There was a problem in several of the first generation batteries that was covered by a recall (including mine). I suspect that your co-worker was covered by the recall. My only point was that the concern expressed by the first poster -- that he would be stuck with the costs of replacing a battery as the car aged -- is not a legitimate concern.
Toyota has reported replacing none of its hybrid batteries in the 8 years that hybrids have been sold in North America (due to wear and tear). In other words, the rumor you heard is just that -- a baseless rumor.
There is nothing wrong with wiretapping so long as the wiretap is approved by the judicial branch of government. In this case, the NSA sought and received a warrant from the US Foreign Intelligence Survailence Court ("FISA"). Once the executive branch (the NSA in this case) has a warrant, they are legally entitled to record the conversations.
In this case, the underlying article reports that: "What is new is that Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington." Key words are "court-approved."
The Fourth Amendment states that:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Once the executive branch has convinced a judge that probably cause exists, and the judge has issued the warrant, there is nothing preventing the executive branch from using that information in court.
Now there is a real question as to whether wire tapping a member of congress (who herself was not under investigation) is a good idea, but that's not really the issue. I'm actually somewhat sad to hear about this as Jane Harmon is/was a very competent and thoughtful member of congress -- particularly on port security issues.
don't know about the merits of clean coal, but anyone who spouts made-up verbs like those must have his head up his ass.
Coal gasification is a common term of art in the industry. You gasify it. That's what you do. He's using a term that we use every day. Sorry dude -- looks like the PhD scientist who's been researching these issues for years is right and you are wrong.
Chu is not anti-nuke. I don't know where you got that idea, but Secretary Chu has long been a proponent of nuclear power. From a 2005 interview with UC Berkeley's Bonnie Azab Powell:
Question: Should fission-based nuclear power plants be made a bigger part of the energy-producing portfolio?
Chu: Absolutely. Right now about 20 percent of our power comes from nuclear; there have been no new nuclear plants built since the early '70s. The real rational fears against nuclear power are about the long-term waste problem and [nuclear] proliferation. The technology of separating [used fuel from still-viable fuel] and putting the good stuff back in to the reactor can also be used to make bomb material.
And then there's the waste problem: with future nuclear power plants, we've got to recycle the waste. Why? Because if you take all the waste we have now from our civilian and military nuclear operations, we'd fill up Yucca Mountain.... So we need three or four Yucca Mountains. Well, we don't have three or four Yucca Mountains. The other thing is that storing the fuel at Yucca Mountain is supposed to be safe for 10,000 years. But the current best estimates - and these are really estimates, the Lab's in fact - is that the metal casings [containing the waste] will probably fail on a scale of 5,000 years, plus or minus 2. That's still a long time, and then after that the idea was that the very dense rock, very far away from the water table will contain it, so that by the time it finally leaks down to the water table and gets out the radioactivity will have mostly decayed.
Suppose instead that we can reduce the lifetime of the radioactive waste by a factor of 1,000. So it goes from a couple-hundred-thousand-year problem to a thousand-year problem. At a thousand years, even though that's still a long time, it's in the realm that we can monitor - we don't need Yucca Mountain.
Question: And all of a sudden the risk-benefit equation looks pretty good for nuclear.
Chu: Right now, compared to conventional coal, it looks good - what are the lesser of two evils? But if we can reduce the volume and the lifetime of the waste, that would tip it very much against conventional coal.
The reason we should invest in clean coal is because the potential benefits -- if it works -- eclipse the benefits of just about any other large scale generation resource. Compared to "sexier" renewable resources, Coal is cheap and abundant. If we can get clean coal technology to work, then we have an excellent answer to our energy future.
What is it worth for even a 1 percent chance that clean coal works? I think the answer is it's worth a ton of money -- certainly more than the couple billion we spend today. It bothers me that the naysayers refuse to even consider coal. It's a dogmatic response that rivals the most intense religious zealots. I am not necessary pro-coal. I see its problems. But I'm also not blind to it's potential.
Honestly, I might still be in thrall to Blizzard if dual-speccing had been available. Why on earth did it take so many years to include this feature?
My holy priest was just painful to play outside of a dungeon. Respeccing cost too much time and the fun quotient diminished. I remember posting long rants on the boards back in the day and getting some BS from the Blizzard reps about how "choices have consequences." I also remember having one point in some worthless first tier disc talent for over a year because I had hit the wrong button and wasn't willing to spend the 100g to respec. Ah, good times. I miss it, on some level. But overall, I think it was probably good for me to quit after 2+ years.
It's utility-scale, that I talking about, not some dinky little tin can.
Seriously, real capacitor banks are pretty limited because they cost a lot of money. Some places they make sense, but not usually, unless there's some reliability need and no local generation to supply to reactive power. And I've never heard of anything significant being hoisted on a pole. Maybe it's a local distribution thing? I'm not a grid engineer, so it's possible there's something new, but I work with lots of them and they tell me how things work....
