Not true, "Sugar Daddy" is also a forbidden adult term.
Did you read the NYT article and suffer from low reading comprehension or are you making things up. TFA specifically says "Google, which has more than a million advertisers, would not comment on why sugar-daddy sites are still considered family safe, but cougar sites are not." Google is allowing "sugar-daddy".
TFA says that "arrangement" is not banned, when that's code for paying tuition in exchange for sex
It does not say it is not banned either. What it does say is "Avid Life Media executives said that while some specific advertisements for the ArrangementSeekers site had been rejected, the ads were evaluated on a case-by-case basis and the site was still advertising with Google."
Falcon
Oh, btw if my own comprehension of what you meant is off explain what you mean.
When I bought my Amiga 1000 part of the reason was that they advertised TurboPascal for the Amiga.
I bought a used Amiga 500 but I don't know if either Turbo Pascal and Turbo C was available for it. I did buy Borland C++ Powerbuilder for my PCs, one running Win 95 another with a DEC Alpha running NT4. The Win 95 PC is long dead and gone but the NT4 PC is under my desk. What I find ironic is that of all commercial software I bought the only one I was able to install on the Alpha was C++ Powerbuilder.
Do you have any idea how much software was written in Turbo Pascal and Turbo C?
And how much of it might have been ported to the Amiga?
A lot, that's it. I don't know how much commercial software was written with them. When I took Pascal and C/C++ those are what we used in my classes. Now I use, only to relearn and continue Java but I haven't done much lately because it hasn't been running right, is Eclipse. As for how much was written for Amiga OS/Workbench I don't know. I say about programming with the Mac, Macs can be used to write programs that run on Linux, Macs, and Windows. Well Amigas was able to do that and program for Amigas. From a purely development/programming perspective using an Amiga seemed best. Of course the user interface would have to do programmed separately, however that's where modularity and UML comes in.
Just to many misses.
I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'll answer as if you mean not many programs were written for Amigas. If more Amigas were sold more software would have been written for it. Demand stimulates production. When Microsoft started it had software written for a number of microcomputer systems from Altairs with Intel 8080 CPUs to systems with Motorola 6800 CPUs to Tandy (Radio Shack) TRS-80s with a Zilog Z80 CPU. Even today MS programs for Macs. MS never stopped programming for Apple, though Bill Gates threatened to stop.
Talk to home darkroom photographers (chemical prints, enlargers, etc).
Oh gosh, I loved working in darkrooms developing film and making enlargements. I hope, but doubt, to start working in darkrooms again. I'd like to try some alternative processes as well.
I've heard there's "red-light" areas in some cities where not too much sleeping is going on in bed. I suggest further research, maybe get a grant to fly to Amsterdam?
Many large cities in Europe, and around the world, have red-light districts but legal prostitution in the US is as close as Nevada. Actually prostitution used to be legal in many states but some of the same sort of people who brought us Prohibition, campaigned to ban it as well.
Although urban lighting has always been with us, we have not (yet?) recognised it as a disruptive influence.
No, some of us were blessed by growing up without street lights, instead we were treated to a multitude of bright stars in the sky. In the US there is hardly any place that does not suffer from lightpollution. Even after first seeing night photos from space years ago of the light pollution covering the US, parts of Canada, and elsewhere still shocks me.
I fall asleep like a baby whenever I'm out backpacking as soon as the lights go out, but in front of a computer I normally fall asleep at about 2-4AM or so.
Growing up I hated, absolutely hated, sleeping at night. I loved going out laying down in the grass to stare at the stars, or bring a book to read by starlight. When I was in the army and we were out in the field it hard for me to sleep at night but in broad daylight I could tune-out for 15 to 30 minutes and feel refreshed.
Been that way since college.
Later, in college at one period it got to the point where I left home to ride my bike the almost 9 miles to campus to be there by 7 am. That took about 35 minutes. It'd be closer to 11 pm than 10 pm when I left campus to go home. Later when I got a full-time job in construction I'd be at the company yard by 6 am, driving my car I could leave home around 6:40 but when I rode my bike I left about 6:10. Being up by 5:30 I still had trouble going to bed by midnight.
