I do not have access to both ends of the cable.
My knowledge of networking is limited.
Scanning, monitoring or analyzing the network in any way is verboten. Our network managers seem to have an infinite budget for acquiring tools to detect that sort of thing and none for actually maintaining the networks and services.
etc...
Our building was apparently the first one on campus to be wired. I have two coax points in my office. We have huge networking problems, such as all http traffic not originating from IE being dropped by the firewall/proxy server. Took almost three months to have that problem resolved. We have (illegally) mapped our network. It is not pretty. Over the years many technicians from many vendors have made many changes to it. My HOD have asked me to investigate the problem and hence the question.
If the answer is that cables either work perfectly or not at all, then the problem is more likely to be configuration. I just had to start somewhere.
I have witnessed first hand what the effects of rewiring a 40 year old house can have on electricity consumption. Not significant if you are on the grid, but very significant if you have to rely on alternative (solar) energy.
Not going to happen any time soon. Do you have a "slow charge, high drain battery bank in the basement"? We have been reliant on such a system for domestic power for the last 20 years. We have about 330 days of sunshine per year, so we have a PV array with a generator as a backup. Yes, this system is much better than the days when we only had the generator, but it still sucks. Battery banks are expensive, high maintenance and inconvenient and anything that relies on their large scale adoption is stillborn. Ask anyone with a golf cart how expensive they are to maintain.
I did this for my M.Sc. almost 10 years ago. The idea was to find seminal works. Unfortunately I only had access to 100000 papers total, not all papers since 1893. Still showed that it worked in principle.
Compare for instance, two competitors in the sedan market, a 2009 V-6 Toyota Camry, and a 2009 V-6 Ford Taurus. The Camry gets 19/28 mpg, and the Taurus gets 18/28.
I am not going to attack the fact that you pick two random cars (with similar fuel consumption) to represent the entire US and foreign auto industries. Instead what amuses me is the fact that these are the typical models you select.
A sedan with a 3.5l V6 engine would hardly be my entry into a discussion on fuel efficiency. But then, North Americans seem to need that sort of grunt to propel themselves from one traffic light to another. We use to borrow my wife's grandmother's Taurus when we went to visit my in-laws in Canada. It had a 3l or 3.4l engine. We really did not need that power to do 50/70/90km/h. I remember a piece of highway on the way to Mt Washington where we were actually allowed to do 110km/h. I can assure you that her grandmother has never legally driven it more than 90km/h and most probably never legally taken it over 70km/h. (3l -> 18/26mpg or 3.4l -> 15/24mpg
Contrast that with their visit here when we traveled as 5 adults with a 7 ft luggage trailer and aircon in my wife's 160 Etude/Protege. We averaged 27mpg (actual figures over 1890km) at or near 120km/h most of the way. The car is quite capable of doing 160km/h on the deserted roads of the Northern Cape (never done it with the trailer) and with the aircon on the fuel consumption falls to 23mpg. It tows my Hobie just fine though I limit myself to 100km/h and it might struggle to maintain higher speeds. Over a 6 month stretch my wife averaged 35.6mpg commuting to work, though granted, most of it was highway.
I have no problem with people wanting powerful or inefficient cars. I too have a 3l V6 truck (bakkie). When I bought it it was the least fuel efficient 14.4mpg average to date (and most powerful) on the market. It gets me to work in exactly the same time as my little 1.3l car.
When people say that foreign (to North America) cars are more efficient, they are not saying that a Japanese SUV with a 4.5l engine is more efficient than a US SUV with a 4.5l engine. What they are saying is that in the rest of the world there are cars that can perform the tasks that the average North American car performs comparably, but using less fuel in the process. For example, they only thing that you achieve by commuting to work at 30 mph in a BMW 335/328 as appose to a BMW 320 is to burn more fuel.
So, even foreign cars in the rest of the world are more efficient that foreign cars in North America.
Farm subsidies must be one of the most misunderstood topics on earth. The problem is not so much that the US and EU subsidize their farmers as it is that they (plus WB, IMF, etc.) demand that the developing/3rd world don't.
I grew up on a farm in the developing world (South Africa). While we had farm subsidies (pre GATT etc.) my father produced about three times as much food as he does today (actual figures). This, despite the fact that we went through one of the worst droughts during those years ('76-86, Northern Cape Province). Today, we have much better climatic conditions, but no subsidies. So why does he need subsidies if the climatic conditions are good? Security. Twenty plus years ago, he could maximize production, because if something went wrong, the government would step in to help. Low interest loans, guaranteed prices, etc. Today he has to farm ultra conservatively, because one misstep and he goes belly up. The result, decreased production. His income has gone down because the increase in food prices at the retail stores do not get passed on to the producers, but he still does okay. The consumer however has to shell out more to get less and a whole lot of people go to bed hungry.
