>The solution isn't to find one "magic button" to substitute at one shot for all our energy needs. >The solution will be a lot of pieces, including many "small scale" pieces. If you think about it >*most* of us are small-scale users. But it all adds up.
Yea, 'cus it will be alot more efficient when everyone's furnace and car run on different fuels!
>Biodiesel is one excellent piece. And it has carbon cycle / pollution benefits (should be used on >school and city diesel buses for just that reason alone).
Good idea, because government money is free money right?
>(Why all public buildings don't have solar roofs in sunbelt states is absurd. Why there aren't >aesthetically pleasing solar solutions... well, we are getting there, actually.)
Maybe because they are still excessively expensive and it is MUCH cheaper to just use power from the power company. Oh, I forgot, government money is free money...Sorry
I am glad to see that you are concerned about the aesthetics though. For a minute I thought there was an actual problem.
>>Hydro electric power is pretty cool too. Wind is not as cool as it seems. Very variable and it >>disrupts weather patterns.
>Wind disrupts weather patterns? Unless you're talking about curbing global warming, I've never seen >a shred of evidence that wind turbines affect the weather.
Using the same logic, trees would do the same thing. I propose a nationwide mobilization to cut down all of those pesky trees that are disrupting our weather.
There's probably also the worry that with all of these propellers going, we will slow the earth's rotation making the days longer causing the earth to warm up.:-)
>They've polluted the atmosphere and had the laws of the land perverted to reach their goals (drilling sideways for oil? drilling on public land?).
What are you talking about? 1. The producers are not the most significant polluters, the consumers are. 2. Directional drilling is a great tool when you don't happen to want to drill straight down, what is your problem with that? 3. Utilizing the public lands for oil and mining is a completely appropriate use, it ALWAYS HAS BEEN. Trying to whine about this 200 years later is silly and revisionist. Moreover, it is not like they stop by for a picnic and decide to drop in a well. They pay the US government for the right to drill.
>They monopolized energy and then used their monopoly as an excuse to gain extraordinary power in this country [3](because after all, they're the only company that _can_ drill here, right?).
Who is "they", the dozens of oil companies that, in fact, make energy a perfect commodity? No, anyone with the money and a lease or ownership of mineral rights can drill oil. Are you in some other country? I know Saudi has a monopoly thing going, as does Mexico as I recall, but the US certainly does not.
>Vote with your wallet for a different set of energy suppliers.
Yea, because you don't want to trust the people who have been doing this successfully for 100 years and have a distribution network established.
>Plants are completely renewable, and we can basically pick where they are grown.
Not really true on any significant scale.
>But new plants eat co2 and create oxygen.
And burning plants release co2 and consume o2
>Mining it is not fun stuff for people. You breath unclean air, you're in the dark. Cave-ins, oxygen depletion, nasty stuff.
Depends on where you are mining it. Back east sure, but in the west we just kind of dust it off and load it onto trains.
>Plants tend to like to grow in the sun, which people pay good money just to go somewhere and do nothing and lay in the sun.
So, you are suggesting some sort of energy growing resort? Next vacation, come to Iowa and grow soy for biodiesel!
>Hydro electric power is pretty cool too.
Sure, if you are planning your next lake on someone else's land
>Hippie nonsense aside, I think that wasting energy via biodiesel and other direct plant to usable forms of energy is a damn good source of energy in my eye.
Why is it ok to waste biodiesel? Biodiesel is a decent alternative to diesel for some, but I don't see how wasting biodiesel is any more appropriate then any other wasting of energy..
Nothing is sustainable across a long enough span of time.
If we were talking hydrogen, you'd be complaining about using up our water for fuel.
The trick is to adapt, and we will, we always do. Malthus was only wrong because things change.
When the usual price of energy creeps too high this will create a profit motive for additional research and development as well as making higher priced alternatives more attractive as the economics change. (And no, even at $3 a gallon our energy is still insanely cheap)
Panicing about something that will not happen for 100+ years is silly and counter productive, consider the changes over the last 100 years as evidence.
Wow, this is a horrible thread...I guess I'll join it...
