso Energy, Dynegy, Duke Energy, AES, Southern, Calpine, and Enron. But Enron in particular is George W. Bush's favorite company in the whole wide world. James W. Baker is Enron's lawyer. The Pirate Generators own Washington. The Information Superhighway is suddenly yesterday's news, somebody else's concept, all hype and ozone. The NASDAQ is in the tank, while the utility sector is the new darling of Wall Street. Furthermore, it very much galls the new administration that the homeland of Reagan is currently run by Democrats. An economic crunch in California is the prelude to a political assault from Washington.

    The deregulation of the utilities in California is the legacy of Pete Wilson. I expect the Republicans are not too appreciative of California, even though we generate a larger percentage of the GNP than any other state... but we voted for Gore. I'm investing in a generator...

    Thalia

    1. Re:I have to say, I agree with Bruce... by gwyrdd+benyw · · Score: 1

      Bruce Sterling has been doing more writing on the California energy crisis, on his Viridian Design mailing list. You can read the Viridian Manifesto here, and read the list archives here (although the archive is lagging a bit behind the mailing list at the moment).

      --

      I adblock all animated gifs.
      Blessed be the prime numbered slashdotters
    2. Re:I have to say, I agree with Bruce... by gwyrdd+benyw · · Score: 1

      Sorry.. a more updated version of the Viridian site, as well as a totally-up-to-date-save-the-last-message list archive, can be found here. Much apologies!

      --

      I adblock all animated gifs.
      Blessed be the prime numbered slashdotters
  15. PG&E / California is more scam than Bruce lets on. by amphgobb · · Score: 4

    Bruce's article is good and shows a lot of different viewpoints on the California "power crisis" ... but maybe if Bruce was more involved with everything that is going on, or if he talked to some people about it ... in a nutshell, PG&E is scamming everyone and outright threatening blackouts if they don't get their way (and they have had rolling blackouts here). San Francisco, in particular, is the only city in the entire country that is federally mandated to have cheap, public power... so PG&E has spent a lot of money to keep that law out of its way. And there's so much more. PG&E can go to hell, and there is a growing ratepayers strike happening in the SF Bay Area. For more information that is more specific than what Bruce writes, check out the SF Bay Guardian coverage or SF Independent Media Center coverage. The corporate media is just reciting press releases from PG&E and Gov. Davis.

  16. Re:A different view of the California power proble by LameBrain · · Score: 1

    i'm not aware of any Ca. power utility that is declaring bankruptcy. So. Cal Edison has suggested that it's a possibility if an alternative isn't found but as far as i know its not happening yet. which utility co. were your referring to?

    i do agree with you, that this abysmal situation affects more than just Ca.

  17. Re:A different view of the California power proble by geekoid · · Score: 1

    utility companies are not loosing as much as they would like you to think.
    my providers(So. CA. Edison) parent company is making a fortune selling to other places besides california, something they could not do before "deregulation".
    shortly before deregulation took effect, Edison positioned So. Ca. Edison so that they would not be liable for the loss's incrued by So. Ca. Edison.
    What an amazing coincedence!
    Edison knew this was going to happen. you don't say we won't raise prices, then sell your product supply(your ONLY product supply) to someone who is not bound by contract not to raise prices and not expect your cost to go up. Plus edison (among others) had shut down several power generating plants for "un-scheduled maintainence" just before this happened.
    I can't wait for me to invent cold fusion...

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. Project Pengachu - Quantum Computer Module? by robertchin · · Score: 3

    Seems like a hoax to me - click on the "Pengachu Inside" link. Quantum Computer Module with Pengachu Interface? I don't think so. QC isn't even feasible for normal use right now.

    1. Re:Project Pengachu - Quantum Computer Module? by honkycat · · Score: 1
      Nah, no hoax... they happen to be working on NMR quantum computing in the same lab in the Media Lab where two of the three pengachu developers work. The "quantum computer" they have is essentially a low-cost special purpose NMR spectrometer (note that low-cost is a relative thing...). The QC research they are doing at the moment is trying to bring a couple of qubits into a tabletop NMR spectrometer.

      At least that was the case last year when I was working there. Probably still true today...

      Note that using pengachu as the interface is almost certainly for show more than anything. I'd guess that these slides were used for a sponsor presentation at a Media Lab gathering. I would suppose they were mostly trying to draw connections between various projects being presented to the sponsors.

  19. Power Problems in the Bay Area by Cheshire+Cat · · Score: 1
    To paraphrase The Onion:

    Due to the power crunch in the Bay Area, San Francisco has had to turn off its giant fog machine for the time being.

    --

    Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
  20. Re:PG&E / California is more scam than Bruce lets by Smitty825 · · Score: 3

    Ummm...I don't understand. Are they not allowed to make a profit? I can't understand how it is ok for them to pay $.35 for a kilowatt hour of electricty, while being able to sell it for $.07 .

    PG&E is scamming everyone and outright threatening blackouts if they don't get their way (and they have had rolling blackouts here).

    PG&E has very little control over the blackouts. The Cal Iso calls them up and says, "You need to free x Megawatts of power, now." PG&E has no choice, but to free that much electricty, or the whole system crashes. Look on you PG&E (or SCE or SDGE or whatever your utility is) bill and it will tell you a number. When (insert your favorite/least favorite utility here) is given the blackout notice, they just go in order, from 1 to however many blocks there are. That's required by the Public Utilities commission!

    --

    Doh!
  21. Bruce Sterling by Ace905 · · Score: 3

    Perhaps my Canadian-ness has neglected to educate me on the wonder and awe that is 'Bruce Sterling'. Should I know who this guy is?

