If I have my math right, we would need a wind farm of around 118,600 square miles, or almost as large as the state of New Mexico (121,355.53 square miles) for everything. I suppose we could split it up across (for example) Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to leave ourselves a little room for growth (141,212.81 square miles total), but that would displace about 12,000,000 people - at least NM only has around 2,000,000 people. Think anybody would mind moving? Sheesh.
Digging a little deeper on the DOE site, I found that numbers for transportation are also there but it's a small percentage (about 2% of total documented consumption). That got me wondering - I don't see numbers for consumption by federal, state, and local governments. Granted, your average government building (think courthouse) probably isn't that bad, I wonder how prisons, military bases, and the high-power-drain facilities for numerous 3-letter agencies (C!A, N$A, etc.) factor in? If I had to guess I'd say it's less than industrial, but I'm still curious. Maybe we should set aside the West Virginia Wind Farm Co-operative too, just to be safe.
Just in case anybody missed the point of all this, let me be clear: wind power is not the answer. It's a (relatively) environmentally-friendly augmentation in combination with other sources, but that's it.
Unfortunately, I couldn't quickly find good data breakdowns on power consumption for residential vs. business. The DOE website has a lot of data and analysis but I'm not sure they even have such a breakdown.
[...] reducing the bill solely to telecom immunity is to greatly misunderstand things.
No, it's not. As with most legislation, there is a core issue at stake whether or not you realize it. With this bill, that core issue is not "What additional powers should we grant to law enforcement agencies to make their job easier?" (debatable, but not here) but rather "Will you compromise a fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded?" The principle in question (simplified) is that it is the responsibility of the Judicial branch to determine whether or not a crime was committed (in a criminal case) or if a plaintiff has a legitimate complaint (in a civil case) and, in either case, to punish or award as appropriate. What Congress did here was pass a bill with a key provision that temporarily (more on this in a minute) bypasses the Judicial process in the interest of protecting valuable partners in what was, at the time, an illegal activity. While the other provisions of this bill may have merit, that debate is not the point here - the subversion of the legal process is.
As for my comment that it "temporarily" bypasses the Judicial process, I believe it is still possible for a case against one of the involved Telcos to be pursued eventually up to the Supreme Court level where the constitutionality of the law can be decided, but I'm not qualified to answer that.
Personally I would applaud a politician who would vote against any piece of legislation that has some positive aspects if there is any part of that bill that would violate their principles. Admittedly, I am operating on the assumption that the politician in question has a defined set of principles, but the optimist in me would like to believe that. If the "Free Money for School" bill guaranteed $30,000 per year towards college expenses for every student but had one clause that is counter to your principles (pick anything you believe in) then you should do everything you can to amend the bill to remove the objectionable clause. If that fails, that you cannot in good conscience vote in favor of the bill.
The election this fall should/will be about many things - the economy, our energy situation, education, health care, and a myriad of other issues. However, there is one core issue that is always at the top of my issues list: integrity. Integrity is more than a blurb in a campaign commercial. Integrity, like trust, is something that must be earned. You must say what you believe and do what you say.
Granted, in any group of people greater than one, compromise is always necessary but those compromises should only be on issues of "lesser conviction". Think something along the lines of "you want to see the latest shoot-em-up movie and your significant other wants something with fewer explosions" - work it out. On the other hand, if you like slaughtering puppies for fun, I would hope that your SO would draw a line in the sand - "No puppy massacres or I'm gone!"
This ended up much longer than I planned, but it boils down to this - if you would not compromise on your principles (and I hope that's true), shouldn't you expect your elected officials to do the same? In this case, I believe the cost of a "Yes" vote is too high.
I completely agree with you about Sun's naming and versioning scheme (really, what's wrong with Java JRE 1.5.0_12 - it tells you what you need to know). However, I wanted to pass on some (hopefully) helpful info about the unattended installs.
