The Senate has confirmed 168 of President Bush's judicial nominees. Democrats have filibustered just four of Bush's nominees.
Republicans blocked 63 of President Clinton's nominees to the federal bench. Republicans refused to give many of Clinton's nominees hearings at all, and even blocked some of them with anonymous holds from a single Republican Senator.
The federal judiciary has fewer vacancies now than any time for the past 20 years.
You can call this politics as usual, but several actions by the Republicans have escalated the scale of the conflict by orders of magnitude. This is not politics as usual. This is rigging the system.
I remember typewriters (yes, typewriters, not word processors) before they had keys for the numbers "1" and "0". You'd use a lower case L for the 1 and an capital o for the zero, and if you messed it up, you had a bottle of white goo to dab on the mistake, before backspacing and retyping...
Our alleged president is accurately described by option A. It's the unknown person (or persons) who fits option B that concerns me...
Re:No difference for a long while, but...
on
The End of the Oil Age
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A tanker carrying biodiesel was involved in a car crash, and spilled fuel all over the side of the road. The fire department responded immediatly, as soon as they heard a tanker truck was involved. They got to the accident site, found out it was carrying biodiesel, and went back to the station. Within a week, the bulk of it biodegraded, harmlessly.
How do you think a tanker full of hydrogen would respond in the same accident?
The interesting thing about solar powered electrolysis to create hydrogen for your fuel cells, is that it's an inherently inefficient process. You'd be better off from an enery efficiency standpoint to just use your solar panels to charge a battery powered car. You get a similar range (miles between "fillups") for the car, you don't have to store highly flammable hydrogen in your garage, and you don't waste your precious solar energy on the electrolysis process...
As far as switching hydrogen sources, you're looking at a fairly intensive infrastructure overhaul to supply hydrogen safely at the consumer level (as safely as a fuel pump, anyway). The infrastructure for, hybrids (or my favourite, biodiesel), already exists (tanks, tankers, pumps, etc.). The only thing that changes is where the tanker trucks drive to fill up.
But then again, I drive a biodiesel powered car... (BTW, I like the term "technology advance" applying to "VW diesels". The original diesel engine demo was over 100 years ago, and it ran on straight peanut oil!)
Actually, the energy balance of soy biodiesel is just over 3:1. That means for every unit of energy you put into fertilizers, tractors, pesticides, oil extraction, etc., you get over 3 times the available energy in the biodiesel produced. Other oils are even more efficient, but we have millions of gallons of excess soy oil in the US, so it's a nice way to put it to good use.
...and I only have to recharge the "battery" every 700 miles or so.
My propulsion system stores solar energy in the form of soybeans, from which oil is extracted, and converted to biodiesel. I pump it into my car (thus recharging my "battery") and drive off. Ok, it's not strictly solar power, but it's a pretty efficient use of surplus soy oil, of which the US has a fair amount. And my car drives fine even with cloudy skies...
Three's Company? You do know the american show was based on the BBC Comedy "Man About The House?", don't you? =) A surprisingly large number of popular shows in the US are based on british TV shows...
Look at it this way: The soy plant takes CO2 from the air, and converts it into vegetation. I burn the processed plant, and it puts the CO2 back in the air. Net CO2 gain in the atmosphere over the complete cycle is near zero. Now, if I take petroleum from within the Earth's crust, and burn it, all the CO2 from that combustion is CO2 that is new to the atmosphere over the cycle of extraction and combustion. I am concerned about global warming, so I chose the option that would have a lesser impact on the net amount of CO2 added back to the atmosphere by my driving.
As far as PM goes, burning biodiesel results in fewer PM emmissions compared to regular diesel. Emissions treatment can also be employed to clean up the PM and NOx, but these systems won't be installed on vehicles for sale in the US until ULSD (ultra low sulfur diesel) is required by federal mandate in 2006. It's the poor quality of diesel fuel in the US that's keeping the vehicles from lowering their emissions. Diesel passenger vehicles are much more popular in Europe, and they have no problem keeping up with the more strict EU emissions requirements, because they're already on ULSD, and have been for years.