1. Biodiesel = Diesel (more (NO2) or less (carbon dust)) 2. Reused restuarant oil is not really going to work for more then a small percentage of the people. After that you need to make more oil from soy, or whatever so the reuse percentage goes way down. (I can see the ads now, oil kills us via terrorists...Biodiesel kills us with fried food)
>>As long as one side of the argument is for maintenance of the status quo any compromise is a losing >>situation for that side. > >This does not make the end result a negative.
I'm glad you have changed the argument to suit yourself. Please actually read the first couple of messages. I said, "As long as one side of the argument is for maintenance of the status quo any compromise is a losing situation for that side." (You should be hitting yourself in the head and saying "duh" now.) The end result is a negative from the perspective of the person who "is for maintenance of the status quo".
>>I welcome your input. I think you are wrong, in fact I think any standard definition of "status >>quo" requires you to be wrong.
>Abolishment of slavery, women's suffrage, free speech, public education. The list goes on. Are you >seriously going to argue these changes to the "status quo" have produced a net negative result ?
Hell, why not, you seem to be arguing a different position every time I hear from you. But no, I am arguing that, "As long as one side of the argument is for maintenance of the status quo any compromise is a losing situation for that side."
Some silly "net negative result" criteria has nothing to do with the argument at hand, and you can't honestly call any of the examples that you provide a "compromise". There was a right side and a wrong side. We tried compromise on the slavery deal, it sucked. Do we only allow women to vote in local elections? Is free speech only for the press? Is public education only available to the poor?
Do you understand the terms compromise and status quo?
>You seem to be arguing compromise is inherently bad because "the status quo always loses in a compromise".
And you seem to be arguing that only religious fanatics reject compromise as a "Win-Win" scenario.
As long as one side of the argument is for maintenance of the status quo any compromise is a losing situation for that side.
Now if the question is one of degree (you want lots of porn I only want a little porn) you still have an obvious winner and loser (you win because there is _more_ porn upon a compromise).
I guess there is the other class of compromise that changes one of the constants involved, such as agreeing that you can have all of the porn you want...in France, but changing that constant would change the nature of the argument.
>You shouldn't have to think particularly hard to come up with a few examples of why this position is silly (not to mention untenable).
I welcome your input. I think you are wrong, in fact I think any standard definition of "status quo" requires you to be wrong.
>Like most religious fanatics, they're not prepared to compromise.
1. I am not a religious fanatic 2. I don't mind porn
Compromise is highly overrated, in essence the status quo always loses in a compromise, so, if you are ok with the way things are then the compromise is always a loser position. This basic truth forms the basis for the ongoing destruction of the United States as we know it (from either political tilt).
Some Examples...These are tilted one way, think a bit and you can tilt them to suit your own politics.
Money 1. I want to keep all of my money 2. You want some of my money Compromise: You get some of my money, Side 1 loses.
Porn 1. We want no porn anywhere. 2. We want porn everywhere;-) Compromise: Let's have some porn. Side 1 loses.
Gun Laws 1. Leave all of our guns alone 2. We want to ban all of your guns Compromise: Let's ban scary looking guns, Side 1 loses.
Free Speech 1. We have freedom of speech 2. We don't think you should say ______ Compromise: You can say whatever you want except ______, Side 1 loses
Lawmaking in general 1. Everything is ok the way it is 2. I want to pass a law that does X Compromise: Let's have a law that does x/2, Side 1 loses
I happen to possess this gene and I am using it in the proper manner.
However, it appears to be doing damage to my other systems.
Now if they have a monopoly on the money to be made from the use and manipulation of this gene then they should similarly have the responsibility to ensure that their gene does no harm, or to, at a minimum, provide financial restitution for harms done.
It's technically always ok. They might tell you otherwise but they can't do anything about it due to old pro-union laws. (sharing salary info is a precursor to unionization).
Perhaps the point to the lesson is to see who does it and then fail them...
You have to teach ethics someday particularly given the "information wants to be free" and the "I should be able to share _your_ property however I want" crowds.
Sun is one of the best friends open source has. Try opening your eyes and not just your mouth. You bitch about FUD and then spread your own filthy version of it it a public forum.
