This is a truly pitiful state of affairs. Covering other bands' songs, as long as you gave credit to the originating artist, and tribute bands used to be respected as ways of admiring an artist or group, paying homage to their art. What an ugly road the music industry has chosen to take...
It won't be the Party that's monitoring us, it'll be the International Media Police. Forget "thought-crime"... New term, TuneCrime: those who show "dis-royalty" by not subscribing to Sony-Music-Groupthink. Emmanuel Goldstein is The Pirate Bay, and Winston? It wasn't the diary or Julia that did him in...it was humming. Technically, still a performance with the telescreen monitor as the audience.
Lest everyone forget, this is a bus we're talking about. I don't think I ever saw WRX STi badging on that bad boy, so while reducing wheel weight is good as it reduces the gyro effect when the wheel spins, but I doubt that these vehicles are going to wind up facing wheel-skip problems... I hope. They're not making any more Speed sequels/prequels/craptinuations, are they?
...security-technophilia, paranoia, directionless data aggregation, and nanny-state politics. Look, I'm all for security, and I hate terrorists, but you can't just throw millions of cameras at the problem, accrue massive amounts of civilian info without having a reason why, a vague and vaporous set of goals, and, to top it off, let a computer define what is or is not a "threat" instead of giving it solid guidelines and clear directives on what to search for. Yeah, that won't cause any problems. I'm honestly glad Orwell didn't have to live to see his dystopic literary nightmare-world start to take shape, only with the procedural policies on the level of the Underpants Gnomes.
1. Install tons of cameras to monitor EVERYONE
2. Aggregate colossal amounts of data from email & internet traffic, mobile phone services, etc, in violation of our citizens' rights
3. Let a computer do the deciding on what poses an actual danger
4. Fail to set any guidelines on what your agency is supposed to be doing, not to mention no limitations being set for said org to prevent abuse of power
That's fine. So they fixed the issue their first software update introduced. It still remains that there was not a single dialog box, nothing to ask if someone wanted to install this functionality. I still wonder, though, if there's something peculiar going on. It was only within the past two months, three at most, that I did a.NET update on a machine, only to experience the problem as described with the first release of this. Who knows? Could be I missed the specific kb???whateverthehell.NET update that had the fix, just got the buggy first version. MS, how about you consolidate bug fixes for things, and do a better job of making sure you're not still offering out-of-date "updates" that introduce as many or more bugs than they fix? Bill, Steve, any thoughts?
Though it has been exhaustively stated already, it bears repeating...so I'll repeat it: the.NET plugin or extension (whatever it is) does not allow users to disable or uninstall it via normal interfaces. Basically, without Mozilla's patch, you have to do some file system & registry spelunking to close this breach; like someone mentioned, that's not something the average user is going to look forward to, and for many is far beyond their scope of capabilities. To my knowledge, no other plugin or extension exhibits this bad behavior, nor are they foisted on the user via sleight-of-hand as a "security update." Furthermore, to those who balk that Mozilla can't differentiate between unpatched and patched versions, once again, this plugin came from MS. If it's their plugin for their.NET framework, that is exclusive to their OS, wouldn't that sort of make it their responsibility to have it include version info, or some way to check, via the filesystem or registry details, the.NET file version numbers/installed ver info and report it back to firefox? Hell, wouldn't it be on them to ask the user if they want to install it, along with making it fully removable in the first place? How, precisely, should Mozilla, an entirely separate org who I don't imagine ever anticipated having such a wonky problem be created for their browser's extensions, handle this, if not via the patch they released? Why is everyone defending Bill & Steve?
I think this was a real fumble for MS, and Mozilla took steps to prevent critical problems--don't know about the best steps, but at least they were quick to action. Imagine if this had not been done, and exploits for the problem started popping up like wildfire, or widespread browser/OS crashes became common; how many users would firefox lose, due to a problem entirely of someone else's making? Let's not get confused over who's the bad guy. MS has the most to gain from any perceived flaws in a competing product, and their track record isn't exactly one that shows overwhelming care and concern for the end user. Even if not malicious, and chances are it's not, it still is another mark of incompetence on the overall company that they're releasing flawed software and forgetting courtesies like asking the user if they actually want the changes, not to mention not allowing them to revert it without 'popping the hood'.
Counterpoint: It's bad business that leads to the aforementioned.