Diesels can and will be a lot cleaner once 2006 is upon us and ULSD, i.e. Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel is the national mandated standard at the pump. All the impressive catalytic converter/exhaust treatment processes that will take the bulk of the NOx, PM, etc. out of the diesel exhaust chain die a horrible flaming death if high-sulfer fuel is used. In Europe, diesels are meeting emissions standards far more stringent than the US will see for years. It just takes the right fuel...
The only statistic posted on the car in the dealer showroom that you can read from more than 6 inches away from the car is the fuel economy. The text size is even larger than the car's make and model, usually. It's not like some random part in the car was improperly designed, and causes problems down the road for a lot of drivers. It's the one thing you can be assured of knowing full well before you ever set foot in one.
And it's the number one complaint among new cars, period. Not just the top complaint about the H2...
I contemplated replacing my '92 Ford Bronco V8 (11 mpg) with a gas/electric hybrid starting about a year ago. My daily commute was a little longer than when I bought the car, and I wasn't doing as much hauling/camping either, so I figured I go for something a little more fuel-efficient for my commuting vehicle.
In March, I bought a 2003 Beetle with the TDI (diesel) engine. It gets about 45 mpg with 50/50 city/highway driving, and it's got great pickup. The engine only produces 90 hp, but it creates 155 ft-lb of torque. More importantly, the basic diesel engine design is over 100 years old, whereas the electric hybrids are very new developments, and would require mainentance to be performed by the dealer. I prefer to have the option of having my car serviced where I choose, so that factored into my choice.
In addition, about 2/3 of the fuel I put into my car is derived from virgin soy oil, aka: biodiesel. Fueling my car supports my local farmers, keeping my fuel dollars in my local economy instead of adding to the ~100 billion dollars of annual trade deficit just from petroleum imports. In addition, the carbon released into the atmosphere from "burning the bean" releases no new carbon into the air, as that carbon was used by the soy plant during its growth (i.e. biodiesel is "carbon-neutral"). Contrast to burning petroleum, which releases excess carbon from its storage deep inn the earth's crust into the air. In fact, the original demonstration of the diesel engine, ran on peanut oil. Rudolf Diesel's plan was that farmers could grow their own fuel for tractors powered by his engine.
Now, if a Beetle isn't exactly your thing, take a look at the Jetta or Golf with the TDI engines. Take one for a test drive, I dare you. Their fuel economy is just as good as the Beetle, and they have a little more room for hauling, or working under the hood. Now when Jeep releases the Liberty with the diesel engine in 2005, even my SUV can be environmentally conscious =).
In any case, I commend you for checking out more efficient and environmentally friendly options for your vehiclular needs. Good Luck with whatever car you get.
To cap it all, she... is obviously more excited about answering vi vs emacs questions than addressing what really matters.
Could this have something to do with the fact that the higher rated slashdot questioners were more excited about asking vi vs emacs questions than addressing what really matters?
She seems to think that legalization of marijuana is an important issue, as with establishing legally binding gay marriages. A tax on legalized marijuana could have a reasonable impact on the collossal budget deficit, and the legalization of marijuana could result in a sufficient decrease in law enforcement resources required to find, arrest, and incarcerate marijuana smokers. Seems relevant to me. Gay marriages (with all the legal ramifications so accorded) could be an important issue to the homosexual constituents in California, of which there are presumably more than 2. Also seems relevant to me.
Personally, she strikes me as being much more than a geeky left-wing troll. She at least seems to be reasonably well informed on matters of relevance to her would-be constituents. Does she have a chance in hell? Well, nobody thought Jesse Ventura would be elected governor before the results started pouring in, either. With pathetically low voter turnout rates, it doesn't take a lot of people to significantly sway the results away from the polls.