Java JRE 1.4.2 accepted the same command-line options throughout all version, and they even kept the naming scheme fairly consistent. Java JRE 1.5.0 and JRE 1.6.0 accept a slightly different set of command-line options but it is consistent throughout those releases - the naming convention was a little less consistent but it's not really a big deal for unattended software deployments. The key to managing Java deployments is to remember that by default, the JRE installer (and JDK too, IIRC) will not remove any previous versions, simply install the new one and (usually) make it the default JVM. I used to do desktop software management (Microsoft shop, SMS 2003). Our install base was a mess when I started, with literally dozens of JRE versions in use. Keeping detail to a minimum (if you're that curious, email me), once we decided on an "approved" JRE, I built a wrapper around that JRE installer that would inventory other JREs installed on the box and remove them all before installing our standard JRE. Once most of our systems had a common JRE, it was simpler to manage the upgrade process. I had our SMS deployments structured so that it would identify "out-of-date" JREs and patch them automatically. Whenever we approved a new version it was about half an hour of work on the back-end (marking that version as "current" and tweaking the advertisements). Once the new version was slurped into the hierarchy, any "out-of-date" JREs would be updated in a week (most in considerably less than that).
FYI, the acceptable switches for JRE 1.5 and JRE 1.6 are (see this page): {some-jre.exe} [/L]/s/v"/qn [ADDLOCAL=jrecore[,extra][,other_US] | ALL] [IEXPLORER=1] [MOZILLA=1] [INSTALLDIR=:\] [REBOOT=Suppress] [JAVAUPDATE=0] [CUSTOM=1]"
The only difference for JRE 1.4.2 is that it supported an additional parameter: [NETACAPE=1]. For 1.5 and 1.6, [MOZILLA=1] covers installing the Java plugin for both Mozilla and Netscape browsers.
I've found this worked well for us (we actually used some of the extra fonts): {some-jre.exe}/s/v"/qn ADDLOCAL=All IEXPLORER=1 MOZILLA=1 REBOOT=ReallySuppress JAVAUPDATE=0"
Alternatively, just extract the.MSI from the executable and deploy using the standard Windows Installer command-line parameters.
When talking about using Symantec Ghost (or other), the author is referring to Windows XP installations, not Vista.
FTFA:
In the XP world, most advanced users are used to customising the Windows install disc. It's a straightforward, if tedious, process to slipstream service packs and patches, add extra drivers and create answer files that allow XP to install with no user input.
But this flexibility only extends to the installation of Windows itself. To clone a full system with apps installed, Symantec Ghost or a similar utility must be used to create that image.
However, all this is about to change. Windows Vista is based entirely around Microsoft's Windows Imaging Format (or WIM), a file-based imaging standard rather than a sector-based.
I've repeated this so often that I almost make ME sick . . . ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST! There is no reason to heap additional costs upon the vast majority of car owners and drivers that do not drive while impaired (intoxicated, medicated, or other). Especially since existing breathalyzer technology only screens for alcohol content and not drugs (legal or illegal). I have no desire to start ranting like a lunatic, but this makes as little sense as creating new laws covering (for example) "hate crimes." Assaulting, maiming, torturing, or killing people should be and is illegal regardless of the religious, racial, or ethnic relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. Additional "hate crime" laws only serve to glamorize these crimes for your local Fox news station and makes a legal system that is already overly complex and incomprehensible to the average American even worse.
Actually, that bit about 'You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the.NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.' is not new -- that has been part of the standard MS EULA that you are presented with every time you download an update from the Windows Update site for Windows 2000 since they changed the format over to the current one (the XP-themed Windows Update site, v4). What is amusing is that you see that same non-disclosure condition even if the only update you download is the "Root Certificates Update" or even a driver download. How can it be legally binding to impose a license condition like this on a component download when that component has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the OS component referred to by the restriction?
Actually, it was high-class (if that's not a misnomer) bank robbers, well, robbing a bank . . . then escaping from the roof via helicoptor, which Spidey subsequently snares and reals in, leaving it suspended in a web between the Trade Towers. In my opinion, a very cool shot that should have been left in (scene was shot before 9/11). I mean, it's not like Microsoft is going to hold up the release of the new Flight Simulator just to delete the Towers from . . . OH! I had found the original trailer somewhere (not Sony's site), but I can't seem to find the link.
While I certainly agree that the TrustE logo no longer conveys the level of trust that it was intended to, I can't help but notice how dead-on Dyson's final quote in this article was: "You do a survey and consumers say they are very concerned about their privacy. Then you offer them a discount on a book and they'll tell you everything."
A system like TrustE was and still is a good idea, but like so many ideas it has fallen down a bit in the implementation. I would like to see them take themselves and the service they provide a little more seriously. I hope we don't need a watchdog for the watchdog of the watchdog of . . . you get the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Gee, spamming Twitter about a movie results in herds of sheep trampling a path to the box office? Yawn.