I don't recall where I saw this, but I think there was a comment on a/. article mentioning how the big media gestapo has BAWWWWW'd at every single innovation, claiming everything from phonographs to recordable tape players to vcr's, and now, the internet, would somehow destroy or harm their business. Every time, they've been proven wrong. It's a good example of an entrenched group who, unable to come up with innovative ideas on their own (at most no more than once in a blue moon during a lunar eclipse andfull planetary alignment, and flying pigs to top it off), so they turn to destructive means: political pressure and an army of lawyers to make- no wait, shake people down for money.
Another example is the subprime market that led to a lot of the bullshit that the economies of most countries face. Bad business. "Who cares about annual projections, or beyond? Just look at those fat quarterly profit margins!"
Being the person who submitted the story, allow me to clarify that the input field for the title is a bit limited, thus necessitating that the original title be clipped a bit. Please forgive my editing skills, or lack thereof, when trying to shorten the headline as seen in the source article into something/. would accept.
Right, he'll just handily get that all fixed before jetting off to the Mideast, make peace between Israel and their neighbors, create a new Palestinian state, convince the militants in both Iraq and Afghanistan to lay down their arms, thus ending both wars and magically transforming both nations into corruption-free democratic-republics just like us, convince Iran to stop their nuclear program, and make OPEC fall in love with the U.S. and give us free oil just long enough until we get our energy policy sorted, which should be by, ohhh, say noonish Monday? After that, he'll return for a relaxing weekend of writing up a new healthcare plan that makes everybody happy and cures all disease instantly! Of course, being a magic negro, he won't need sleep, and he'll spend Sunday night into Monday morning crafting aforementioned energy policy, which he'll handily convince congress to implement before lunchtime. With all that tackled, he'll be free to casually move on to simpler issues like the worldwide recession, world hunger, and violence and repression in Africa, all of which couldn't possibly take him, what, two, three days tops? Amirite?
I have a question/. How does the above post that drives a point home get moderated down to 0, when the post above that, having naught but a juvenile 2 word response, "prove it," gets modded up?
...which way you try to slice it, this was in really bad taste.
Even if the agreement somehow allows them to legally wriggle out of this, what kind of schmuck dreams up a "marketing" campaign like this? You'd have to be really far over the cuckoo's nest when, in the brainstorming process for adverts about a new car model, simulating a stalker comes to mind. I forsee shoe companies promoting new lineups by sending out realistic-seeming notices from food companies, or the FDA, that something the person bought may have been contaminated with potentially lethal doses of botulinum...
Like the untamed Wild West, where anyone with a gun and a claim could try their fortunes. The problem is most web devs are less Annie Oakley, more Ballad of Irving in terms of skill. They'd be utterly lost without hand-holding stuff like Dreamweaver or fucking FrontPage, or a bazillion other different garbage CMSs that create bloated, ineffecient, bandwidth hogging, junk web "apps" and prevent the user from having to actually, you know, code. Ick. Most would break into a cold sweat if you showed them a sql query, and don't even mention php or perl. Anything in the C family is right out.
You know, I really do think this is all about the utter lack of standards when it comes to mobiles. IMHO, user agent is one of the most reliable things to help a web programmer distinguish between full-fledged browsers (clients fully or mostly W3C compliant, and in theory, able to handle javascript/flash/etc) and lower power clients (mobiles, embedded platforms, etc, that can't deal with cpu intensive stuff). Ideally, there should be a W3 browser standard, where the UA has an optional series of "flags" or codes appended to the end, that could tell whether it's text only, js capable (or generally client-script capable), embedded, etc...
Obviously, I can see some security risk in including this in the UA, but I'd hope programmers would be able to make secure browsing clients that don't just send the UA or other details to unsolicited client info requests, and the same for the OS overall. And, of course, there's the older-than-the-internets issue of edumacating users not to fall for the typical phishing shit, not to visit risky sites with platforms lacking security, etc, etc...But that's a debate for another time.
Feel free to shred this idea to pieces, in true/. fashion.
Couldn't have said it better myself, Hal. I've only dabbled in making web pages, javascript, css & xhtml, but in just about every 'Intro to html/js/web dev' book I've seen, these sorts of fallbacks are discussed. First and best thing is to find out their user-agent, find out what features are available, NOSCRIPT to account for when js is off or simply not available. I really have to wonder just how much actual "web development" that spazoid from a few posts back actually does.
To him: There're a few little hiccups, one of which is providing for your customers' needs. Do you really think they'll be happy with you if, after they say, "Hey, some of our employees will need to be able to access this stuff on the road from their mobiles," you give them that nice little diatribe? And how about the more basic issue of just making your site robust, and setup so having the "wrong" browsers won't just break it utterly break it. You're not calling the shots: the client and their customers are. Welcome to the real world.