You can still send your child to public school without being vaccinated. The exact mechanism differs from state to state. In my home state, you will be required to complete a waiver form of some sort proclaiming that you disagree with the concept of vaccines on a religious basis. Philosophical disagreements are not allowed, and oddly enough, some medical reasons are not sufficient. However, so long as it's a religious belief, freedom of religion trumps all, and your unvaccinated child can attend public school, day care, etc.
There are many valid reasons for not vaccinating a child. In my case, it was moderate lead levels in my daughter's blood. Low levels of lead in combination with low levels of mercury (present in most vaccines as a preservative) greatly increase the onset of developmental disorders. Call me crazy if you wish, but I'd rather have my daughter suffer with a bout of chickenpox than cause her to be mentally retarded for life. The state of California has also positively correlated the preservative in most vaccines (thimerisol) with greatly increased rates of autism among school children.
Is it worth the risk? Not for me. You may disagree. Variety is good, biodiversity is even better. Given different circumstances, I may have had my daughter vaccinated. Under the circumstances I was presented with, I did not.
Children today go though roughly 3-4 times the vaccinations that children of 30 years ago whet through. Most of these vaccinations start prior to 24 months, when their immune systems are still forming. Most of what we vaccinate children for are non-fatal diseases (Rotovirus? Chicken pox?). Even the diseases that may potentially be fatal (pertussis, measles, rubella) are generally fatal only if undiagnosed for a long period of time.
There are many factors that go into deciding whether or not you think any given individual child should be vaccinated. It isn't really a matter of vaccinate everyone and society is better off. For smallpox and polio? maybe. For chicken pox and measles? Probably not. Any decision can be second guessed if negative consequences follow, but we are left do the best we can with what knowledge we have available to us. Some decisions are easier than others...
How do I plan on getting solar power in the middle of the night? First, reduce your electricity needs after dark. 12 V DC lighting, avoid large appliance usage, surf the net on the laptop instead of the desktop, etc. Next, get a rack of these Solar Gel Batteries. Store excess energy during the day, burn it up at night. No problem.
Am I going to do this on my current house? No. It's far too energy-inefficient to even bother with. My next house? Might go with a solar intertie system. House after that? Grid-free living. Have a plan.
Solar and wind power less reliable than fossil and nuclear power? You must be kidding. If you're talking about the new solar energy power plants, well, they're just plain silly anyway. However:
Park a few solar panels on your rooftop, put a stack of deep-cycle batteries in a closet, and disconnect yourself from "the grid". Don't run major appliances after dark, and your batteries will last longer. Install 12V DC lighting around the house, use 12V appliances and accessories (e.g. designed for cars/boats/RVs) where possible, and run them straight off the batteries. Get large appliances (refridgerators, freezers, washing machines) that were designed to run efficiently, and use even less of it. A large part of the problem in converting an existing house to solar energy is is the task of replacing the house's infrastructure to one suitable for solar power.
Another part of the problem in converting the average modern house is that, although stick frame houses are cheap and inexpensive to construct, they cost a lot to keep cool in the summer, and heat in the winter. Think of them as one big heat sink. By orienting houses with large windows to the south, and roof overhangs designed to allow low winter sun in, and keep high summer sun out, (or with a few large deciduous trees to your south for the same effect), you save a big fat bundle of energy in climate control. Add a fair amount of thermal mass to your outside walls (cob, adobe, straw-bale, rammed earth, earthship), put some of your living space underground, and you might even survive year round with no climate control.
Don't want to go whole hog? Get a grid intertie system, park the solar panels on your roof, and connect them through the intertie straight to the local power grid. It won't power your house after dark, or through a local (or widespread) outage, but you'll be helping offset the electricity demand period during the day, when electricity usage is highest. Better yet, if you make more electricity than you use (and your state requires the participation of the electric company), you can get paid by the electric company for the surplus you generate. The power company pays me $15 a month for the ability to cycle my water heater and air conditioner off for up to 15 minutes an hour (25% load reduction) in the summer, I don't see why they don't offer me $30-$50 a month for the privilige of parking an extra 3-5kW power plant on my roof.
