Well, yeah, but not by regulating. Rather, by letting industry re-write regulations to their own advantage. Contrary to what you might assume, energy demand in California never approached its generating capacity, and no proposed new power plants were denied due to environmental regulations.
Rather, an enormous number of generating plants were pulled off-grid at roughly the same time by energy producers for "maintenance". Maybe they really did need maintenance, though many find the numbers unbelievable, especially considering the economics of the situation (as supply got tight, profits went up). In any case, a plan which allows generators to shut down like this doesn't work, since the power grid doesn't fail gracefully -- when demand exceeds supply everything goes to shit. It's not like other markets, where prices go smoothly up, and the number of customers in the market goes smoothly down. The grid just abruptly fails, which allows producers to charge basically anything they want.
An economist at Caltech did some interesting math on this recently, introducing the notion of a "nework market", or something like that. He basically concluded that the scheme put forward by Pete Wilson and industry experts failed because it tried to achieve mutually conflicting goals.
>I have worked for a few firms in my life and I can say without hesitation that every single one of them was as poorly managed and bureaucratic as any government agency. They only difference was that I didn't get to vote for my boss.
This couldn't be more true. Especially in big business, the bureaucracy is overwhelming. An incompetant goof in government is a "damn bureaucrat", while the same person in a business setting is a "successful business man".
> I haven't had Western Digital, Quantum, Seagate, or IBM fail like that on me.
I have: WD and Seagate. Three WD's inside two months. The Seagates weren't quite so predictable. They would run fantastically hot (you could practically fry an egg on them), and develop really loud whines within a few months. Then they'd start getting flakey. The WD's would just up and die all of a sudden. Never had any problems with IBM or Maxtor drives. Reading all these comments it's clear there's no rule of thumb. Seems to be particular models, not particular brands that are bad.
Airbags are dangerous when you're *not* wearing a seat belt, since they hit you when they deploy, if you're plastered all over the dash board. They are designed to, and do, save lives when you *are* wearing a seat belt.
You're dead wrong on all counts.
xvoice.sourceforge.net
on
GNOME 2.0 Beta
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It doesn't use the new gnome hooks, but it's usable today.
These changes are really pretty minor, especially considering what a great service it is. They have the hardest maintenance problem of any open source project: users. Imagine what it's like providing service and support to a bunch of egotistical nerds, for free, and doing a great job of it.
Free software developers have a much easier time. They mostly live in their code, and interact with whiny users only occasionally. I've never bought a free software cd, and have made only small monetary contributions to free software organizations, but I'd gladly pay sourceforge for the service they're providing.
I think this is it exactly. There's no substitute for parenting. Seems that many parents, and especially fathers, don't realize how important this is -- in spite of years of research showing very high correlation between involved parents and well-performing children.
When mechanical pens were invented there was a big fuss about how this was the death of education -- children would never be literate because they couldn't make their own quill pens. Now we hear the same nonsense about computers. It's just a tool, like a pen. It's not going to raise your kids.
The only real problem with computers in schools is our teachers get zero professional development. None of them know how to use a computer the way they would use a pen. So computers do end up being mis-applied.
A few years ago Mead (of Foveon) was doing work at Caltech with subthreshold analog sensors that had logarithmic properties. I don't know if any of that research is still active. Search for "silicon retina" and "Mead" for info.
I don't "think" it works. It does work. Your point seems to be that a car isn't a Saturn V. So what? That doesn't mean the car doesn't "work", it just means it won't take you to the moon.
As easy as windows? Does that mean it's going to ask to be rebooted three times, crap out because it can't find the files it needs on the install disk, then (after I manually find the files) install the same printer device twice, in such a way that neither of them works? Uninstall, reboot, reinstall, reboot, repeat until device works.
I'm sure there's an o/s easier to configure than linux, but, good lord, it isn't Windows.
IT jobs largely suck, as far as the technology goes. You're lucky to be fixing your own off-by-one bugs. Get a job and you'll be fixing the botched linked list implementation your brain-dead coworkers wrote when they overlooked the fact that the platform provides one for you. You'll be sifting through miles of horrible code that no one really understands, since every development effort is only concerned with the shortest path between The Code That Exists and The Shipping Product.
Really. All the interesting tech happens in universities or research labs. Sitting in front of a monitor all day gets to be a drag even then.
It's fairly amazing we can have this conversation about people protesting globalization, and no one has even bothered to look at what the protesters have to say. The pro-globalization propaganda machine has managed to re-define what the protest is about.
One of the primary reasons for protest is that the deals that are being made destroy the sovereignty of the people. These deals supercede your rights to self government, and put control of the laws in your community in the hands of foreign businessmen. Disputes are resolved in foreign courts where you have NO standing. US laws are now being challenged in courts where you are not represented.