And you'd still be burning a fossil fuel, albeit not as dirty as some, which defeats the entire point of the Samsø project. Of course, for those still trying to pretend global warming is a myth cooked up by nutcases and that the ice caps aren't receding, a diesel generator is fine too...
Pollution from nuclear plants? Unless I'm mistaken, the only "pollution" (in terms of what goes directly back into the environment) might be heat pollution, and that, I do believe, depends on design. See this article about Nuclear plants. The biggest problem I see is what to do with the spent fuel. Research is ongoing in regards to that, I do believe. Wacky idea: take over some of the old, abandoned pit mines that mining companies failed to reclaim, keep digging, and turn those into spent fuel repositories, and charge the responsible mining co. for upkeep.
The same could be said of dropping someone naked in the Artic tundra. They're self-sufficient till they freeze to death (and hence no longer survive).
LOLWUT? Self-contradict much? The very definition he posted, and that you'll find in most dictionaries, includes that nagging little conditional "survival," or in other words, NOT death. Argument fail.
I don't think it's a good idea to take this plan only from the point of view of the island. The thing that bothers me here is that there's absolutely no mention of cost in most of these stories. The best I've found is an estimate of 11,000 euro [milkproduction.com] per person which allegedly includes some amount of local investment.
Of course there is cost. No one said this stuff could get done for free or dirt-cheap. That's what pilot programs are all about, seeing if the initial investment is worth it. I really hate having to repeat arguments already made, but allow me to explain yet again: as net-positive energy infrastructure becomes common to meet increasing demand, the setup costs go down as the techniques are refined and companies find less costly materials and manufacturing techniques to achieve the same results. Just look at what's happening in the newly emerging consumer space-flight market. Also, you fail to acknowledge the fact that if they are now able to produce more energy than they consume, they can sell back the excess they don't use to the grid.
The link mentions a farmer, Jørgen Tranberg who happens to own 2.5 million euros in two windmills (one on his property, one offshore), has another 4 windmills (probably another 5 million euros value and generating rent) sitting on his 150 acre farm, and who speaks glowingly of the whole plan. My view is that if I picked up a few million euros on this sort of thing, I might speak well of it too, purely for selfish reasons.
Yeah, because the only thing that motivates people is pure selfish greed, and couldn't possibly be that, although he is benefiting, it's good for everyone... Nice to know you think so highly of people. Benefit to him: makes money from selling back excess power. Benefit to government: proof that self-sustainability can be achieved, at least on a small scale, reason to invest similarly in other regions. Benefit to Samsø/region: less power draw from grid to power that island. Benefit to nation: long-term reduction of coal burned for power. Also, quick question of little importance: where'd that link to milkproduction.com come from? I see no such link in the/. article, nor in your top level comment, or in any subsequent replies to you...
That massive investment in windmills (much of the power being exported to the mainland) indicates to me that we probably have a large wind power subsidy distorting this economic picture further.
Alan Shore says, "Objection, your honor: Speculation." Proof plz? And just for the record, you do know that a subsidy is, right? Denmark is not exactly known for corruption problems, so I doubt they'd claim something like self-sustainability (including monetary) which could be disproved by checking the local government financial records.
All I can say, given that there's at least two large subsidies going on here (and I suspect they are massive enough to turn dairy farmers into multimillionaires)
..., is that we can, when we throw enough money at the problem, turn a small region into a carbon negative region. I suppose you could run numbers, but the experiment has at least two big subsidies throwing it.
Incredible You should call the Catholic Church. Nice to see how, somehow, what sta
Problems with their model?
Point out the flaw. I'm glad to point out yours.
1st quote & comments: Taken out of context. Funding was 1x time only for testing & startup. Also, the prototype for any project like this is going to be a big initial cost, likely more than what a local government can handle; the idea is that after a workable model is developed, that has a low to maybe even negative carbon footprint, ie more energy produced for less CO emissions, and as more investment is made into and research done on these alternate power sources, as more cost effective methods are found, implementation & upgrade costs will drop. That's called market development, genius.
2nd quote & comments: Pure batshit fucking insane cockamamey nonsense. How do you suggest they "just dig for" it? Strip mining? In a country that has reclaimed a good portion of it's land from the ocean, and faces an ongoing struggle against natural erosion to keep the land they currently have? With a (est 1/1/2009) pop density of 331.2/sq mi? Yeah, great plan. Besides that, the whole point is to get away from coal which is a notoriously polluting fuel.
