Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Green, Wireless Networking

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the self-made-challenges dept.

spacepleb writes "A solar and pedal powered bi-directional satellite connection shared out over 802.11b. Given the difficulty of satellite connectivity alone in Europe, these guys turned some heads."

138 comments

  1. stop pedding your shared internet connection!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    enough said ;)

  2. Pedal powered? by SeanTobin · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've got no idea what the link is about, but I'm guessing thier bicycle just got a lot harder to push.

    --
    Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
  3. Mirror by nelf · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a mirror for this at
    http://mirror1.psand.net/green/

    1. Re:Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A mirror for this can be found here

  4. The only thing I need... by gleffler · · Score: 1

    Now all I need is a bicycle of my own so I can follow them around and get free internet access.

  5. Re:Better article by spacepleb · · Score: 1

    Page not found...

  6. My god, no posts and its slashdotted allready! by Huogo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Mirrior (if the page would finish downloading...):
    Here (note, this might have to be taken down, I'm not sure how MY site will handle the bandwidth, I'll keep a close eye on it.)

    1. Re:My god, no posts and its slashdotted allready! by adelayde · · Score: 1

      thank you!

  7. Pedal power by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

    I wonder how much money my gym could save by using this concept...

    1. Re:Pedal power by sporty · · Score: 2

      Hold on a second. Just so that we can enjoy more callories, we justify more exercise.. to give back the callories... wtf.. doesn't this seem a little silly?

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    2. Re:Pedal power by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      Just so that we can enjoy more callories, we justify more exercise.. to give back the callories... wtf.. doesn't this seem a little silly?

      Yeah, but lots of things we do to make ourselves more attractive to the opposite sex are silly.

      Anyway, I looked it up. You get about $0.01/hour of electricity per bike... So, not worth it.

    3. Re:Pedal power by silentbozo · · Score: 2

      A single bike isn't worth it. However, for a gym owner with dozens of bikes, all of which currently dump the power generated as heat (they use magnetic resistance, in the form of a generator hooked up to big banks of resistors, with a little power bled off to run the computer), you can save quite a bit in air-conditioning costs, while paying for lighting to boot.

      Besides, .01 pays for 200 watts of electricity (at least it does in Los Angeles), more than enough to power your computer and monitor. Might as well use that pedaling to crunch RC5 keys before converting it to heat...

    4. Re:Pedal power by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      However, for a gym owner with dozens of bikes

      ...they'll get dozens of pennies per hour.

      all of which currently dump the power generated as heat (they use magnetic resistance, in the form of a generator hooked up to big banks of resistors, with a little power bled off to run the computer), you can save quite a bit in air-conditioning costs

      I don't think it works that way. Just as much, in fact, slightly more heat would still be produced. I mean, it seems the second law of thermodynamics would imply that.

      Besides, .01 pays for 200 watts of electricity (at least it does in Los Angeles)

      Yeah, that's where I got the $0.01 from. I used 200 watts and estimated the cost of electricity at $0.05/kilowatt.

      And actually, my gym's bikes already power the bike's computer (to monitor heart rate, regulate resistance, etc) this way, I believe. I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure it gets nowhere near 200 watts though.

    5. Re:Pedal power by silentbozo · · Score: 2
      all of which currently dump the power generated as heat (they use magnetic resistance, in the form of a generator hooked up to big banks of resistors, with a little power bled off to run the computer), you can save quite a bit in air-conditioning costs


      I don't think it works that way. Just as much, in fact, slightly more heat would still be produced. I mean, it seems the second law of thermodynamics would imply that.

      I think you misunderstood me. Exercise bikes currently take all the work you put into them and converts it to heat. What I proposed, is you could avoid the heat production by channelling the power generated by the generators already hooked up to me bikes to the electrical grid, instead of to the resistors on the bike that are currently bleeding the generated power as heat.

      Nothing here violates the 2nd law - air conditioning costs would go down because you would no longer have to cool down all these machines, as that power is off doing work elsewhere, rather than in the actual gym. Yes, you'd still generate heat during the generation process, as it's not 100% efficient, but you wouldn't be converting 100% of it into heat, immediately in the gym, as it currently works.

      The onboard bike computer doesn't get 200 watts, because most of that generated power is bled off as heat, through the resistor banks, which provides the resistance to the pedals.
  8. Green satellites? by Boiling_point_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now all we need is a three hundred metre tall trebuchet to launch the satellite itself into orbit, and we're as green as Kermit :)

    --
    "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
  9. nice stuff by Kamrom · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It seems pretty neat that these guys did this. But, in all honesty, dont you think they have a little too much free time?

  10. For transportable, sustainable energy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was a failure. They couldn't power it without having people pedalling for the same amount of time that they were going to use the laptop for.

    In other words, only usable by the really keen. Not up to the "get off of the grid" level.

  11. Green? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    All those people pedaling the bicycle were producing carbon dioxide, which leads to global warming.

    1. Re:Green? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that those people are factors in the ecosystem. Though it's true that the emissions of humans will continue to play an even greater role as our numbers increase, they are very little when compared to the massive amounts of greenhouse gasses and effluents resulting from the combustion of hydrocarbons. If we hadn't become such an unnatural species, it would also be a moot point. If we weren't capable of such versatility, the reactions to our actions would continue to keep us in check. As it is, we work in our labs to ease their impact. As a result, the shit just keeps piling up. Everything we do results in something else, which spawns even further action, and so on. Eventually, it's going to catch up to us. Our numbers will be thinned and equilibrium will be restored.

    2. Re:Green? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though it's true that the emissions of humans will continue to play an even greater role as our numbers increase, they are very little when compared to the massive amounts of greenhouse gasses and effluents resulting from the combustion of hydrocarbons.

      That's only because we aren't producing our power by pedaling bicycles. Trust me, if we all pedaled bicycles all day to generate all our power, we'd produce a hell of a lot more carbon dioxide than burning oil does.

    3. Re:Green? by spacepleb · · Score: 1

      You have failed to factor in the enormous losses in the distribution system involved in centralised "energy" production....

    4. Re:Green? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And how do humans get their energy? From local farms, at the best. No, these people would have done a lot more good for the environment by using a diesel generator and soy oil biodiesel fuel. Yeah, the solar panels are maybe as energy efficient as biodiesel, but as they mention they produce very little energy, in this case only 85 Watts or so.

    5. Re:Green? by spacepleb · · Score: 1

      Generators are banned by the powers that be at the "Green Gathering" whatever they are running on, this may not be correct, but this is how it is.

    6. Re:Green? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Generators are banned by the powers that be at the "Green Gathering" whatever they are running on, this may not be correct, but this is how it is.

