I don't think the problem is that these systems run Windows though that's certainly not helping the security situation. I believe the problem is more the secrecy these companies are taking as well and the inherent risk to the accuracy of the voting that comes with computerizing the process.
I volunteer at this place ACCRC (Alameda County Computer Resource Center). It's in Berkeley, CA. They're a non-profit that takes computers for a small fee. PIIs and above are turned into Linux boxes and are given to low income families. Some machines are even shipped to Africa to attempt to bridge the digital divide. They're a really great place. You can drop off software, peripherals and packing material for free. Computers, monitors, scanners, printers, fax machines, TVs, and stereo equipment has a small fee. It's a great place. They recycle everything, but they're biggest goal is to refurb Linux boxes. www.accrc.org
Sorry most of the data goes far further back in time than 140 years. For example you can pull C02 levels from ice core samples to see the level of C02 increase.
That is assuming that he is using an inverter in his cabin. Since he doesn't have a grid connected system I would assume he's running 12v DV. No conversion necessary.
Nissan has this back in the 240SX (S13). It was one of those late 80s early 90s toys. I've never seen on work, but it basically had an LED on the dash and a semitransparent reflective coating in the bottom left corner of the windshield. They tended to burn out after a while.
So are you saying that if you produce 10 million gallons of say PVC (this is based off a real situation here) and in doing so you kill several hundred workers, irreversible the water supply of a town, cause irreversible health effects for the town and the majority of your workers, etc etc then that's ok since the bum probably burned some plastic in his steel drum? I understand efficiency, but efficiency isn't an excuse to cause environmental damage. I breath the air and I breath the water. This is mine too and you don't have the right to mess it up for me. In economic terms it's called externalizing costs. Pollute to make money and wait for the public to pay the health and environmental costs. It must be accepted that pollution to some extent is unavoidable, but using the excuse of efficiency to allow unlimited pollution or to justify ridiculously high levels is unacceptable. There are ways for companies to continue to be profitable while reducing their pollution significantly. They just have to try and of course pay. There just aren't many companies out there that see that as an important investment.
http://nextenergycorp.com/corp/home.html
They're a good place to talk to. Last time I heard they would send someone out to talk to you and line up a local contractor to do the work.
You wouldn't store the power. There's a much simpler and economical way to do it. You hook your photovoltaic cells (quit calling it solar) up to an inverter and pump the power back into the grid. You get paid the rate at which your power provider charges you which accounts for their generation and line maintence costs (you're getting a very nice deal). You're also pumping the power into the grid at say noon while your at work. This just so happens to be a peak time so you get paid a higher rate for the power. Then when you come home you use power off the grid at the night time rate. Sell high, buy low and also get a 100% efficient battery through the use of the grid.
How would they not be making a profit off this. They're making a huge profit. I made a claim of about $60 on MS to get Lindows. Who do you think gets that money. Lindows can process these things with the quickness and Microsoft gets to pay for me to get a free copy of Lindows. They're making a killing off this.
This was in the Porsche mags like 2-3 months ago on the front cover. Independent fuel controller system was needed to bring it up to emissions standards. Bet it still doesn't pass in CA though considering nothing does.
I have a solar system on my house. $15k installed this year. It has a payment plan on it for 6 years and once that payment period is over I will be making money off the system. It lasts for about 25-30 years too. Solar is a real deal if you're in CA with high energy costs.
Those are the government figures that take into account "true cost" which includes subsidies and health costs. Subsidies are why nuclear power is often looked at as the future of cheap power.
My uncle worked at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Nasty stuff. You can't say it's a safe method for generating power until you start asking the workers how many of their friends have cancer. It's really scary to hear this people talk about getting forms of cancer that the doctors have never seen. This is not B/S. My uncle has been fighting a rare form of cancer for the last 4 years. It's nothing you can link to work, but it certainly doesn't look good.
Much of the opposition to nuclear power in Europe where many plants are becomming end of lifed is the cost of the power. It was advertised as having a high upstart cost and a low operating cost, but it turns out it has high costs even after the startup costs.