There is some logic behind the negativity towards subsidies, as they can be abused and mismanaged, but banning them for those reasons is like turning of a server to secure it.
Remember, in the developing world a commercial farm often literally supports hundreds of people (laborers and their families) and not just a farmer and a couple of machines.
In my experience, the average PHB has much more IT knowledge than the average policy maker has farming knowledge.
I am all for alternative/renewable energy, but we still have a very long way to go. In my experience, most people who are very outspoken about alternative energy have never had to rely on it.
I grew up on a farm that is not on the "grid". For more than 20 years my parents have relied on solar energy (photo voltaic). Luckily they live in a "desert", so there is plenty of sunshine.
Their panels deliver 36 Volts at 42 Amps. This is stored in a 36 Volt battery bank. From there it is fed to the house through a 4kW inverter.
The (60) panels are mounted on a huge movable structure that is manually reorientated to the sun regularly. Hot water is obtained by making fire under a drum with a gas geyser as backup.
All fridges and freezers are special low energy high efficiency and cost about 10 times what "normal" fridges and freezers cost.
We used solar water heating at one point, but the problem is that it is to hot in summer and you can't just flick a switch in winter if the water is not warm enough.
This system works fine when my parents are on the farm on their own, but as soon as they have guests, they almost always have to rely on the backup diesel generator. While they are settled into their routine, the system is quite reliable, but as soon as the routine is broken, you have problems. There is no affordable way to accurately determine how much energy is left in the battery bank and how long it will last.
Their energy costs are astronomical, compared to mine, but more importantly, their entire lives are controlled by it. Every decision that they make have to take into consideration the energy effects. It drives my wife nuts that she has to notify my mom in advanced if she wants to blow-dry her hair.
Yes, a lot of these problem may not exist if you are on the "grid". Removing the storage from the equation could make a huge difference, but it is still a very expensive exercise.
We can save fuel by making cars more efficient, carpooling, using public transport or even just slowing down. In order to get a workable solution, we have to find a balance between cost, saving and inconvenience.
At the moment, alternative energy is like asking everybody to slow down. For the average person, the inconvenience will outweigh the savings.
Yes and no. Traditional windmills are expensive to put up. They have plenty of moving parts and require multiple people to service, mainly due to the weight of the pipes. Also, pipes tend to rust.
What is nice about solar powered pumps is that you take a submersible pump, attach normal plastic (poly) pipe and one person can drop it in or take it out.
There is only a pump, some plastic pipe, electrical wire and solar panels. Hence, very little can go wrong and you can carry spares of everything. The pumps are extremely low maintenance. My dad farms in a (semi) desert area, so there is plenty of sun. This means that you also need a smaller dam (reservoir) because solar power is more abundant than wind. If you need to pump more water, you can put in a bigger pump, add more panels or even another power source without much effort. Having said that, out of the fifty odd boreholes on his farm, only about four or so have solar pumps installed. While he is not going to take down working windmills, he has no intention of ever installing new ones.
Because not all boreholes are used all of the time, you can move a solar pump from one site to another, whereas a windmill is fixed to one spot.
At the current rate of attrition, I think the windmills on his farm will probably still be safe for at least another fifty years.
Cost of panels is not the issue at all. How do I know this? Because my parents' farm is completely reliant on solar power.
Our compound is supplied by an array of solar panels (60) that will probably cover more than just the "south" side of the average suburban home's roof. Some of our boreholes are pumped by solar powered pumps. The biggest problem is not the cost of panels. It is the cost and efficiency of inverters and batteries. Especially batteries. The panels are more than 20 years old, and most of them are still going strong. A couple are cracked, discolored or damaged, but overall the panel array probably still puts out about 90%+ of what it did at installation. The rest of the system is a pain to to maintain and expensive to operate. If panels were expensive, but it was a one time expense with little to no cost to maintain, then it would be fine. However, solar panels are the simple part of the equation. The rest of the system is horrible to maintain. That is why solar pumps run during the daytime only. It is cheaper and simpler to install a bigger pump with more panels to power it than it is to try and get the system to work 24/7.
If all I needed to run solar in town was some panels, I would definitely be doing so. I know that in some countries you can use the grid for storage, but I am not sure how practical that is, considering that peak consumption is mornings and evenings and you have to make provisions for those cloudy days.