    Anyways, after reading his article I've come to the conclusion that it is in fact possible to discuss the internet in an article related to power consumption and a bad, quickly-fluctuating economy; that is, if you don't actually make any correlation between them at all.

    "Canadians really love the Internet. In almost all parts of Canada, home Internet connectivity is growing as fast as yesteryears Cable television and pre-era Radio License sales. But what may surprise some Canadian Clothing Retailers, is that while clothes may sell fast; they are not the Internet bubble of bit communications. That is, the internet is made up of a slurry of routing, and computational machinery, constantly sending and receiving tiny electrical signals; Where as clothing is made up of fabric.

    Fabric in Canada has nothing to do with the internet, now I will speak about fabric.... etc.
    "

    Who is this guy?

    --

    Ace
  22. Amusing when they live with their mistakes by WillSeattle · · Score: 5

    It's incredibly ironic that:

    A. Californians elected GOP legislators who, fed by fat cat Texan-owned firm campaign contributions, pushed through deregulation.

    B. The world's largest wind energy power facility is being built in Oregon and Washington state, while California refuses to build any power plants.

    C. The first company I ever worked for (as a Power Engineer, actually), Cominco, is selling the power generation from their private dam to save California's butt, since they can make more money selling them hydro power than smelting non-ferrous minerals (yes, that includes gold and silver, but is mostly lead and other alloys).

    D. Washington State dams are running flat out shipping power to California to the point that many of the lakes behind are drying out - this during our worst snowfall year in a decade when we have cold temperatures that force us to use energy.

    and, last, but not least

    E. The feds still try to get you to believe that the answer is to build coal plants, when anyone worth their salt could show you 4.5 cents per KW hour costs to build wind energy plants that have close to zero apian kill ratios and allow the land to be used for farming and other purposes. And even at current pricing, natural gas is still cheaper to use, if you would just build it, than coal. Especially sulfur coal - and I've seen what happens if you're crazy enough to use that -the Trilateral Commission forced Cominco to install scrubbers on all its stacks due to sulfur and lead outputs.

    --
    --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
    1. Re:Amusing when they live with their mistakes by elefantstn · · Score: 2

      A couple comments on this: first, blaming the Republicans (or any one politician or political group) for this is senseless. The deregulation passed the state legislature unanimously, not by a narrow majority, and not by some sneaky back-room political deal to get a couple opposition legislators to trade their votes to pass it. The fact that it was unanimous is significant: this was a completely bipartisan effort, not led by Naderesque "Republican plutocrat carpetbaggers from Texas oil wells."

      I agree with you about energy sources, though. The answer isn't coal, the answer is more power plants, period. California is basically what happens when you play SimCity and you don't build any power plants because you want high-class people to move into your city. Works great for a while, but then the brownouts and blackouts start. Uh oh! The neighboring states and federal government are perfectly right in being less than sympathetic to California's plight. How sympathetic would you be if New York whined about piled-up trash but refused to build any landfills? Not very. The fact that the yuppies prefer non-power-plant-obstructed skies doesn't mean the rest of us should put generators in our backyards to keep their computers running.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    2. Re:Amusing when they live with their mistakes by nathanm · · Score: 1
      A. Californians elected GOP legislators who, fed by fat cat Texan-owned firm campaign contributions, pushed through deregulation.
      Did you read the article? Republicans are not solely to blame for this crisis.

      First of all, the CA state senator that wrote the deregulation bill, Steve Peace, is a Democrat.

      Second, the deregulation bill passed unanimously.
    3. Re:Amusing when they live with their mistakes by Arandir · · Score: 3

      A. Californians elected GOP legislators who, fed by fat cat Texan-owned firm campaign contributions, pushed through deregulation.

      There was no deregulation. The proof is simple. All PG&E has to do is raise their rates and their problems are over. But they can't do that. All they can do is beg, threaten and whine to the regulators for permission to charge a little bit more.

      What happened instead was that certain sectors of the energy market were opened up to competition, which is not deregulation. It's the tons of regulations still in place that's causing this problem to spiral out of control. PG&E and SCE have government granted monopolies. I have absolutely ZERO choice about whom I buy my electricity from. And I would gladly pay a market price for my electricity in order to forestall blackouts, but again, the government won't let me excercise that choice.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    4. Re:Amusing when they live with their mistakes by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      > There was no deregulation. The proof is simple. All PG&E has to do is raise their rates and their problems are over. But they can't do that. All they can do is beg, threaten and whine to the regulators for permission to charge a little bit more.

      Yeah, that almost leaves a guy wondering why they pushed so hard for the legislation, and then drummed up $30,000,000 to beat Proposition 9 (which would have effectively vetoed part of that legislation).

      > What happened instead was that certain sectors of the energy market were opened up to competition, which is not deregulation. It's the tons of regulations still in place that's causing this problem to spiral out of control. PG&E and SCE have government granted monopolies. I have absolutely ZERO choice about whom I buy my electricity from. And I would gladly pay a market price for my electricity in order to forestall blackouts, but again, the government won't let me excercise that choice.

      Actually, it's not the Big Evile Gummit that's preventing it. The legislation was supposed to open things up, but the utilities didn't want to cater to low-profit residential neighborhoods.

      See my earlier post, which cites a survey of what the utilities were ready to offer the lucky citizens of CA just before the law went into effect (2 years after being passed). The survey showed that consumers were not going to get a damn thing in return for their $28,500,000,000 bailout of the utilities.