Actually you need 2 small windmills and by small I mean a 20 foot windmill you put in your backyard. Wind is often cheaper than natural gas and coal which are two of the cheapest forms of generation. Cheapest is geothermal, but there aren't a lot of spots left to do that in.
Nuclear costs more on average than renewable energy sources if you take into account government subsidies. Saying it's hippy bullshit is simply not following the money trail. Nuclear power isn't the holly grail. It's costly, dangerous, and certainly not renewable.
Nuclear power is the least efficient source of power in terms of dollars and cents and is also one of the more dangerous and polluting forms of power generation. Nuclear power costs between 13-18 cents per kwh (Kilowatt hour). That's before the environmental impact of having lots and lots of nasty waste and workers exposed to high levels of radiation. Coal while dirty is 9-11 cents per kwh, Wind is 5-12, Solar is 8-20, and natural gas is 5-7. These costs are with health costs paid for by industry and the government calculated in. So the real question is why are we still using Nuclear. It's certainly not cheap energy as it was touted to be in the 50s, and it's certainly not safe as has been shown in past incidents. It serves only to continue nuclear research that benefits weapons development.
If these schools have to resort to shutting down their entire networks than they seriously need a change in staff or an increased IT budget. I previously went to San Jose State in CA, the definition of completely incompetent school, and they had a system that automatically shut down ports with excess traffic, port scanning apps, and viruses. It then put a help desk ticket in to have a techie go talk to the student. This is the way to do it. Shutting down the whole network is not necessary.
Humboldt State University in CA has one too. We smoke plenty of weed, but we still have enough in the way of brain cells to know that book stores prices are garbage.
At least they get some health care. Who cares if you have to wait and wait and die while you're waiting. Here was this plan called healthcare for none. It seems to work great at wasting money and doing nothing.
Last time I checked the middle class were paying taxes and it seems to me like their sure not getting much for a tax return. I'm not going to be getting much at least. At the same time our lovely VP is getting 250,000 back. Seems pretty shitty to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the problem is that these systems run Windows though that's certainly not helping the security situation. I believe the problem is more the secrecy these companies are taking as well and the inherent risk to the accuracy of the voting that comes with computerizing the process.
For the most part cocoa has not proven to be a real speed increase when applications are rewritten
I volunteer at this place ACCRC (Alameda County Computer Resource Center). It's in Berkeley, CA. They're a non-profit that takes computers for a small fee. PIIs and above are turned into Linux boxes and are given to low income families. Some machines are even shipped to Africa to attempt to bridge the digital divide. They're a really great place. You can drop off software, peripherals and packing material for free. Computers, monitors, scanners, printers, fax machines, TVs, and stereo equipment has a small fee. It's a great place. They recycle everything, but they're biggest goal is to refurb Linux boxes. www.accrc.org
Sorry most of the data goes far further back in time than 140 years. For example you can pull C02 levels from ice core samples to see the level of C02 increase.
That is assuming that he is using an inverter in his cabin. Since he doesn't have a grid connected system I would assume he's running 12v DV. No conversion necessary.
Please oh please spend some petroleum on something better. Maybe a Beowulf cluster
Nissan has this back in the 240SX (S13). It was one of those late 80s early 90s toys. I've never seen on work, but it basically had an LED on the dash and a semitransparent reflective coating in the bottom left corner of the windshield. They tended to burn out after a while.
So are you saying that if you produce 10 million gallons of say PVC (this is based off a real situation here) and in doing so you kill several hundred workers, irreversible the water supply of a town, cause irreversible health effects for the town and the majority of your workers, etc etc then that's ok since the bum probably burned some plastic in his steel drum? I understand efficiency, but efficiency isn't an excuse to cause environmental damage. I breath the air and I breath the water. This is mine too and you don't have the right to mess it up for me. In economic terms it's called externalizing costs. Pollute to make money and wait for the public to pay the health and environmental costs. It must be accepted that pollution to some extent is unavoidable, but using the excuse of efficiency to allow unlimited pollution or to justify ridiculously high levels is unacceptable. There are ways for companies to continue to be profitable while reducing their pollution significantly. They just have to try and of course pay. There just aren't many companies out there that see that as an important investment.
http://nextenergycorp.com/corp/home.html They're a good place to talk to. Last time I heard they would send someone out to talk to you and line up a local contractor to do the work.