Actually, you are incorrect. While it is possible to produce reactive power using capacitor or indicutor banks, it's expensive and comes with a host of problems. Most of the reactive power used to support the bulk electric system is generated via traditional power plants. Besides, see my response below to see why even a tiny increase (or decrease) in reactive power requirements is big $$$.
Oooo... Real math -- *shivers*. Here's a little _applied_ real math for you.
What do you consider "miniscule"? One percent of a plant's output? Two percent? A typical power plant costs $500 million to build and hundreds of millions in variable and fixed costs (largely fuel, but also operations and maintenance, etc). When a power plant received reactive power compensation, you first determine the total costs of operating the plant -- including capital, fixed and variable. You then assign a percentage of the plant's total costs to the reactive power requirements.
In my crazy-simplified example, the annual revenue requirements associated with a "miniscule" one percent change in reactive power requirements is roughly $5 million per year. That's math I can get behind.
But that understates the real cost of producing reactive power. The real money comes in when you consider the lost opportunity costs when a power plant is required to generate reactive power instead of real power that it can sell at market rates. A 500 MW power plant, hypothetically operating at full capacity year round (8760 hours per year) generates 4.3 million MW-hours of electricity. Each MW hour is worth a minimum of about $25. Reduce that 4.3 million MW-hours by 1 percent because you're making reactive power, and you've just lost at least $1 million. Now obviously, these numbers don't work -- the example is horribly simplified. But the key point here is that the numbers are enormous.
I've been involved in extensive litigation over the years on reactive power compensation issues, so I think I know a little more about the financial implications of "miniscule" reactive power changes than you.
This is really fascinating and has economic impacts on power generators and utilities, because "reactive power" and "real power" are compensated entirely differently at the wholesale level.
We in the bulk electricity industry think of reactive power as a service that is needed to ensure the reliable operation of the bulk power (a.k.a. high voltage transmission lines) system. Because reactive power is generally created for reliability reasons, there's a strong sense that no individual generator of electricity should profit by providing a necessary service. Instead, the existing compensation system for the creation of reactive power is based on a generator's individualized cost of producing that reactive power with a very small markup. In contrast, generators receive compensation for real power based on the prevailing price for power set by the market (either through an organized market or via a bilateral contract. And yes, I know I'm simplifying horribly). In order words -- the profit potential when you generate real power is significantly higher than when you are generating reactive power -- though of course, the risks are also higher. As a general rule, nobody wants to be stuck holding the economic bag for having to generate more then their share of reactive power (with some unit-specific exceptions).
Further, the compensation rules within various utility footprints for reactive power vary -- generally, everyone producing reactive power is eligible to receive payment for their reactive power -- or nobody is. The Feds simply ensure that the local utility isn't discriminating by providing their affiliates with reactive power payments, while denying comparable payments to the competition (something that used to be endemic).
It's critical to remember that reactive power + real power = total output of the facility. When reactive power production goes up, real power production decreases. So the idea that these lightbulbs are eating more than their share of reactive power has significant economic implications.
I don't even want to think of what it means for reactive power reserve margins (i.e., the "cushion" that utilities are required to have on standby at all times) if the lightbulbs become even more ubiquitous. Just goes to show that when electricity is involved, nothing is simple and no good environmental deed goes unpunished.
Actually, if you are in the territorial waters of the United States (300 miles, I think?), you go to the Minerals Management Service or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the appropriate licensing and permits. You generally are required to get approvals from the relevant state agencies and the Coast Guard under the Coastal Zone Management Act, and sometimes, the Army Corps of Engineers.
In fact, jurisdiction over off-shore generation facilities has been disputed by FERC and the MMS until just March 19, 2009, when they issued a memorandum of understanding over who has primary jurisdiciton:
WASHINGTON, DC - In a joint statement issued today Secretary of the Interior (DOI), Ken Salazar and Acting Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Jon Wellinghoff announced that the two agencies have confirmed their intent to work together to facilitate the permitting of renewable energy in offshore waters.
"Our renewable energy is too important for bureaucratic turf battles to slow down our progress. I am proud that we have reached an agreement with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding our respective roles in approving offshore renewable energy projects. This agreement will help sweep aside red tape so that our country can capture the great power of wave, tidal, wind and solar power off our coasts," Secretary Salazar said.
"FERC is pleased to be working with the Department of the Interior and Secretary Salazar on a procedure that will help get renewable energy projects off the drawing board and onto the Outer Continental Shelf," Acting FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff said.
Below is the joint Statement between DOI and FERC signed by Secretary Salazar and Acting Chairman Wellinghoff: JOINT STATEMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF The United States has significant renewable energy resources in offshore waters, including wind energy, solar energy, and wave and ocean current energy.
Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Minerals Management Service, has the authority to grant leases, easements, and rights-of-way on the outer continental shelf for the development of oil and gas resources. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide the Interior Department with parallel permitting authority with regard to the production, transportation, or transmission of energy from additional sources of energy on the outer continental shelf, including renewable energy sources.
The Interior Department's responsibility for the permitting and development of renewable energy resources on the outer continental shelf is broad. In particular, the Department of the Interior has permitting and development authority over wind power projects that use offshore resources beyond state waters. Interior's authority does not diminish existing responsibilities that other agencies have with regard to the outer continental shelf. In that regard, under the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the statutory responsibility to oversee the development of hydropower resources in navigable waters of the United States. "Hydrokinetic" power potentially can be developed offshore through new technologies that seek to convert wave, tidal and ocean current energy to electricity. FERC will have the primary responsibility to manage the licensing of such projects in offshore waters pursuant to the Federal Power Act, using procedures developed for hydropower licenses, and with the active involvement of relevant federal land and resource agencies, including the Department of the Interior.
The original poster is simply incorrect that turbines pose a negligible threat to birds (and to bats, which potentially is just as serious a problem). Bird kills are very real and have to be managed just like any other environmental cost. The key to acceptable bird/bat kills is: (1) proper siting of the facility; and (2) proper operations of the facility.
Nobody in the industry takes a cavelier attitude towards bird and bat kills. The Altamont Wind Project and it's well-documented bird problems probably set this industry back 10 years. It was an example of a very poorly sited facility. From Wikipedia:
Considered largely obsolete, these numerous small turbines are being gradually replaced with much larger and more cost-effective units. The small turbines are dangerous to various raptors that hunt California Ground Squirrels in the area. 1300 raptors are killed annually. Among them are 70 golden eagles that are federally protected. In total, 4700 birds are killed annually.[2] The larger units turn more slowly and, being elevated higher, are less hazardous to the local wildlife.
This idea that we in the industry discount bird and bat issues is false. The American Wind Energy Association, the leading trade association for wind developers, has sponsored a number of studies of the issue. This 132 page report from 2004 is just one resource discussing recent research:
www.awea.org/pubs/documents/WEBBProceedings9.14.04%5BFinal%5D.pdf . This report from the American Academy of Science's presents a similarly scientific look at bird and bat fatalities: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11935&page=1. The Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (http://www.batsandwind.org/default.asp) has fascinating video of bats encountering turbines:http://www.bu.edu/cecb/wind/video/, and has detailed discussions of proper siting and operation of facilities.
The better operations come in two ways -- (1) shut down the turbines during local migratory and breeding seasons; and (2) shut the turbines down at night when bat activity is at a maximum and power prices are at a minimum. By combining these two operating parameters, the bird and bat kills can be reduced to an acceptable level, while revenues to the wind mills decrease only slightly. This is particularly true since electricity demand is at its lowest during the spring and fall -- when animals are most likely to come into contact with the turbines. It's common for fossil units to shut down during this period for maintenance too, because the revenues do not justify the costs.
As usual, things are rarely as simple as we would wish. Generating power is not environmentally friendly. It just isn't. It's all about minimizing the bad parts.
You don't see the difference between x-rated pictures of kids having sex and pictures of a girl in a bra and panties? Dude, I know this is/., but you really need to get out more.
More seriously, I think it is reasonable for the authorities to take videos of underage children engaging in sex more seriously than a grainy cellphone still of a girl in various states of undress. And as I noted, it's not even clear how much IF ANY, nudity was involved in this case. Clearly, the authorities were correct to take the former case more seriously.
Just to be clear, A.H. involved the kids (and they are kids) photographing themselves having sex. The pictures in this case were either semi-nude or nude (the article seemed unclear as to whether there was actually nude).
I would strongly recommend that you partner with your legal department in conducting an audit. They can tell you what to do in order to allow the company to keep the results of the audit confidential, even if you are sued. By partnering with the lawyers, you can conduct your inquiry while protecting the company.
Yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. So don't rely on this as legal advice yada yada. But I do have several thoughts from an in-house counsel prospective that might be of help.
1. Avoid putting anything in writing prematurely.
As an in-house counsel, I would much prefer you to come and speak with me prior to putting anything in writing. If you come see me, I can address the issue in the way that makes the most sense from the company perspective. I'm sure management would similarly prefer being verbally informed prior to your putting things in writing.
2. If you do put something in writing, include an attorney on the distribution list.
Generally, letters or emails to the company's attorneys are presumed to be confidential -- particularly if you put ***ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION *** in big letters across the top (don't laugh -- I do this all time, even if it seems silly). Should you ever get sued, it would be unlikely that the opposing party would be able to get access to that document. Your management should appreciate the fact that you are looking out for the company by insulating them from potential discovery.