This is a force for democracy? Give me a break. Katz seems to be talking about some theoretical Ayn Randian free market that simply doesn't exist in the real world.
1G ram is under $100. I just turned the VM off. Some folk I know that do large clustering solutions are doing the same thing. Who is using VM these days? And is it really worth the headache, rather than spending a few dollars?
Re:Contrast: The Economist
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
>The Economist certainly has a pro-business slant, but this is based upon a firm grasp of the subject matter.
... which they are entirely willing to lie about when it suits their purposes. I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff in The Economist. An article about California's energy crisis offered a explaination that left out about half the story, and "data" that had been plotted in a way that prevented one from seeing that their position was baseless (by using different units in two graphs it prevented one from immediately seeing the holes in their story).
I used to think The Economist was fairly reputable. But there's really no publication you can read at face value. You have to research things yourself if you really want the story.
Old Atlas sites are all over that area, and are privately owned. I grew up near one farther south. No one lived in it, and the owner wasn't very attentive, so kids (*cough*) would sneak in to check it out. Mostly they're just big holes in the ground with lots of rusting industrial crap bolted to the walls. The lower levels are usually flooded.
That probably wasn't the case with the altas system. They used a liquid propellant. The missile was stored horizontally, and was too weak to be lifted while full. So launching involved setting it upright, and filling it with fuel. Not too speedy. Some folk who worked on them said they'd never get off the ground.
Of course these sites are ancient. No one is targeting them now.
I'm seeing all these "official" speakers talking about how this must have involved an organization of at least 30-40 people, that it took months or years to plan, lots of training... one "security expert" claiming they had to have at least four people on the "inside" -- working for the airlines.
I find this all rather hard to believe. Airport security has always looked like a joke to me -- more hand waving to reassure the public than really effective measures.
Why would it take months to book a few flights, get a few phony ID's, and smuggle a few crude weapons on board? Probably the flight crews would give up very quickly, not expecting that the plane was going to be purposely destroyed.
The biggest surprise is that this hasn't happened many times before.
If (a very big "if") it was carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, then religion IS one of the causes. Fairy tales about an "afterlife" do motivate people to commit horrible crimes that they otherwise wouldn't consider.
Of course, there are crimes that might be committed by an atheist that someone with religion wouldn't consider. But my point is belief systems do affect actions, and in this case it may be that religion was a cause.
> they've been in the back pockets of big media for years
I'm not even sure what this means. I've heard many claims of "big media is in the back pocket of X". But how do you get in the back pocket of big media? Buy their newspaper?
Corporate media has hardly been complimentary to the ACLU, so I'm really baffled. What exactly do you mean?
I'm amazed at all the posts moderated up that say "No, it's nonsense".
Well, that's not quite right. It's true there's no black and white evidence that human activity is raising global temperatures. But there are a few things we do know, that are not contested even by the most conservative scientists.
First, we are making enormous changes to the atmosphere. Human activity has raised CO2 levels by something like 30%. We've never done anything like this before, and we have very little idea how it's going to change climate. But it would be remarkable if it didn't do something.
Second, putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will heat up the earth. We don't know how *fast* or how *much* -- it may heat up one degree, or eight degrees; it make take a decade, or a millenia. Everyone has their own model, and no one has claim to the correct one. But everyone agrees temperatures will go up, the same as putting a lid over a pan, or plugging the holes in your computer case.
Third, the temperature of the atmosphere is increasing at a rate beyond anything we've ever measured, and beyond anything that's happened for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. The important thing here is rate. The absolute temperature change at this point is quite small, and entirely within the range of "normal" temperature fluctuations -- i.e. temperature changes that aren't caused by large driving forces. But the rate of increase *is* beyond what we've observed of "normal" fluctuations. It's quite likely that there's some large driving force for this change.
So... given these, there are basically two issues. First, is CO2 (or other gases) causing the temperature increase? Well, it wouldn't be surprising. But it's very difficult to get definitive proof. People who insist on absolute proof are largely just confusing the issue, because such proof is never possible in the real world. We have to make educated guesses based on the limited information we have.
Second, given that we are making huge changes to the atmosphere -- unilaterally performing grand experiments with life on earth, of which we have very, very little understanding of the possible outcomes -- do we think this is proper or ethical?
Oh, one other thing we know for sure -- pretty much all scientists agree that Kyoto would have little, if any, affect on warming, if warming is in fact caused by CO2. The scientists who support it are doing so because they believe it will create economic and social incentives for larger changes which would have an impact. I.e. if it drives development of alternatives to fossil fuel, then it's much easier to (at a later time) dramatically cut our fossil fuel dependence.
Slashdot Mirror
> Yeah, CA screwed up on electricity,
Well, yeah, but not by regulating. Rather, by letting industry re-write regulations to their own advantage. Contrary to what you might assume, energy demand in California never approached its generating capacity, and no proposed new power plants were denied due to environmental regulations.