Sure Sun and MS bought legally dubious licenses, in the sense that they might be completely worthless from an IP perspective. On the other hand they are not being distracted, having to waste money on lawyers due to stupid lawsuits with SCO, or having to reassure their customers about the whole deal.
It's a perfectly legitimate (and wise) business practice. Try not to forget that no one is doing anything "For the community" no matter how much they want to say that they are, all of the big players in this drama are businesses with vested interests in the outcome (There are some that are just pawns, like that auto parts company AutoZone maybe(?).)
You know the worst part about this is that when I read it I didn't think, "This has to be a joke", or even "Wow! This guy is messed up!", but instead it was, "I think I work with this guy".
1. The EU is certainly a joke, you'll see it crumble as soon as the good people of Europe realise that allowing this organization to be anything other then a free-trade zone was a horrible mistake. 2. This is a BS "Me Too" lawsuit with trumped up charges in a pathetic effort to "prove" damages. I certainly hope MS realises this and walks. Crap like this is too distracting, and frankly there is not enough money on the table to mess with these bureaucrats. It's time to shut down the offices, block the subnet's and walk away. The only return when the business climate is less litigious or the EU folds.
Hell, if they do I'll go get an MCSE and start doing Windows again.
The basic problem here is that no one remembers how bad it sucked before the "monopoly".
Slashdot Mirror
Dell has a linux support group and it has community forums.
I haven't run into a problem that one or the other (and google) can't fix.
It's not supposed to be about free as in beer, it is supposed to be about free as in freedom.
Learn your dogma.
THINK...
They have a couple hundred thousand preinstalled harddrives with Windows for laptops, and you want one without Windows?
How is this easy for them to manage for the 5 or 6 people who don't even want to be able to dual boot their laptops?
Perhaps if you thought things through you would realise that there is no conspiracy, just good business sense.
Dell has good Linux support across a variety of platforms, and Linux versions.
Learn who your friends are.
I was thinking more along the lines of splitting water for hydrogen for fusion which result in helium.
>The solution isn't to find one "magic button" to substitute at one shot for all our energy needs.
>The solution will be a lot of pieces, including many "small scale" pieces. If you think about it
>*most* of us are small-scale users. But it all adds up.
Yea, 'cus it will be alot more efficient when everyone's furnace and car run on different fuels!
>Biodiesel is one excellent piece. And it has carbon cycle / pollution benefits (should be used on
>school and city diesel buses for just that reason alone).
Good idea, because government money is free money right?
>(Why all public buildings don't have solar roofs in sunbelt states is absurd. Why there aren't
>aesthetically pleasing solar solutions... well, we are getting there, actually.)
Maybe because they are still excessively expensive and it is MUCH cheaper to just use power from the power company. Oh, I forgot, government money is free money...Sorry
I am glad to see that you are concerned about the aesthetics though. For a minute I thought there was an actual problem.
>>Hydro electric power is pretty cool too. Wind is not as cool as it seems. Very variable and it >>disrupts weather patterns.
:-)
>Wind disrupts weather patterns? Unless you're talking about curbing global warming, I've never seen >a shred of evidence that wind turbines affect the weather.
Using the same logic, trees would do the same thing. I propose a nationwide mobilization to cut down all of those pesky trees that are disrupting our weather.
There's probably also the worry that with all of these propellers going, we will slow the earth's rotation making the days longer causing the earth to warm up.
>They've polluted the atmosphere and had the laws of the land perverted to reach their goals (drilling sideways for oil? drilling on public land?).
What are you talking about?
1. The producers are not the most significant polluters, the consumers are.
2. Directional drilling is a great tool when you don't happen to want to drill straight down, what is your problem with that?
3. Utilizing the public lands for oil and mining is a completely appropriate use, it ALWAYS HAS BEEN. Trying to whine about this 200 years later is silly and revisionist. Moreover, it is not like they stop by for a picnic and decide to drop in a well. They pay the US government for the right to drill.
>They monopolized energy and then used their monopoly as an excuse to gain extraordinary power in this country [3](because after all, they're the only company that _can_ drill here, right?).
Who is "they", the dozens of oil companies that, in fact, make energy a perfect commodity? No, anyone with the money and a lease or ownership of mineral rights can drill oil. Are you in some other country? I know Saudi has a monopoly thing going, as does Mexico as I recall, but the US certainly does not.