      So a biodiesel powered generator that burns soy oil and creates carbon dioxide is banned, but a human powered generator that burns soybeans and creates carbon dioxide as well, but does so at a lower efficiency isn't.

      Just goes to show the short-sightedness of these Greens.

    7. Re:Green? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Heheh. He said "emissions" ...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    8. Re:Green? by doc_side · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Think of it more like this.

      The world is more or less set up as a closed eco-system. Any sort of process occuring that is a build up of any substance probably has something that gets rid of it. Trees turn carbon dioxide into oxygen, and we turn oxygen into carbon dioxide. Everything is in equallibrium. I even heard this theory that if you burned a certain number of plants, the system wouldn't collapse right away, and even if you burned a lot of plants, the whole ecosystem wouldn't collapse, just scale down in size, thus keeping the equallibrium.

      This discussion leads us to how fossil fuels are causing us harm. See, these fuels are plants that died a long time ago, and for all intents and puroposes, are not within this above ground ecosystem naturally. Thus, we are bringing from outside an ammount of carbon dioxide that this system is able to handle. With nothing to process it or use it, we are creating an excess of it with nowhere to go except up. :)

    9. Re:Green? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      This discussion leads us to how fossil fuels are causing us harm. See, these fuels are plants that died a long time ago, and for all intents and puroposes, are not within this above ground ecosystem naturally.

      Nonsense. Watt for watt, fossil fuels produce less CO2 than humans. Yes, one person pedaling a bike doesn't create very much CO2, but they also don't create very much electricity.

    10. Re:Green? by doc_side · · Score: 1

      I have no reason to dissagree with you on this, however my post was more to point out that using things like bio-diesel and the like are less likely to cause large excesses of carbon dioxide.

    11. Re:Green? by Random+Data · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, one person pedaling a bike doesn't create very much CO2, but they also don't create very much electricity.

      Perhaps if wedid move to personal poewr generation along the lines of a pedal power generator, or a bank of solar cells on the roof, appliances might become more energy efficient?

      I've got a 10W halogen globe rigged into a bike light . If I can ride a bike off road at 30km/h (~20mph) by this, I can read a book by it. But I tend to use the 100W incandescent in the lounge room, or the 50W halogen in my desk lamp, simply because that's what's easily available.

      If I were truly green I'd swap all those high power globes for smaller ones and rewire the house to run off renewable resources, and use portable lamps closer to what I'm doing rather than a big "light the whole room" one. But that doesn't stop me from wondering why it's such common practice to throw gobs of power into basic tasks.

    12. Re:Green? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps if wedid move to personal poewr generation along the lines of a pedal power generator, or a bank of solar cells on the roof, appliances might become more energy efficient?

      More likely we simply would have to give up on many appliances. I mean, in general yes, if you raise the cost of energy, you are going to see more energy efficient products, but so what? I'm all for keeping reasonable taxes on pollution producing products, but beyond that the free market will take care of utilizing our resources in the most efficient manner.

    13. Re:Green? by togofspookware · · Score: 1

      So put a fat guy on the bike who needs the excersize anyway. Now you're using energy that would have been wasted. You seem to be forgetting that the humans are going to be breathing whether you burn extra fuel or not. Just goes to show the short-sightedness of you.

      --
      Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
    14. Re:Green? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      So put a fat guy on the bike who needs the excersize anyway.

      There aren't enough "fat guys" (or bikes) to come anywhere near the kind of energy consumption this country needs. But hey, the same argument could be made for biodiesel. Just use old McDonalds waste oil. But just like the supply of fat guys, that's a short-sighted solution, because it'll take a very small chunk out of our current energy needs.

      Now you're using energy that would have been wasted.

      Unless you're advocating forced labor, it's not energy that would have been wasted.

      You seem to be forgetting that the humans are going to be breathing whether you burn extra fuel or not.

      Humans breathe much heavier when riding a bike. They also burn more in calories.

      Just goes to show the short-sightedness of you.

    15. Re:Green? by crush · · Score: 2

      So a biodiesel powered generator that burns soy oil and creates carbon dioxide is banned, but a human powered generator that burns soybeans and creates carbon dioxide as well, but does so at a lower efficiency isn't.

      All right. Let's see the figures that show that a biodiesel generator is "more efficient" than a guy on a bike at producing power? Note that "efficiency" in this argument is specifically "efficiency in production of electrical energy per unit of carbon dioxide released".
      I am deeply skeptical that a biodiesel generator could come anywhere near to a guy on a bike providing power as-and-when it is needed. The generator probably needs to run continuously producing the same amount of CO2 regardless of the actual load upon it. A bike powered generator just needs someone to hop on and start pedalling. Please note that in your calculations you have to use _only_ the extra CO2 produced by the pedalling human above his normal basal level of respiration.

    16. Re:Green? by spacepleb · · Score: 1

      I feel the CO2 debate has got out of hand. Neither bio-diesel nor humans breathing (heavily or not) contribute to new emissions - they are both part of the carbon cycle, which has existed for longer than I can remember. A slightly more important thing to notice is that (to my knowledge - please correct me if I am wrong) humans breathing (heavily or not) do not exhaust particulate matter, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, nitrated PAH, ozone and a long list of other lesser pollutants associated with most forms of internal combustion regardless of the cleanliness, or source, of the fuel.

  12. They could have.. by mrgrey · · Score: 2, Funny

    They could have just burned the grease from the guys hair that was peddling the bike to create enough steam power to power the whole camp... That or they could have made candles out of it and turned all the lights off.

    Sorry, but those dreads look pretty nasty....

    --
    -Tolerate my intolerance
    1. Re:They could have.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hang on a minute, those dreads are very clean! They also help by reducing drag and increasing the velocity of the connection.

    2. Re:They could have.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahem - burning is not green. That is all.

  13. Pedal Faster by peatbakke · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... the server's been slashdoted. :)

  14. Another Mirror by adelayde · · Score: 5, Informative

    Another mirror of this to be found here.

  15. Love this bit... by shut_up_man · · Score: 2, Funny

    Amongst adult users, in general, females seemed to be more proficient and less complaining than males when given free use of the network. Males complained more, and were less open to learning. This was an overall feeling between us after the 5 days.

    Guess they weren't in tune with the Earth Mother, or something...

    1. Re:Love this bit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I scanned your post as, "Love ... adult ... females". Guess I have been getting a little too much viagra spam lately.

  16. mirror by jazperbg · · Score: 3, Informative

    and yet another mirror, here (the images may still be downloading from the original site for a wee while)

    --
    jasp
  17. not just stupid treehuggers by teqo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    25 comments, and everybody besides the valuable mirror people (thx!) is trying to be funny... I cannot refrain from the idea this must have to do with the /. community perception of these people as just being wierd treehuggers, but a) how is this less hackish or nerdish than other fringe hardware hacking, like setting up overclocked boards in fridges or similar stuff which always gets applauded here, and b) this in fact isn't useless, not because it actually solves energy problems, but it rather points to environmental issues someone needs to address...