If you have anything other than more hot air, ludicrous proposals, and childish sneering to contribute, I'd love to hear it. Until then, STFU.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a truly pitiful state of affairs. Covering other bands' songs, as long as you gave credit to the originating artist, and tribute bands used to be respected as ways of admiring an artist or group, paying homage to their art. What an ugly road the music industry has chosen to take...
Because, obviously, if an authority like Anonymous Coward has never heard of it, it must not exist. A very smart person who probably knows a lot about this sort of thing.
It won't be the Party that's monitoring us, it'll be the International Media Police. Forget "thought-crime"... New term, TuneCrime: those who show "dis-royalty" by not subscribing to Sony-Music-Groupthink. Emmanuel Goldstein is The Pirate Bay, and Winston? It wasn't the diary or Julia that did him in...it was humming. Technically, still a performance with the telescreen monitor as the audience.
No, I am!
Lest everyone forget, this is a bus we're talking about. I don't think I ever saw WRX STi badging on that bad boy, so while reducing wheel weight is good as it reduces the gyro effect when the wheel spins, but I doubt that these vehicles are going to wind up facing wheel-skip problems... I hope. They're not making any more Speed sequels/prequels/craptinuations, are they?
They're too busy tapping their feet under the dividers in bathroom stalls.
Of course, others like their computing without advertisements and are willing to pay money for that.
...
...Wut?
That's fine. So they fixed the issue their first software update introduced. It still remains that there was not a single dialog box, nothing to ask if someone wanted to install this functionality. I still wonder, though, if there's something peculiar going on. It was only within the past two months, three at most, that I did a .NET update on a machine, only to experience the problem as described with the first release of this. Who knows? Could be I missed the specific kb???whateverthehell .NET update that had the fix, just got the buggy first version. MS, how about you consolidate bug fixes for things, and do a better job of making sure you're not still offering out-of-date "updates" that introduce as many or more bugs than they fix? Bill, Steve, any thoughts?
Though it has been exhaustively stated already, it bears repeating...so I'll repeat it: the .NET plugin or extension (whatever it is) does not allow users to disable or uninstall it via normal interfaces. Basically, without Mozilla's patch, you have to do some file system & registry spelunking to close this breach; like someone mentioned, that's not something the average user is going to look forward to, and for many is far beyond their scope of capabilities. To my knowledge, no other plugin or extension exhibits this bad behavior, nor are they foisted on the user via sleight-of-hand as a "security update." Furthermore, to those who balk that Mozilla can't differentiate between unpatched and patched versions, once again, this plugin came from MS. If it's their plugin for their .NET framework, that is exclusive to their OS, wouldn't that sort of make it their responsibility to have it include version info, or some way to check, via the filesystem or registry details, the .NET file version numbers/installed ver info and report it back to firefox? Hell, wouldn't it be on them to ask the user if they want to install it, along with making it fully removable in the first place? How, precisely, should Mozilla, an entirely separate org who I don't imagine ever anticipated having such a wonky problem be created for their browser's extensions, handle this, if not via the patch they released? Why is everyone defending Bill & Steve?
I think this was a real fumble for MS, and Mozilla took steps to prevent critical problems--don't know about the best steps, but at least they were quick to action. Imagine if this had not been done, and exploits for the problem started popping up like wildfire, or widespread browser/OS crashes became common; how many users would firefox lose, due to a problem entirely of someone else's making? Let's not get confused over who's the bad guy. MS has the most to gain from any perceived flaws in a competing product, and their track record isn't exactly one that shows overwhelming care and concern for the end user. Even if not malicious, and chances are it's not, it still is another mark of incompetence on the overall company that they're releasing flawed software and forgetting courtesies like asking the user if they actually want the changes, not to mention not allowing them to revert it without 'popping the hood'.
Maybe they don't pose as grave a vulnerability as the .NET one.
Counterpoint: It's bad business that leads to the aforementioned. I don't recall where I saw this, but I think there was a comment on a /. article mentioning how the big media gestapo has BAWWWWW'd at every single innovation, claiming everything from phonographs to recordable tape players to vcr's, and now, the internet, would somehow destroy or harm their business. Every time, they've been proven wrong. It's a good example of an entrenched group who, unable to come up with innovative ideas on their own (at most no more than once in a blue moon during a lunar eclipse and full planetary alignment, and flying pigs to top it off), so they turn to destructive means: political pressure and an army of lawyers to make- no wait, shake people down for money.