>Vote with your wallet for a different set of energy suppliers.
Yea, because you don't want to trust the people who have been doing this successfully for 100 years and have a distribution network established.
>Plants are completely renewable, and we can basically pick where they are grown.
Not really true on any significant scale.
>But new plants eat co2 and create oxygen.
And burning plants release co2 and consume o2
>Mining it is not fun stuff for people. You breath unclean air, you're in the dark. Cave-ins, oxygen depletion, nasty stuff.
Depends on where you are mining it. Back east sure, but in the west we just kind of dust it off and load it onto trains.
>Plants tend to like to grow in the sun, which people pay good money just to go somewhere and do nothing and lay in the sun.
So, you are suggesting some sort of energy growing resort? Next vacation, come to Iowa and grow soy for biodiesel!
>Hydro electric power is pretty cool too.
Sure, if you are planning your next lake on someone else's land
>Hippie nonsense aside, I think that wasting energy via biodiesel and other direct plant to usable forms of energy is a damn good source of energy in my eye.
Why is it ok to waste biodiesel? Biodiesel is a decent alternative to diesel for some, but I don't see how wasting biodiesel is any more appropriate then any other wasting of energy..
>Plus, you can't put coal in your gas tank.
You could use coal gas...
Nothing is sustainable across a long enough span of time.
If we were talking hydrogen, you'd be complaining about using up our water for fuel.
The trick is to adapt, and we will, we always do. Malthus was only wrong because things change.
When the usual price of energy creeps too high this will create a profit motive for additional research and development as well as making higher priced alternatives more attractive as the economics change. (And no, even at $3 a gallon our energy is still insanely cheap)
Panicing about something that will not happen for 100+ years is silly and counter productive, consider the changes over the last 100 years as evidence.
Wow, this is a horrible thread...I guess I'll join it...
1. Biodiesel = Diesel (more (NO2) or less (carbon dust))
2. Reused restuarant oil is not really going to work for more then a small percentage of the people. After that you need to make more oil from soy, or whatever so the reuse percentage goes way down. (I can see the ads now, oil kills us via terrorists...Biodiesel kills us with fried food)
>It isn't entirely his fault, but to blame him is asinine
I agree
>>As long as one side of the argument is for maintenance of the status quo any compromise is a losing
>>situation for that side.
>
>This does not make the end result a negative.
I'm glad you have changed the argument to suit yourself. Please actually read the first couple of messages. I said, "As long as one side of the argument is for maintenance of the status quo any compromise is a losing situation for that side." (You should be hitting yourself in the head and saying "duh" now.) The end result is a negative from the perspective of the person who "is for maintenance of the status quo".
>>I welcome your input. I think you are wrong, in fact I think any standard definition of "status
>>quo" requires you to be wrong.
>Abolishment of slavery, women's suffrage, free speech, public education. The list goes on. Are you
>seriously going to argue these changes to the "status quo" have produced a net negative result ?
Hell, why not, you seem to be arguing a different position every time I hear from you. But no, I am arguing that, "As long as one side of the argument is for maintenance of the status quo any compromise is a losing situation for that side."
Some silly "net negative result" criteria has nothing to do with the argument at hand, and you can't honestly call any of the examples that you provide a "compromise". There was a right side and a wrong side. We tried compromise on the slavery deal, it sucked. Do we only allow women to vote in local elections? Is free speech only for the press? Is public education only available to the poor?
Do you understand the terms compromise and status quo?
DO you have a source for your assertion that the US subsidizes it's gas?
I know we subsidize our ethanol, but that is because we are morons. I don't think we make the same stupid mistake with normal gas.
Irix has Java too.
>You seem to be arguing compromise is inherently bad because "the status quo always loses in a compromise".
And you seem to be arguing that only religious fanatics reject compromise as a "Win-Win" scenario.
As long as one side of the argument is for maintenance of the status quo any compromise is a losing situation for that side.
Now if the question is one of degree (you want lots of porn I only want a little porn) you still have an obvious winner and loser (you win because there is _more_ porn upon a compromise).