3. If you do put something in writing, stick to the facts.
If you find yourself in the position of being required to document a potential problem (particularly where an attorney isn't available), don't draw conclusions that could be used against the company in any written document. Simply report your findings in straightforward boring terms. Don't speculate about how much trouble the company is in. Do not use words like "pirating" or "stealing." Use words like "may" or "might". Stating in any memo that "thus far I have been unable to locate the appropriate licenses" is very different than saying "we are pirating software."
4. Always leave yourself an out and don't put management on the spot.
A key part of any cya letter is -- well -- covering your ass. You do not want to get fired over something like this. So include an open ended aspect to any letter you write. Say something like "my investigation is continuing, but the preliminary results indicate...." This gives management a chance to come to grips with the idea that what they thought was their bonus fund is instead heading to Redmond. As a last resort, it also gives you the opportunity to revise your attitude should it become necessary to save your job (at least long enough to find a new one).
5. You are not an avenging copyright angel.
This is tricky. You really have only a couple options if you are ignored by your immediate management. At my company, we have an internal compliance hotline as well as in-house auditor and access to the audit committee of the board of directors. Obviously, these avenues are not always available at smaller companies. Just remember that management has every right (and even the obligation) to do what they think is in the best interest of the company. If you report a potential copyright/licensing problem to the right people, and they conclude that it is in the best interest of shareholders to take no action, that's okay. In my view, you have fulfilled your responsibility to bring the issue to their attention. You can only do so much.
Tough situation -- but be a responsible employee, and I'm sure you can weather the storm. Good luck.
What exactly did you think the banks were going to do with this money? No, really, I mean it. What else would they or should they do with these funds? A bank fails when its liabilities exceed its assets plus its capitalization. Really, it's that simple.
The entire point of this whole exercise was provide $$$ to the banks so that they could shore up their balance sheets and remain solvent. For every liability on their sheets, there is a corresponding asset -- usually a house or a business or a car. And more recently, a mortgage backed security. Except that these securities have now decreased in value to such a degree that if you valued these "toxic assets" at their real value, the bank's assets would be dwarfed by their liabilities and the bank would go belly up.
In order to save a particular bank, the government must: (1) provide the bank with more capital, such that the bank's capitlization grows faster than the decrease in the value of its assets; (2) decrease the bank's outstanding liabilities (i.e., pay off debts in the form of payment to creditors); or (3) allow the bank to sell off toxic assets at a price sufficient to allow the bank to survive.
Placing additional loans to businesses or for new housing satisfies none of these criteria. It's amazing to me how people get outraged when someone does exactly what they are supposed to do.....
I have some sympathy for the idiot proposing this legislation. Why does a people need clear satelite images of a school campus? How about a critical electric switchyard or natural gas facility? How about a large dam? How about a nuclear power plant?
The safety of critical energy infrastructure, using an example I happen to be familiar with, is a real issue and there is no doubt in my mind that Google Earth would make it easier for a terrorist. Want to black out a city? Detroy a dam? The first thing that I would do would be to study the project via Googe Earth. Sure, some detailed information is publicly available or on the internet, but a lot of has at least a veneer of confidentiality and particularly after 9-11 has been removed from the internet. It's not a coincidence that large power plants (which includes dams, nukes, etc.) tend to be out in the middle of nowhere. It is not inconceivable that someone doing physical reconisance of such a facility would be spotted prior to carrying out an attack. With Google Earth, you can do much of your work with publicly available and non-traceable data sets.
Do I support this legislation? No. I think on balance, the public's legitimate interests outweigh the fear-mongering. But do I think he has a valid point? Hmm... I think he might. I would challenge the geeks on/. to take on the substance of what his proposing. What are the legitimate uses of this technology when it comes to damns, power plants, switchyards, etc.? I look at them from time to time because they come up from as part of my job. It's cool to be able to "see" the power plant you're writing about. But does my interest in assuaging my curiosity outweigh the potential harm to the public if this information is mis-used? I'm not convinced it is.
On a personal note, I hate it when an idiot is somehow proclaimed as a spokesperson for an entire cause. Both conservatives and liberals do it -- and it really should stop. This particular guys is at best non-articulate in the defense of his legislation, and at worst a blithering idiot. It's tempting to discount the ideas he advances because of his idiocy -- but I think we would do a better job protecting the First Amendment and privacy if we address the substance of his ideas... and then make fun of him.
I don't understand this "protest." Google, apparently the target of the protest, gets increased ad revenues, whereas small businesses like mine that use Adsense get... Thousands of dollars in additional advertising costs that are designed to generate no revenue...?
I admit it -- my small jewelry store (beadstore.com) is not a particularly sophisticated Google customer. I think in 2007, we spent maybe $10,000 over the course of a year advertising on Google. (Since then, we've scaled back considerably -- even though it increased business, cash flow concerns made it impossible to continue.)
After we started, I handed off control of the budget to someone who didn't quite understand the limits system properly (they're beaders, after all, not techies). She racked up almost a thousand dollars in costs in a single week. Eek! A potentially devestating mistake, since $1,000 in unexpected expenses is a huge amount for a little company like ours. (We learned our lesson and made sure everyone understood the system pronto.)
