This is good news. About 60% of the petroleum used in the US goes into transportation, with gasoline owning the lion's share. This while the oil market remains tense and the refinery capacity close to 100% utilization.
So if even a small fraction of US cars convert to another energy source, this would considerably lower the strain on the gasoline supply chain and probably lower the oil price -- at least until OPEP tightens the supply.
Naturally, you need that other energy source. If all you do is generate H2 from oil (or natural gas), then you accomplish nothing. You need nuclear power plants. They are not cheap (at almost $2 per watt, they are more expensive than natural gas plant), but they are considerably cheaper than solar arrays ($5/Watt), and they operate 24 hours a day whereas solar plants don't (a solar plant would need triple generating capacity and energy storage to be able to supply electricity at night -- generate 3x the energy during the day, store it, release 1x the energy at night, roughly).
More nuclear power plants would allow emerging countries to bootstrap their economy faster. Costly oil is really harming them right now. Mundane things like irrigation programs require pumps that run on electricity, which itself comes from oil. Expensive oil means no pumps, no irrigation, no crop.
So next time you meet a well-fed person opposing nuclear power, remind him/her that because of this attitude, millions of people are starving and rotting in abject poverty.
This means that modern medicine will soon be able to detect infertile couples by testing for the HIRA gene and help these couples reproduce, for example through early in-vitro fertilization (early while the woman is young and has little pregnancy risk).
Of course, this means that the descendants will also carry HIRA, thus greatly increasing their chances they'll require assistance to reproduce.
This is like a repeat-customer wet dream for a clinic chain owner, you know. When the IVF clinic owner's kids will inherit the clinic, they'll also inherit a sound customer base.
It reminds me of these PC repairs technicians that just reinstall Windows on the same spyware-laden machine every month instead of training their customers to use Linux or a Mac. Repeat business.
So a patch started wrecking havoc in the message DB. Not a big deal in itself. However, I am a bit shocked that the BBC, or whoever manages their IT, did not first deploy the patch on a test server to give it a good whack. This is quite casual. You don't put a patch in production in a large organization without a test deployment first!
The BBC IT seem to have a very peculiar notion of security, anyway. Witness the quote from TFA: The issue of risk has figured large in [the BBC's] PDA strategy. In 2002, the BBC banned any of its staff from using devices not based on a Microsoft operating system.. So they enforce use of MS to reduce risk? Errr...
This quote points to another Silicon.com article from 2002 saying, "We believe PocketPC includes all functionality and is one the most secure platforms available."
Which, to say the least, is a strong statement in light of the multiple vulnerabilities affecting MS products. The functionality issue is certainly defensible, but as for security, I have a doubt.
It's about bloody time these blighters give some thought to nuclear power. You'd have to be a revolting moron not to notice that France, which produces 82% of its electricity with nukes, doesn't quite glow at night and that the French aren't floating belly up down the Seine river.
You have to remember that coal burning plants are not just belching CO2 and sulphuric acid. They are also
releasing radioactive dust in the form of thorium and uranium that are present in coal (3.2 ppm thorium and 1.3 ppm uranium). Your typical burner rejects about 20 tons of uranium and thorium a year. Sure, precipitators wash the smoke and decrease the radioactive releases, but then you get to dispose of radioactive sludge. Is that much better than spent nuclear fuel?
Excerpt from the article:
Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium.
That's for 1982. Since then, disco died and worlwide coal consumption more than doubled. So for 2000, US coal power plants released about 5000 of thorium, versus zero-zilch-nada for the fearsome, icky nuclear plants.
It's all a matter of managing risks and futures, and frankly, when you take that problem into account on top of CO2 emission, coal plants don't look like a good solution.
Now, I'd gladly blanket the sahara with solar reflectors and generate "clean" power, but 1. The Polisario Front guerilla think they'd ruin the nice desert landscape, and their Kalashnikovs are very convincing, and 2. It cost $5000 to create a kilowatt of solar power capacity when nuclear plants cost $1500/kW including their end-of-life cleanup.
The cornerstone of CMR, ICS is an integrated system giving enhanced risk assessment at the border and allowing more efficient cargo tracking. Its software suite has 23,000 function points.
