These are Li-Ion batteries, not NiMH or NiCd. Lithium isn't nearly as bad as either cadmium or nickel, and is not, as far as I am aware, considered "toxic waste" by solid waste disposal guidelines.
Why did I discover this cool application in a discontinuation announcement?
N.B.: it is open-source (public domain), and therefore only being abandoned by its original author, not being pulled from public use. It worked fine last year, it works fine now, and it'll work just as fine next month.
Speakfreely is a mature product that works well NOW. I use it all the time, even over a NAT'd router. All it took to get past the LinkSys was a few minutes of setting up the port forwarding rules in the router setup. No big fuss.
Of course, it may be because many of those in the Debian-oriented mentality simply hate to document or make book-like material
I'd note that unlike Redhat, *all* programs in Debian are required to have a man page. It's pretty frustrating to go back to a Redhat system and try to open a man page which just isn't there! argh.
Note speakfreely.org is no longer the Speakfreely homepage. That site contains an old version and is morphed into a commercial non-free software sales site (with no obvious link to the new site -- argh).
although in several months this will transfer to: http://sourceforge.net/projects/speak-freely- u/
and http://sourceforge.net/projects/speak-freely- w/
for the UNIX and Windows versions respectively.
The latest version is 7.6a.
"Speak Freely is a public domain, cross-platform Internet telephony application which conforms to all relevant standards, implements most principal audio compression algorithms, and provides military-grade encryption with AES, Blowfish, IDEA, and DES with keys as long as 256 bits.
Speak Freely is available for Unix-like platforms (Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, IRIX, etc.) and Windows machines. Both versions are completely compatible and interoperate. In addition, Speak Freely supports the RTP and VAT protocols, and can communicate with any compliant Internet audio application."
1) they're doing some fuzzy math, like including a 50% bonus for saving air conditioning and heating costs (as if simple blinds didn't exist)
That's my guess.
Extraordinary claims, yada, yada, yada...
Then again, there is much practical truth to the old adage "the only thing 100% efficent is efficency." You don't need fancy technology to generate every milliwatt of power from the sun that the laws of thermodynamics permit if you can just not waste it in the first place.
If you have semi-translucent dynamic window shades which save on A/C costs.. Net electricity use is what's really important at the end of the day.
Public money funding private business
on
Solar Window Panes
·
· Score: 1
The university is seeking both patents and a government contract to move to the next prototyping step.
What's wrong with this picture from the taxpayer's perspective?
I think if you look at 0-30mph times (i.e. the vest majority of what most people do in traffic as part of their daily commute) the situation might be very different.
The low end torque make hybrids be really good off the traffic light, but not do so well in that high speed car chase across the desert.
I know where I live 60mph during my commute is a laughable concept.
summary: Hybrids do well if you drive in traffic.. Movie at 11.
X will resise the desktop to the largest of the modes listed, but at the first resolution listed. Switch between with Ctrl-Alt-Keypad+ and Ctrl-Alt-Keypad-. Maybe make that second one "800x900" for a vertical only scroll off.
Ctrl-Alt-Keypad+ should give a similar result already without changing your setup.
* The desktop is now located in the directory Desktop, instead of.gnome-desktop.
WTF?!?! I've got enough crap in my home directory as it is, without MS-Windowsfying it. UNIX tradition is generally a good, well thought out thing (going way out on a limb, maybe).
putting rc data in "Desktop" is just wrong, and.gnome-desktop is just the place. I don't get it.
What if I want to run another desktop system too? Where does it go?
That growing noise is the sound of 1000's * apt-get install some-other-desktop...
(it's the attitude, not the individual changes. Ok it's the [dumbing down] changes too)
Sawfish: Just run it. There are some people hacking on it, I believe, so it should be maintained. And tell the sawfish devels if there is something you miss.
if anyone's listening..
Port old (and great) viewport capabilities to workspaces if you insist on us using them:
* Dragging windows -vertically- between workspaces as well as wrapping around west-east. * Key bindings for shift workspace up/down & left/right(with wrap)
People have been begging for the same functionality as viewports provided for almost a year.. I'm just about ready to give up on sawfish.. gnome seems almost as deaf to the screams of horror when functionality is removed in the name of simplicity. Even if it isn't in the main setup window, for Bob's sake let power users edit a.rc file!! Don't just get rid of useful options who's only crime is that the few developers don't use personally. (I know, no one to program it, it gets left out)
Right, looks like I've got to dig out some substantive stuff for you to read. That's ok. I'm away, so it'll have to wait a week or so. Watch this space.