The whole point of solar/wind/geothermal/renewable power, IMHO, is that you wouldn't need a "larger, more expensive, grid". With sufficient distribution of solar panels, backup batteries, and (worst-case) backup generators, you wouldn't need a grid at all. Each neighborhood could be fairly self sufficient, houses with good solar siting would provide the panels, those without could provide backup batteries, or house generators for emergency power. With houses built for energy efficiency from the start, you'd need a lot less power (find the exact statistics yourself) to get through your day. All of which would mean less mass power generation, which means fewer fossil and nuclear plants, which means greater energy independence, all of which is good for the future.
I feel Python was designed for the person who is actually doing the programming, to maximize their productivity. And that just makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over. I feel nobody is going to be telling me, "Oh yeah, you have to jump through all these hoops for one reason or another." When you have the experience of really being able to be as productive as possible, then you start to get pissed off at other languages. You think, "Gee, I've been wasting my time with these other languages."
After I started getting used to python, that's about how I felt. A programming language that gets (almost) all the crap out of your way for you. My only marginal complaint is the requirement to specify "this." in front of member invocations within a member function. In practice, though, it's nice to have the visual reinforcement that this is truly a member function, and not a global scope function.
This one is about as expensive as most battery chargers that plug into your wall:
Super Solar Charger
I use this one to recharge the batteries for my MP3/CD player in the car. They make a bigger one that will recharge 8 D cells in a day (depending on ambient sunlight, of course.)
Any real linker will allow you to specify which symbols you want to export from a dynamic library. You can choose to export all of them if you wish, but you don't *have* to. If you feel the need to hide implementation details from the users, you can even drop undesired interface details from the headers used to access the library, or create a tie-style class (for c++) that only exposes the public interface for a class.
Any programmer that uses, or even worse, relies on non-published interfaces deserves to maintain their code through several releases of supporting libraries. Then, maybe they'll learn the error of their ways...
No unix compiler I've ever used (Sun, HP, IRIX, Linux, DEC) ever required a dllexport/dllimport declaration. Windows used a unique dynamic linking mechanism that requires the programmer to tell the compiler what will be imported from a dynamic library, and what will be exported from the library currently being compiled. There's no reason, in today's enlightened day and age, that the compiler cannot figure this information our for itself during compilation and linking. Just one more case of Windows pushing more work onto its application programmers, instead of doing a little more work up front and making everyone's lives easier.
Sometimes, small bits of information are not considered classified, when taken by themselves. However, when certain critical unclassified pieces are aggregated, the collection of information *is* considered classified. I believe this individual's work may qualify as classified information as just such an aggregate.
Yes, anyone with the time and resources can duplicate the effort, but they'd have to duplicate the effort, and expend the resources. And that's the point. It's not a guarantee that the information will not be collected by adversaries, but there's no point in making it any easier to hand it over to them either.
Slashdot Mirror
Green? Libertarian? Reform? Independent?
Power corrupts.
I remember typewriters (yes, typewriters, not word processors) before they had keys for the numbers "1" and "0". You'd use a lower case L for the 1 and an capital o for the zero, and if you messed it up, you had a bottle of white goo to dab on the mistake, before backspacing and retyping...
Those were the days...
and that's all.
Our alleged president is accurately described by option A. It's the unknown person (or persons) who fits option B that concerns me...
A tanker carrying biodiesel was involved in a car crash, and spilled fuel all over the side of the road. The fire department responded immediatly, as soon as they heard a tanker truck was involved. They got to the accident site, found out it was carrying biodiesel, and went back to the station. Within a week, the bulk of it biodegraded, harmlessly.
How do you think a tanker full of hydrogen would respond in the same accident?
The interesting thing about solar powered electrolysis to create hydrogen for your fuel cells, is that it's an inherently inefficient process. You'd be better off from an enery efficiency standpoint to just use your solar panels to charge a battery powered car. You get a similar range (miles between "fillups") for the car, you don't have to store highly flammable hydrogen in your garage, and you don't waste your precious solar energy on the electrolysis process...
