As the author states, hydrogen is not a source of energy but a way of storing and transporting it. I give him credit for recognizing that. But we still have to get the energy from somewhere, and that is the 800 pound gorilla the author dismisses so lightly.
What's the author saying - taking a strong point of view is a danger to society? Give me a break.
To associate extreme, even blind, enthusiasm for a particular point of view with terrorism does a disservice to those who have suffered from or fought real terrorism.
I read the report - it's low grade material. For example, the report suggests that the FTAA demands that countries fill their prisons with IP violators. The language of the agreement says prison and/or fines, giving courts far more latitude. It's a pity - sound criticism of the FTAA
would be valuable, but we aren't getting it from this sensationalized report. I suspect the authors are opposed to IP rights in general.
In my post I did not say that XP was hacking, but that it invited it by making the refactor step easy to skimp on. Anyway, I believe good basic design comes from standing back (waaaay back) to get the big picture, something code-refactor-repeat does not lend itself to.
The trouble with XP, fast prototyping, and similar methods, is that they are too often interpreted as an invitation to program by the seat of the pants - that is to say, to hack. I've seen too much success with up-front design, received too much valuable advice from users before coding ever began, to abandon it. It's good to see a middle ground proposed.
What we need is privately owned power generation and transmission. This does not prevent regulation - indeed it's easier to regulate private enterprize than government organizations. It's very much in owners' interests that the grid be stable and dependable. The profit motive can be a powerful force for good.
Regarding the necessity of power, this has been true for many, many decades, but this is not a case for public ownership. Food is also a necessity, but God help us if government were to run the food industry. Regulate yes, own no.
The author has assumed that we're in some kind of
technology-created employment crisis. There is scant evidence for that. In the middle of a
recession, very few industrialized have even double-digit unemployment, this despite
an influx of both immigrants and women into the
work place over the last 30 years. In places like
Germany, high unemployment can be traced to policies which actually deter companies from hiring, while the U.S. has been a massivew job creation engine over the last 20 years.
The author's basic premise is simply wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
As the author states, hydrogen is not a source of energy but a way of storing and transporting it. I give him credit for recognizing that. But we still have to get the energy from somewhere, and that is the 800 pound gorilla the author dismisses so lightly.
What's the author saying - taking a strong point of view is a danger to society? Give me a break. To associate extreme, even blind, enthusiasm for a particular point of view with terrorism does a disservice to those who have suffered from or fought real terrorism.
I read the report - it's low grade material. For example, the report suggests that the FTAA demands that countries fill their prisons with IP violators. The language of the agreement says prison and/or fines, giving courts far more latitude. It's a pity - sound criticism of the FTAA would be valuable, but we aren't getting it from this sensationalized report. I suspect the authors are opposed to IP rights in general.
In my post I did not say that XP was hacking, but that it invited it by making the refactor step easy to skimp on. Anyway, I believe good basic design comes from standing back (waaaay back) to get the big picture, something code-refactor-repeat does not lend itself to.
The trouble with XP, fast prototyping, and similar methods, is that they are too often interpreted as an invitation to program by the seat of the pants - that is to say, to hack. I've seen too much success with up-front design, received too much valuable advice from users before coding ever began, to abandon it. It's good to see a middle ground proposed.
What we need is privately owned power generation and transmission. This does not prevent regulation - indeed it's easier to regulate private enterprize than government organizations. It's very much in owners' interests that the grid be stable and dependable. The profit motive can be a powerful force for good. Regarding the necessity of power, this has been true for many, many decades, but this is not a case for public ownership. Food is also a necessity, but God help us if government were to run the food industry. Regulate yes, own no.
I totally agree. The article, and most of the subsequent postings, are junk economics. It's poor quality stuff.
The author has assumed that we're in some kind of technology-created employment crisis. There is scant evidence for that. In the middle of a recession, very few industrialized have even double-digit unemployment, this despite an influx of both immigrants and women into the work place over the last 30 years. In places like Germany, high unemployment can be traced to policies which actually deter companies from hiring, while the U.S. has been a massivew job creation engine over the last 20 years. The author's basic premise is simply wrong.