      People need to get over the notion that "regulation is inherently evile", because it tends to blind them to what is actually going on in CA.

      --

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:Amusing when they live with their mistakes by nels_tomlinson · · Score: 2
      I'm glad to hear that your windmills have low kill rates for bees; I'm a beekeeper, and would hate to see my apairy devastated. How are they on birds (that is, what's the avian kill rate)?


      More seriously, I've lived near old, dirty coal plants, and near wind generators, and I'll take the coal anyday. It makes a better neighbor. Wind plants are loud and unsightly, while coal plants are quiet and the new ones are surprisingly clean.

      You say 4.5cents /kWh to build? What's the capital cost per kWh? What's the lifespan that you amortize that over? What's it going to cost to produce power on the days that the wind doesn't blow? I hadn't heard that wind power was competitive with a modern coal plant set up close to a mine. The cost of the wind generators per nameplate MW may be low, but the cost per reliable MW has to include the wind generators and either very expensive storage, or fossil generators which can take over on a calm day. I'm not saying there is no place for wind, but it can't replace fossil/nuclear, it isn't suitable. Windpower next to a hydro site might make sense; it could run all night to pump water uphill over the dam, and provide some lowcost peaking power during the day, weather permitting. But for general use, as a primary source of juice? probably not.

    6. Re:Amusing when they live with their mistakes by amorsen · · Score: 1

      From the Slashdot posts it seems that a lot of California's power at this moment is provided by hydroelectric power plants. It sounds as if those power plants are in use over large periods of the day, possibly all the time, and furthermore they are being drained so they will be unable to produce later in the year.

      In that case the hydroelectric plants are not being used efficiently. Wind power would count fully in that scenario -- they would allow the hydroelectric plants to provide more peak power.

      At the current interest rate, wind power is profitable in Denmark if you can get a good location for the windmills and you get paid around 7c/kWh.

      Unfortunately the western part of Denmark (where most of the good locations are) and the rest of the Northern European market has an overcapacity at the moment, so electricity on the spot market is cheap. On the other hand, the eastern part of Denmark and the Scandinavian market it connects to is fairly close to the capacity limit, so the wind power would do a lot more good there. There are no connections of any size worth mentioning between the two markets. (I have a beautiful explanation why, but unfortunately there isn't enough room in the margin.)

      Benny

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  23. Dreamcast is a great system by Paradox · · Score: 1

    Ok, folks. Please listen.
    The PS2 isn't that great a system. In fact, check the specs on it. Stop looking at polygon count as the end-all-be-all of a console system. It's not. Quite frankly, the PS2 has been a major dissapointment.

    So what if it has DVD capability? I can get a dvd player for $99 and a Dreamcast for $188. I can't get a PS2 and when I can it's like $250-$300. So I break even. The PS2 is by no means a "deal."

    Gimme a break. Compare graphics. The PS2's grainy, aliased Dead or Alive 2 makes the DC version look like pure gold.

    The PS2 suffers from something huge, low video memory. The dreamcast has tons, has a great display architecture and is easy to code for. I know PS2 developers who complain a hell of a lot because it's a very hard system to work with. There are a ton of games for DC. GREAT games, games like Grandia 2 and Soul Caliber.

    So many people have bought the hype of PS2. You're saps. The PS2 is a dismal failure. The X-box, if it's even 3/4 of what MS says it is, is going to clean house. And lots of games that were only going to be released on PS2 are now on X-box as well. So there goes the exclusive titles. The only developer Sony really has to back them up right now is Square, which admittedly is a damn fine company.. but it's not enough. I don't buy a system just for square games.

    I haven't talked to a single PS2 user, online or in person, who is really satisfied with the box. And there are no cool periphers yet for PS2, nor are any ones coming out in the near future! The DC has a keyboard, mouse, modem, ethernet card, light guns, even a fishing controller!

    Gimme a break folks, I am ready to weep over the loss of one of the coolest consoles I've ever owned, the Dreamcast. Sega just didn't market it agressivly enough. Just a few "comparitave photo" commercials showing the jaggy lines of a PS2 title vs the smooth anti-aliasing in 640x480 (through the awesome vga adaptor for DC) would give people concrete evidence about the comparative qualities.


    - Paradox
    Man of the C!!!

    --
    Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
    1. Re:Dreamcast is a great system by Ziviyr · · Score: 1
      I agree with everything except the part where X-Box cleans up

      Who the hell is going to go for yet another overpriced black brick with lots of unproven hype? Nevermind that the people making it are responsible for the wonderfully stable and user friendly mess of Microsoft software.


      What might move in and clean up then? How about the Nintendo GameCube?

      Colorful, lunchboxish, uses neat 3" disks, plenty of good developers, lots of *GOOD* launch games, cheapish, approximately as capable as the X-Box.


      Well, think about it.


      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    2. Re:Dreamcast is a great system by Paradox · · Score: 1

      Well.
      Then let's replace the term X-Box with Box-X, the next major system that isn't going to suck.

      The PS2 not only sucked, but it sucked and tried to lie about at. At worst, the X-box will be the 3DO all over again, die quietly, and MS won't care.

      What's sad is that in this war between two monopolies, Microsoft and Sony, Sega is being shut out. They really need to make a wildly popular highly merchansidable collectable card game or something. :\

      (By the way, if you think Sony isn't a monopoly, rethink that. Any company that makes my CD's, makes my CD player, and published the album I am listening to on said CD has a bit of an advantage, wouldn't you say?)
      - Paradox
      Man of the C!!!