As far as switching hydrogen sources, you're looking at a fairly intensive infrastructure overhaul to supply hydrogen safely at the consumer level (as safely as a fuel pump, anyway). The infrastructure for, hybrids (or my favourite, biodiesel), already exists (tanks, tankers, pumps, etc.). The only thing that changes is where the tanker trucks drive to fill up.
But then again, I drive a biodiesel powered car... (BTW, I like the term "technology advance" applying to "VW diesels". The original diesel engine demo was over 100 years ago, and it ran on straight peanut oil!)
Actually, the energy balance of soy biodiesel is just over 3:1. That means for every unit of energy you put into fertilizers, tractors, pesticides, oil extraction, etc., you get over 3 times the available energy in the biodiesel produced. Other oils are even more efficient, but we have millions of gallons of excess soy oil in the US, so it's a nice way to put it to good use.
...and I only have to recharge the "battery" every 700 miles or so.
My propulsion system stores solar energy in the form of soybeans, from which oil is extracted, and converted to biodiesel. I pump it into my car (thus recharging my "battery") and drive off. Ok, it's not strictly solar power, but it's a pretty efficient use of surplus soy oil, of which the US has a fair amount. And my car drives fine even with cloudy skies...
Three's Company? You do know the american show was based on the BBC Comedy "Man About The House?", don't you? =) A surprisingly large number of popular shows in the US are based on british TV shows...
Look at it this way: The soy plant takes CO2 from the air, and converts it into vegetation. I burn the processed plant, and it puts the CO2 back in the air. Net CO2 gain in the atmosphere over the complete cycle is near zero. Now, if I take petroleum from within the Earth's crust, and burn it, all the CO2 from that combustion is CO2 that is new to the atmosphere over the cycle of extraction and combustion. I am concerned about global warming, so I chose the option that would have a lesser impact on the net amount of CO2 added back to the atmosphere by my driving.
As far as PM goes, burning biodiesel results in fewer PM emmissions compared to regular diesel. Emissions treatment can also be employed to clean up the PM and NOx, but these systems won't be installed on vehicles for sale in the US until ULSD (ultra low sulfur diesel) is required by federal mandate in 2006. It's the poor quality of diesel fuel in the US that's keeping the vehicles from lowering their emissions. Diesel passenger vehicles are much more popular in Europe, and they have no problem keeping up with the more strict EU emissions requirements, because they're already on ULSD, and have been for years.
Diesels can and will be a lot cleaner once 2006 is upon us and ULSD, i.e. Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel is the national mandated standard at the pump. All the impressive catalytic converter/exhaust treatment processes that will take the bulk of the NOx, PM, etc. out of the diesel exhaust chain die a horrible flaming death if high-sulfer fuel is used. In Europe, diesels are meeting emissions standards far more stringent than the US will see for years. It just takes the right fuel...
The only statistic posted on the car in the dealer showroom that you can read from more than 6 inches away from the car is the fuel economy. The text size is even larger than the car's make and model, usually. It's not like some random part in the car was improperly designed, and causes problems down the road for a lot of drivers. It's the one thing you can be assured of knowing full well before you ever set foot in one.
And it's the number one complaint among new cars, period. Not just the top complaint about the H2...
I contemplated replacing my '92 Ford Bronco V8 (11 mpg) with a gas/electric hybrid starting about a year ago. My daily commute was a little longer than when I bought the car, and I wasn't doing as much hauling/camping either, so I figured I go for something a little more fuel-efficient for my commuting vehicle.
In March, I bought a 2003 Beetle with the TDI (diesel) engine. It gets about 45 mpg with 50/50 city/highway driving, and it's got great pickup. The engine only produces 90 hp, but it creates 155 ft-lb of torque. More importantly, the basic diesel engine design is over 100 years old, whereas the electric hybrids are very new developments, and would require mainentance to be performed by the dealer. I prefer to have the option of having my car serviced where I choose, so that factored into my choice.