Fortunately -- and I'm sure not coincidently -- that week was also one of our biggest grossing weeks ever (though it probably didn't cover the additional advertising costs, at least over the short run). I don't know what we would have done had those costs been driven by non-customers clicking through in some misguided attempt to hurt Google. I'm not looking for sympathy for people who screw up, or suggesting that all Google advertisers are like us, but please remember that a single click can still cost a dollar or more, so a few fraudulent clicks really hurts. Not only does it inflate your advertising costs, but it also denies us of legitimate potential customers (since the system is designed to remove the ads once your target budget is reached). And I suspect we would never know for sure whether we just had a really low click-to-purchase ratio for a given week, or whether we were the victims of an organized fraud (in the non-legal sense, anyway).
Lastly, Google claims that multiple clicks from the same IP address are filtered out -- of course, I have no idea if their system would prevent what these people are suggesting.
The public radio show Radio Lab did an amazing show on similar issues, looking for a neurological explanation to why people react strangely to new and unexpected sounds: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/21.
One of the most interesting segments of the show recounted the near-riot that occurred when Stravinsky debuted his "Rites of Spring" in 1913. The music was so discordant to Parisian audiences, that they reacted -- in some cases violently -- to the oddness of the new music.
Check it out -- the entire show is awesome. Entirely consistent with the professor's findings here.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a problem in several of the first generation batteries that was covered by a recall (including mine). I suspect that your co-worker was covered by the recall. My only point was that the concern expressed by the first poster -- that he would be stuck with the costs of replacing a battery as the car aged -- is not a legitimate concern.
Fourty-five seconds? Slow? When was the last time you filled your car up with gas?
Toyota has reported replacing none of its hybrid batteries in the 8 years that hybrids have been sold in North America (due to wear and tear). In other words, the rumor you heard is just that -- a baseless rumor.
In this case, the underlying article reports that: "What is new is that Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington." Key words are "court-approved."
The Fourth Amendment states that:
Once the executive branch has convinced a judge that probably cause exists, and the judge has issued the warrant, there is nothing preventing the executive branch from using that information in court.
Now there is a real question as to whether wire tapping a member of congress (who herself was not under investigation) is a good idea, but that's not really the issue. I'm actually somewhat sad to hear about this as Jane Harmon is/was a very competent and thoughtful member of congress -- particularly on port security issues.
Coal gasification is a common term of art in the industry. You gasify it. That's what you do. He's using a term that we use every day. Sorry dude -- looks like the PhD scientist who's been researching these issues for years is right and you are wrong.
Chu is not anti-nuke. I don't know where you got that idea, but Secretary Chu has long been a proponent of nuclear power. From a 2005 interview with UC Berkeley's Bonnie Azab Powell:
Question: Should fission-based nuclear power plants be made a bigger part of the energy-producing portfolio?
Chu: Absolutely. Right now about 20 percent of our power comes from nuclear; there have been no new nuclear plants built since the early '70s. The real rational fears against nuclear power are about the long-term waste problem and [nuclear] proliferation. The technology of separating [used fuel from still-viable fuel] and putting the good stuff back in to the reactor can also be used to make bomb material.
And then there's the waste problem: with future nuclear power plants, we've got to recycle the waste. Why? Because if you take all the waste we have now from our civilian and military nuclear operations, we'd fill up Yucca Mountain. ... So we need three or four Yucca Mountains. Well, we don't have three or four Yucca Mountains. The other thing is that storing the fuel at Yucca Mountain is supposed to be safe for 10,000 years. But the current best estimates - and these are really estimates, the Lab's in fact - is that the metal casings [containing the waste] will probably fail on a scale of 5,000 years, plus or minus 2. That's still a long time, and then after that the idea was that the very dense rock, very far away from the water table will contain it, so that by the time it finally leaks down to the water table and gets out the radioactivity will have mostly decayed.
Suppose instead that we can reduce the lifetime of the radioactive waste by a factor of 1,000. So it goes from a couple-hundred-thousand-year problem to a thousand-year problem. At a thousand years, even though that's still a long time, it's in the realm that we can monitor - we don't need Yucca Mountain.
Question: And all of a sudden the risk-benefit equation looks pretty good for nuclear.
Chu: Right now, compared to conventional coal, it looks good - what are the lesser of two evils? But if we can reduce the volume and the lifetime of the waste, that would tip it very much against conventional coal.
The reason we should invest in clean coal is because the potential benefits -- if it works -- eclipse the benefits of just about any other large scale generation resource. Compared to "sexier" renewable resources, Coal is cheap and abundant. If we can get clean coal technology to work, then we have an excellent answer to our energy future.