Rather, an enormous number of generating plants were pulled off-grid at roughly the same time by energy producers for "maintenance". Maybe they really did need maintenance, though many find the numbers unbelievable, especially considering the economics of the situation (as supply got tight, profits went up). In any case, a plan which allows generators to shut down like this doesn't work, since the power grid doesn't fail gracefully -- when demand exceeds supply everything goes to shit. It's not like other markets, where prices go smoothly up, and the number of customers in the market goes smoothly down. The grid just abruptly fails, which allows producers to charge basically anything they want.
An economist at Caltech did some interesting math on this recently, introducing the notion of a "nework market", or something like that. He basically concluded that the scheme put forward by Pete Wilson and industry experts failed because it tried to achieve mutually conflicting goals.
>I have worked for a few firms in my life and I can say without hesitation that every single one of them was as poorly managed and bureaucratic as any government agency. They only difference was that I didn't get to vote for my boss.
This couldn't be more true. Especially in big business, the bureaucracy is overwhelming. An incompetant goof in government is a "damn bureaucrat", while the same person in a business setting is a "successful business man".
> I haven't had Western Digital, Quantum, Seagate, or IBM fail like that on me.
I have: WD and Seagate. Three WD's inside two months. The Seagates weren't quite so predictable. They would
run fantastically hot (you could practically fry an egg on them), and develop really loud whines within a few months. Then they'd start getting flakey. The WD's would just up and die all of a sudden. Never had any problems with IBM or Maxtor drives. Reading all these comments it's clear there's no rule of thumb. Seems to be particular models, not particular brands that are bad.
Airbags are dangerous when you're *not* wearing a seat belt, since they hit you when they deploy, if you're plastered all over the dash board. They are designed to, and do, save lives when you *are* wearing a seat belt.
You're dead wrong on all counts.
It doesn't use the new gnome hooks, but it's usable today.
These changes are really pretty minor, especially considering what a great service it is. They have the hardest maintenance problem of any open source project: users. Imagine what it's like providing service and support to a bunch of egotistical nerds, for free, and doing a great job of it.
Free software developers have a much easier time. They mostly live in their code, and interact with whiny users only occasionally. I've never bought a free software cd, and have made only small monetary contributions to free software organizations, but I'd gladly pay sourceforge for the service they're providing.
I think this is it exactly. There's no substitute for parenting. Seems that many parents, and especially fathers, don't realize how important this is -- in spite of years of research showing very high correlation between involved parents and well-performing children.
When mechanical pens were invented there was a big fuss about how this was the death of education -- children would never be literate because they couldn't make their own quill pens. Now we hear the same nonsense about computers. It's just a tool, like a pen. It's not going to raise your kids.
The only real problem with computers in schools is our teachers get zero professional development. None of them know how to use a computer the way they would use a pen. So computers do end up being mis-applied.
A few years ago Mead (of Foveon) was doing work at Caltech with subthreshold analog sensors that had logarithmic properties. I don't know if any of that research is still active. Search for "silicon retina" and "Mead" for info.
I don't "think" it works. It does work. Your point seems to be that a car isn't a Saturn V. So what? That doesn't mean the car doesn't "work", it just means it won't take you to the moon.
> USB for audio is a bunch of crap.
What are you talking about?
I use USB audio. It sounds better, it requires zero configuration, and it works great. What's the problem?
errr.... "in the home"? Who cares what's in the home? The issue is the wires going to the home.
As easy as windows? Does that mean it's going to ask to be rebooted three times, crap out because it can't find the files it needs on the install disk, then (after I manually find the files) install the same printer device twice, in such a way that neither of them works? Uninstall, reboot, reinstall, reboot, repeat until device works.
I'm sure there's an o/s easier to configure than linux, but, good lord, it isn't Windows.
IT jobs largely suck, as far as the technology goes. You're lucky to be fixing your own off-by-one bugs. Get a job and you'll be fixing the botched linked list implementation your brain-dead coworkers wrote when they overlooked the fact that the platform provides one for you. You'll be sifting through miles of horrible code that no one really understands, since every development effort is only concerned with the shortest path between The Code That Exists and The Shipping Product.
Really. All the interesting tech happens in universities or research labs. Sitting in front of a monitor all day gets to be a drag even then.
Those who oppose government oppose democracy. Without government we simply allow the rich to rule the poor.
Milton Freidman, the wildly popular conservative economist puts it fairly bluntly: "We're all Keyesian now".
... at least the way its being implemented.
It's fairly amazing we can have this conversation about people protesting globalization, and no one has even bothered to look at what the protesters have to say. The pro-globalization propaganda machine has managed to re-define what the protest is about.