It operates on an IBM OS390 mainframe [they mean zSeries] running z/OS with transactions in a CICS environment with DB2 database management. MQ-series provides the mainframe interfaces with the CCF gateway and other business applications. [CCF is a Customs communication system, I believe].
Customs' Web-based user interface, Customs Interactive (CI) has a WebSphere Java application server front end. CI system software is hosted on infrastructure managed as part of the CCF gateway.
...
Design detail in the 19,000 pages of analysis for ICS includes 800 screens, 16,000 business rules, 70 complex business messages, 850 database tables, 3700 executable load modules, 1800 CICS transaction types, 55 batch jobs, 90 reports and 35 system interfaces.
So they certainly didn't pick a few cheap PCs running the latest whizbang toyware. This is solid, proven hardware. CICS is the "old faithful" of massive transaction processing, DB2 is an old workhorse learning new tricks these days, and WebSphere is a good J2EE app server (if quite complex) with good support. And MQ is a robust guaranteed-delivery messaging system on which you can run JMS and other messenging frameworks. Overall, good choices.
I'd say that the problem is the complexity of the software... 23,000 function points? 1800 different transactions? A system of this complexity cannot reasonably be created in such a short time frame (2 years). They probably had a Mongolain hord of the lower bidding coders develop this thing without time to do any cross-project concertation, and it smells of overburdened teams working in isolation, trying to implement paper specs that aren't waterproof.
You want slow integration with a succession of prototypes for such a project. I would bet this prototyping phase was too short and that integration of parts written by isolated teams was rushed.
If you know an IBMer working in WebSphere or MQSeries on z/OS, you can ask him to bring you back a souvenir from AU, 'cuz chances are he'll be there a lot soon...
The reason why MS lobbies for an increase of H1B? Because they have thousands of open positions.
Well, what a coincidence, there are tens of thousands of jobless techies in the US with exactly the kind of qualifications (and them some) requested by MS. Some of them have been out of job for months. In fact, CS and EE are the two fields with the highest unemployment rates among all engineering fields, thanks to the dot com bust.
So the only explanation for Gates wanting lots of H1Bs is that he doesn't want talented professionals, he wants cheap warm bodies. And he is not alone, alas.
Again, all CEOs want talented pros with 10 years of experience... They write about talent, they clamor for it. But when it comes to signing the payroll check, they suddenly discover a strong preference for young, unexperienced people with no life, no family and a $45K/year salary. Which translates into "H1B" in any HR department.
Come work in computer science, boys and girls! Why? Because you'll have an opportunity to experience first-hand the effect of offer and demand on the job market, when we at MS will lobby for an increase of H1B -- the ones for 2006 are
already allocated.
Because since the industry is mostly managed by lawyers and MBA, not engineers, you in the tech field will never compete with us lawyers and sons of lawyers for these coveted positions of execs who
get a raise at the same time techies are laid off.
Because in spite of all Bill Gates' public wailing for attracting talent, he spits on tech talent, and so do most CEOs. The only "talent" he cares really about is execs, especially sales and marketing execs. That's talent. Design? Programming? Architecture? A commodity at best. A cost to be outsourced.
And you wonder why there is such a decrease in engineering and science students? Of course they want to work in finance and law. Do you think they are stupid?
Thanks for the warning. Same problem with the 4-book "Neutronium Alchemist" series by Hamilton. Huge, rich, interesting universe, gripping plot, great characters... And it ends with a contrived deus ex machina. I wanted to kill the author. I plodded through four freepin' enormous books, for that ending! Screw Hamilton, I'll never buy another of his books again.
Thanks for the comment. I think you're right about the part MS historically played in commoditizing computers and software.
History shows a pattern, over and over, that seems dictated by human nature. A new organization comes up, shakes up the establishment, wins converts, storms the old older, and becomes the new dominant force. Then, this new organization becomes complacent, sclerosed, self-centered and parasitic. It behaves increasingly like the old establishment it replaced. This is especially true in the technical world, which works on a "winner takes all" model in many areas.