What is it worth for even a 1 percent chance that clean coal works? I think the answer is it's worth a ton of money -- certainly more than the couple billion we spend today. It bothers me that the naysayers refuse to even consider coal. It's a dogmatic response that rivals the most intense religious zealots. I am not necessary pro-coal. I see its problems. But I'm also not blind to it's potential.
Honestly, I might still be in thrall to Blizzard if dual-speccing had been available. Why on earth did it take so many years to include this feature?
My holy priest was just painful to play outside of a dungeon. Respeccing cost too much time and the fun quotient diminished. I remember posting long rants on the boards back in the day and getting some BS from the Blizzard reps about how "choices have consequences." I also remember having one point in some worthless first tier disc talent for over a year because I had hit the wrong button and wasn't willing to spend the 100g to respec. Ah, good times. I miss it, on some level. But overall, I think it was probably good for me to quit after 2+ years.
It's utility-scale, that I talking about, not some dinky little tin can.
Seriously, real capacitor banks are pretty limited because they cost a lot of money. Some places they make sense, but not usually, unless there's some reliability need and no local generation to supply to reactive power. And I've never heard of anything significant being hoisted on a pole. Maybe it's a local distribution thing? I'm not a grid engineer, so it's possible there's something new, but I work with lots of them and they tell me how things work....
Actually, you are incorrect. While it is possible to produce reactive power using capacitor or indicutor banks, it's expensive and comes with a host of problems. Most of the reactive power used to support the bulk electric system is generated via traditional power plants. Besides, see my response below to see why even a tiny increase (or decrease) in reactive power requirements is big $$$.
Oooo... Real math -- *shivers*. Here's a little _applied_ real math for you.
What do you consider "miniscule"? One percent of a plant's output? Two percent? A typical power plant costs $500 million to build and hundreds of millions in variable and fixed costs (largely fuel, but also operations and maintenance, etc). When a power plant received reactive power compensation, you first determine the total costs of operating the plant -- including capital, fixed and variable. You then assign a percentage of the plant's total costs to the reactive power requirements.
In my crazy-simplified example, the annual revenue requirements associated with a "miniscule" one percent change in reactive power requirements is roughly $5 million per year. That's math I can get behind.
But that understates the real cost of producing reactive power. The real money comes in when you consider the lost opportunity costs when a power plant is required to generate reactive power instead of real power that it can sell at market rates. A 500 MW power plant, hypothetically operating at full capacity year round (8760 hours per year) generates 4.3 million MW-hours of electricity. Each MW hour is worth a minimum of about $25. Reduce that 4.3 million MW-hours by 1 percent because you're making reactive power, and you've just lost at least $1 million. Now obviously, these numbers don't work -- the example is horribly simplified. But the key point here is that the numbers are enormous.
I've been involved in extensive litigation over the years on reactive power compensation issues, so I think I know a little more about the financial implications of "miniscule" reactive power changes than you.
This is really fascinating and has economic impacts on power generators and utilities, because "reactive power" and "real power" are compensated entirely differently at the wholesale level.
We in the bulk electricity industry think of reactive power as a service that is needed to ensure the reliable operation of the bulk power (a.k.a. high voltage transmission lines) system. Because reactive power is generally created for reliability reasons, there's a strong sense that no individual generator of electricity should profit by providing a necessary service. Instead, the existing compensation system for the creation of reactive power is based on a generator's individualized cost of producing that reactive power with a very small markup. In contrast, generators receive compensation for real power based on the prevailing price for power set by the market (either through an organized market or via a bilateral contract. And yes, I know I'm simplifying horribly). In order words -- the profit potential when you generate real power is significantly higher than when you are generating reactive power -- though of course, the risks are also higher. As a general rule, nobody wants to be stuck holding the economic bag for having to generate more then their share of reactive power (with some unit-specific exceptions).
Further, the compensation rules within various utility footprints for reactive power vary -- generally, everyone producing reactive power is eligible to receive payment for their reactive power -- or nobody is. The Feds simply ensure that the local utility isn't discriminating by providing their affiliates with reactive power payments, while denying comparable payments to the competition (something that used to be endemic).
It's critical to remember that reactive power + real power = total output of the facility. When reactive power production goes up, real power production decreases. So the idea that these lightbulbs are eating more than their share of reactive power has significant economic implications.
I don't even want to think of what it means for reactive power reserve margins (i.e., the "cushion" that utilities are required to have on standby at all times) if the lightbulbs become even more ubiquitous. Just goes to show that when electricity is involved, nothing is simple and no good environmental deed goes unpunished.