      --
      Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
    3. Re:Dreamcast is a great system by Golias · · Score: 1
      What's sad is that in this war between two monopolies

      Were this an episode of "Yes, Minister", then this would be the point where Bernard would interruprt to say, "excuse me, Sir Humphrey, but you can't actually have two monopolies because 'monopoly' means there's only one. Two of them would be a stereopoly, which doesn't make a lot of sense and I think I'd better be quiet now..."

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  24. The Pokemon/Handheld Linux Conspiracy by Primer+55 · · Score: 1

    There have been two "Linux distributions for handhelds" stories in the past couple of days. One is called Pengachu, which sounds similar to Pikachu, and the other Pocket Linux, which could easily be confused to be "Pokelinux". WTF is going on?

    --

    "Watch these suckers jump when I get root." - l33t j03

  25. cheap dreamcast would rox0r by linuxpimp · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing this will drive down the price of the Dreamcast. Always wanted to try putting BSD or Linux on the DC, and maybe lower prices will let me buy one just for that purpose (use it as a dns server or something similarly non-intensive).

    --

    Today's sig brought to you by http://www.swankypimp.com

  26. San Francisco is not California by spike_gran · · Score: 1

    I agree that the big deregulation was a huge mistake, and Pete Wilson should be pelted with mashed potatoes, but, here are a couple of factoids to make us Southern Californians look better. 1. Los Angeles city generates most of its own power with its city-owned utilities, and as such, really isn't suffering in the current crisis. 2. There is no threat of blackouts in So Cal at the moment, even in those area not covered by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. We could send power up north to help keep San Fran alight, except that the just isn't enough wire capacity between North and South to transport it all. 3. A lot of the power generated in So Cal is from windmills, and many of the desert towns like Palm Springs are almost self sufficient through the wind farms. Besides, those Northern Californians have always though they were so special, and didn't want to be associated with us Southlanders. Ha ha.

    1. Re:San Francisco is not California by K-Man · · Score: 2

      Good, then maybe you can supply the power to pump our water down there :-)

      --
      ---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
    2. Re:San Francisco is not California by PhilMills · · Score: 1
      1. Los Angeles city generates most of its own power with its city-owned utilities, and as such, really isn't suffering in the current crisis. 2. There is no threat of blackouts in So Cal at the moment, even in those area not covered by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

      Not so - my brother at Harvey Mudd College, just outside of LA in Claremont, is routinely w/out power for most of the day.

      I find it quite ironic that an engineering college can't get enough power to keep computers/lights/hot H2O on for its students

      Never attribute to malevolence that which can be attributed to sheer stupidity.

      --
      Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, will be quoted out of context on
  27. Dulux?? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    That DVD player threw me for a moment...
    Here in the UK, it's late (well, early now I suppose), I'm tired and over-caffeinated, and Dulux is a kind of paint...

    1. Re:Dulux?? by The+NT+Christ · · Score: 1
      The brand name in the UK was "Durex".

      [Sorry, brit joke].

      --

      I didn't pay for my operating system either

  28. One thing Sterling misses is utility ownership. by isaac · · Score: 3
    What I fail to understand about the role of journalists in this so-called "power crisis" is why everyone's ignoring the obvious question: Who owns California's so-called "investor owned" utilities? Take a look at San Diego Gas and Electric - one of California's "financially shaken" utilities - it's owned by wildly profitable Sempra Energy. Similarly, you'd think that PG&E was simply the primary utility company in Northern California - wrong! It's a holding company that owns both out-of-state generating plants (in one arm) and the near-bankrupt utility (in the other) and a VC firm on the side (because they're from California, I guess). They reported positive earnings of 42 cents a share in December.

    Sterling does mention that CA's energy usage is well below peak summer usage, but it bears repeating. The "shortage" is totally artificial, with generating companies shutting down generating capacity for "maintainance" at an unprecedented rate. Ever seen "Chinatown"? Remember the "water shortage" caused by deliberate dumping of reserviors into the ocean? Same deal here.

    What we have here is a choice example of what happens when regulated industries get to write their own regulations by proxy.

    -Isaac

    --
    I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
    1. Re:One thing Sterling misses is utility ownership. by ChiChiCuervo · · Score: 1

      A couple of things...

      I don't understand where one gets the idea, which seems to be what you're proposing, that a large company should tolerate an unprofitable subsidiary under the weight of a stupid regulatory scheme.

      Also, you're absolutely correct that the shortage is artificial. I would do the same thing if I ran a California power company. It's better to deal with crisis and come up with a working solution and long term plan than to face cataclysm when summer hits. Alot like Y2k, really...

  29. Cato institute predicted power Cal crisis in 1996 by TheNarrator · · Score: 2

    Cato Institute, a libertarian think take said that California's deregulation was screwed up and would be a fiasco in 1996 when it was proposed. So much for this being a failure of free markets, more like braindead bureaucrats.

    Story Is Here

  30. Take your market back, Sega! by KupekKupoppo · · Score: 1

    Sega DreamCast is sold at a loss right now (and always has been). The market was supposed to be dominated by their higher quality games.

    I'm sorry, Sega, but you didn't get anything out there that made me want a DreamCast! However, if Sega could get out that 'killer app' for DreamCast soon, they could hold the market from the PS2, at least until the X-Box comes out.

    The PlayStation 2 has _no_ good games out for it (a few fighting games, but... blah), so Sony has dropped the ball on this as well.