Looking at that "junkscience" page, just about all of those references are from the 50s-70s; a number of the ones from that era were chemical company funded FUD, so I'd take them with a grain of salt, or at least keep your eyes open. I'd consider anything pre-'72-'74 & the US Supreme Court hearings to be dealt with. Anything post that (saw one from '82, I think there was one non-disclosed industry funded one in the late '90s which isn't listed at that site) would need to be looked at & rebutted if it was wrong of course. Generally there won't be much after that as you aren't allowed to do many medical experiments on endangered species (why the left over shells are so studied).
I know there were some egg-shell thinning studies done in the 80s, comparing areas (countries) which never used DDT to places that did. I'll look them up.
In Dec 2000 the Montrose Chemical Corp. was ordered to pay $73 million for DDT cleanup in Santa Monica Bay.. if all the science was all 'junk', I think the lawyers would've been able to fight that a bit better.. shrug
re. the study of sperm counts (not only a ddt thing, so slightly off topic) -- looking at just the last 50 years is a bit sneaky -- DDT was around long before that, GE started producing PCBs in large quantities about '46-'47 if memory serves, so that study starts after the effect was already felt and DDT was in wide use. A cynic might say it crops off the left hand end of the graph just at the right place to hide the signal..
I can't say I've read it, but I would expect to see the decline in PCBs, DDT, and other synthetic estrogens in the early 70s countered by increases from "the pill" working its way into the sewage system (and then into estuaries) about the same time. Look for that.
This story is old enough now that no one but you will read it, but this message is for you anyway so what the hell.
[First some background: An AC troll (which I didn't bother replying to) commented with an ad hominem attack that the problem was that I was just an ignorant poop who didn't understand the problem. I'd put up my two physics degrees from "major research univeristies" and the fact that I am currently employed studying natural hazard management for the government as proof that I probably do know a bit little about it.]
With respect to DDT: You need to follow your sources a bit deeper. Propaganda and FUD junk. Seriously, you've been had. Try reading the research journals and not whatithink.com. The "web of science" will get you started, many papers can be downloaded as PDF.
The reason DDT is so deadly to birds of prey is the same reason it collects in such high concentrations in us. It is a very long lived chemical and collects in a cumulative manner as it goes up the food chain. Anything at the top of the food chain (be it Bald Eagles or humans) are exposed to 2^trophic-level amounts of the stuff. It may not cause cardiac arrest on contact, but the fact your sperm count is down 50% over guys from a hundred years ago isn't too pleasant a thought; I assure you that it isn't harmless.
I offer the following letter from a world expert on the biochemistry of DDT from the NY Times a couple of weeks ago. Please read it.
To THE NEW YORK TIMES: 7 August 2003
(I am Professor Emeritus at Stony Brook University, and I organized the scientific case against DDT more than 30 years ago. The issue was spearheaded by Environmental Defense (then called Environmental Defense Fund, EDF) before courts and the Environmental Protection Agency, leading to the national ban on DDT in 1972. Please see my Op-Ed articles in THE TIMES, 12 August 1971 and 23 August 1973, THE WASHINGTON POST 4 May 1969, and numerous other publications. All of the arguments against DDT of 30 years ago are just as valid today, and the article in today's NYT advances issues that were without credibility then, as they are now. I was one of the founders of EDF in 1967, and I remain on the Board of Trustees today. I realize that the following letter is longer than your preferred length, but the many misstatements in the article that you published should not be allowed to stand.)
To the Editor:
To "Is There A Place For DDT?" (TIMES, Op-Ed Page, August 7), the answer is still a resounding NO. Miller repeats many of the tired, discredited, and propagandistic arguments that were losers before courts and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) more than 30 years ago. DDT defenders are even more persistent than the chemical itself.