Thanks maxume, that helped a lot.
If I have my math right, we would need a wind farm of around 118,600 square miles, or almost as large as the state of New Mexico (121,355.53 square miles) for everything. I suppose we could split it up across (for example) Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to leave ourselves a little room for growth (141,212.81 square miles total), but that would displace about 12,000,000 people - at least NM only has around 2,000,000 people. Think anybody would mind moving? Sheesh.
Digging a little deeper on the DOE site, I found that numbers for transportation are also there but it's a small percentage (about 2% of total documented consumption). That got me wondering - I don't see numbers for consumption by federal, state, and local governments. Granted, your average government building (think courthouse) probably isn't that bad, I wonder how prisons, military bases, and the high-power-drain facilities for numerous 3-letter agencies (C!A, N$A, etc.) factor in? If I had to guess I'd say it's less than industrial, but I'm still curious. Maybe we should set aside the West Virginia Wind Farm Co-operative too, just to be safe.
Just in case anybody missed the point of all this, let me be clear: wind power is not the answer. It's a (relatively) environmentally-friendly augmentation in combination with other sources, but that's it.
Boy do we need a better solution. Let's have some fun with numbers...
36,000 acres = 56.25 square miles (640 acres = 1 square mile)
US population ~ 307,000,000 (http://www.census.gov/)
Average US household size = 2.61 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts)
Number of turbines (@ 2.5MW / turbine) to power all US homes (just homes; no businesses at all) = ~188,200
Land area to power all US homes = ~44,100 square miles
Land area of the state of Pennsylvania (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html) = 44,816.61
Unfortunately, I couldn't quickly find good data breakdowns on power consumption for residential vs. business. The DOE website has a lot of data and analysis but I'm not sure they even have such a breakdown.
[...] reducing the bill solely to telecom immunity is to greatly misunderstand things.
No, it's not. As with most legislation, there is a core issue at stake whether or not you realize it. With this bill, that core issue is not "What additional powers should we grant to law enforcement agencies to make their job easier?" (debatable, but not here) but rather "Will you compromise a fundamental principle upon which this nation was founded?" The principle in question (simplified) is that it is the responsibility of the Judicial branch to determine whether or not a crime was committed (in a criminal case) or if a plaintiff has a legitimate complaint (in a civil case) and, in either case, to punish or award as appropriate. What Congress did here was pass a bill with a key provision that temporarily (more on this in a minute) bypasses the Judicial process in the interest of protecting valuable partners in what was, at the time, an illegal activity. While the other provisions of this bill may have merit, that debate is not the point here - the subversion of the legal process is.
As for my comment that it "temporarily" bypasses the Judicial process, I believe it is still possible for a case against one of the involved Telcos to be pursued eventually up to the Supreme Court level where the constitutionality of the law can be decided, but I'm not qualified to answer that.
Personally I would applaud a politician who would vote against any piece of legislation that has some positive aspects if there is any part of that bill that would violate their principles. Admittedly, I am operating on the assumption that the politician in question has a defined set of principles, but the optimist in me would like to believe that. If the "Free Money for School" bill guaranteed $30,000 per year towards college expenses for every student but had one clause that is counter to your principles (pick anything you believe in) then you should do everything you can to amend the bill to remove the objectionable clause. If that fails, that you cannot in good conscience vote in favor of the bill.
The election this fall should/will be about many things - the economy, our energy situation, education, health care, and a myriad of other issues. However, there is one core issue that is always at the top of my issues list: integrity. Integrity is more than a blurb in a campaign commercial. Integrity, like trust, is something that must be earned. You must say what you believe and do what you say.
Granted, in any group of people greater than one, compromise is always necessary but those compromises should only be on issues of "lesser conviction". Think something along the lines of "you want to see the latest shoot-em-up movie and your significant other wants something with fewer explosions" - work it out. On the other hand, if you like slaughtering puppies for fun, I would hope that your SO would draw a line in the sand - "No puppy massacres or I'm gone!"
This ended up much longer than I planned, but it boils down to this - if you would not compromise on your principles (and I hope that's true), shouldn't you expect your elected officials to do the same? In this case, I believe the cost of a "Yes" vote is too high.
I completely agree with you about Sun's naming and versioning scheme (really, what's wrong with Java JRE 1.5.0_12 - it tells you what you need to know). However, I wanted to pass on some (hopefully) helpful info about the unattended installs.