In addition, about 2/3 of the fuel I put into my car is derived from virgin soy oil, aka: biodiesel. Fueling my car supports my local farmers, keeping my fuel dollars in my local economy instead of adding to the ~100 billion dollars of annual trade deficit just from petroleum imports. In addition, the carbon released into the atmosphere from "burning the bean" releases no new carbon into the air, as that carbon was used by the soy plant during its growth (i.e. biodiesel is "carbon-neutral"). Contrast to burning petroleum, which releases excess carbon from its storage deep inn the earth's crust into the air. In fact, the original demonstration of the diesel engine, ran on peanut oil. Rudolf Diesel's plan was that farmers could grow their own fuel for tractors powered by his engine.
Now, if a Beetle isn't exactly your thing, take a look at the Jetta or Golf with the TDI engines. Take one for a test drive, I dare you. Their fuel economy is just as good as the Beetle, and they have a little more room for hauling, or working under the hood. Now when Jeep releases the Liberty with the diesel engine in 2005, even my SUV can be environmentally conscious =).
In any case, I commend you for checking out more efficient and environmentally friendly options for your vehiclular needs. Good Luck with whatever car you get.
Personally, she strikes me as being much more than a geeky left-wing troll. She at least seems to be reasonably well informed on matters of relevance to her would-be constituents. Does she have a chance in hell? Well, nobody thought Jesse Ventura would be elected governor before the results started pouring in, either. With pathetically low voter turnout rates, it doesn't take a lot of people to significantly sway the results away from the polls.
You can still send your child to public school without being vaccinated. The exact mechanism differs from state to state. In my home state, you will be required to complete a waiver form of some sort proclaiming that you disagree with the concept of vaccines on a religious basis. Philosophical disagreements are not allowed, and oddly enough, some medical reasons are not sufficient. However, so long as it's a religious belief, freedom of religion trumps all, and your unvaccinated child can attend public school, day care, etc.
There are many valid reasons for not vaccinating a child. In my case, it was moderate lead levels in my daughter's blood. Low levels of lead in combination with low levels of mercury (present in most vaccines as a preservative) greatly increase the onset of developmental disorders. Call me crazy if you wish, but I'd rather have my daughter suffer with a bout of chickenpox than cause her to be mentally retarded for life. The state of California has also positively correlated the preservative in most vaccines (thimerisol) with greatly increased rates of autism among school children.
Is it worth the risk? Not for me. You may disagree. Variety is good, biodiversity is even better. Given different circumstances, I may have had my daughter vaccinated. Under the circumstances I was presented with, I did not.
Children today go though roughly 3-4 times the vaccinations that children of 30 years ago whet through. Most of these vaccinations start prior to 24 months, when their immune systems are still forming. Most of what we vaccinate children for are non-fatal diseases (Rotovirus? Chicken pox?). Even the diseases that may potentially be fatal (pertussis, measles, rubella) are generally fatal only if undiagnosed for a long period of time.
There are many factors that go into deciding whether or not you think any given individual child should be vaccinated. It isn't really a matter of vaccinate everyone and society is better off. For smallpox and polio? maybe. For chicken pox and measles? Probably not. Any decision can be second guessed if negative consequences follow, but we are left do the best we can with what knowledge we have available to us. Some decisions are easier than others...
How do I plan on getting solar power in the middle of the night? First, reduce your electricity needs after dark. 12 V DC lighting, avoid large appliance usage, surf the net on the laptop instead of the desktop, etc. Next, get a rack of these Solar Gel Batteries. Store excess energy during the day, burn it up at night. No problem.
Am I going to do this on my current house? No. It's far too energy-inefficient to even bother with. My next house? Might go with a solar intertie system. House after that? Grid-free living. Have a plan.