Another example is the subprime market that led to a lot of the bullshit that the economies of most countries face. Bad business. "Who cares about annual projections, or beyond? Just look at those fat quarterly profit margins!"
Being the person who submitted the story, allow me to clarify that the input field for the title is a bit limited, thus necessitating that the original title be clipped a bit. Please forgive my editing skills, or lack thereof, when trying to shorten the headline as seen in the source article into something /. would accept.
Let it go.
Right, he'll just handily get that all fixed before jetting off to the Mideast, make peace between Israel and their neighbors, create a new Palestinian state, convince the militants in both Iraq and Afghanistan to lay down their arms, thus ending both wars and magically transforming both nations into corruption-free democratic-republics just like us, convince Iran to stop their nuclear program, and make OPEC fall in love with the U.S. and give us free oil just long enough until we get our energy policy sorted, which should be by, ohhh, say noonish Monday? After that, he'll return for a relaxing weekend of writing up a new healthcare plan that makes everybody happy and cures all disease instantly! Of course, being a magic negro, he won't need sleep, and he'll spend Sunday night into Monday morning crafting aforementioned energy policy, which he'll handily convince congress to implement before lunchtime. With all that tackled, he'll be free to casually move on to simpler issues like the worldwide recession, world hunger, and violence and repression in Africa, all of which couldn't possibly take him, what, two, three days tops? Amirite?
I have a question /.
How does the above post that drives a point home get moderated down to 0, when the post above that, having naught but a juvenile 2 word response, "prove it," gets modded up?
...which way you try to slice it, this was in really bad taste.
Even if the agreement somehow allows them to legally wriggle out of this, what kind of schmuck dreams up a "marketing" campaign like this? You'd have to be really far over the cuckoo's nest when, in the brainstorming process for adverts about a new car model, simulating a stalker comes to mind. I forsee shoe companies promoting new lineups by sending out realistic-seeming notices from food companies, or the FDA, that something the person bought may have been contaminated with potentially lethal doses of botulinum...
Like the untamed Wild West, where anyone with a gun and a claim could try their fortunes. The problem is most web devs are less Annie Oakley, more Ballad of Irving in terms of skill. They'd be utterly lost without hand-holding stuff like Dreamweaver or fucking FrontPage, or a bazillion other different garbage CMSs that create bloated, ineffecient, bandwidth hogging, junk web "apps" and prevent the user from having to actually, you know, code. Ick. Most would break into a cold sweat if you showed them a sql query, and don't even mention php or perl. Anything in the C family is right out.
You know, I really do think this is all about the utter lack of standards when it comes to mobiles. IMHO, user agent is one of the most reliable things to help a web programmer distinguish between full-fledged browsers (clients fully or mostly W3C compliant, and in theory, able to handle javascript/flash/etc) and lower power clients (mobiles, embedded platforms, etc, that can't deal with cpu intensive stuff). Ideally, there should be a W3 browser standard, where the UA has an optional series of "flags" or codes appended to the end, that could tell whether it's text only, js capable (or generally client-script capable), embedded, etc...
/. fashion.
Obviously, I can see some security risk in including this in the UA, but I'd hope programmers would be able to make secure browsing clients that don't just send the UA or other details to unsolicited client info requests, and the same for the OS overall. And, of course, there's the older-than-the-internets issue of edumacating users not to fall for the typical phishing shit, not to visit risky sites with platforms lacking security, etc, etc...But that's a debate for another time.
Feel free to shred this idea to pieces, in true
Couldn't have said it better myself, Hal. I've only dabbled in making web pages, javascript, css & xhtml, but in just about every 'Intro to html/js/web dev' book I've seen, these sorts of fallbacks are discussed. First and best thing is to find out their user-agent, find out what features are available, NOSCRIPT to account for when js is off or simply not available. I really have to wonder just how much actual "web development" that spazoid from a few posts back actually does.
To him: There're a few little hiccups, one of which is providing for your customers' needs. Do you really think they'll be happy with you if, after they say, "Hey, some of our employees will need to be able to access this stuff on the road from their mobiles," you give them that nice little diatribe? And how about the more basic issue of just making your site robust, and setup so having the "wrong" browsers won't just break it utterly break it. You're not calling the shots: the client and their customers are. Welcome to the real world.
And you'd still be burning a fossil fuel, albeit not as dirty as some, which defeats the entire point of the Samsø project. Of course, for those still trying to pretend global warming is a myth cooked up by nutcases and that the ice caps aren't receding, a diesel generator is fine too...