One of the primary reasons for protest is that the deals that are being made destroy the sovereignty of the people. These deals supercede your rights to self government, and put control of the laws in your community in the hands of foreign businessmen. Disputes are resolved in foreign courts where you have NO standing. US laws are now being challenged in courts where you are not represented.
This is a force for democracy? Give me a break. Katz seems to be talking about some theoretical Ayn Randian free market that simply doesn't exist in the real world.
1G ram is under $100. I just turned the VM off. Some folk I know that do large clustering solutions are doing the same thing. Who is using VM these days? And is it really worth the headache, rather than spending a few dollars?
>The Economist certainly has a pro-business slant, but this is based upon a firm grasp of the subject matter.
... which they are entirely willing to lie about when it suits their purposes. I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff in The Economist. An article about California's energy crisis offered a explaination that left out about half the story, and "data" that had been plotted in a way that prevented one from seeing that their position was baseless (by using different units in two graphs it prevented one from immediately seeing the holes in their story).
I used to think The Economist was fairly reputable. But there's really no publication you can read at face value. You have to research things yourself if you really want the story.
Old Atlas sites are all over that area, and are privately owned. I grew up near one farther south. No one lived in it, and the owner wasn't very attentive, so kids (*cough*) would sneak in to check it out. Mostly they're just big holes in the ground with lots of rusting industrial crap bolted to the walls. The lower levels are usually flooded.
That probably wasn't the case with the altas system. They used a liquid propellant. The missile was stored horizontally, and was too weak to be lifted while full. So launching involved setting it upright, and filling it with fuel. Not too speedy. Some folk who worked on them said they'd never get off the ground.
Of course these sites are ancient. No one is targeting them now.
I have to agree. Lord, that place sucked.
I'm seeing all these "official" speakers talking about how this must have involved an organization of at least 30-40 people, that it took months or years to plan, lots of training... one "security expert" claiming they had to have at least four people on the "inside" -- working for the airlines.
I find this all rather hard to believe. Airport security has always looked like a joke to me -- more hand waving to reassure the public than really effective measures.
Why would it take months to book a few flights, get a few phony ID's, and smuggle a few crude weapons on board? Probably the flight crews would give up very quickly, not expecting that the plane was going to be purposely destroyed.
The biggest surprise is that this hasn't happened many times before.
> Religion is NOT the cause of this crime.
If (a very big "if") it was carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, then religion IS one of the causes. Fairy tales about an "afterlife" do motivate people to commit horrible crimes that they otherwise wouldn't consider.
Of course, there are crimes that might be committed by an atheist that someone with religion wouldn't consider. But my point is belief systems do affect actions, and in this case it may be that religion was a cause.
> they've been in the back pockets of big media for years
I'm not even sure what this means. I've heard many claims of "big media is in the back pocket of X". But how do you get in the back pocket of big media? Buy their newspaper?
Corporate media has hardly been complimentary to the ACLU, so I'm really baffled. What exactly do you mean?
I'm amazed at all the posts moderated up that say "No, it's nonsense".
Well, that's not quite right. It's true there's no black and white evidence that human activity is raising global temperatures. But there are a few things we do know, that are not contested even by the most conservative scientists.
First, we are making enormous changes to the atmosphere. Human activity has raised CO2 levels by something like 30%. We've never done anything like this before, and we have very little idea how it's going to change climate. But it would be remarkable if it didn't do something.
Second, putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will heat up the earth. We don't know how *fast* or how *much* -- it may heat up one degree, or eight degrees; it make take a decade, or a millenia. Everyone has their own model, and no one has claim to the correct one. But everyone agrees temperatures will go up, the same as putting a lid over a pan, or plugging the holes in your computer case.
Third, the temperature of the atmosphere is increasing at a rate beyond anything we've ever measured, and beyond anything that's happened for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. The important thing here is rate. The absolute temperature change at this point is quite small, and entirely within the range of "normal" temperature fluctuations -- i.e. temperature changes that aren't caused by large driving forces. But the rate of increase *is* beyond what we've observed of "normal" fluctuations. It's quite likely that there's some large driving force for this change.
So... given these, there are basically two issues. First, is CO2 (or other gases) causing the temperature increase? Well, it wouldn't be surprising. But it's very difficult to get definitive proof. People who insist on absolute proof are largely just confusing the issue, because such proof is never possible in the real world. We have to make educated guesses based on the limited information we have.
Second, given that we are making huge changes to the atmosphere -- unilaterally performing grand experiments with life on earth, of which we have very, very little understanding of the possible outcomes -- do we think this is proper or ethical?
Oh, one other thing we know for sure -- pretty much all scientists agree that Kyoto would have little, if any, affect on warming, if warming is in fact caused by CO2. The scientists who support it are doing so because they believe it will create economic and social incentives for larger changes which would have an impact. I.e. if it drives development of alternatives to fossil fuel, then it's much easier to (at a later time) dramatically cut our fossil fuel dependence.