    Maybe its too bad for their /. appreciation that its called the Big Green Gathering and not HAL or Chaos Communication Camp.. Nonetheless they have done a nice and valuable hack, and a green one too...

    1. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Maybe the story just isn't very interesting?

      Also, it's prime time Sunday TV time across the USA right now.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      b) this in fact isn't useless, not because it actually solves energy problems, but it rather points to environmental issues someone needs to address...

      What's the proportion of energy used to *make* all the comms gear they have vs. the energy it actually takes to power it? 100:1?

      In other words, what's the total energy cost of the product (production, distribution, use) and what percentage are you actually saving? Is it the equivilent of not running the A/C in your 400-cubic-inch-V8-powered SUV because it gives you a tiny payback in gas mileage?

    3. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only tree huggers, but Mac faggots too. Trees 'n' fruits.

    4. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by teqo · · Score: 1
      Sure, maybe many people do not consider this interesting, which is fine to me. But although its thrilling US TV prime time, they find time to comment on a boring story..? (Which is fine to me as well) Maybe they comment on a what they consider boring since the TV is even more boring?

      Maybe we can agree on 50% bored people, and 50% smart asses? ;)

    5. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by teqo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What's the proportion of energy used to *make* all the comms gear they have vs. the energy it actually takes to power it? 100:1?

      Yep, you are right. That's one reason I said they address, yet do not solve the problem, because its not solved in an efficent way, plus its not very convenient... Alone considering the amount of energy and resources put into the production of their AirBases and notebooks outnumbers what they save through bike power by far. IMHO their approach does not qualify as a solution, but more as a hackish project, which can function as a reminder, maybe even as kinda proof-of-concept, and that's it.

      On the other hand, if somebody would try to develop some environmental-friendly way of powering outdoor notebooks or whatever, this development would initially waste far more energy than it would save, hopefully paying off in the long run. I see that their project is no research effort or something similar serious, but asking for 'greener' solutions and at the same time rejecting the trade-off of initially higher resource usage for the sake of resource-friendly solutions would end up in dumping all technology and doing LANs and WANs with drums, becoming the infamous treehugger person.

      That's my two Eurocent at least...

    6. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Sunday night and people are trying to make have some fun during the last few hours before another week of work?

      Judge for yourself what that says about our priorities.

    7. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      25 comments, and everybody besides the valuable mirror people (thx!) is trying to be funny...

      I wasn't.

      how is this less hackish or nerdish than other fringe hardware hacking, like setting up overclocked boards in fridges or similar stuff which always gets applauded here

      True...

      this in fact isn't useless, not because it actually solves energy problems, but it rather points to environmental issues someone needs to address...

      What, that the environmentalists are hypocrites who waste just as much energy as the rest of us?

      Nonetheless they have done a nice and valuable hack, and a green one too...

      Pedaling a bike for power? That's neither valuable nor green.

    8. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by teqo · · Score: 1
      What, that the environmentalists are hypocrites who waste just as much energy as the rest of us?

      Well, and I was just given a -1 for flamebaiting? I can live with that, but besides the hypocrits there are people who do think about reducing power usage. Living in an industrialized country, its hard to live an everyday's life (not becoming a treehugger that is) and not waste energy. This fact can be used as a hypocrit's excuse, it can as well be part of the struggle to find alternatives within sensible borders of a given lifestyle.

      Pedaling a bike for power? That's neither valuable nor green.

      No, but its a demonstration, and valuable as a green one.

    9. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Living in an industrialized country, its hard to live an everyday's life (not becoming a treehugger that is) and not waste energy.

      That's why we have taxes, though. Raise them high enough and you can be sure that people will learn how to save energy.

      Pedaling a bike for power? That's neither valuable nor green.

      No, but its a demonstration, and valuable as a green one.

      I guess I just don't get it. What's it demonstrating, exactly?

    10. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

      What, that the environmentalists are hypocrites who waste just as much energy as the rest of us

      Well, without engaging your 8th grade debate technique, Ill simply say your probably pretty wrong.

      Im as green as they come, a #1 tree-hugger, and I can tell you, I watch my coworkers, neighbours and family pollute and waste endlessly. Try riding your bike to work. Leave bags and packaging on the counter at the grocer. Grow a garden. Compost. Recycle. Pick up random trash when walking in parks and put them in your pocket. Dont use paint where you dont have to. Plant trees. Use an electric lawnmower (infrequently enough to get letters from city-hall). Let 90% of your lawn grow at its own will. Have your shoes repaired. Buy organic-cotten clothing at a co-operative. By organic groceries and support local farmers. Dont eat at chain-restaurants.

      ...and tell loud-mouthes on slashdot -- who call OTHERS HYPOCRITES TO SATIFSY THEIR OWN GUILT AND PROVIDE SHALLOW-JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR OWN MISDEEDS to @#$@-Off .

      Im not greener-than-though pal, but I resent the implied justification for your OWN ACTIONS you present by calling someone a hypocrite.

    11. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      What, that the environmentalists are hypocrites who waste just as much energy as the rest of us

      Well, without engaging your 8th grade debate technique, Ill simply say your probably pretty wrong.

      Touche, I was being hyperbolic.

      Im not greener-than-though pal, but I resent the implied justification for your OWN ACTIONS you present by calling someone a hypocrite.

      What actions are that? You don't know me, and you don't know what my actions are.

      By organic groceries and support local farmers. Dont eat at chain-restaurants.

      Do you have any data backing up whether or not that is more energy efficient? I would think that communal cooking would be much more energy efficient than individualized cooking.

    12. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by adelayde · · Score: 1

      BTW. I was involved in this. I think it demonstrated this: using solely solar cells and batteries we were able to run the net access for 2-3 hours a day (given that, as per usual for England, it was pretty overcast most of the time). When we used the bicycle generator, we were able to run for 5-6 hours, which effectively doubled the amount of access we could give. Had we run with a diesel generator, then we might have done 12 hours a day and obviously mains would have given us 24x7.

      So it's to do with how much you need to consume and how many resources you need in order to maintain your perception of your need to consume. Everything has a price and an environmental impact - yes of course, even the empty beer cans produced from the need to 'power' the peddlers! - and the important thing in my mind is to be aware of what this impact is with respect to what you consume.

      Last thing, we're not saying that this IS the way forward at all, of course there a lots of issues to do with both its feasiblity and its impact on people and the environment, not least satellite and wireless radio interference, but it was an experiment to see if it was possible, and it was.