Solar and wind power less reliable than fossil and nuclear power? You must be kidding. If you're talking about the new solar energy power plants, well, they're just plain silly anyway. However:
Park a few solar panels on your rooftop, put a stack of deep-cycle batteries in a closet, and disconnect yourself from "the grid". Don't run major appliances after dark, and your batteries will last longer. Install 12V DC lighting around the house, use 12V appliances and accessories (e.g. designed for cars/boats/RVs) where possible, and run them straight off the batteries. Get large appliances (refridgerators, freezers, washing machines) that were designed to run efficiently, and use even less of it. A large part of the problem in converting an existing house to solar energy is is the task of replacing the house's infrastructure to one suitable for solar power.
Another part of the problem in converting the average modern house is that, although stick frame houses are cheap and inexpensive to construct, they cost a lot to keep cool in the summer, and heat in the winter. Think of them as one big heat sink. By orienting houses with large windows to the south, and roof overhangs designed to allow low winter sun in, and keep high summer sun out, (or with a few large deciduous trees to your south for the same effect), you save a big fat bundle of energy in climate control. Add a fair amount of thermal mass to your outside walls (cob, adobe, straw-bale, rammed earth, earthship), put some of your living space underground, and you might even survive year round with no climate control.
Don't want to go whole hog? Get a grid intertie system, park the solar panels on your roof, and connect them through the intertie straight to the local power grid. It won't power your house after dark, or through a local (or widespread) outage, but you'll be helping offset the electricity demand period during the day, when electricity usage is highest. Better yet, if you make more electricity than you use (and your state requires the participation of the electric company), you can get paid by the electric company for the surplus you generate. The power company pays me $15 a month for the ability to cycle my water heater and air conditioner off for up to 15 minutes an hour (25% load reduction) in the summer, I don't see why they don't offer me $30-$50 a month for the privilige of parking an extra 3-5kW power plant on my roof.
The whole point of solar/wind/geothermal/renewable power, IMHO, is that you wouldn't need a "larger, more expensive, grid". With sufficient distribution of solar panels, backup batteries, and (worst-case) backup generators, you wouldn't need a grid at all. Each neighborhood could be fairly self sufficient, houses with good solar siting would provide the panels, those without could provide backup batteries, or house generators for emergency power. With houses built for energy efficiency from the start, you'd need a lot less power (find the exact statistics yourself) to get through your day. All of which would mean less mass power generation, which means fewer fossil and nuclear plants, which means greater energy independence, all of which is good for the future.
I use this one to recharge the batteries for my MP3/CD player in the car. They make a bigger one that will recharge 8 D cells in a day (depending on ambient sunlight, of course.)
Any real linker will allow you to specify which symbols you want to export from a dynamic library. You can choose to export all of them if you wish, but you don't *have* to. If you feel the need to hide implementation details from the users, you can even drop undesired interface details from the headers used to access the library, or create a tie-style class (for c++) that only exposes the public interface for a class.
Any programmer that uses, or even worse, relies on non-published interfaces deserves to maintain their code through several releases of supporting libraries. Then, maybe they'll learn the error of their ways...
No unix compiler I've ever used (Sun, HP, IRIX, Linux, DEC) ever required a dllexport/dllimport declaration. Windows used a unique dynamic linking mechanism that requires the programmer to tell the compiler what will be imported from a dynamic library, and what will be exported from the library currently being compiled. There's no reason, in today's enlightened day and age, that the compiler cannot figure this information our for itself during compilation and linking. Just one more case of Windows pushing more work onto its application programmers, instead of doing a little more work up front and making everyone's lives easier.
I'm more impressed that supercalifragilisticexpialidocious was spelled correctly.
Sometimes, small bits of information are not considered classified, when taken by themselves. However, when certain critical unclassified pieces are aggregated, the collection of information *is* considered classified. I believe this individual's work may qualify as classified information as just such an aggregate.
Yes, anyone with the time and resources can duplicate the effort, but they'd have to duplicate the effort, and expend the resources. And that's the point. It's not a guarantee that the information will not be collected by adversaries, but there's no point in making it any easier to hand it over to them either.