DDT was effective against malaria 60 years ago, but rapid development of resistance, just as with many antibiotics, made it useless by 50 years ago, just as it would be today. In agriculture, DDT killed the natural enemies of the pests, generating more pest problems than it solved.
Environmentally, DDT was a disaster. It not only killed birds and fish, but caused carnivorous birds to lay thin-shelled eggs that broke in the nest, leading to reproductive failure that drove many species, including the Bald Eagle, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon, and Brown Pelican, toward extinction. All have since recovered with DDT out of the way. The Peregrine had become extinct east of the Rockies, but captive breeding and release of Alaska birds has brought them back again, and they are nesting on the tall buildings and bridges of our cities.
The National Cancer Institute and World Health Organization labeled DDT a probable human carcinogen in exhaustive hearings before EPA, important because DDT had contaminated human tissues, including human milk. The hearings were brought on by Environmental
Even Greenpeace admits that no complete scientific study of the toxicity of nanomaterials has been yet been performed.
Talk about biased spin. I would think that Greenpeace is specifically making noise that no complete scientific study of the toxicity of nanomaterials has been yet been performed.
It is the same problem as placing genetically modified food into the mouths of the population. We are messing with powerful technologies that we barely understand. The least that we can and have a duty to do is take some care before haphazardly deploying them. It is totally irresponsible not to.
The burden of proof does not lie with Greenpeace, it solidly lies with those bringing new, untested, and possibly dangerous products to market. Maybe they're harmless, maybe they'll kill 15% of the population. Who the hell knows. Greenpeace's argument is let's find out first. We don't need 99% understanding before we can move on any new technology, but surely way less than 1% just isn't good enough.
Greenpeace's beef isn't that technology is bad, it is that we have no idea if it's the next R-12 or DDT or other 'good idea at the time'. There exists a responsibility to find out.
And nanomaterials is such a broad topic, I can't imagine there ever being a definative answer. Some nanotech will be harmless, other will be the end of us all. It's like saying "really small science is bad". Dumb.
This sort of story should be linked directly against WashingtonPost.com, even with the free reg req, for two reasons:
1) they've got more bandwidth than the proxy
2) they'd notice the slashdotting. Their EDITORS would notice the slashdotting. Knowing that many many people are interested in a topic is very valuable for getting more stories on that subject published.
Same goes for NYTimes, although WashPost seems to be more YRO which requires all the help we can get in the mainstream press; while often NYTimes articles are just cool science/tech stories, YMMV.
My well trodden point was that people download inferior (but passable) quality music because new CDs just too overpriced. Supply & Demand. No big mystery. Cut the cost to $8-10 and non-offical downloads become much less attractive.
Problem I got with buying used CDs are they are often stolen & pawned.
Do I support the corporate theives at the RIAA or create a market for the guy who breaks into my house and steals my CD collection? I know most of them won't be stolen, but I don't want any part in helping that guy. Moral dillemas..
I like the $5 bin at the local indy CD shop.. as I'm not really into top 40, if you find the right place, you'll find all sorts of old bob marley, dylan, mahavishnu orchestra albums, etc.. I could download them if I really wanted to, but my time is worth more than $5/hr, and I get the liner notes and everything -- and at cd quality.
The problem is, there's an annoying group of "environmentalists" who call windmills eyesores... and that's why this idea isn't taking off.
I'd just like to point out, for those who can't smell the sarcasm, to pay attention to the double quotes around "environmentalists".. people with NIMBY syndrome hijacking the 'enviromentalist' name in order to fight some selfish battle.
at least I think that's what the parent post was on about.
New ones spin slow (maybe 1 rev per every 2-3 sec.) with a gentle swoosh - they're geared so they spin slow even when there is lots of wind. Personally, I think they look pretty cool. Especially the slow spin ones when there's a bit of fog about.
Modern wind tunnel & computer models help make them quieter too, after all a noisy blade is an inefficient blade & all that noise is lost $$ so quite a bit of work goes into solving that.
it would require approximately 1.26 Million of them to meet the U.S.'s current power demands. ... the reality is that wind is insufficient as a power source ... A potentially viable start to "solving" some fo these problems would be to distribute residential power generation, especially in dense urban areas. ... compact turbines could be used for this.