    If the strategy hadn't been "get something new out there, quickly" they would have had better success. Look at the Nintendo 64. It's a ridiculously stupid console and it uses a _cartridge_ system.

    But Nintendo had Mario 64 out with their console, and it was playable and enjoyable (if a little dumb). It is my opinion that the N64 system is doing better than Sega (with games like Zelda 64, 1 & 2).

    In other words, the hardware vendor needs to team up with its software vendors to get their products out when the time is good, even if that isn't ASAP.

    I don't care if your gaming system will make me breakfast. It's a gaming system. Get me some goddamn games.

    -k.

    1. Re:Take your market back, Sega! by The+NT+Christ · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but PS2 has been out for 3 months and DC has been out for 18. PS2 kicks DC's ass on current titles alone. Mmm. Tekken Tag. I guess if you don't like Tekken or SSX or Dead or Alive you're SOL until the summer. And you might be able to buy a PS2 by summer.

      --

      I didn't pay for my operating system either

    2. Re:Take your market back, Sega! by KupekKupoppo · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly. Sega should have gotten more of the market by now, especially with Sony dropping the ball with production.

      I personally want a system with good games. Right now, that really isn't either.

      Now is Sega's chance. Otherwise, in 3 months, it's all Sony.

      -k (who wonders who the hell decided my post was flamebait!).

    3. Re:Take your market back, Sega! by The+NT+Christ · · Score: 1

      I think you're right. About the consoles *and* the moderators ;)

      --

      I didn't pay for my operating system either

  31. Maybe it's a marketing thing by jfunk · · Score: 2

    Maybe it's just a name they put on it in an attempt to marketeer.

    Maybe it's like "blast processing."

  32. Not real deregulation by splante · · Score: 1
    Here a quote from one of a series of articles that explain the California power problem quite clearly:
    [the "deregulation" law] prohibited buyers and sellers from agreeing to individual contracts and mandated that everyone pay the same -- and highest -- price offered on any given day. So that's how the "market" price for power would be set for the utilities. Here's another catch: Regulators would set the price the utilities could charge energy consumers.

    Now this scheme may be many things, but a deregulated market it certainly isn?t.

    http://reason.com/hod/electricity.html
  33. Open Games platform by oisteink · · Score: 2

    The Dreamcast is going to beat Indrema in becoming the first open-source (I know, but I want your attention) gameplatform. OpenBSD is, as far as I can tell from the mailing list, near to support the ethernet adapter. NetBSD might be a strange platform for SEGA to have running on it's hardware, since NetBSD's license states that you can redistribute binary only. But once the driver is done, it will also (my guess) be awailable for you Linux guys ;) Somebody write an X server for it, and I'm in. (It will even be supported by kylix)

  34. What Sayeth The Onion?! by Cheshire+Cat · · Score: 2

    The Onion has a cute piece on the California power outtages.

    --

    Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
  35. PS2 = Saturn2 (spiritually) by 2ms · · Score: 1
    You seem to know what went wrong: Saturn. They made an expensive system that was hard to develop for. But then they came out with Dreamcast - they'd learned their lesson - they went from wrong to right. Have you played Dreamcast recently? Sega's the company which *does* understand the gamer (example = broadband adapter + awesome Quake port).

    What you've identified as wrong with Sega 5 years ago is now identifiable with Sony - PS2, out for a year in Japan, still has crappy games, is expensive, and is hard to develop for.

    What's sad is that the issue of whether or not console makers "understand the gamer" may not be relevant anymore - these days it seems that all that matters is whether or not a company is big enough (from selling things like TVs and monopoly operating systems) to acquire a monopoly by wiping out their competitors through advertising and bullying of retailers. If such was not the case, then we wouldn't be seing shows on CNN about how "emotional" the Saturn2 is.

    Let's pray for Nintendo GameCube (GameCube = spiritual Dreamcast2, on account of ease of development for and dearth of preliminary superhype for).

  36. Re:Heh by Pxtl · · Score: 1

    Umm, you know, a major cause of the power shortage is the air conditioners and the heat damage last summer. The is caused by climactic change, AKA global warming. Global warming is one thing the environmentalists have been fighting for years and years. Its a building power plants to power air-conditioners to fight the warming from other power plants is a nasty cycle, one that ends with this solar system having 2 planets that look like venus, instead of one.

  37. Re:PG&E / California is more scam than Bruce lets by K-Man · · Score: 2

    There are two political issues colliding here, which cause some confusion. First is the recent power crisis, which is the result of flawed deregulation, which is (seen as) the result of PG&E lobbying. Second is the longstanding problem in accounting for the output of the Hetch-Hetchy reservoir. It seems that San Francisco acquired the rights to the output of this reservoir 80-90 years ago, but, for some reason, city residents have always had to pay PG&E for their power, while, somehow, PG&E has been reselling the output from the dam to other customers.

    Given the fact that PG&E has its headquarters in SF, and the general sorry state of the city's politics, it's easy to conclude that something shady went on here.

    For San Francisco, it seems the easiest way out of the power crisis is to reassert ownership of the Hetch Hetchy output and get PG&E out of it. The dam was built to supply power to the city at a fixed cost indefinitely, and being forced to pay spot rates for the same juice is ridiculous.

    --
    ---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
  38. Dreamcast by drwiii · · Score: 1
    I'll believe it when that inventory is replenished.

    Um, the inventory is replenished. In fact, it's over-replenished. Which is why it's a good idea to suspend production. Why crank out more units into your inventory than you ultimately plan to sell? There's still plenty of life left in this platform. And with any luck, SEGA will put all of their top-notch software development resources behind the leader of the next-next generation console war.