As I said before, in the past I hated sleeping and didn't need much. But now with my disability and doing hardly anything I'd prefer to either sleep until I was better or not wake up.
dusk/dawn start before sunrise, so the "blackest night" should be less than 12 hours for all but the deep winter at extreme latitudes, places where hairless naked apes really don't belong anyway
Take away Inuits from the Arctic Circle and they'll be lost.
as I've grown a little "less young" (ahem) I've started to have slight issues, and in particular I notice that if I work right up until bed, I toss and turn worrying all night
Maybe you're an insomniac. Even as a baby I didn't need much sleep, my mom used to say how when I was a baby she'd look to see how I was while in bed and I'd be quiet but wide awake. I've settled down some in my middle ages, what with the all the therapy I've had and the prescriptions I'm taking but even when I was 45 years old I'd be awake almost 60 hours straight, get 8 hours sleep then be up another day and a half before getting another 8 hours.
if I run home from work (about 10 miles) I feel awake all evening (good) and into the night (bad).
How are the roads, or other pavements, and traffic? If they're good then maybe you can ride bike or skate. Around here, Minneapolis/St Paul, we have some bike/hiking pathways people use to go to and from work. At least when there's no snow. Of course not everyone is even near one but many are.
I've noticed an improvement in my sleep patterns since I set a curfew for the computers, stopping any use of them two or three hours before bedtime.
I don't need computers around to have erratic sleep patterns or get little sleep, though one may make it more enjoyable. Before I ever got my first computer I typically got from 4 to 6 hours sleep, sometimes less but rarely more. Of course that's the way I liked it, sleep was a waste of tyme.
Command-Option-Control-8 on OS X, or Ctrl+alt+I in Windows Magnifier on Windows 7 will invert the screen colours which can make night time viewing better.
Thanks, I just tried it on my MacBook Pro and it was weird.
Wait a moment. MacOS and Win 3.1 in their time being able to run on the same hardware?
Yes.
Win 3.1 has always been restricted to x86 processors.
DOS and Win 3.x ran on an add-on card installed in an Amiga. The Mac OS was run the same way, on an add-on card.
MacOS in it's time on what was it the Motorola 68something or so. Definitely not Intels. Win 3.1 was from even before the PPC era. Especially if Amigas were still around other than as museum piece.
Macs and Amigas used the same CPUs, those Motorola 68x00. However back then the Mac OS was in ROM so a board and the ROM or ROM image from a Mac was needed. Emulation on the Amiga has a little more info. There were other methods to emulate Macs too.
If only amiga was able to make their OS more wide-spread and accepted... Sigh.
Yeap, the Amiga marketing was shitty. When Gateway bought the Amiga from Escom I was hoping they'd revive the Amiga but it looks like all they did was waste money. There is AROS but I don't know how that's going.
The one problem (as with any solution here) is that 10TB is nearly impossible to back up.
That depends on whether all that data is changed or is only archived. For archiving 2 4TB external drives can be used to store most of the data with a 2TB drive used for data that is frequently changed. What is more problematic, because it takes action, is to transfer old data to new storage and test it.
Currently I've got a Mac and I use Carbon Copy Cloner to backup my internal HDD to external drives but I want to use Ubuntu as well and don't know how it will work with files backed up by CCC. CCC is supposed to do an exact copy but when I tested a backup once I noticed it didn't preserve all of the file metadata such as creation/modification dates and file attributes or permissions. There are 3 user accounts on my computer and each user was able to open files other users owned. Maybe I didn't use the right options when running CCC. So, will I be able to preserve the metadata and if so can Ubuntu work with it as well is something I'll have to find out. However I am able to make 1, 2, 3, or more backups some of which I can keep onsite while archives are kept off-site.
I second this. I just bought my 2nd DNS 323 after the first one got full. (its cheaper to buy 2 DNS 323 which are 2 bays, compared to getting the 4 bay version). I shoot a lot of pics, and at 20-25 meg per RAW file, it adds up quickly. The first is stacked with 2x1.5 TB drives, the 2nd with 2x2TB drives.
I'd love to get the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, I still have a film based EOS Rebel and lenses for it, which has a file size over 60 MB according to Canon. And though maybe not all the tyme I'm sure there will be tymes I'll want to save photos in raw as well as tiff and or jpeg. Eventually I'll also want to get a medium format camera body, perhaps a 645 like Mamiya's 645AFD III, with film and digital backs. I don't know when but I want to start a photography business.