Yup, there are 1.26+ million households in the US. Do-able. (or set up 8kW for 126 million houses..)
Wind + solar work together quite nicely. Everyone gets a couple of solar panels on the roof for the high-pressure system, and a small turbine for the low-pressure.. result = power regardless of the weather. Damn things pay for themselves over the course of the mortgage as well.
We can at least cut down the amount of fossil fuels we burn, even if we can't immediately totally replace coal plants et al. It doesn't have to be one or the other- strike a balance.
If you research the Martha's Vineyard / Cape Cod hullabaloo, you'll find the people objecting to it aren't really environmentalists at all. The community group is made up of super rich ex-CEOs (one from the board of Mobil if I recall) who were just using the "oppose it for the enviroment" NIMBY defense. They aren't environmentalists at all. They just hijacked the name for their own selfish needs.
The only defensible position they had, IMO, was why the hell should some for-profit company uglify public land (the sea bed) with hundreds of wind generators? We're talking sheltered, shallow, prime-property sea view here. I think wind farms are as pretty & cool as any other/.er, but I can see the objection on the otherside to filling up the whole bay.
There were a few NY Times articles on this a month or two back by a single writer. The author's slant went from FUD to pro-farm in the course of the series as she dug more stuff up on who was behind the protests. It reads as an interesting arc..
ps - this always comes up, new turbines are geared to spin slow & thus quiet. Birds in the area are much more likely to die by flying into a big orange bridge than going quisenart style. http://www.homepower.com/files/birds.pdf
Slashdot Mirror
These are Li-Ion batteries, not NiMH or NiCd. Lithium isn't nearly as bad as either cadmium or nickel, and is not, as far as I am aware, considered "toxic waste" by solid waste disposal guidelines.
Well, its a free world, but he should have asked if anyone wants to take over the project and then forward the links to that person.
They have:
speak-freely.sourceforge.net
links & mailing list archive need to be recursively wget'd, compressed and posted to sf.net at minimum.
Why did I discover this cool application in a discontinuation announcement?
N.B.: it is open-source (public domain), and therefore only being abandoned by its original author, not being pulled from public use. It worked fine last year, it works fine now, and it'll work just as fine next month.
Speakfreely is a mature product that works well NOW. I use it all the time, even over a NAT'd router. All it took to get past the LinkSys was a few minutes of setting up the port forwarding rules in the router setup. No big fuss.
There will be updates and hopefully one day a SpeakFreely2 from speak-freely.sourceforge.net
Msg for John, the SF author: Don't let the bastards win!
obligitory ps -- update the goddamn debian package already!
I'd note that unlike Redhat, *all* programs in Debian are required to have a man page. It's pretty frustrating to go back to a Redhat system and try to open a man page which just isn't there! argh.
Debian rocks.
or more centrally
http://speak-freely.sourceforge.net/
Note speakfreely.org is no longer the Speakfreely homepage. That site contains an old version and is morphed into a commercial non-free software sales site (with no obvious link to the new site -- argh).
- u/- w/
Visit http://www.fourmilab.ch/speakfree/ for the real webpage.
although in several months this will transfer to:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/speak-freely
and
http://sourceforge.net/projects/speak-freely
for the UNIX and Windows versions respectively.
The latest version is 7.6a.
"Speak Freely is a public domain, cross-platform Internet telephony application which conforms to all relevant standards, implements most principal audio compression algorithms, and provides military-grade encryption with AES, Blowfish, IDEA, and DES with keys as long as 256 bits.
Speak Freely is available for Unix-like platforms (Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, IRIX, etc.) and Windows machines. Both versions are completely compatible and interoperate. In addition, Speak Freely supports the RTP and VAT protocols, and can communicate with any compliant Internet audio application."
and it rocks!
The Debian package is criminally out of date.
1) they're doing some fuzzy math, like including a 50% bonus for saving air conditioning and heating costs (as if simple blinds didn't exist)
That's my guess.
Extraordinary claims, yada, yada, yada...
Then again, there is much practical truth to the old adage "the only thing 100% efficent is efficency." You don't need fancy technology to generate every milliwatt of power from the sun that the laws of thermodynamics permit if you can just not waste it in the first place.