  39. Harping by piecewise · · Score: 1

    You know, a year ago I went to San Francisco for Macworld. So I go into this Starbucks (to be trendy; it didn't work), and they spilled a coffee all over me!!!

    So.. I'm *glad* they've run out of power! I hope they rot in darkness!

    [I'm so sorry for posting this....]

    -Bitter CA-Visitor

    --
    The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
  40. Quebec is not Canada! by Mavvy · · Score: 1

    Sorry for your bad experience in Quebec, but it's probably the worst example of Canada. In fact if the Quebecer Separatists have anything to say about it, it wouldn't even be part of Canada! Try visiting something on either side of Quebec and you'll be in for a suprise :) Try Ottawa or Halifax :) -Graham

    1. Re:Quebec is not Canada! by piecewise · · Score: 1

      Okay, okay. :-) I once had a friend from Prince George in B.C. and *he* (a Canadian!) said it was pretty trashy.. Nevertheless, I went to Canada with neutral expectations... So I'm in Quebec.. and everyone speaks French but me. And I'd ask store owners something or other people.. directions.. good restaurants.. and they would snub me. They know English! I even was told to learn French and then snubbed by someone who switched to English for a moment. :-)

      Hey buddy, Ich spreche nur englisch und deutsch!

      Anyway.. I hear skiing in Canada is, of course, amazing.. I should check that out...

      --
      The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    2. Re:Quebec is not Canada! by dadragon · · Score: 1
      Anyway.. I hear skiing in Canada is, of course, amazing.. I should check that out...

      You shouldn't need to worry for skiing. That takes place in English Canada.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
  41. Sega / Nintendo book? by piecewise · · Score: 1

    Was there ever a book written about the Nintendo Sega Wars? That'd be really interesting I would think...

    Sega lost.. but in the end, Nintendo did too.. 70 million Sony's later....

    :-)

    --
    The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    1. Re:Sega / Nintendo book? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nindendo has 95% of the market -- the handheld gaming market. The only part of the video game market that grew by 25% last year, while every other market (PC gaming included) shrank. And speaking of hardware sold at a lost, software sold for profit etc. Nintendo had 4 of the top 5 video game software products in 2000, The sims was the only non nintendo software in the top 5 for sales. Now, considering the facts, 1. software makes money 2. (new) hardware doesn't. and the fact that the GameBoy is based on 12 year old technology, making it about as cheap to manufacture as is possible... Nintendo dominates the software market, and sony is losing money hand over foot selling PS2 units, and the PS2 is used as a DVD player, because it has exactly crap for software, and Sony doesn't get kickbacks for DVDs, although Sony pictures is probably pretty happy about the popularity of PS2 for DVD playback. Sony has enough money, as does microsoft to take it on the chin selling consoles at a loss, but nintendo doesn't have to. They know the GameBoy Advance is the only portable unit anyone is going to buy for the next few years. Although I don't know if they expect to make a profit on the hardware in the GBA, they definitely own the hottest space in video gaming, unless you think palm is going to muscle in on them, perhaps WinCE devices from MicroSoft? The game cube looks to have the best software lineup of any next generation console, and the lowest price tag for components. I still doubt it will measure the shere volume of units the PS2 will sell, but remember it's software sales that make money, and truely, software is what nintendo does best. Sony's only hope is that sega does become a license, otherwise they're going to be looking at heavy losses for years needing to nuture and milk the software for all the license fees they can, and if most people just use the DVD player abilities, then sony lost all that money for nothing. With xbox out of the picture sony wouldn't even need to negotiate with sega, since everyone would pay like they did with the PSX to be on the #1 console. However, Microsoft could well hurt PS2 software sales enough to make a sega license a much needed asset.

    2. Re:Sega / Nintendo book? by piecewise · · Score: 1

      Okay, okay... But what about a BOOK? :-)

      --
      The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
  42. Re:Heh by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

    A few towns from here sits a large power plant.
    It's called the Berwick Nuclear Power Plant.
    It emits absolutely no CO2. It emits large clouds of H2O.
    It contributes nothing to global warming.
    Maybe you enviromentalists should stop bitching about how everything hurts the environment and look at the people whos pockets are being emptied because you didn't want a power plant.

  43. heating oil and representation by breic · · Score: 1
    I have no trouble with blaming the GOP and their "Let them eat cake" policies toward California (see Krugman's editorial in today's Times). It's all a representation issue: Bush got elected because Californians are underrepresented in national government. Now the federal government won't lift a finger to help California out (for example by price caps or many other options). Why? Because Californians are underrepresented.

    This government buys heating oil for the Northeast; why is it okay for national politicians like Bush to simply ignore California?

    We should secede!

    1. Re:heating oil and representation by elefantstn · · Score: 1

      First of all, your logic makes no sense: Bush got elected because Californians are underrepresented, and because they didn't vote for him and aren't going to in the future, he's ignoring them. Fine enough conspiracy theory, until you talk about him allowing the government to buy the Northeast heating oil. Hello! The Northeast didn't vote for Bush, either, with the lone exception of New Hampshire. If he were trying to force energy crises on his political enemies, he would stop subsidizing heating oil as well.