/s /v"/qn [ADDLOCAL=jrecore[,extra][,other_US] | ALL] [IEXPLORER=1] [MOZILLA=1] [INSTALLDIR=:\] [REBOOT=Suppress] [JAVAUPDATE=0] [CUSTOM=1]"
/s /v"/qn ADDLOCAL=All IEXPLORER=1 MOZILLA=1 REBOOT=ReallySuppress JAVAUPDATE=0"
.MSI from the executable and deploy using the standard Windows Installer command-line parameters.
Java JRE 1.4.2 accepted the same command-line options throughout all version, and they even kept the naming scheme fairly consistent. Java JRE 1.5.0 and JRE 1.6.0 accept a slightly different set of command-line options but it is consistent throughout those releases - the naming convention was a little less consistent but it's not really a big deal for unattended software deployments. The key to managing Java deployments is to remember that by default, the JRE installer (and JDK too, IIRC) will not remove any previous versions, simply install the new one and (usually) make it the default JVM. I used to do desktop software management (Microsoft shop, SMS 2003). Our install base was a mess when I started, with literally dozens of JRE versions in use. Keeping detail to a minimum (if you're that curious, email me), once we decided on an "approved" JRE, I built a wrapper around that JRE installer that would inventory other JREs installed on the box and remove them all before installing our standard JRE. Once most of our systems had a common JRE, it was simpler to manage the upgrade process. I had our SMS deployments structured so that it would identify "out-of-date" JREs and patch them automatically. Whenever we approved a new version it was about half an hour of work on the back-end (marking that version as "current" and tweaking the advertisements). Once the new version was slurped into the hierarchy, any "out-of-date" JREs would be updated in a week (most in considerably less than that).
FYI, the acceptable switches for JRE 1.5 and JRE 1.6 are (see this page):
{some-jre.exe} [/L]
The only difference for JRE 1.4.2 is that it supported an additional parameter: [NETACAPE=1]. For 1.5 and 1.6, [MOZILLA=1] covers installing the Java plugin for both Mozilla and Netscape browsers.
I've found this worked well for us (we actually used some of the extra fonts): {some-jre.exe}
Alternatively, just extract the
FTFA:
(bold emphasis = mine)
I've repeated this so often that I almost make ME sick . . . ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST! There is no reason to heap additional costs upon the vast majority of car owners and drivers that do not drive while impaired (intoxicated, medicated, or other). Especially since existing breathalyzer technology only screens for alcohol content and not drugs (legal or illegal). I have no desire to start ranting like a lunatic, but this makes as little sense as creating new laws covering (for example) "hate crimes." Assaulting, maiming, torturing, or killing people should be and is illegal regardless of the religious, racial, or ethnic relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. Additional "hate crime" laws only serve to glamorize these crimes for your local Fox news station and makes a legal system that is already overly complex and incomprehensible to the average American even worse.
Actually, that bit about 'You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.' is not new -- that has been part of the standard MS EULA that you are presented with every time you download an update from the Windows Update site for Windows 2000 since they changed the format over to the current one (the XP-themed Windows Update site, v4). What is amusing is that you see that same non-disclosure condition even if the only update you download is the "Root Certificates Update" or even a driver download. How can it be legally binding to impose a license condition like this on a component download when that component has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the OS component referred to by the restriction?
Actually, it was high-class (if that's not a misnomer) bank robbers, well, robbing a bank . . . then escaping from the roof via helicoptor, which Spidey subsequently snares and reals in, leaving it suspended in a web between the Trade Towers. In my opinion, a very cool shot that should have been left in (scene was shot before 9/11). I mean, it's not like Microsoft is going to hold up the release of the new Flight Simulator just to delete the Towers from . . . OH! I had found the original trailer somewhere (not Sony's site), but I can't seem to find the link.
While I certainly agree that the TrustE logo no longer conveys the level of trust that it was intended to, I can't help but notice how dead-on Dyson's final quote in this article was: "You do a survey and consumers say they are very concerned about their privacy. Then you offer them a discount on a book and they'll tell you everything."
A system like TrustE was and still is a good idea, but like so many ideas it has fallen down a bit in the implementation. I would like to see them take themselves and the service they provide a little more seriously. I hope we don't need a watchdog for the watchdog of the watchdog of . . . you get the idea.