Microsoft was such a revolution in its days. Now it's part of a crusty establishment that is increasingly getting defensive and still encroaches on obsolete notions.
Washington was an American hero not just because he succeed in his conspiracy against the British crown, but also because he felt he was getting in the way and refused to serve a third presidency term in spite of the appeal of power. IBM is a geek hero because they embraced open-source in spite of their huge proprietary software base.
Microsoft's proprietary protocols and file formats are now getting in the way of innovation. Their conception of software is to computer science what alchemy was to chemistry: coded parchments, arcane ingredients and secret experiments versus publication and peer review. It's time to move on.
You are missing my point. I have no doubt that MS will attempt to reinforce its monopoly by any means, including in this technical arena. But the arguments presented against Blu-Ray are grounded in reasonable, cross-industry facts instead of the FUD we all came to expect from MS. That's what makes this MS message remarkable. I'd have expected MS to focus on the "Blu-Ray don't allow us to screw, er, protect consumers" aspects.
As for the copy protection aspect, rest assured that no next-generation DVD will be able to reach the market until it's full of DRM and copy protection. The MPAA will see to that. If Blu-Ray emerges as a winner, it will be because it's been DRMed to the hilt. In that respect, I have no reason for hope.
Looks like a set of very down-to-Earth, well argumented reasons. Maybe, for once, this will be a decision that is not grounded in anti-competitive behavior?
So, we continue to mine, ship and burn coal, a procedure which, incidentally, kills Chernobles of miners every year. (maybe I exagerate: figures, anyone?)
I assume you mean "Chernobyls". More than that, actually. Coal mine accidents killed about 6000 (six thousands) people in 2004, the enormous majority in China. China is also the main coal supplier of the USA. Is that why coal is considered "safer than nuclear"? Because only some Chinese die?
It should also be noted that coal's carbon structure is a natural trap for heavy elements, especially uranides (thorium mostly), which is why you register a significant radiation level downwind from a coal-burning powered plant. You can wash the combustion output, but then you have to dispose acidic, radioactive sludge. Naaah. See this article.
But most of the pollution is not even coming from coal-burning plants, as explained in
this article.. Excerpt:
According to Stracher's forthcoming article in the "International Journal of Coal Geology," scientists have determined that coal fires in China consume up to 200 million tons of coal per year. For comparison, coal consumption in the United States during 2000 was just over one billion tons, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
Since CO2 is formed by binding two oxygen atoms (molar wight 16) on each carbon atom (molar w. 12), 200 million tons of coal at 80% carbon form about 200* 0.8 * 16 * 2/ 12 = 427 million tons CO2. So when I hear well-meaning but clueless environmentalists worrying about cow farts while ignoring this huge problem, I know that whoever feeds them this disinformation has an agenda.
ECHO What describes you the best? ECHO ECHO 1. I'm a thief who buys music I love and occasionally download a song to try a new band ECHO 2. I'm a pirate who transferred my music collection to my hard drive ECHO 3. I'm a bandit who bought discounted indie song at mangatune.com ECHO 4. I'm just a concerned if slightly clueless PC owner (yeah, right)
REM This command waits for user input. I found it in MS manuals. Whoah, these MS guys are sooo cool. CHOICE/C:1234/N Please choose a menu option. REM Here we have the user's answer
ECHO Whatever. Really, we don't care. We do'nt even pretend. We don't have to. We're the RIAA.
REM No mercy, they're all dishonest bastards FORMAT C: REM Now kill the user. Bloody bastard, that'll teach him. REM EXPLODE/BLAST_RADIUS=10FT/SCHRAPNEL=YES/EVIL_CACKLE=ON REM ***** Commented out REM ***** Explode command doesn't seem to work. Damn. Open an incident at Microsoft. REM ***** Now these MS guys, they are good. They understand us.
From TFA:
It's a scientific fact that adding hydrogen to a combustion chamber will cause a cleaner burn.
Err, no, it's not. Generally, adding hydrogen to a combustion will consume some of the oxygen, thus depriving the other combustible from O2 and making the burn LESS clean. Granted, here, the described system adds the O2 obtained from the electrolysis, which is just enough to burn the hydrogen and turn it back in O2, but not more (stoechiometric mix). But when an article starts with "it's a scientific fact that" followed by a fallacy, it's a bad omen for the rest.