I guess there is the other class of compromise that changes one of the constants involved, such as agreeing that you can have all of the porn you want...in France, but changing that constant would change the nature of the argument.
>You shouldn't have to think particularly hard to come up with a few examples of why this position is silly (not to mention untenable).
I welcome your input. I think you are wrong, in fact I think any standard definition of "status quo" requires you to be wrong.
>Like most religious fanatics, they're not prepared to compromise.
;-)
1. I am not a religious fanatic
2. I don't mind porn
Compromise is highly overrated, in essence the status quo always loses in a compromise, so, if you are ok with the way things are then the compromise is always a loser position. This basic truth forms the basis for the ongoing destruction of the United States as we know it (from either political tilt).
Some Examples...These are tilted one way, think a bit and you can tilt them to suit your own politics.
Money
1. I want to keep all of my money
2. You want some of my money
Compromise: You get some of my money, Side 1 loses.
Porn
1. We want no porn anywhere.
2. We want porn everywhere
Compromise: Let's have some porn. Side 1 loses.
Gun Laws
1. Leave all of our guns alone
2. We want to ban all of your guns
Compromise: Let's ban scary looking guns, Side 1 loses.
Free Speech
1. We have freedom of speech
2. We don't think you should say ______
Compromise: You can say whatever you want except ______, Side 1 loses
Lawmaking in general
1. Everything is ok the way it is
2. I want to pass a law that does X
Compromise: Let's have a law that does x/2, Side 1 loses
Someone owns the gene for diabetes...
:-)
I happen to possess this gene and I am using it in the proper manner.
However, it appears to be doing damage to my other systems.
Now if they have a monopoly on the money to be made from the use and manipulation of this gene then they should similarly have the responsibility to ensure that their gene does no harm, or to, at a minimum, provide financial restitution for harms done.
I look forward to my settlement.
Yea, I hate paying for porn too. :-)
Dan
You're right.
Besides, the risk is probably not really that someone will brute force attack your password.
The risk is more that some user thought a dictionary word is a good password - this type of policy/technical control is a good way to stop this.
Dan
It's technically always ok. They might tell you otherwise but they can't do anything about it due to old pro-union laws. (sharing salary info is a precursor to unionization).
Dan
Perhaps the point to the lesson is to see who does it and then fail them...
You have to teach ethics someday particularly given the "information wants to be free" and the "I should be able to share _your_ property however I want" crowds.
Dan
Sun is one of the best friends open source has. Try opening your eyes and not just your mouth. You bitch about FUD and then spread your own filthy version of it it a public forum.
Sure Sun and MS bought legally dubious licenses, in the sense that they might be completely worthless from an IP perspective. On the other hand they are not being distracted, having to waste money on lawyers due to stupid lawsuits with SCO, or having to reassure their customers about the whole deal.
It's a perfectly legitimate (and wise) business practice. Try not to forget that no one is doing anything "For the community" no matter how much they want to say that they are, all of the big players in this drama are businesses with vested interests in the outcome (There are some that are just pawns, like that auto parts company AutoZone maybe(?).)
You know the worst part about this is that when I read it I didn't think, "This has to be a joke", or even "Wow! This guy is messed up!", but instead it was, "I think I work with this guy".
I need a new job.
1. The EU is certainly a joke, you'll see it crumble as soon as the good people of Europe realise that allowing this organization to be anything other then a free-trade zone was a horrible mistake.
2. This is a BS "Me Too" lawsuit with trumped up charges in a pathetic effort to "prove" damages. I certainly hope MS realises this and walks. Crap like this is too distracting, and frankly there is not enough money on the table to mess with these bureaucrats. It's time to shut down the offices, block the subnet's and walk away. The only return when the business climate is less litigious or the EU folds.
Hell, if they do I'll go get an MCSE and start doing Windows again.
The basic problem here is that no one remembers how bad it sucked before the "monopoly".
I'll see your Butler and raise you a Bradley.
"I am convinced that the best service a retired general can perform is to turn in his tongue along with his suit and to mothball his opinions. "
-Omar N. Bradley
Cool, I used to live on Camp Butler. The last CINCSAC was a Butler too, I wonder if they are related.
Dan