My contract is coming to an end. I do NOT want a new phone. I have to pay a penalty for the "right" NOT to get a new phone. This is worse than the M$ tax. I do not understand why I have to pay more for a contract (same rates, same free minutes, etc.) without a new phone then with a new phone. Can someone please explain how this works?
We left Japan after rebuilding. We left Korea. We left Vietnam. We left Kuwait. We left Somalia and Kosovo. We're going to leave Afghanistan and Iraq, too, when the job is done.
Many current U.S. bases were acquired in subsequent wars--the Second World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the war in Afghanistan. U.S. military bases in Okinawa, formally part of Japan, are a legacy of the U.S. occupation of Japan during the Second World War.http://www.monthlyreview.org/0302editr.htm
Non-Lethat weapons are potentially more dangerous than lethal weapons.
With Lethal Weapons authorities have to get their duck in a row before opening fire.
With Non-Lethal Weapons oppression is much easier because there is no body-count for the media (and us) to get excited about the next day.
I live in (the Republic of) South Africa. Not to many countries inside this country. I also can not think of a nearby country that has both oil and a king. The rest of your story sounds very plausible though. Big companies/countries love the corruption in Africa when it goes in their favour, but are very quick to complain when it helps a competitor. Meanwhile, the locals lose all the way.
Someone sees Linus in Australia and it makes a/. story. We make many attempts to anounce Idlelo, the first OSS conference ever held in Africa and attracting no less than Richard Stallman, but fail to make the cut.
For those of you who care, it is currently running at the University of the Western Cape in Cape Town/Bellville, South Africa (http://idlelo.uwc.ac.za).
And those of you that watch proper sport will know what the heading means.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the complication here?
I do not have access to both ends of the cable.
My knowledge of networking is limited.
Scanning, monitoring or analyzing the network in any way is verboten. Our network managers seem to have an infinite budget for acquiring tools to detect that sort of thing and none for actually maintaining the networks and services.
etc...
Our building was apparently the first one on campus to be wired. I have two coax points in my office. We have huge networking problems, such as all http traffic not originating from IE being dropped by the firewall/proxy server. Took almost three months to have that problem resolved. We have (illegally) mapped our network. It is not pretty. Over the years many technicians from many vendors have made many changes to it. My HOD have asked me to investigate the problem and hence the question.
If the answer is that cables either work perfectly or not at all, then the problem is more likely to be configuration. I just had to start somewhere.
I have witnessed first hand what the effects of rewiring a 40 year old house can have on electricity consumption. Not significant if you are on the grid, but very significant if you have to rely on alternative (solar) energy.
Not going to happen any time soon. Do you have a "slow charge, high drain battery bank in the basement"? We have been reliant on such a system for domestic power for the last 20 years. We have about 330 days of sunshine per year, so we have a PV array with a generator as a backup. Yes, this system is much better than the days when we only had the generator, but it still sucks. Battery banks are expensive, high maintenance and inconvenient and anything that relies on their large scale adoption is stillborn. Ask anyone with a golf cart how expensive they are to maintain.
I did this for my M.Sc. almost 10 years ago. The idea was to find seminal works. Unfortunately I only had access to 100000 papers total, not all papers since 1893. Still showed that it worked in principle.
North America +5 Insightful
Rest of the World +5 Sad
Compare for instance, two competitors in the sedan market, a 2009 V-6 Toyota Camry, and a 2009 V-6 Ford Taurus. The Camry gets 19/28 mpg, and the Taurus gets 18/28.
I am not going to attack the fact that you pick two random cars (with similar fuel consumption) to represent the entire US and foreign auto industries. Instead what amuses me is the fact that these are the typical models you select.
A sedan with a 3.5l V6 engine would hardly be my entry into a discussion on fuel efficiency. But then, North Americans seem to need that sort of grunt to propel themselves from one traffic light to another. We use to borrow my wife's grandmother's Taurus when we went to visit my in-laws in Canada. It had a 3l or 3.4l engine. We really did not need that power to do 50/70/90km/h. I remember a piece of highway on the way to Mt Washington where we were actually allowed to do 110km/h. I can assure you that her grandmother has never legally driven it more than 90km/h and most probably never legally taken it over 70km/h. (3l -> 18/26mpg or 3.4l -> 15/24mpg
Contrast that with their visit here when we traveled as 5 adults with a 7 ft luggage trailer and aircon in my wife's 160 Etude/Protege. We averaged 27mpg (actual figures over 1890km) at or near 120km/h most of the way. The car is quite capable of doing 160km/h on the deserted roads of the Northern Cape (never done it with the trailer) and with the aircon on the fuel consumption falls to 23mpg. It tows my Hobie just fine though I limit myself to 100km/h and it might struggle to maintain higher speeds. Over a 6 month stretch my wife averaged 35.6mpg commuting to work, though granted, most of it was highway.