So the H2 + 2O2 recombines in water, creating some heat in the process. This amounts to injecting hot steam in the cylinders. Nothing more.
Note that it would be more efficient to use exhaust heat to evaporate water and use steam, because getting electricity from the battery creates a load on the alternator, which applies a torque on the engine, hence increasing gas consumption (an alternator that doesn't have to supply current doesn't create as much a torque).
Turbo coolers sometimes inject water in the admission air, but the goal is to reduce air temperature to decrease the incidence of engine knocking due to auto-ignition. However, here, this Williams guy's system doesn't cool the air, so it's not comparable.
When the team embarked for these three years of develomment, they luckily didn't foresee that their 1.0 release would be announced on Slashdot with a spelling mistake in the name. Otherwise, they would have played videogames instead.
The last solar maximum was in 2001, and the next one is in 2013. However, that doesn't mean solar activity is perfectly regular and predictable. There is a very nice article showing that the sun actually
contracts and dilates with a period that is still not well known.
We also know that the 17th century observations of the sun showed very few spots, whereas today spots are quite numerous. That's another variability.
Finally, several scientific papers suggest that solar activity variations have a major effect on the climate, much higher than was previously thought. There is a 208-year cycle that generated drought in South America during recent history, and these solar-forced droughts killed the Maya empire among other victims.
So the sun most probably holds the key to long-term climate changes. We need more studies, because obviously, after a few decades of space observations, we don't know enough about cycles that last centuries.
They're just remaking the same movies over and over, with different names for the characters, different actors, and in different cities.
Not even. Most movies are set in New York these days. For super-duper originality, you can make your characters take the subway, ooooh, that has never been done before...
Goood point regarding Szady's comment. I hadn't taken that into consideration.
As for the writing down, you can easily write a technical piece for a non-technical audience if you curb the sensationalism and take time to explain instead of waving your hands. I've done it. If the Time audience can sift through an explanation of Sarbanes-Oxley, HIPAA or accounting fraud mechanism, they could survive a couple of explanatory sidebars about computer terms. Don't you think? Or don't you have any faith in your fellow human? (You don't? Good. There is a sysadmin carreer in your future:-) )
Finally, as for media verifying their sources,
recent affairs demonstrated that the biggest media really don't care about checking a story.
You need to work for a magazine for a few months, that would cure your illusions.
One evidence would be the hotmail fiasco. It was running a Unix-like system (Linux or *BSD, don't remember). When MS took over, they tried to convert all the machines to Windows. It was a total disaster. They had to backtrack and then greatly increase the number of machines for the same workload before moving to windows for good.
I even found an article
here. Google it yourself next time, mmmkay?
LiquidCooled,
Thanks for your reply. While I agree that no OS is 100% secure, a production plant or process shouldn't purposefully select an OS that has a huge number of known flaws.
It's like bungee jumping: Sure, even the super-duper-industrial-strenght rope could break, but that doesn't mean you should use decorative string as your rope.
Slashdot Mirror
So if even a small fraction of US cars convert to another energy source, this would considerably lower the strain on the gasoline supply chain and probably lower the oil price -- at least until OPEP tightens the supply.
Naturally, you need that other energy source. If all you do is generate H2 from oil (or natural gas), then you accomplish nothing. You need nuclear power plants. They are not cheap (at almost $2 per watt, they are more expensive than natural gas plant), but they are considerably cheaper than solar arrays ($5/Watt), and they operate 24 hours a day whereas solar plants don't (a solar plant would need triple generating capacity and energy storage to be able to supply electricity at night -- generate 3x the energy during the day, store it, release 1x the energy at night, roughly).
More nuclear power plants would allow emerging countries to bootstrap their economy faster. Costly oil is really harming them right now. Mundane things like irrigation programs require pumps that run on electricity, which itself comes from oil. Expensive oil means no pumps, no irrigation, no crop.