      Beyond that, though, the reason Bush and the rest of the country are (relatively) apathetic to the California situation is that they brought it on themselves. Why do Californians think that energy production for them should be done in other states? The not-in-my-backyard attitude Californians have taken to power plants is unlikely to engender pity among neighboring states, who are producing power full-out to sell to them anyway. The fact of the matter is that a power production capacity below necessary levels and a poorly thought out energy "deregulation" have put California in this situation, and maybe it should be California's job to clean it up.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
  44. Good article about the CA electricity cartel by isdnip · · Score: 3

    Public Utilities Fortnightly, which is perhaps a bit less well-read than Sports Illustrated, had a good article in its January 1 issue. Basically, it noted that last summer's electricity crunch (which was not quite as acute as this winter's) was apparently caused by the Independent System Operator (ISO), the organization that intermediates between generators and distributors (PG&E, etc.).

    Last summer ISO set very high margins for spare capacity before declaring a shortage. WHenever they declared a shortage, spot market prices skyrocketed. Even if the supply wasn't any tighter than what used to be considered normal. Shortages are in the generators' interests.

    It could be massive incompetence, but it's potentially much worse, a cartel among producers. ISO allows the generators to have the kind of cartel that OPEC couldn't create. OPEC countries frequently cheat on their quotas. ISO monitors production and reports what each generator puts out. So if a generating company (Enron, Duke, whatever) happens to be holding back in order to raise the price, and another one boosts production to make some quick bucks, the holding-back generators know it. That prevents cheating, and keeps the supply down and the price high.

    The article at pur.com is not available online to nonsubscribers, alas.

  45. Call it mis-regulation, not de-regulation. by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2

    Call we please call it it mis-regulation, not de-regulation? When the utilities have to ask for price increases, they're not deregulated.
    -russ

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  46. Re:A different view of the California power proble by Your+Login+Here · · Score: 2

    The economist has a much better article here
    You can't blame your power company for selling outside the state. They are being forced to sell power at a fraction of the cost, so naturally they want to minimize losses and sell as little as possible in CA. Don't forget that their stock holders could sue them for doing anything else.

  47. Re:PG&E / California is more scam than Bruce lets by kevdog · · Score: 1

    First is the recent power crisis, which is the result of flawed deregulation, which is (seen as) the result of PG&E lobbying.

    I used to be a PG&E shareholder(I sold my stock 2 years ago). Around 5 to 7 years ago, PG&E sent me a letter informing me of the proposal for deregulation and urged me to write my state senator and assembly representative to inform them of my opposition to the de-regulation efforts. I received at least 2 of these letters, and I wrote my state rep(being the good little shareholder that I am). From this, I don't see how PG&E wanted de-regulation. Why would they want me, the shareholder and person they are ultimately responsible to, to oppose de-regulation when, as you say, PG&E was "lobbying" for it?

    I believe the whole de-regulation issue was shoved down PG&E's throat by do-gooder politicians just aching for votes. The California plan is a disaster, but I see no reason why PG&E should be soly blamed for something they didn't even want.

  48. Trust an economist.... by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2

    Trust an economist to get economical issues correct. I mean, who else could even come close?
    -russ

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  49. California Legislature--political dominance by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

    A. Californians elected GOP legislators who, fed by fat cat Texan-owned firm campaign contributions, pushed through deregulation.

    My recollection is that the California Legislature has been majority Democrat for about ten years now.

  50. Wind Power requires... wind! by El · · Score: 2
    See, the problem with wind power is -- it only works when the wind is blowing!!! They're putting the windmills in the Columbia Gorge (between Oregon and Washington) because it's one of the windiest places in the United State (the same reason it's THE best place in the US for windsurfing). They're not building more wind farms in California presumably because, other than Altamount pass, they can't find any sites where a strong wind blows almost all the time.

    A simular argument can be made for solar -- it's most efficient where there's a high amount of solar radiation (i.e. no cloud cover). That's why they're not building solar power plants in Oregon and Washington! Wouldn't work very well in SanFrancisco either, but seems like it would be a natural for the Mojave...

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  51. II doubt they lost any money trying to gouge by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3

    Let's see.... wholesale electrical prices have gone up by a factor of 15 (FIFTEEN!) times. I can't think of too many causes of that outside of pure supply and demand GREED. Let's see. Suppose your utility jumped on the greed bandwagon and sold X units at only 10 times normal. I would hazard a mathematical guess that if you got paid for only 1/10 of that amount, you would break even. And I betcha did get paid for more than 1/10. In other words, you made out like the bandits you are.

    I have no problems with capitalism, supply and demand, the marketplace, etc. But when pure greed gets rewarded by said marketplace driving a utility into bankruptcy...sounds like justice!

    Gosh my heart bleeds for you scumbags.

    --

    1. Re:II doubt they lost any money trying to gouge by Spamuel · · Score: 1

      The only people who were greedy where the businesses / citizens / government in California which used up electricity with no thought to how it would effect themselves, their fellow citizens, their economy, and the environment. Yes, I realise your market was deregulated, however, the amount of power California uses lies solely in the hands of the residents of California, and that's what effects the price of said power. To demonstrate a similar supply vs. demand problem I'll point out to you that because of this crisis California, along with some other states, has been using natural gas to generate electricity. The very same natural gas that is piped under my province, and as a result my natural gas prices have gone up nearly 100% over the past 18 months. So don't talk to me about price hikes. BCHydro did California a favour by providing them with power, BC has a surplus of hydro power, California could have bought it elsewhere if they wanted to, and probably at a higher price. If anyone raised prices in California it was the local electric companies through hoarding their supplies of electricity. Remember, BC citizens aren't the people using up the electricity, Californian citizens are, and the California electric companies were the ones that got greedy and drove themselves into debt.