If you have semi-translucent dynamic window shades which save on A/C costs..
Net electricity use is what's really important at the end of the day.
What's wrong with this picture from the taxpayer's perspective?
I think if you look at 0-30mph times (i.e. the vest majority of what most people do in traffic as part of their daily commute) the situation might be very different.
The low end torque make hybrids be really good off the traffic light, but not do so well in that high speed car chase across the desert.
I know where I live 60mph during my commute is a laughable concept.
summary: Hybrids do well if you drive in traffic..
Movie at 11.
try editing your /etc/X11/XF86Config file to something like
SubSection "Display"
Depth 24
Modes "800x600" "1024x768" "640x480"
EndSubSection
X will resise the desktop to the largest of the modes listed, but at the first resolution listed. Switch between with Ctrl-Alt-Keypad+ and Ctrl-Alt-Keypad-. Maybe make that second one "800x900" for a vertical only scroll off.
Ctrl-Alt-Keypad+ should give a similar result already without changing your setup.
good luck. Not sure if it will actually work.
* The desktop is now located in the directory Desktop, instead of .gnome-desktop.
.gnome-desktop is just the place. I don't get it.
...
WTF?!?! I've got enough crap in my home directory as it is, without MS-Windowsfying it. UNIX tradition is generally a good, well thought out thing (going way out on a limb, maybe).
putting rc data in "Desktop" is just wrong, and
What if I want to run another desktop system too? Where does it go?
That growing noise is the sound of 1000's * apt-get install some-other-desktop
(it's the attitude, not the individual changes. Ok it's the [dumbing down] changes too)
if anyone's listening..
Port old (and great) viewport capabilities to workspaces if you insist on us using them:
* Dragging windows -vertically- between workspaces as well as wrapping around west-east.
* Key bindings for shift workspace up/down & left/right(with wrap)
People have been begging for the same functionality as viewports provided for almost a year.. I'm just about ready to give up on sawfish.. gnome seems almost as deaf to the screams of horror when functionality is removed in the name of simplicity. Even if it isn't in the main setup window, for Bob's sake let power users edit a
thank you.
Right, looks like I've got to dig out some substantive stuff for you to read. That's ok. I'm away, so it'll have to wait a week or so. Watch this space.
Looking at that "junkscience" page, just about all of those references are from the 50s-70s; a number of the ones from that era were chemical company funded FUD, so I'd take them with a grain of salt, or at least keep your eyes open.
I'd consider anything pre-'72-'74 & the US Supreme Court hearings to be dealt with. Anything post that (saw one from '82, I think there was one non-disclosed industry funded one in the late '90s which isn't listed at that site) would need to be looked at & rebutted if it was wrong of course. Generally there won't be much after that as you aren't allowed to do many medical experiments on endangered species (why the left over shells are so studied).
I know there were some egg-shell thinning studies done in the 80s, comparing areas (countries) which never used DDT to places that did. I'll look them up.
In Dec 2000 the Montrose Chemical Corp. was ordered to pay $73 million for DDT cleanup in Santa Monica Bay.. if all the science was all 'junk', I think the lawyers would've been able to fight that a bit better.. shrug
re. the study of sperm counts (not only a ddt thing, so slightly off topic) -- looking at just the last 50 years is a bit sneaky -- DDT was around long before that, GE started producing PCBs in large quantities about '46-'47 if memory serves, so that study starts after the effect was already felt and DDT was in wide use. A cynic might say it crops off the left hand end of the graph just at the right place to hide the signal..
I can't say I've read it, but I would expect to see the decline in PCBs, DDT, and other synthetic estrogens in the early 70s countered by increases from "the pill" working its way into the sewage system (and then into estuaries) about the same time. Look for that.
Hi - I'm the parent poster on this thread.
This story is old enough now that no one but you will read it, but this message is for you anyway so what the hell.
[First some background: An AC troll (which I didn't bother replying to) commented with an ad hominem attack that the problem was that I was just an ignorant poop who didn't understand the problem. I'd put up my two physics degrees from "major research univeristies" and the fact that I am currently employed studying natural hazard management for the government as proof that I probably do know a bit little about it.]