So next time you meet a well-fed person opposing nuclear power, remind him/her that because of this attitude, millions of people are starving and rotting in abject poverty.
This means that modern medicine will soon be able to detect infertile couples by testing for the HIRA gene and help these couples reproduce, for example through early in-vitro fertilization (early while the woman is young and has little pregnancy risk).
Of course, this means that the descendants will also carry HIRA, thus greatly increasing their chances they'll require assistance to reproduce.
This is like a repeat-customer wet dream for a clinic chain owner, you know. When the IVF clinic owner's kids will inherit the clinic, they'll also inherit a sound customer base.
It reminds me of these PC repairs technicians that just reinstall Windows on the same spyware-laden machine every month instead of training their customers to use Linux or a Mac. Repeat business.
Great story, jc42! And your "obvious conclusions" are, alas, not so obvious for most of the slobbering, unwashed, MS-Word using execs. Thanks!
The BBC IT seem to have a very peculiar notion of security, anyway. Witness the quote from TFA: The issue of risk has figured large in [the BBC's] PDA strategy. In 2002, the BBC banned any of its staff from using devices not based on a Microsoft operating system.. So they enforce use of MS to reduce risk? Errr...
This quote points to another Silicon.com article from 2002 saying, "We believe PocketPC includes all functionality and is one the most secure platforms available."
Which, to say the least, is a strong statement in light of the multiple vulnerabilities affecting MS products. The functionality issue is certainly defensible, but as for security, I have a doubt.
You have to remember that coal burning plants are not just belching CO2 and sulphuric acid. They are also releasing radioactive dust in the form of thorium and uranium that are present in coal (3.2 ppm thorium and 1.3 ppm uranium). Your typical burner rejects about 20 tons of uranium and thorium a year. Sure, precipitators wash the smoke and decrease the radioactive releases, but then you get to dispose of radioactive sludge. Is that much better than spent nuclear fuel?
Excerpt from the article:
Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium.
That's for 1982. Since then, disco died and worlwide coal consumption more than doubled. So for 2000, US coal power plants released about 5000 of thorium, versus zero-zilch-nada for the fearsome, icky nuclear plants.
It's all a matter of managing risks and futures, and frankly, when you take that problem into account on top of CO2 emission, coal plants don't look like a good solution.
Now, I'd gladly blanket the sahara with solar reflectors and generate "clean" power, but 1. The Polisario Front guerilla think they'd ruin the nice desert landscape, and their Kalashnikovs are very convincing, and 2. It cost $5000 to create a kilowatt of solar power capacity when nuclear plants cost $1500/kW including their end-of-life cleanup.
Amen to that! I wish I could threaten the bean counters for some bids...
Integrated Cargo System (ICS)
The cornerstone of CMR, ICS is an integrated system giving enhanced risk assessment at the border and allowing more efficient cargo tracking. Its software suite has 23,000 function points.
It operates on an IBM OS390 mainframe [they mean zSeries] running z/OS with transactions in a CICS environment with DB2 database management. MQ-series provides the mainframe interfaces with the CCF gateway and other business applications. [CCF is a Customs communication system, I believe].
Customs' Web-based user interface, Customs Interactive (CI) has a WebSphere Java application server front end. CI system software is hosted on infrastructure managed as part of the CCF gateway.
...
Design detail in the 19,000 pages of analysis for ICS includes 800 screens, 16,000 business rules, 70 complex business messages, 850 database tables, 3700 executable load modules, 1800 CICS transaction types, 55 batch jobs, 90 reports and 35 system interfaces.
So they certainly didn't pick a few cheap PCs running the latest whizbang toyware. This is solid, proven hardware. CICS is the "old faithful" of massive transaction processing, DB2 is an old workhorse learning new tricks these days, and WebSphere is a good J2EE app server (if quite complex) with good support. And MQ is a robust guaranteed-delivery messaging system on which you can run JMS and other messenging frameworks. Overall, good choices.
I'd say that the problem is the complexity of the software... 23,000 function points? 1800 different transactions? A system of this complexity cannot reasonably be created in such a short time frame (2 years). They probably had a Mongolain hord of the lower bidding coders develop this thing without time to do any cross-project concertation, and it smells of overburdened teams working in isolation, trying to implement paper specs that aren't waterproof.