In fact, jurisdiction over off-shore generation facilities has been disputed by FERC and the MMS until just March 19, 2009, when they issued a memorandum of understanding over who has primary jurisdiciton:
Nobody in the industry takes a cavelier attitude towards bird and bat kills. The Altamont Wind Project and it's well-documented bird problems probably set this industry back 10 years. It was an example of a very poorly sited facility. From Wikipedia:
This idea that we in the industry discount bird and bat issues is false. The American Wind Energy Association, the leading trade association for wind developers, has sponsored a number of studies of the issue. This 132 page report from 2004 is just one resource discussing recent research: www.awea.org/pubs/documents/WEBBProceedings9.14.04%5BFinal%5D.pdf . This report from the American Academy of Science's presents a similarly scientific look at bird and bat fatalities: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11935&page=1. The Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (http://www.batsandwind.org/default.asp) has fascinating video of bats encountering turbines:http://www.bu.edu/cecb/wind/video/, and has detailed discussions of proper siting and operation of facilities.
The better operations come in two ways -- (1) shut down the turbines during local migratory and breeding seasons; and (2) shut the turbines down at night when bat activity is at a maximum and power prices are at a minimum. By combining these two operating parameters, the bird and bat kills can be reduced to an acceptable level, while revenues to the wind mills decrease only slightly. This is particularly true since electricity demand is at its lowest during the spring and fall -- when animals are most likely to come into contact with the turbines. It's common for fossil units to shut down during this period for maintenance too, because the revenues do not justify the costs.
As usual, things are rarely as simple as we would wish. Generating power is not environmentally friendly. It just isn't. It's all about minimizing the bad parts.
You don't see the difference between x-rated pictures of kids having sex and pictures of a girl in a bra and panties? Dude, I know this is /., but you really need to get out more.
More seriously, I think it is reasonable for the authorities to take videos of underage children engaging in sex more seriously than a grainy cellphone still of a girl in various states of undress. And as I noted, it's not even clear how much IF ANY, nudity was involved in this case. Clearly, the authorities were correct to take the former case more seriously.
Just to be clear, A.H. involved the kids (and they are kids) photographing themselves having sex. The pictures in this case were either semi-nude or nude (the article seemed unclear as to whether there was actually nude).
I would strongly recommend that you partner with your legal department in conducting an audit. They can tell you what to do in order to allow the company to keep the results of the audit confidential, even if you are sued. By partnering with the lawyers, you can conduct your inquiry while protecting the company.
Yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. So don't rely on this as legal advice yada yada. But I do have several thoughts from an in-house counsel prospective that might be of help.
1. Avoid putting anything in writing prematurely.
As an in-house counsel, I would much prefer you to come and speak with me prior to putting anything in writing. If you come see me, I can address the issue in the way that makes the most sense from the company perspective. I'm sure management would similarly prefer being verbally informed prior to your putting things in writing.
2. If you do put something in writing, include an attorney on the distribution list.
Generally, letters or emails to the company's attorneys are presumed to be confidential -- particularly if you put ***ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION *** in big letters across the top (don't laugh -- I do this all time, even if it seems silly). Should you ever get sued, it would be unlikely that the opposing party would be able to get access to that document. Your management should appreciate the fact that you are looking out for the company by insulating them from potential discovery.
3. If you do put something in writing, stick to the facts.
If you find yourself in the position of being required to document a potential problem (particularly where an attorney isn't available), don't draw conclusions that could be used against the company in any written document. Simply report your findings in straightforward boring terms. Don't speculate about how much trouble the company is in. Do not use words like "pirating" or "stealing." Use words like "may" or "might". Stating in any memo that "thus far I have been unable to locate the appropriate licenses" is very different than saying "we are pirating software."
4. Always leave yourself an out and don't put management on the spot.
A key part of any cya letter is -- well -- covering your ass. You do not want to get fired over something like this. So include an open ended aspect to any letter you write. Say something like "my investigation is continuing, but the preliminary results indicate...." This gives management a chance to come to grips with the idea that what they thought was their bonus fund is instead heading to Redmond. As a last resort, it also gives you the opportunity to revise your attitude should it become necessary to save your job (at least long enough to find a new one).
5. You are not an avenging copyright angel.
This is tricky. You really have only a couple options if you are ignored by your immediate management. At my company, we have an internal compliance hotline as well as in-house auditor and access to the audit committee of the board of directors. Obviously, these avenues are not always available at smaller companies. Just remember that management has every right (and even the obligation) to do what they think is in the best interest of the company. If you report a potential copyright/licensing problem to the right people, and they conclude that it is in the best interest of shareholders to take no action, that's okay. In my view, you have fulfilled your responsibility to bring the issue to their attention. You can only do so much.
Tough situation -- but be a responsible employee, and I'm sure you can weather the storm. Good luck.
What exactly did you think the banks were going to do with this money? No, really, I mean it. What else would they or should they do with these funds? A bank fails when its liabilities exceed its assets plus its capitalization. Really, it's that simple.
The entire point of this whole exercise was provide $$$ to the banks so that they could shore up their balance sheets and remain solvent. For every liability on their sheets, there is a corresponding asset -- usually a house or a business or a car. And more recently, a mortgage backed security. Except that these securities have now decreased in value to such a degree that if you valued these "toxic assets" at their real value, the bank's assets would be dwarfed by their liabilities and the bank would go belly up.