    13. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by crush · · Score: 2

      In other words, what's the total energy cost of the product (production, distribution, use) and what percentage are you actually saving? Is it the equivilent of not running the A/C in your 400-cubic-inch-V8-powered SUV because it gives you a tiny payback in gas mileage?

      And your argument is that the guy in the SUV who saves 1 out of every 10,000 Watts he expends would be better off running the A/C? Even if the other 100,000 SUV users also do the same and between them they consume 100,000 Watts less? Huh?!!!

    14. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

      What actions are that? You don't know me, and you don't know what my actions are.

      just as you cant brand Treehuggers hypocrites. Simple.

      Do you have any data backing up whether or not that is more energy efficient? I would think that communal cooking would be much more energy efficient than individualized cooking.

      Organic, locally produced foods are unprocessed, better for you (free of chemicals), more-nutritionally-rich (fresher), better for the environment (dont contribute to pollution), dont require transportation (ie: boxed and driven across hell's-half-acre), maintain biodiversity because local-farmers maintain heritage varieties. You support decentralized control which helps avoid the corporatization* of the food supply (pay or starve scenario's by the mega-wealthy)... etc etc.

      as for chain foods, they are nutritionally appalling (bad for you), again, you supporting a system of centralized control (by people with perpendicular motivations to their efforts (making money is unrelated to feeding people)), chain restaurants rely on packaged/processed foods shipped from afar, use disposable everything, pay people minimum wage and crush union efforts. chain-restaurants are a product (and source) of marketing bombardment and encourage consumer culture, these are also wasteful. Advertising is meant to coerce, to lead you to a decision that benefits someone's selfish motivation. The Mental Environment suffers because of it.

      ...as for communal cooking (or central food-prep) vs. individual cooking... im sure a Intentional Community's central cooking facility one within a short walk of a few hundred people is an environmental benefit. But im willing to bet that the idea that everyone should jump in their Internal-Combustion-Engine powered car and drive down to a %burger_joint% far overcomes the savings in your proposed-scenario.
      *

    15. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      BTW. I was involved in this. I think it demonstrated this: using solely solar cells and batteries we were able to run the net access for 2-3 hours a day (given that, as per usual for England, it was pretty overcast most of the time).

      And it also demonstrated that those 2-3 hours a day aren't enough for even the environmental hippies. In other words, it demonstrated that solar power is simply not sufficient (for even those professing to care the most about the environment).

      When we used the bicycle generator, we were able to run for 5-6 hours, which effectively doubled the amount of access we could give. Had we run with a diesel generator, then we might have done 12 hours a day and obviously mains would have given us 24x7.

      Depending how much fuel you had the diesel generator could obviously have run 24x7. But had you run it (using soybean oil) to generate enough energy for 5-6 hours, you likely would have created less pollution than the bicycle generator.

      Last thing, we're not saying that this IS the way forward at all

      I sure hope not, because it's a step backward.

    16. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by spacepleb · · Score: 1

      "But had you run it (using soybean oil) to generate enough energy for 5-6 hours, you likely would have created less pollution than the bicycle generator."

      I am interested in any facts you have that would verify this opinion....

      What pollution does a bicycle generator produce?

      New carbon dioxide emissions are not produced by humans or soybean-diesel, they are both part of the carbon cycle. What pollution are you actually talking about?

    17. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      just as you cant brand Treehuggers hypocrites. Simple.

      I admitted I was wrong for making that statement.

      Organic, locally produced foods are unprocessed, better for you (free of chemicals), more-nutritionally-rich (fresher),

      You don't back any of that up (and it depends on the resturant), but in any case, I'm talking solely about environmental impact.

      better for the environment (dont contribute to pollution),

      How so? I don't see the alternative case for chain resturants, unless you're talking about transportation costs...

      dont require transportation (ie: boxed and driven across hell's-half-acre),

      As I live in New Jersey this is pretty much required anyway, but I certainly agree that this is an advantage of locally grown food. But I'm not sure it exceeds the disadvantages, which come from the economies of scale of central food growing and preparation.

      as for chain foods, they [...] use disposable everything

      Not all chain resturants "use disposable everything"

      chain-restaurants are a product (and source) of marketing bombardment and encourage consumer culture, these are also wasteful.

      In what way? I assume you're talking about environmental impact.

      ...as for communal cooking (or central food-prep) vs. individual cooking... im sure a Intentional Community's central cooking facility one within a short walk of a few hundred people is an environmental benefit.

      So what's the difference? Just because someone's making a profit all of a sudden it's not environmentally sound?

      But im willing to bet that the idea that everyone should jump in their Internal-Combustion-Engine powered car and drive down to a %burger_joint% far overcomes the savings in your proposed-scenario.

      I never said anything about jumping in your internal-combustion-engine powered car.

      Anyway, we already have a system for determining the cost to society of a product we buy. That is - the cost of the product! There are certain things that need to be done to factor in the costs of economic bads, such as the pollution caused in the transportation of the product, but guess what, the diesel that powers those transportation vehicles is taxed to reflect those economic bads!

    18. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      What pollution does a bicycle generator produce?

      Carbon dioxide, piss, and shit, mainly. Then all the indirect costs of how that person obtained the food s/he's eating. But we'll assume that's factored into the cost of the food, I guess.

      New carbon dioxide emissions are not produced by humans or soybean-diesel, they are both part of the carbon cycle. What pollution are you actually talking about?

      New compared to what? And what does new have to do with whether or not it's pollution?

    19. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by spacepleb · · Score: 1

      Do you not piss and shit anthony?

    20. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Do you not piss and shit anthony?

      Of course I do, but I do so more when I eat more, and when I exercise more I eat more.

    21. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with hugging trees anyway?

    22. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      determining the cost to society of a product we buy. That is - the cost of the product!

      except that we dont - does the lcoal factory pay for the air pollution it causes? does mcblondblands pay for the increased health costs of its obese patients? does the auto-driver (solely) pay the cost of the roads (s)he uses? does the yacht owner pay for the oil he spills in the lake? does the gap pay to replace the forest that was cut to grow cotton for the 1231th needless pc of clothing the average-western-teenager DOESNT NEED (it brainwashes the unwashed masses to believe they NEED %something%)? does the local starbucks come and pick up the trash-paper-cups from my yard?

      so, in the end, we have a economic system that doesnt account - completely - for all the costs... our Capitalist system EXTERNALIZES and SOCIALIZES costs and INTERNALIZES profit.

      do you see the disconnect?

    23. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      except that we dont - does the lcoal factory pay for the air pollution it causes?

      Yep - through taxes.

      uses? does mcblondblands pay for the increased health costs of its obese patients [presumably you meant customers]?