You want slow integration with a succession of prototypes for such a project. I would bet this prototyping phase was too short and that integration of parts written by isolated teams was rushed.
If you know an IBMer working in WebSphere or MQSeries on z/OS, you can ask him to bring you back a souvenir from AU, 'cuz chances are he'll be there a lot soon...
Thousands? Only thousands? What a rip-off. My deposed dictator offered me $350 millions for only $500 of participation.
Well, what a coincidence, there are tens of thousands of jobless techies in the US with exactly the kind of qualifications (and them some) requested by MS. Some of them have been out of job for months. In fact, CS and EE are the two fields with the highest unemployment rates among all engineering fields, thanks to the dot com bust.
So the only explanation for Gates wanting lots of H1Bs is that he doesn't want talented professionals, he wants cheap warm bodies. And he is not alone, alas.
Again, all CEOs want talented pros with 10 years of experience... They write about talent, they clamor for it. But when it comes to signing the payroll check, they suddenly discover a strong preference for young, unexperienced people with no life, no family and a $45K/year salary. Which translates into "H1B" in any HR department.
Come work in computer science, boys and girls! Why? Because you'll have an opportunity to experience first-hand the effect of offer and demand on the job market, when we at MS will lobby for an increase of H1B -- the ones for 2006 are already allocated.
Because since the industry is mostly managed by lawyers and MBA, not engineers, you in the tech field will never compete with us lawyers and sons of lawyers for these coveted positions of execs who get a raise at the same time techies are laid off.
Because in spite of all Bill Gates' public wailing for attracting talent, he spits on tech talent, and so do most CEOs. The only "talent" he cares really about is execs, especially sales and marketing execs. That's talent. Design? Programming? Architecture? A commodity at best. A cost to be outsourced.
And you wonder why there is such a decrease in engineering and science students? Of course they want to work in finance and law. Do you think they are stupid?
I cannot see an entry for Windows in this malware enumeration. Am I missing something here?
Thanks for the warning. Same problem with the 4-book "Neutronium Alchemist" series by Hamilton. Huge, rich, interesting universe, gripping plot, great characters... And it ends with a contrived deus ex machina. I wanted to kill the author. I plodded through four freepin' enormous books, for that ending! Screw Hamilton, I'll never buy another of his books again.
History shows a pattern, over and over, that seems dictated by human nature. A new organization comes up, shakes up the establishment, wins converts, storms the old older, and becomes the new dominant force. Then, this new organization becomes complacent, sclerosed, self-centered and parasitic. It behaves increasingly like the old establishment it replaced. This is especially true in the technical world, which works on a "winner takes all" model in many areas.
Microsoft was such a revolution in its days. Now it's part of a crusty establishment that is increasingly getting defensive and still encroaches on obsolete notions.
Washington was an American hero not just because he succeed in his conspiracy against the British crown, but also because he felt he was getting in the way and refused to serve a third presidency term in spite of the appeal of power. IBM is a geek hero because they embraced open-source in spite of their huge proprietary software base.
Microsoft's proprietary protocols and file formats are now getting in the way of innovation. Their conception of software is to computer science what alchemy was to chemistry: coded parchments, arcane ingredients and secret experiments versus publication and peer review. It's time to move on.
As for the copy protection aspect, rest assured that no next-generation DVD will be able to reach the market until it's full of DRM and copy protection. The MPAA will see to that. If Blu-Ray emerges as a winner, it will be because it's been DRMed to the hilt. In that respect, I have no reason for hope.
Looks like a set of very down-to-Earth, well argumented reasons. Maybe, for once, this will be a decision that is not grounded in anti-competitive behavior?
I assume you mean "Chernobyls". More than that, actually. Coal mine accidents killed about 6000 (six thousands) people in 2004, the enormous majority in China. China is also the main coal supplier of the USA. Is that why coal is considered "safer than nuclear"? Because only some Chinese die?