You wouldn't store the power. There's a much simpler and economical way to do it. You hook your photovoltaic cells (quit calling it solar) up to an inverter and pump the power back into the grid. You get paid the rate at which your power provider charges you which accounts for their generation and line maintence costs (you're getting a very nice deal). You're also pumping the power into the grid at say noon while your at work. This just so happens to be a peak time so you get paid a higher rate for the power. Then when you come home you use power off the grid at the night time rate. Sell high, buy low and also get a 100% efficient battery through the use of the grid.
How would they not be making a profit off this. They're making a huge profit. I made a claim of about $60 on MS to get Lindows. Who do you think gets that money. Lindows can process these things with the quickness and Microsoft gets to pay for me to get a free copy of Lindows. They're making a killing off this.
This was in the Porsche mags like 2-3 months ago on the front cover. Independent fuel controller system was needed to bring it up to emissions standards. Bet it still doesn't pass in CA though considering nothing does.
That's why I switched from Management Information Systems to Environmental Science. Got tired of sausage-fest classes. Couldn't take that anymore.
It's totally up to how you drive the car. I've heard of people that get low MPG on the Prius/Insight and those who get higher than advertised MPG.
I have a solar system on my house. $15k installed this year. It has a payment plan on it for 6 years and once that payment period is over I will be making money off the system. It lasts for about 25-30 years too. Solar is a real deal if you're in CA with high energy costs.
Those are the government figures that take into account "true cost" which includes subsidies and health costs. Subsidies are why nuclear power is often looked at as the future of cheap power.
My uncle worked at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Nasty stuff. You can't say it's a safe method for generating power until you start asking the workers how many of their friends have cancer. It's really scary to hear this people talk about getting forms of cancer that the doctors have never seen. This is not B/S. My uncle has been fighting a rare form of cancer for the last 4 years. It's nothing you can link to work, but it certainly doesn't look good.
Much of the opposition to nuclear power in Europe where many plants are becomming end of lifed is the cost of the power. It was advertised as having a high upstart cost and a low operating cost, but it turns out it has high costs even after the startup costs.
Actually you need 2 small windmills and by small I mean a 20 foot windmill you put in your backyard. Wind is often cheaper than natural gas and coal which are two of the cheapest forms of generation. Cheapest is geothermal, but there aren't a lot of spots left to do that in.
Nuclear costs more on average than renewable energy sources if you take into account government subsidies. Saying it's hippy bullshit is simply not following the money trail. Nuclear power isn't the holly grail. It's costly, dangerous, and certainly not renewable.
Nuclear power is the least efficient source of power in terms of dollars and cents and is also one of the more dangerous and polluting forms of power generation. Nuclear power costs between 13-18 cents per kwh (Kilowatt hour). That's before the environmental impact of having lots and lots of nasty waste and workers exposed to high levels of radiation. Coal while dirty is 9-11 cents per kwh, Wind is 5-12, Solar is 8-20, and natural gas is 5-7. These costs are with health costs paid for by industry and the government calculated in. So the real question is why are we still using Nuclear. It's certainly not cheap energy as it was touted to be in the 50s, and it's certainly not safe as has been shown in past incidents. It serves only to continue nuclear research that benefits weapons development.
If these schools have to resort to shutting down their entire networks than they seriously need a change in staff or an increased IT budget. I previously went to San Jose State in CA, the definition of completely incompetent school, and they had a system that automatically shut down ports with excess traffic, port scanning apps, and viruses. It then put a help desk ticket in to have a techie go talk to the student. This is the way to do it. Shutting down the whole network is not necessary.
Humboldt State University in CA has one too. We smoke plenty of weed, but we still have enough in the way of brain cells to know that book stores prices are garbage.
At least they get some health care. Who cares if you have to wait and wait and die while you're waiting. Here was this plan called healthcare for none. It seems to work great at wasting money and doing nothing.
Last time I checked the middle class were paying taxes and it seems to me like their sure not getting much for a tax return. I'm not going to be getting much at least. At the same time our lovely VP is getting 250,000 back. Seems pretty shitty to me.