With respect to DDT: You need to follow your sources a bit deeper. Propaganda and FUD junk. Seriously, you've been had. Try reading the research journals and not whatithink.com. The "web of science" will get you started, many papers can be downloaded as PDF.
The reason DDT is so deadly to birds of prey is the same reason it collects in such high concentrations in us. It is a very long lived chemical and collects in a cumulative manner as it goes up the food chain. Anything at the top of the food chain (be it Bald Eagles or humans) are exposed to 2^trophic-level amounts of the stuff.
It may not cause cardiac arrest on contact, but the fact your sperm count is down 50% over guys from a hundred years ago isn't too pleasant a thought; I assure you that it isn't harmless.
I offer the following letter from a world expert on the biochemistry of DDT from the NY Times a couple of weeks ago. Please read it.
To THE NEW YORK TIMES: 7 August 2003
(I am Professor Emeritus at Stony Brook University,
and I organized the scientific case against DDT more
than 30 years ago. The issue was spearheaded by
Environmental Defense (then called Environmental
Defense Fund, EDF) before courts and the Environmental
Protection Agency, leading to the national ban on
DDT in 1972. Please see my Op-Ed articles in THE TIMES,
12 August 1971 and 23 August 1973, THE WASHINGTON
POST 4 May 1969, and numerous other publications. All of
the arguments against DDT of 30 years ago are just
as valid today, and the article in today's NYT advances
issues that were without credibility then, as they
are now. I was one of the founders of EDF in 1967, and
I remain on the Board of Trustees today. I realize
that the following letter is longer than your preferred
length, but the many misstatements in the article
that you published should not be allowed to stand.)
To the Editor:
To "Is There A Place For DDT?" (TIMES, Op-Ed Page,
August 7), the answer is still a resounding NO.
Miller repeats many of the tired, discredited, and
propagandistic arguments that were losers before
courts and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
more than 30 years ago. DDT defenders are even more
persistent than the chemical itself.
DDT was effective against malaria 60 years ago, but
rapid development of resistance, just as with many
antibiotics, made it useless by 50 years ago, just
as it would be today. In agriculture, DDT killed the
natural enemies of the pests, generating more pest
problems than it solved.
Environmentally, DDT was a disaster. It not only
killed birds and fish, but caused carnivorous birds
to lay thin-shelled eggs that broke in the nest,
leading to reproductive failure that drove many species,
including the Bald Eagle, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon,
and Brown Pelican, toward extinction. All have
since recovered with DDT out of the way.
The Peregrine had become extinct east of the Rockies,
but captive breeding and release of Alaska birds has
brought them back again, and they are nesting on the
tall buildings and bridges of our cities.
The National Cancer Institute and World Health
Organization labeled DDT a probable human carcinogen
in exhaustive hearings before EPA, important because
DDT had contaminated human tissues, including human
milk. The hearings were brought on by Environmental
Talk about biased spin. I would think that Greenpeace is specifically making noise that no complete scientific study of the toxicity of nanomaterials has been yet been performed.
It is the same problem as placing genetically modified food into the mouths of the population. We are messing with powerful technologies that we barely understand. The least that we can and have a duty to do is take some care before haphazardly deploying them. It is totally irresponsible not to.
The burden of proof does not lie with Greenpeace, it solidly lies with those bringing new, untested, and possibly dangerous products to market. Maybe they're harmless, maybe they'll kill 15% of the population. Who the hell knows. Greenpeace's argument is let's find out first. We don't need 99% understanding before we can move on any new technology, but surely way less than 1% just isn't good enough.
Greenpeace's beef isn't that technology is bad, it is that we have no idea if it's the next R-12 or DDT or other 'good idea at the time'. There exists a responsibility to find out.
And nanomaterials is such a broad topic, I can't imagine there ever being a definative answer. Some nanotech will be harmless, other will be the end of us all. It's like saying "really small science is bad". Dumb.
Fuck our rights as consumers, I'm horrified about what's happening to our rights as citizens.
That reminds me of an old Dan Quale quote:
"It's not that the Republican party doesn't like poor folk, it's just that they don't vote for us."
(more or less, it was a while ago)
Much truth in that, methinks.
Also, I can now say I understand why Papa Bush picked DQ for VP. He was like a son to him.