So what is my point? This ( http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/BMW2009.shtml ) site seems to list the smallest BMW in the US as the 128i. Here it would be the 118i. The smallest 3 is the 328. Here it is the 320i, which would probably also be the most common. These cars are neither slow nor under powered, for everyday use. So while the 335ci (17/26mpg) and the Taurus (18/28mpg) might be comparable, they both pale in comparison to the 320i (46.3mpg combined according to http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/bmw-320i-1002947.html) though realistically it is probably more like 22/33mpg ( http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=10089 ).
I have no problem with people wanting powerful or inefficient cars. I too have a 3l V6 truck (bakkie). When I bought it it was the least fuel efficient 14.4mpg average to date (and most powerful) on the market. It gets me to work in exactly the same time as my little 1.3l car.
When people say that foreign (to North America) cars are more efficient, they are not saying that a Japanese SUV with a 4.5l engine is more efficient than a US SUV with a 4.5l engine. What they are saying is that in the rest of the world there are cars that can perform the tasks that the average North American car performs comparably, but using less fuel in the process. For example, they only thing that you achieve by commuting to work at 30 mph in a BMW 335/328 as appose to a BMW 320 is to burn more fuel.
So, even foreign cars in the rest of the world are more efficient that foreign cars in North America.
Farm subsidies must be one of the most misunderstood topics on earth. The problem is not so much that the US and EU subsidize their farmers as it is that they (plus WB, IMF, etc.) demand that the developing/3rd world don't.
I grew up on a farm in the developing world (South Africa). While we had farm subsidies (pre GATT etc.) my father produced about three times as much food as he does today (actual figures). This, despite the fact that we went through one of the worst droughts during those years ('76-86, Northern Cape Province). Today, we have much better climatic conditions, but no subsidies. So why does he need subsidies if the climatic conditions are good? Security. Twenty plus years ago, he could maximize production, because if something went wrong, the government would step in to help. Low interest loans, guaranteed prices, etc. Today he has to farm ultra conservatively, because one misstep and he goes belly up. The result, decreased production. His income has gone down because the increase in food prices at the retail stores do not get passed on to the producers, but he still does okay. The consumer however has to shell out more to get less and a whole lot of people go to bed hungry.
There is some logic behind the negativity towards subsidies, as they can be abused and mismanaged, but banning them for those reasons is like turning of a server to secure it.
Remember, in the developing world a commercial farm often literally supports hundreds of people (laborers and their families) and not just a farmer and a couple of machines.
In my experience, the average PHB has much more IT knowledge than the average policy maker has farming knowledge.
Valid point, but there is a difference between taking this into consideration and having it completely dominate your life.
I am all for alternative/renewable energy, but we still have a very long way to go. In my experience, most people who are very outspoken about alternative energy have never had to rely on it.
I grew up on a farm that is not on the "grid". For more than 20 years my parents have relied on solar energy (photo voltaic). Luckily they live in a "desert", so there is plenty of sunshine.
Their panels deliver 36 Volts at 42 Amps. This is stored in a 36 Volt battery bank. From there it is fed to the house through a 4kW inverter.
The (60) panels are mounted on a huge movable structure that is manually reorientated to the sun regularly. Hot water is obtained by making fire under a drum with a gas geyser as backup.
All fridges and freezers are special low energy high efficiency and cost about 10 times what "normal" fridges and freezers cost.
We used solar water heating at one point, but the problem is that it is to hot in summer and you can't just flick a switch in winter if the water is not warm enough.
This system works fine when my parents are on the farm on their own, but as soon as they have guests, they almost always have to rely on the backup diesel generator. While they are settled into their routine, the system is quite reliable, but as soon as the routine is broken, you have problems. There is no affordable way to accurately determine how much energy is left in the battery bank and how long it will last.
Their energy costs are astronomical, compared to mine, but more importantly, their entire lives are controlled by it. Every decision that they make have to take into consideration the energy effects. It drives my wife nuts that she has to notify my mom in advanced if she wants to blow-dry her hair.