  52. Re:Heh by AndyChrist · · Score: 1

    It generates lots and lots of heat, and that has to go somewhere. Also, isn't water vapor also a (unimportant) greenhouse gas?

    Now here's something I wonder...how much does all the waste heat from our energy usage affect the climate...not just the things people do that alter how much heat we keep from the sun.

  53. Solar Two by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Last August Popular Science magazine reported that a 100 square miles of solar panels would provide for all the electricity needs in the US.
    The article (sorry, can't find it online) suggested filling a small piece of Nellis AFB with panels spaced for easy servicing and so they don't interfere with each other. Or replacing existing power plants with panels as they come offline. Of course this would probably only be feasible in the southwest.

    As I understand solar technology, the current 'state of the art' is solar thermal - a bunch of panels all reflecting to a central "tank" filled with a salt/magnesium liquid compound that heats up and is used to generate steam, which in turn generates electricity.

    Picture here:
    http://www.nrel.gov/data/pix/Jpegs/00036.jpg

    For lots of pics go here:
    http://www.nrel.gov/data/pix/searchpix.cgi?query =S OLAR+-+THERMAL+and+Solar+Two&display_type=tiled&ma x_display=20&search_home=searchpix_visual.html

    Sun->heat->steam->electricity.

    PopSci has a tendency to stretch their stories for the dramatic, but if this is even remotely true we need to implement this technology asap.

  54. Re:A different view of the California power proble by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    > You can't blame your power company for selling outside the state. They are being forced to sell power at a fraction of the cost, so naturally they want to minimize losses and sell as little as possible in CA. Don't forget that their stock holders could sue them for doing anything else.

    Just a reminder that the CA legislation that set this situation up was pushed by the utilites, not evile government bureaucrats, and it was rammed through the legislature almost without the public knowing what was going on. The day after the vote all the CA newspapers said was that residential consumers were going to get a 10% rate cut out of the deal... They forgot to mention that the utilities got a $28.5 billion bailout as part of the deal.

    I don't know whether the utilities deliberately set up a scam, as geekoid suggests, or whether they merely miscalculated the probable outcome of the screwing they gave the citizens of CA; either way, I'm having a bit of difficulty working up any sympathy for them.

    And what solution do the utilities want now? Another bailout, of course. Even people who think regulation is evile should realize that deregulation designed by the utilities is never going to yeild a satisfactory solution.

    --

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  55. Fuck you again, California by tbo · · Score: 3

    [rant]As a BC resident, I say again, Fuck you, California. First, you drive our natural gas prices through the roof, causing our poor old ladies who can no longer afford their heating bills to freeze their little fannies off in our Canadian winter. Now, you buy tons of our power, and stiff us for it, all the while begging us not to stop giving more to you. Goddamn surfer-boy Golden State assholes.[/rant]

    I've got news for you: our power comes from hydro dams, and it's been a dry year. Every megawatt-hour we sell you is one less we'll have in the summer. Not only have we been stiffed for over $200 million, but we may have to buy power or be facing brownouts this summer because we depleted our hydro reserves to save your asses. BC Hydro is a government-owned corporation, so that $200 million comes straight out of our pockets. You people are thieves on a state-wide scale.

    Don't give me any bullshit about the money being owed to us by private companies instead of the entire state. You've made it effectively impossible to build power plants in your state (especially nuclear plants). Your half-assed deregulation forced those companies out of business, so the blame lies with the voters. How the hell did you think it would work to deregulate the wholesale supply of power, but not the sale of power to consumers? Has anyone there heard of economics?

    Moderators: Yes, this is inflammatory, but it happens to be how I feel. It's also true, to the best of my knowledge. If you happen to be from California, I'd much rather hear your side of the story than just see a "-1: Inflammatory" or something.

    One more message to everyone in California, especially L.A. Go out and rent "Trigger Effect" (assuming you still have power for your VCR). You'll understand when you watch it...

  56. STEEL MILLS by Targetman · · Score: 1

    "-- even though Cisco's main products, Internet routers, suck voltage like steel mills. " I keep seeing journalists publishing statistics about how much power the "internet" is consuming. Where Can I find some actual numbers? Having worked in steel mills, I can't believe that all of the routers in California take as much power as an average mid-west steel mill. And they suck current/power, not voltage.

    --
    I didn't do it, and if I did, you can't prove it. Bart Simpson
  57. Re:A different view of the California power proble by linzeal · · Score: 1

    They need to start building some nuclear power plants again, hippies be damned.

  58. Y2K fanatics vindicated. by Jasonv · · Score: 1

    Finally, all those Y2K people who wholed up with food, water and GENERATORS in California finnally really are having the last laugh.....

  59. Re:Hooray for the economist by Golias · · Score: 1
    I was with you right up to the "fun to watch" part.

    I hate to see people go through these kinds of problems, even if they are people I don't like very much.

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  60. Marxism has never been tried. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

    What you described was socialism. No countries have ever really tried a Marxist government yet. The USSR was not communist, despite the lip service to the contrary - it was 100% socialist. The "workers" did not control the factories - the government did. BIG difference. The first myth of Marxism is that it's possible.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  61. Re:A different view of the California power proble by Vortran · · Score: 1

    We _will_ be going to war soon. Bank on it. :(

    --
    Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
  62. Re:Heh by Pxtl · · Score: 1

    Umm, actually, I'm all for nuclear power... its you economic shmucks that want to build gas and coal 'cause they're so much cheaper. Stupid economists.

  63. Re:Heh by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

    lol
    me != economic shmucks - I'd rather have a nuke plant than a coal plant =)