Right now for mass storage I have 3 external HDDs, two I have here with me while the third can be stored off-site. Now what I'd like is wide area wireless broadband so when I'm out hiking I can upload my photos, I mostly do nature photography but I want to try astrophotography as well.
There's nothing that Amiga demos cannot accomplish.
I recall the first tyme I saw an Amiga demo IRL. It was set up to run the Mac OS and not just Workbench. Next to it was a new Mac running the same Mac OS. The Amiga ran the Mac OS faster than the Mac did. Another Amiga was running MS DOS and Windows 3.x.
Current rollout of renewables is clearly not sufficient because carbon emissions continue to rise at the top end of IPCC projections. And new coal fired facilities are still being built (and not just in China).
Of course new coal power plants are still being built, because they pass external costs to others they are still the cheapest power source for those whop build them. If however caps or carbon taxes were placed on coal then the picture would be different. Of course some accuse cap and trade or similar ideas of harming the poor. That can be mitigated though, the average increase on people's utility bill can be offset by reducing their income tax the same amount. And for those who do not pay income tax then a credit could be given to them. Say for instance the average residential power bill went up $1000 a year they could be given a check for $1000 at the beginning of the year. Or so they won't spend it all on something else at once, they can be given $120 a month. It can even be included on their EBT card.
Besides China India is also building coal fired power plants fast. Kyoto exempted both nations from carbon emission limits. However China is doing more than just using coal. China is the world's fastest, largest, green energy market. Notice that that link is to an article on Bloomberg Businessweek's website and Bloomberg isn't exactly known as an environmental hotbed.
The problems with wind and solar are that they are not base load
I have already addressed the baseload. One, geothermal can be used as the baseload. Two, because Natural Gas fired power plants can quickly be ramped up or slowed down, unlike both coal and nuclear power, they can be used for the baseload until cleaner alternatives emerge.
When the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine they don't produce power.
The sun is always shining somewhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. As I have also stated power blackouts costs US businesses almost $100 Billion a year, according to a sidebar to SciAm's A Solar Grand Plan businesses loss $80 Billion a year from blackouts. The US National Grid is old and failing so it needs to be rebuilt period. Rebuilt it can use High-voltage direct current or HVDC powerlines from coast to coast and north to south. HVDC loses less energy over long distances than AC does, of course there is power loss from conversion from AC to DC then back but it's not as much as the loss from AC transmission over long distances. And while Concentrated Solar Power may need to be converted, depending on whether steam or something else is used to drive a generator, PVs don't.
I was referring to enhanced or engineered geothermal
Okay, however geothermal is being used commercially. Just not "enhanced or engineered geothermal" whatever those are, all those plants where it is used requires enhancements and engineering.
As to whether nuclear appeals to state planners or businesses, even if that assertion is true (which it may or may not be) who cares? What we want is the best decision.
If it takes state planners likely it's not a good idea. Government has to support nuclear power because businesses won't, it's too risky. Mind you I'm not saying everything government does is bad, there are areas where it does well relatively, but it can do better in areas by making sure others pay all their costs, keeping a level playing field, and regulating monopolies. Businesses though are investing in and supporting solar and wind power as well as geothermal, tidal, and other energy
"The government should end all subsidies, including allowing industries to pass external costs to others"
That would be a step in the right direction, but I don't think it is enough.
Neither do I. Another part of the problem is the grid, it is old and dumb. The national grid needs to be rebuilt and made smart.
In addition to all the other factors stated in posts above, we have to consider the massive infrastructure in place to support the status quo.
The infrastructure as it is today is part of the problem. Power outages in the US costs almost $100 Billion a year. So rebuild it using smart grid technologies. Now that is one place where government is needed, only government can allocate the easement or right of way needed for the cables and such.
Without subsidizing alternative energy, it might end up taking 50-100 years to completely replace all the infrastructure that currently supports coal and oil.
Not really, if anything blackouts, whether accidental such as those in the Northeast US and part of Canada in 2003 or rolling blackouts shows the national grid needs to be rebuilt. Businesses won't stand by idly losing billions of dollars year after year. Some are already working on it installing alternative systems of their own for instance.
Where to store the energy for later use or low wind times?
Coal doesn't have that problem because it's always being burned.
Not being able to build near existing lines if there isn't wind there.