This sort of story should be linked directly against WashingtonPost.com, even with the free reg req, for two reasons:
1) they've got more bandwidth than the proxy
2) they'd notice the slashdotting. Their EDITORS would notice the slashdotting. Knowing that many many people are interested in a topic is very valuable for getting more stories on that subject published.
Same goes for NYTimes, although WashPost seems to be more YRO which requires all the help we can get in the mainstream press; while often NYTimes articles are just cool science/tech stories, YMMV.
[clicked 'Submit' before getting to the point..]
My well trodden point was that people download inferior (but passable) quality music because new CDs just too overpriced. Supply & Demand. No big mystery. Cut the cost to $8-10 and non-offical downloads become much less attractive.
Problem I got with buying used CDs are they are often stolen & pawned.
.. I could download them if I really wanted to, but my time is worth more than $5/hr, and I get the liner notes and everything -- and at cd quality.
Do I support the corporate theives at the RIAA or create a market for the guy who breaks into my house and steals my CD collection? I know most of them won't be stolen, but I don't want any part in helping that guy. Moral dillemas..
I like the $5 bin at the local indy CD shop.. as I'm not really into top 40, if you find the right place, you'll find all sorts of old bob marley, dylan, mahavishnu orchestra albums, etc
The problem is, there's an annoying group of "environmentalists" who call windmills eyesores... and that's why this idea isn't taking off.
.. people with NIMBY syndrome hijacking the 'enviromentalist' name in order to fight some selfish battle.
I'd just like to point out, for those who can't smell the sarcasm, to pay attention to the double quotes around "environmentalists"
at least I think that's what the parent post was on about.
Those are old turbines using 1970's technology.
New ones spin slow (maybe 1 rev per every 2-3 sec.) with a gentle swoosh - they're geared so they spin slow even when there is lots of wind. Personally, I think they look pretty cool. Especially the slow spin ones when there's a bit of fog about.
Modern wind tunnel & computer models help make them quieter too, after all a noisy blade is an inefficient blade & all that noise is lost $$ so quite a bit of work goes into solving that.
Sunlight is a bit more predictable than wind, or so I would think.
High-pressure weather system: solar panels shine
Low-pressure weather system: wind turbines shine
Install both & you can have a nice steady supply, regardless of the weather.
www.homepower.com is a pretty good resource..
.. you sort of contradict yourself here ..
it would require approximately 1.26 Million of them to meet the U.S.'s current power demands.
...
the reality is that wind is insufficient as a power source
...
A potentially viable start to "solving" some fo these problems would be to distribute residential power generation, especially in dense urban areas.
...
compact turbines could be used for this.
Yup, there are 1.26+ million households in the US. Do-able. (or set up 8kW for 126 million houses..)
Wind + solar work together quite nicely. Everyone gets a couple of solar panels on the roof for the high-pressure system, and a small turbine for the low-pressure.. result = power regardless of the weather. Damn things pay for themselves over the course of the mortgage as well.
We can at least cut down the amount of fossil fuels we burn, even if we can't immediately totally replace coal plants et al. It doesn't have to be one or the other- strike a balance.
"The only thing 100% efficient is efficiency"
If you research the Martha's Vineyard / Cape Cod hullabaloo, you'll find the people objecting to it aren't really environmentalists at all. The community group is made up of super rich ex-CEOs (one from the board of Mobil if I recall) who were just using the "oppose it for the enviroment" NIMBY defense. They aren't environmentalists at all. They just hijacked the name for their own selfish needs.
/.er, but I can see the objection on the otherside to filling up the whole bay.
The only defensible position they had, IMO, was why the hell should some for-profit company uglify public land (the sea bed) with hundreds of wind generators? We're talking sheltered, shallow, prime-property sea view here. I think wind farms are as pretty & cool as any other
There were a few NY Times articles on this a month or two back by a single writer. The author's slant went from FUD to pro-farm in the course of the series as she dug more stuff up on who was behind the protests. It reads as an interesting arc..
ps - this always comes up, new turbines are geared to spin slow & thus quiet. Birds in the area are much more likely to die by flying into a big orange bridge than going quisenart style.
http://www.homepower.com/files/birds.pdf