      Yes. Through lowered demand and therefore lower product costs.

      patients? does the auto-driver (solely) pay the cost of the roads (s)he uses?

      Sure, through gasoline taxes.

      does the yacht owner pay for the oil he spills in the lake?

      Yep, when s/he gets sued.

      does the gap pay to replace the forest that was cut to grow cotton for the 1231th needless pc of clothing the average-western-teenager DOESNT NEED (it brainwashes the unwashed masses to believe they NEED %something%)?

      Yep, they pay for that cost when they buy the cotton.

      does the local starbucks come and pick up the trash-paper-cups from my yard?

      The ones that they put there? They sure better. On the other hand, if you put the cups there, that's your problem.

      so, in the end, we have a economic system that doesnt account - completely - for all the costs... our Capitalist system EXTERNALIZES and SOCIALIZES costs and INTERNALIZES profit.

      It's not quite perfect. There are still a few economic goods/bads which we don't account for, but you haven't come up with any of them.

      do you see the disconnect?

      Yeah, I've taken Economics classes, and you haven't.

    24. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by spacepleb · · Score: 1

      As the Oxford dictionary states:

      Economics - the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption and transfer of wealth.

      Wealth - an abundance of valuable possessions or money.

      Valuable - worth a great deal of money, or extremely useful or important.

      Therefore it all seems to depend on what you view as valuable: money or something extremely useful or important

      I ask you to explain this (by referring to your economics class notes):

      Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money can not be eaten. ~ Cree Indian Prophecy.

    25. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Therefore it all seems to depend on what you view as valuable: money or something extremely useful or important.

      Huh? What does this have to do with anything?

      Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money can not be eaten. ~ Cree Indian Prophecy.

      What do you want me to say about this? Why don't you start by telling me what point you're trying to make. Are you trying to disprove capitalism, or something?

    26. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by adelayde · · Score: 1

      And it also demonstrated that those 2-3 hours a day aren't enough for even the environmental hippies.

      But actually it was! They got to check their hotmail accounts and were pretty damn chuffed about it too!

      Depending how much fuel you had the diesel generator could obviously have run 24x7.

      But the problem is that you're in the middle of a green festival in the middle of the country and you can't use your car to get more diesel to feed the generator, and you've removed one of the wheels from your bicycle to power your laptop! Oh the connumdrum, perhaps you should just go and enjoy the festival and sod the Internet and hence not run into a dilema about the power generation in the first place.

      But had you run it (using soybean oil) to generate enough energy for 5-6 hours, you likely would have created less pollution than the bicycle generator.

      Seriously though, do you have any hard facts to back this up?, sounds interesting. Is that the corporately controlled, modified by genetic engineering, then sold back to the third world and tree-hugging hippies everywhere type of soya oil?

      I sure hope not, because it's a step backward.

      I'm sorry but the bicycle was neither going forwards nor backwards, it was standing still and powering the laptop.

    27. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by spacepleb · · Score: 1

      Nobody can prove something which already has a dis-proof:

      It's not quite perfect. There are still a few economic goods/bads which we don't account for

    28. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Depending how much fuel you had the diesel generator could obviously have run 24x7.

      But the problem is that you're in the middle of a green festival in the middle of the country and you can't use your car to get more diesel to feed the generator, and you've removed one of the wheels from your bicycle to power your laptop!

      "The fuel consumption for the diesel generator is 10KWH per gallon." So at 200 watts per hour, 5 gallons would last over 10 days.

      But had you run it (using soybean oil) to generate enough energy for 5-6 hours, you likely would have created less pollution than the bicycle generator.

      Seriously though, do you have any hard facts to back this up?, sounds interesting.

      Nope. Do you have any hard facts to suggest that I'm wrong?

      Is that the corporately controlled, modified by genetic engineering, then sold back to the third world and tree-hugging hippies everywhere type of soya oil?

      Preferably the genetically engineered kind, since that's a lot more efficiently grown.

    29. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Huh? Are you hitting me with non sequiturs again? Oh, you mean that it's not perfect? The solution to that is to perfect it, of course, not to throw out the whole system. Economic bads should be taxed. Economic goods should be government subsidized.

    30. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by teqo · · Score: 1
      And it also demonstrated that those 2-3 hours a day aren't enough for even the environmental hippies. In other words, it demonstrated that solar power is simply not sufficient (for even those professing to care the most about the environment).

      You asked me before what this was demonstrating. Its a technology demonstration with a fun moment included, and saying that this project has proven that solar energy is insufficient since it didnt supply enough energy is like telling Mrs. Curie she could have stopped exploring radioactivity since her gramm of radium will never be enough to produce energy for cities, and since I suppose you support nuclear energy you might understand this example. Solar energy is an alternative, that has been practically proven in many areas, even in northern hemisphere areas which do not have aquatorial sun light. It might not be the full answer, but it can contribute significantly.

      Again, keeping your 'environmental hippies' stereotype suggests me you will not take some people seriously whatsoever...

      And there can hardly be any doubt that solar power produces less pollution in operation than burning any fuel, whether its soy bean oil or coal or whatever...

      I sure hope not, because it's a step backward.

      Now that even those who liked that projects have agreed that this is not the ultimate step forward, what's exactly the mighty step backwards?

    31. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by spacepleb · · Score: 1

      Huh? Are you hitting me with non sequiturs again?

      No, it follows perfectly. If you have studied economics you should be able to understand intelligent discourse.

      Oh, you mean that it's not perfect? The solution to that is to perfect it.

      To attempt to prove, or perfect, something already dis-proven is a non-sequitur. How do you intend to perfect capitalism then? surely you must have a more positive suggestion, than more taxes on the hard working masses.

      By the way Economic bads are usually illegal. - I don't like the Andersen method of accounting.

    32. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      Yep - through taxes
      nope, absolutely untrue.

      Sure, through gasoline taxes.
      no, roads are paid (in canada) by a combo of fed/prov/municple tax, someofwhich comes from a at-the-pump tax. why do non-car owners pay for roads?
      Yep, they pay for that cost when they buy the cotton.

      do they pay to replace the Ecology they destroy? species made extinct? the hundred year old trees? No, that has no 'value' in your economy.

      The ones that they put there? They sure better. On the other hand, if you put the cups there, that's your problem.
      no, im talking about the 'convenience' cups they provide, the paper one-use disposable ones that goto landfills and float on beaches and collect in my garden... when they pay $0.03 per cup, are they REALLY considering all this? No.

      Yeah, I've taken Economics classes, and you haven't.

      Yeah, I've taken Economics classes, and you haven't.
      really, here is a simple question -- as an example -- Is there anyone *selling* access to throw something into the garbage? The cost of a dump is *MUCH* greater than the land it happens to sit on. Furhter, all that disposable-stuff had to be made in the first place, did the cup-manufacturer pay for the real, long-term health/environmental cost of the item? or did they simply vent the process into the atmosphere?