In order to save a particular bank, the government must: (1) provide the bank with more capital, such that the bank's capitlization grows faster than the decrease in the value of its assets; (2) decrease the bank's outstanding liabilities (i.e., pay off debts in the form of payment to creditors); or (3) allow the bank to sell off toxic assets at a price sufficient to allow the bank to survive.
Placing additional loans to businesses or for new housing satisfies none of these criteria. It's amazing to me how people get outraged when someone does exactly what they are supposed to do.....
I have some sympathy for the idiot proposing this legislation. Why does a people need clear satelite images of a school campus? How about a critical electric switchyard or natural gas facility? How about a large dam? How about a nuclear power plant?
/. to take on the substance of what his proposing. What are the legitimate uses of this technology when it comes to damns, power plants, switchyards, etc.? I look at them from time to time because they come up from as part of my job. It's cool to be able to "see" the power plant you're writing about. But does my interest in assuaging my curiosity outweigh the potential harm to the public if this information is mis-used? I'm not convinced it is.
The safety of critical energy infrastructure, using an example I happen to be familiar with, is a real issue and there is no doubt in my mind that Google Earth would make it easier for a terrorist. Want to black out a city? Detroy a dam? The first thing that I would do would be to study the project via Googe Earth. Sure, some detailed information is publicly available or on the internet, but a lot of has at least a veneer of confidentiality and particularly after 9-11 has been removed from the internet. It's not a coincidence that large power plants (which includes dams, nukes, etc.) tend to be out in the middle of nowhere. It is not inconceivable that someone doing physical reconisance of such a facility would be spotted prior to carrying out an attack. With Google Earth, you can do much of your work with publicly available and non-traceable data sets.
Do I support this legislation? No. I think on balance, the public's legitimate interests outweigh the fear-mongering. But do I think he has a valid point? Hmm... I think he might. I would challenge the geeks on
On a personal note, I hate it when an idiot is somehow proclaimed as a spokesperson for an entire cause. Both conservatives and liberals do it -- and it really should stop. This particular guys is at best non-articulate in the defense of his legislation, and at worst a blithering idiot. It's tempting to discount the ideas he advances because of his idiocy -- but I think we would do a better job protecting the First Amendment and privacy if we address the substance of his ideas... and then make fun of him.
Exactly correct. I actually go out of my way not to click on ads and instead type in the url -- at least for non-multi-billion dollar businesses.
I don't understand this "protest." Google, apparently the target of the protest, gets increased ad revenues, whereas small businesses like mine that use Adsense get... Thousands of dollars in additional advertising costs that are designed to generate no revenue...?
I admit it -- my small jewelry store (beadstore.com) is not a particularly sophisticated Google customer. I think in 2007, we spent maybe $10,000 over the course of a year advertising on Google. (Since then, we've scaled back considerably -- even though it increased business, cash flow concerns made it impossible to continue.)
After we started, I handed off control of the budget to someone who didn't quite understand the limits system properly (they're beaders, after all, not techies). She racked up almost a thousand dollars in costs in a single week. Eek! A potentially devestating mistake, since $1,000 in unexpected expenses is a huge amount for a little company like ours. (We learned our lesson and made sure everyone understood the system pronto.)
Fortunately -- and I'm sure not coincidently -- that week was also one of our biggest grossing weeks ever (though it probably didn't cover the additional advertising costs, at least over the short run). I don't know what we would have done had those costs been driven by non-customers clicking through in some misguided attempt to hurt Google. I'm not looking for sympathy for people who screw up, or suggesting that all Google advertisers are like us, but please remember that a single click can still cost a dollar or more, so a few fraudulent clicks really hurts. Not only does it inflate your advertising costs, but it also denies us of legitimate potential customers (since the system is designed to remove the ads once your target budget is reached). And I suspect we would never know for sure whether we just had a really low click-to-purchase ratio for a given week, or whether we were the victims of an organized fraud (in the non-legal sense, anyway).
Lastly, Google claims that multiple clicks from the same IP address are filtered out -- of course, I have no idea if their system would prevent what these people are suggesting.
I know! Everytime I think of that, the "Sometimes behaves so strangely" clip stays on my mind for weeks. Hehe... I suppose apologies are in order ;)
Fascinating! Thanks for the info. I'm going to try to find the article you cite.
The public radio show Radio Lab did an amazing show on similar issues, looking for a neurological explanation to why people react strangely to new and unexpected sounds: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/21.
One of the most interesting segments of the show recounted the near-riot that occurred when Stravinsky debuted his "Rites of Spring" in 1913. The music was so discordant to Parisian audiences, that they reacted -- in some cases violently -- to the oddness of the new music.
Check it out -- the entire show is awesome. Entirely consistent with the professor's findings here.