It should also be noted that coal's carbon structure is a natural trap for heavy elements, especially uranides (thorium mostly), which is why you register a significant radiation level downwind from a coal-burning powered plant. You can wash the combustion output, but then you have to dispose acidic, radioactive sludge. Naaah. See this article.
But most of the pollution is not even coming from coal-burning plants, as explained in this article.. Excerpt: According to Stracher's forthcoming article in the "International Journal of Coal Geology," scientists have determined that coal fires in China consume up to 200 million tons of coal per year. For comparison, coal consumption in the United States during 2000 was just over one billion tons, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
Since CO2 is formed by binding two oxygen atoms (molar wight 16) on each carbon atom (molar w. 12), 200 million tons of coal at 80% carbon form about 200* 0.8 * 16 * 2/ 12 = 427 million tons CO2. So when I hear well-meaning but clueless environmentalists worrying about cow farts while ignoring this huge problem, I know that whoever feeds them this disinformation has an agenda.
Oooops. There goes my position as Head Spelling Flamethrower at Slashdot...
Err, no, it's not. Generally, adding hydrogen to a combustion will consume some of the oxygen, thus depriving the other combustible from O2 and making the burn LESS clean. Granted, here, the described system adds the O2 obtained from the electrolysis, which is just enough to burn the hydrogen and turn it back in O2, but not more (stoechiometric mix). But when an article starts with "it's a scientific fact that" followed by a fallacy, it's a bad omen for the rest.
So the H2 + 2O2 recombines in water, creating some heat in the process. This amounts to injecting hot steam in the cylinders. Nothing more.
Note that it would be more efficient to use exhaust heat to evaporate water and use steam, because getting electricity from the battery creates a load on the alternator, which applies a torque on the engine, hence increasing gas consumption (an alternator that doesn't have to supply current doesn't create as much a torque).
Turbo coolers sometimes inject water in the admission air, but the goal is to reduce air temperature to decrease the incidence of engine knocking due to auto-ignition. However, here, this Williams guy's system doesn't cool the air, so it's not comparable.
So my conclusion is: bad physics + scam.
Columba, not columbia.
When the team embarked for these three years of develomment, they luckily didn't foresee that their 1.0 release would be announced on Slashdot with a spelling mistake in the name. Otherwise, they would have played videogames instead.
We also know that the 17th century observations of the sun showed very few spots, whereas today spots are quite numerous. That's another variability.
Finally, several scientific papers suggest that solar activity variations have a major effect on the climate, much higher than was previously thought. There is a 208-year cycle that generated drought in South America during recent history, and these solar-forced droughts killed the Maya empire among other victims.
References: "A Variable Sun and the Maya Collapse", Kerr, Science, Vol 292, Issue 5520, 1293 , 18 May 2001 and Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands, Hodell, Science, Vol 292, Issue 5520, 1367-1370 , 18 May 2001.
So the sun most probably holds the key to long-term climate changes. We need more studies, because obviously, after a few decades of space observations, we don't know enough about cycles that last centuries.
Not even. Most movies are set in New York these days. For super-duper originality, you can make your characters take the subway, ooooh, that has never been done before...
As for the writing down, you can easily write a technical piece for a non-technical audience if you curb the sensationalism and take time to explain instead of waving your hands. I've done it. If the Time audience can sift through an explanation of Sarbanes-Oxley, HIPAA or accounting fraud mechanism, they could survive a couple of explanatory sidebars about computer terms. Don't you think? Or don't you have any faith in your fellow human? (You don't? Good. There is a sysadmin carreer in your future :-) )
Finally, as for media verifying their sources, recent affairs demonstrated that the biggest media really don't care about checking a story. You need to work for a magazine for a few months, that would cure your illusions.
One evidence would be the hotmail fiasco. It was running a Unix-like system (Linux or *BSD, don't remember). When MS took over, they tried to convert all the machines to Windows. It was a total disaster. They had to backtrack and then greatly increase the number of machines for the same workload before moving to windows for good.
I even found an article here. Google it yourself next time, mmmkay?
It's like bungee jumping: Sure, even the super-duper-industrial-strenght rope could break, but that doesn't mean you should use decorative string as your rope.