      BTW, ive taken quite a few economics courses - your either A) a moron or B) intentionally missing the point.

      Have a look here for more info

    33. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by adelayde · · Score: 1

      Can you post in the right place please, it get's very confusing, there's a lot of you on this thread.

      Do you have any hard facts to suggest that I'm wrong?

      Hang on a minute, surely you shouldn't go around making statements like that without being able to back them up. If you can produce hard facts to prove this, then I will happily bother to find some hard-facts to disprove them.

      I don't have any to hand, but surely there is a awful lot of inefficiency in the process of manufacturing soybean oil in the first place and this includes the barrel or can or bottle or whatever it comes in, the nice label, the crates, the trucks (and possibly boats or planes) that you use to transport the oil to the hippie festival and also all the people required to grow it, process it, bottle it, crate it, ship it, drive the trucks, sell the stuff and they all then all produce quite a lot of shit too. Would be interesting to see what is the difference in shitting capacity for the production of enough soybean oil to run the laptop, compared to that of someone that peddles a bike, and they can also ride to the festival on that very same bike, which incidentally is one of our most efficient forms of transportation - unless of course you include horses and then you need lots of soybean oil again to strengthen them up - I'd go for quick release back wheels if I were you.

      Preferably the genetically engineered kind, since that's a lot more efficiently grown.

      erm for a start it's it's not that's . Anyway, fair comment, but can you explain to me how or rather what way or rather in who's opinion is is more efficiently grown?

    34. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Can you post in the right place please, it get's very confusing, there's a lot of you on this thread.

      I posted in the right place, but when threads get too long slashdot messes up the indentation.

      Hang on a minute, surely you shouldn't go around making statements like that without being able to back them up. If you can produce hard facts to prove this, then I will happily bother to find some hard-facts to disprove them.

      I've researched into this before, but I don't have any of the information sitting in front of me. As such I'll just drop that part of the argument.

      I don't have any to hand, but surely there is a awful lot of inefficiency in the process of manufacturing soybean oil in the first place and this includes the barrel or can or bottle or whatever it comes in, the nice label, the crates, the trucks (and possibly boats or planes) that you use to transport the oil to the hippie festival and also all the people required to grow it, process it, bottle it, crate it, ship it, drive the trucks, sell the stuff and they all then all produce quite a lot of shit too.

      The same could be said about the bike riders' diets. Of course both are dependent on the specific way in which the fuel was obtained.

      Preferably the genetically engineered kind, since that's a lot more efficiently grown.

      erm for a start it's it's not that's .

      Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. "that's" seems perfectly acceptable. "that" refering to "the genetically engineered kind."

      Anyway, fair comment, but can you explain to me how or rather what way or rather in who's opinion is is more efficiently grown?

      I thought the whole point of genetic engineering was to produce a crop which is more efficiently grown. I guess it depends what kind of genetic mutations you were talking about. For one example, some plants are genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicides. This allows a farmer to grow more crops in less space, and with less energy expended, which certainly sounds like an environmentally friendly goal to me.

    35. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by adelayde · · Score: 1

      I've researched into this before, but I don't have any of the information sitting in front of me. As such I'll just drop that part of the argument.

      Am interested. For what reason did you research into this before?

      Oh ok, just drop it then, okay by me, saves me the time and energy of coming up with any hard-facts myself - which I guess means that I will shit less and do my little bit for the environment, good old mother earth, bless her, but not for very much longer. ;)

    36. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Am interested. For what reason did you research into this before?

      Because I'm very interested in alternative energy. Believe it or not, I voted for Nader, and consider myself an environmentalist. But I'm also a realist, and for the amount of power that we use, there just isn't a silver bullet. The only real solution is to conserve.

      Oh ok, just drop it then, okay by me, saves me the time and energy of coming up with any hard-facts myself - which I guess means that I will shit less and do my little bit for the environment, good old mother earth, bless her, but not for very much longer.

      Well, really it all comes down to what you consider pollution, and what you consider the cost of pollution to the earth. Personally I probably consider it much lower than you do, I'm probably much less afraid of the earth not being here "for very much longer," if that's what you were implying.

    37. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by spacepleb · · Score: 1

      "More likely we simply would have to give up on many appliances."
      "The only real solution is to conserve."

      I've noticed you like to shout about nothing particularly coherent.

      Also, if slashdotsucks, why do you spend so much time here....?

    38. Re:not just stupid treehuggers by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      If I shout about nothing particulary coherent, why did you put me on your friend list?

  18. Oh great... by coupland · · Score: 1

    Wireless + green energy = tumours without all the earth-mother impact. Just what we needed...

    1. Re:Oh great... by spacepleb · · Score: 1

      I am very interested in health issues concerning wireless networking. Do you have any more information regarding the tumours which you refer to?

  19. difficulty of sattelite connectivity in Europe? by jonbrewer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder why the poster thinks satellite connectivity is difficult in Eurpoe... what is s/he comparing to? I found that there are more satellite Internet providers serving Europe and the Middle East than North America, by far!

    1. Re:difficulty of sattelite connectivity in Europe? by nelf · · Score: 4, Informative

      As it goes, Ku band downlink using the DVB-RCS standard which lets you get higher speed 2-way satellite links has been very difficult to get hold of in Europe up until very recently... the equipment we used was still under development at the time we carried out the activities in the article, and we are only now starting to see this sort of technology come to market, either in the UK or elsewhere in Europe... we've been after this sort of kit for about 4 years and we had to work very hard to get hold of it.

    2. Re:difficulty of sattelite connectivity in Europe? by Smid · · Score: 1

      Erm, europe? Is the air different over there?

      Yep, there's dvb-rcs services. I know, cos I work on a project and thats out there (www.aramiska.com)..

      But if anything, we're seen little interest from american companies in it. Ok, might be because its standards based, but the point being, I would say its probably more difficult to get 2 way in the US...

  20. Now if only they had by s4ltyd0g · · Score: 1

    a wrist powered model... (-;

  21. Will the power be doubled if.. by rob-fu · · Score: 2, Funny

    they used a two-seater bike so two people could pedal at once? Or maybe they could hire Lance Armstrong for a LAN party...

    "Lance, pedal faster, my ping sucks"

    1. Re:Will the power be doubled if.. by notanatheist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll pedal with Lance!! Surely he'd whip my ass but the thrill of pedaling along side one of history's greater cyclists couldn't be beat. Oh yeah, this has to be one of the better received sites for a /.'ing. Never seen anyone prepared faster to accept that much incoming traffic.