Pollution from nuclear plants? Unless I'm mistaken, the only "pollution" (in terms of what goes directly back into the environment) might be heat pollution, and that, I do believe, depends on design. See this article about Nuclear plants. The biggest problem I see is what to do with the spent fuel. Research is ongoing in regards to that, I do believe. Wacky idea: take over some of the old, abandoned pit mines that mining companies failed to reclaim, keep digging, and turn those into spent fuel repositories, and charge the responsible mining co. for upkeep.
know that a subsidy [wikipedia.org] is, right?
Typo. "That" supposed to be what.
The same could be said of dropping someone naked in the Artic tundra. They're self-sufficient till they freeze to death (and hence no longer survive).
LOLWUT? Self-contradict much? The very definition he posted, and that you'll find in most dictionaries, includes that nagging little conditional "survival," or in other words, NOT death. Argument fail.
I don't think it's a good idea to take this plan only from the point of view of the island. The thing that bothers me here is that there's absolutely no mention of cost in most of these stories. The best I've found is an estimate of 11,000 euro [milkproduction.com] per person which allegedly includes some amount of local investment.
Of course there is cost. No one said this stuff could get done for free or dirt-cheap. That's what pilot programs are all about, seeing if the initial investment is worth it. I really hate having to repeat arguments already made, but allow me to explain yet again: as net-positive energy infrastructure becomes common to meet increasing demand, the setup costs go down as the techniques are refined and companies find less costly materials and manufacturing techniques to achieve the same results. Just look at what's happening in the newly emerging consumer space-flight market. Also, you fail to acknowledge the fact that if they are now able to produce more energy than they consume, they can sell back the excess they don't use to the grid.
The link mentions a farmer, Jørgen Tranberg who happens to own 2.5 million euros in two windmills (one on his property, one offshore), has another 4 windmills (probably another 5 million euros value and generating rent) sitting on his 150 acre farm, and who speaks glowingly of the whole plan. My view is that if I picked up a few million euros on this sort of thing, I might speak well of it too, purely for selfish reasons.
Yeah, because the only thing that motivates people is pure selfish greed, and couldn't possibly be that, although he is benefiting, it's good for everyone... Nice to know you think so highly of people. Benefit to him: makes money from selling back excess power. Benefit to government: proof that self-sustainability can be achieved, at least on a small scale, reason to invest similarly in other regions. Benefit to Samsø/region: less power draw from grid to power that island. Benefit to nation: long-term reduction of coal burned for power. Also, quick question of little importance: where'd that link to milkproduction.com come from? I see no such link in the /. article, nor in your top level comment, or in any subsequent replies to you...
That massive investment in windmills (much of the power being exported to the mainland) indicates to me that we probably have a large wind power subsidy distorting this economic picture further.
Alan Shore says, "Objection, your honor: Speculation." Proof plz? And just for the record, you do know that a subsidy is, right? Denmark is not exactly known for corruption problems, so I doubt they'd claim something like self-sustainability (including monetary) which could be disproved by checking the local government financial records.
All I can say, given that there's at least two large subsidies going on here (and I suspect they are massive enough to turn dairy farmers into multimillionaires)
I didn't know you had one of these.
..., is that we can, when we throw enough money at the problem, turn a small region into a carbon negative region. I suppose you could run numbers, but the experiment has at least two big subsidies throwing it.
Incredible You should call the Catholic Church. Nice to see how, somehow, what sta
lolwut???
The houses were already there, genius.
Point out the flaw. I'm glad to point out yours.
1st quote & comments: Taken out of context. Funding was 1x time only for testing & startup. Also, the prototype for any project like this is going to be a big initial cost, likely more than what a local government can handle; the idea is that after a workable model is developed, that has a low to maybe even negative carbon footprint, ie more energy produced for less CO emissions, and as more investment is made into and research done on these alternate power sources, as more cost effective methods are found, implementation & upgrade costs will drop. That's called market development, genius.
2nd quote & comments: Pure batshit fucking insane cockamamey nonsense. How do you suggest they "just dig for" it? Strip mining? In a country that has reclaimed a good portion of it's land from the ocean, and faces an ongoing struggle against natural erosion to keep the land they currently have? With a (est 1/1/2009) pop density of 331.2/sq mi? Yeah, great plan. Besides that, the whole point is to get away from coal which is a notoriously polluting fuel.
If you have anything other than more hot air, ludicrous proposals, and childish sneering to contribute, I'd love to hear it. Until then, STFU.