Yes, a lot of these problem may not exist if you are on the "grid". Removing the storage from the equation could make a huge difference, but it is still a very expensive exercise.
We can save fuel by making cars more efficient, carpooling, using public transport or even just slowing down. In order to get a workable solution, we have to find a balance between cost, saving and inconvenience.
At the moment, alternative energy is like asking everybody to slow down. For the average person, the inconvenience will outweigh the savings.
and ask to buy it from them. Once you own it you can do what you want...
Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi is a woman, and she can give as good as she gets. She has a reputation as being a tough cookie.
Yes and no. Traditional windmills are expensive to put up. They have plenty of moving parts and require multiple people to service, mainly due to the weight of the pipes. Also, pipes tend to rust.
What is nice about solar powered pumps is that you take a submersible pump, attach normal plastic (poly) pipe and one person can drop it in or take it out.
There is only a pump, some plastic pipe, electrical wire and solar panels. Hence, very little can go wrong and you can carry spares of everything. The pumps are extremely low maintenance. My dad farms in a (semi) desert area, so there is plenty of sun. This means that you also need a smaller dam (reservoir) because solar power is more abundant than wind. If you need to pump more water, you can put in a bigger pump, add more panels or even another power source without much effort. Having said that, out of the fifty odd boreholes on his farm, only about four or so have solar pumps installed. While he is not going to take down working windmills, he has no intention of ever installing new ones.
Because not all boreholes are used all of the time, you can move a solar pump from one site to another, whereas a windmill is fixed to one spot.
At the current rate of attrition, I think the windmills on his farm will probably still be safe for at least another fifty years.
Cost of panels is not the issue at all. How do I know this? Because my parents' farm is completely reliant on solar power.
Our compound is supplied by an array of solar panels (60) that will probably cover more than just the "south" side of the average suburban home's roof. Some of our boreholes are pumped by solar powered pumps. The biggest problem is not the cost of panels. It is the cost and efficiency of inverters and batteries. Especially batteries. The panels are more than 20 years old, and most of them are still going strong. A couple are cracked, discolored or damaged, but overall the panel array probably still puts out about 90%+ of what it did at installation. The rest of the system is a pain to to maintain and expensive to operate.
If panels were expensive, but it was a one time expense with little to no cost to maintain, then it would be fine. However, solar panels are the simple part of the equation. The rest of the system is horrible to maintain. That is why solar pumps run during the daytime only. It is cheaper and simpler to install a bigger pump with more panels to power it than it is to try and get the system to work 24/7.
If all I needed to run solar in town was some panels, I would definitely be doing so. I know that in some countries you can use the grid for storage, but I am not sure how practical that is, considering that peak consumption is mornings and evenings and you have to make provisions for those cloudy days.
My contract is coming to an end. I do NOT want a new phone. I have to pay a penalty for the "right" NOT to get a new phone. This is worse than the M$ tax. I do not understand why I have to pay more for a contract (same rates, same free minutes, etc.) without a new phone then with a new phone. Can someone please explain how this works?
We left Japan after rebuilding. We left Korea. We left Vietnam. We left Kuwait. We left Somalia and Kosovo. We're going to leave Afghanistan and Iraq, too, when the job is done.
0 313.htm
0 03/0710imperialmap.htm
I guess left is a relative concept.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/2003
Many current U.S. bases were acquired in subsequent wars--the Second World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the war in Afghanistan. U.S. military bases in Okinawa, formally part of Japan, are a legacy of the U.S. occupation of Japan during the Second World War. http://www.monthlyreview.org/0302editr.htm
Compare the red spots on the map to the countries listed in the quote.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2
Non-Lethat weapons are potentially more dangerous than lethal weapons. With Lethal Weapons authorities have to get their duck in a row before opening fire. With Non-Lethal Weapons oppression is much easier because there is no body-count for the media (and us) to get excited about the next day.
I live in (the Republic of) South Africa. Not to many countries inside this country. I also can not think of a nearby country that has both oil and a king. The rest of your story sounds very plausible though. Big companies/countries love the corruption in Africa when it goes in their favour, but are very quick to complain when it helps a competitor. Meanwhile, the locals lose all the way.
Someone sees Linus in Australia and it makes a /. story. We make many attempts to anounce Idlelo, the first OSS conference ever held in Africa and attracting no less than Richard Stallman, but fail to make the cut.
For those of you who care, it is currently running at the University of the Western Cape in Cape Town/Bellville, South Africa (http://idlelo.uwc.ac.za).
And those of you that watch proper sport will know what the heading means.