    2. Re:Will the power be doubled if.. by Darnit · · Score: 1

      I read somewhere that Lance Armstrong can produce 400 Watts continuously and peak at 2X to 3X that amount.

  22. fat geeks pedal power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be joking. Talk about a heart attack waiting to happen.
    It must have looked like Richard Simmons sweating to the oldies.

  23. Base Station by I_am_Rambi · · Score: 1

    Seeing an airport base station handle all there network needs is interesting. Just 1 base station proves how much this can handle. Even though I don't know how good db are when it comes to usablity with wireless, still having 6db with a Dell TrueMobile laptop shows wonders. I am thinking that is still a few megs/sec. At least it gives users access from over 250 meters away (roughly 820 feet).

  24. Doesnt make sense? by sardonic2 · · Score: 0

    Who was pedaling to power the sattelite? Or did they use that nasty nuclear stuff?

    1. Re:Doesnt make sense? by spacepleb · · Score: 1

      Just done some research, and the bird is equipped with 10 kilowatts of solar panels. Astra 1H

  25. Jobs out of Green Networking? by E-Rock-23 · · Score: 1

    This is perfect. Now all those washed-up "Tour de Where/Whatever" competitors have something to do when they can no longer race. They can put their urge to pedal to good use and keep the rest of us connected. Would that mean the leading pedal pounder would get a Green Jersey as opposed to a Yellow one? Oh, the possibilities...

    --
    Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
    1. Re:Jobs out of Green Networking? by Random+Data · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would that mean the leading pedal pounder would get a Green Jersey as opposed to a Yellow one?

      Just for your info, the Green Jersey already exists. It's awarded to the rider with the most sprint points in The Tour de France . But it's the mountain bikers who are the real tree huggers... Wham! (ouch...)

  26. These guys are sell outs! by Treeluvinhippy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Green internet connection huh? Well lets see here... hmm depends on a sattelite with an apple airport for a connection and yet no mention of all the pollutants released in the atmosphere from the rocket.

    Lots of plastic chairs in the pictures that's not good.

    Cars! My god these people drove!

    Looks to me like it's just a bunch of yuppies doing their yearly feel-good protect the earth thing, and getting some excercise at the same time. When I saw that pic of the dude on the excercise bike I thought "Go Speed Racer, Go Speed Racer Go!"

    --
    >
    1. Re:These guys are sell outs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pollutants released in the atmosphere from the rocket

      Yeah, all that Hydrogen burning in Oxygen sure makes a mess!

    2. Re:These guys are sell outs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, you're fucking stupid.

  27. Copyright? by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

    As much as we all appreciate the mirrors, I have to wonder what would happen if someone less than friendly was mirrored (maybe without permission because it takes longer to get permission than it does to get slashdotted) by some well-meaning slashdotters. Would there be copyright issues involved?

  28. Satellites *difficult* in Europe? by mdb31 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Given the difficulty of satellite connectivity alone in Europe[...]

    Ehm, would anyone mind explaining what exactly is so difficult about satellite connectivity in Europe? From my experience in setting up systems all over the world, it's no more difficult (or easier) than setting up in the US or pretty much anywhere else (some fun regions in Africa or Asia excluded, where spotty coverage and 'rain fade' can really ruin the party - but Europe??)

    1. Re:Satellites *difficult* in Europe? by nelf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The satellite connection used here uses the DVB-RCS standard to attain 2-way internet access. This equipment has only recently come to market. Two way satellite systems have been available the world over for many years, however higher speed uplink satellite have until recently only been affordable in Europe to organisations willing to invest large sums of money in expensive equipment. Older and more available VSAT (Very small aperture) satellites do not provide very fast or useable connections at all.
      The equivalent Inmarsat services cost somewhere in the region of 7 US dollars per minute. The system used in the posted article was 384K uplink, with downlink FTPs sustaining 100K FTP transfers. What easy to set up and affordable services are out there for the European market?

  29. ** WARNING GOATSEX LINK DO NOT CLICK ** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBW (you have been warned)

  30. Trouble in the best of times by Nkwe · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Even people expressing "anti-capitalist" views can fail to comprehend or apply the effort needed to avoid using heavily licensed corporate software, even though a viable community alternative is presented in a learning environment with on hand human support.
    I found this comment most interesting and telling. It seems that in a situation as ideally suited for open software and an open environment such as described, the audience would be eager to learn and use what is available. This comment suggests otherwise. Depressing. It seems that we have a long road and a long haul ahead.
  31. Re:if they were near a river... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    they coulda used a paddle-wheel to harness
    the river-current flow to eliminate the C02.

  32. Re:if they were near a river... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    imagine a beowolf cluster of...

  33. Teepees in the UK? by FFFish · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    WTF is with the tee-pee encampment? These a bunch of wanna-be Indians?

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  34. Great... the first Slashdot-related fatality... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Funny

    Great... the first Slashdot-related fatality...

    "Too much web traffic kills Internet bicyclist..."

    -- Terry

    1. Re:Great... the first Slashdot-related fatality... by RyLaN · · Score: 1

      During the Ice Storm a few years ago my brother passed out trying to keep his dell alive..

      --
      At least the war on the environment is going well
  35. slashdot by xmnemonic · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    die slashdot.........

  36. Re:Better article by grant+harris · · Score: 0

    Well it's been /.ed what do you expect, try google's cache.

    --

    I'm never going to achieve Nirvana with my Karma

  37. Green? Bad joke! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they were really worried about the environment and ecology, they sure as hell wouldn't own a computer. All the nasty stuff that goes into the manufacture of computers should make them high on the list of evils to be avoided at all costs. But then, the steel used in their contraption was originally mined from mother earth, and refining the ore took lots of heat which produced greenhouse gases and other pollutants... the "greens" are the biggest bunch of hypocrites that ever drew breath (and thereby polluted the air).

  38. You don't *really* believe that, do you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fossil fuels are the remains of ancient plants. Plants use energy from sunlight to do their co2 - o2 trick, and to produce food to grow. So, burning fossil fuels is just releasing stored solar energy. And increased co2 levels are good for plant growth, and that's good for us, because it provides food for all the animals that we eat. Now go worry about real problems, like Saddam Hussein's bioweapons.

  39. human exhaust by castlan · · Score: 2

    a "fat guy" on a bike will breathe much harder than a fat guy sitting on a couch. He needs the excersize for his own health. I would argue that his decomposing corpse would provide value by enriching the soil, but odds are fairly good that he would be embalmed first, negating that theory.

    I guess It's really hard to know which side of this argument to take without a definitive measurement of the average "fat guy" flatulence and expiration, to subtract from the pulminary output of the fatty in motion, to compare to the efficiency of the alternative machine. Then the appropriate solution will have to be deployed to a large enough scale to make the efforts expended during the study worthwhile.

    I dunno about personal attacks or political attacks, but really all of ths is quite silly. That is the point... if it is enjoyable and not eggregiously harmful then it is the right thing to do. Anything having to do with Outer Space, or even outer orbit seems contrary to the Green philosophies as I understand them. A low impact, gradual reduction of industry seems to be the obvious stance, I really am not convinced that technological progress at this point in time is conducive to the Green Parties' goals. Perhaps a non-radical Luddism is how I see it.

    That said, if fat guys on bikes can supplant "artificial" industrial machinery, then it seems to be a good thing. Leave the Petrol-derived carbon in the ground, let the photosynthesized carbon be put to work. Raw energy efficiency can be misleading if the source of the energy is fossil-fuel.

    By the way, bull-shit is a good alternative to fossil fuel, is it not? Better than reading the article!

  40. Bexdorf? by Lev_Arris · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just FYI there's a little spelling mistake: The 'Astra Broadband Interactive Hub' is probably in Betzdorf, Luxembourg (http://www.ses-astra.com/tools/contact/index.shtm l) rather than in 'Bexdorf'. To be exact it's at the 'Château de Betzdorf' which can be seen here: http://be.sun.com/aboutsun/ezine/library/images/in stallation.jpg (Link taken from this article http://be.sun.com/aboutsun/ezine/library/ses_astra .html on Sun's site).

    For those who don't know Astra, they're one of the largest (if the the largest) satellite operators here in Europe doing mostly TV broadcasting. They've also got a picture gallery showing the NOC and the sats on their site: http://www.astra.lu/press-info/documentation/galle ry/index.php

    1. Re:Bexdorf? by adelayde · · Score: 1

      thanks for that, made the correction to Betzdorf and the proof-reader has been officially sacked!

  41. microsoft moving into wireless.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    gee.. wont this be fun..

  42. Serious implications for IP in Africa by ites · · Score: 2, Insightful

    (And possibly South America and Asia)
    In most of Africa the only way to get online is a $5000/month VSAT satellite base station.
    A pedal-powered link may sound funny to some of you but you are laughing from a position of privilege.
    A $1000 satellite station would bring the Internet to billions of people.
    And this would remove a significant obstacle to development in many places.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
  43. More usefull Power System by schimmi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Using Power-converters for car-usage whould have saved some of the Power.Converting 12V DC up to 220V AC and back down to xxVDC (16V for the IBM-Laptopsand the Powerbooks) is much worse then direct conversion

    1. Re:More usefull Power System by spacepleb · · Score: 1

      Is there a car part which steps 12-14V dc up to 16-19V dc? This would be very useful.The only way I know of doing this is switch mode technology, which I never new was implimented in UK car manufacturing.

    2. Re:More usefull Power System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought so too when I read it... we have a nice small car adapter for my father's laptop, which steps 12V up to 19 or 20 DC quite nicely. No idea how much it wastes, but it's bound to be less than 12->230->20...

    3. Re:More usefull Power System by schimmi · · Score: 1

      Sorry You have to use a adapter connected to the 12V Supply, there is normaly no build in usable DC-DC-Converter in Cars. You may build your own DC-DC-Converter which isnt to comlicated if You use ICs like e.g. the LT1071 http://www.linear.com/prod/datasheet.html?datashee t=191, which is sufficent for small Laptops. You may have to add some filtering and maybe a crowbar-circuit (with fuses) for safty-reasons and to prevent EMI.
      Happy Hardware Hacking

    4. Re:More usefull Power System by spacepleb · · Score: 1

      Cool - thanx, seeing as I presently live in a vehicle (installed with 12v) this will be really handy.

  44. Thats a start... by JumpingBull · · Score: 1

    The internet was designed to survive a nuclear war. It has redundancy, fault tolerance, and, with GNU ( and BSD and..) software, has an open access to most anyone that would wish to invest the time to master it.

    The internet, and free, untrammelled communication between real persons has as its' only threat unrestrained greed. Call it corporatism, or totalitarianism or any other type of --ism that you wish; there are a class of people that have nothing better to do then to manipulate their fellows.

    It is a start, but I do believe that until the internet has cellular -style, personally owned co-operative network nodes in an RF web, the freedom we enjoy to-day could be extinguished by corporate/regulatory/governmental fiat.

    I don't think such a world would be enjoyable to live in... but YMMV...

    --
    This is progress?
  45. Apple should look at thier Airport mod by jmertic · · Score: 1

    This [pipex.com] mod to add an external antenna to the Airport hubs is one that Apple should really look into. It would be easy to do, and would make the range much farther. And Apple could make some sort of sexy looking antenna for it.

  46. Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey you guys, I'm opening a new gym/webfarm :-)

  47. Transmitter radiation by phorm · · Score: 2

    There are major health considerations when setting up the transmit hardware

    Being that I don't know much about the ranges wherein these transmissions become dangerous, it would be cool if somebody "in the know" could elaborate more on this. Can you actually fry people's brains with these satellites, or create cancer-causing radiation?

    My parents have a mini-dish in their back yard, somewhat similar to the one shown on this page. It's mounted pretty low, so I think that it would be about head-level on a tall person. Should I recommend that it be moved lest they cause somebody brain damage?

    That explains the voices in my head - phorm

    1. Re:Transmitter radiation by spacepleb · · Score: 1

      High frequency, high power transmissions are dangerous, and can be deadly. Does the dish at your parent's house transmit? If it is a receiver then the transmitter is probably 36,000 km away, and the signal is drastically attenuated (which is why you need a dish to collect it) If it is transmitting then it requires careful placement. Many dishes look like they are pointing at the horizon due to the off-centred nature of the transmission hardware with respect to the dish, whereas they are actually beaming up at around 30 degrees - even so, if the dish is transmitting it should be well away from anyone's head.

    2. Re:Transmitter radiation by mikeb · · Score: 2

      A friend of mine who's heavily into E-M-E ham radio (Earth-Moon-Earth) pushes around 2KW into a 20dB gain antenna and managed to kill a tree at the bottom of his garden with it - some 20 yards from the antenna array.

      On the other hand, ordinary DBS satellite downlinks don't transmit any significant power and are entirely safe.

      If you also have to provide an uplink (like the one in this article had to do) then they do transmit. Although the power levels are much lower than my dangerous friend, they still should be treated with caution. I personally wouldn't want to be much less than about ten yards from the direct beam of the uplink, and even then I would try to avoid standing directly in the beam at any times other than the minimum essential.

  48. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    Yet creeds mean very little, Coth answered the dark god, still speaking
    almost gently. The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
    possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true.
    -- James Cabell, "The Silver Stallion"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...