Power grid not designed to handle spikes in power,
As stated above the grid needs to be rebuilt anyway, just make it smart and include methods by which energy can be transmitted.
Likewise if I wanted to start an electric car line. No 'recharge stations', no bulk battery makers, battery technology research needs to be furthered, etc..
There weren't gas stations everywhere when autos were first built either. Actually the first autos were electric. The internal combustion engine only came after electric vehicles.
Subsidize should be used to encourage industry to move in the direction the benefits the public. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be used in that fashion very consistently.
No, economically they were only meant to allow enterprises to get off the ground but they are not used that way at all. Frequently subsidies are used to prop up businesses that would otherwise fail or put more money into already wealthy people's pockets.
I don't care who nuclear power appeals to. I'd rather spend $billions building and running nuclear power plants than $billions drilling for oil, or $billions on the military to protect that oil. In the end, taxpayer money is being spent regardless.
If government is going to spend any money on energy I'd rather it spend money on geothermal, hydrogen, solar, wind, and other sources before spending any on coal, nuclear, or petroleum energy. But as I've said elsewhere I don't want government subsidizing any of them. Instead what I would like to see is taxes cut, freer markets, as a consumer the ability to decide who I buy electricity from whether it be from coal or the wind, and as an investor have more money to invest how I want.
Yes they would. Simple economics says that as the cost of something goes up people look for cheaper sources or reduces the amount needed. That has been proven throughout history, even if not by choice. And as today's conventional energy gets more expensive people will move to other sources.
Geothermal, while prevalent in some parts of the world, is not that big of a resource here. And most of the places where geothermal is available are national parks. Could you imagine the uproar if you tried to build a power plant at Yellowstone?
The only reason it is not big here, in the US, is because little has been done to develop it. And it is even used in New York City. I myself have proposed geothermal in Yellowstone, but you're right so called environmentalists even oppose offshore and onshore wind farms. "Not in my backyard!" Of course I'd want a Yellowstone geothermal power plant to be blended into the landscape and I'd love both solar panels and a wind turbine on my property.
Solar is nowhere near efficient enough to power the country. It can be a nice boost, hardly economic, and government subsidies are not enough to help. For starters, government subsidies exist
Wow! Solar power got $62 million for R&D. That's dwarfed by coal's $3.302 Billion in 2007 alone or Nuclear Power's $145 Billion over the years. "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" Wars are even started over oil.
There are also several tax breaks you can receive for "greening" your home, but it will never be enough to make it cost effective
Oh, and does he consider the subsidies conventional energy gets too in the study? Does he factor in the billions of dollars coal and nuclear power get? The only mention I see about them is where "he favors more state and federal funding for research and development." Personally I don't think government should be subsiding most of what it does, whether energy or farms or...
Of course, as the Kennedys showed us, some people don't like the way they look. You remember Ted Kennedy, right? That big green liberal that BLOCKED wind power because it might disrupt the view from some of his mansions?
I don't know how many tymes I commented, but I didn't find any, I posted about how Kennedy or that NIMBY environmentalists opposed wind farm o
We absolutely MUST replace coal fired electricity generation with low CO2 methods. Coal is the worst CO2 emitter.
I didn't say anything about replacing coal in the post you replied to. All I said was that nuclear power appeals to state planners not businesses.
I very much doubt that current renewable technologies are sufficient. The only stuff that is immediately deployable is wind and solar.
They are sufficient now. Those who build off the grid do so every day. And yea, solar and wind is employable today unlike nuclear power. According to Infoplease the Palo Verde 2, Ariz. is the largest reactor in the US, at 1,335 MWs. According to Wiki construction started in 1976 with it's first year of commercial operation in 1988, 12 years later. Now take wind turbines, erect and connect 10 5 megawatt turbines a month, and there are larger turbines, and in 1 year you've added 600 MWs or in 2 years 1,200 MWs. That's almost as much as Palo Verde 2 provides, in 1/6 the tyme. SciAm's A Solar Grand Plan says solar power "could supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the Unites States, created by the National Renewable Energy Lab of the Department of Energy, details the wind potential of various regions of the US. The Rocky Mountains along contain enough potential energy to electrify the US, but that's not the only region with large wind potential. On the East Coast from Massachusetts to North Carolina offshore wind farms could "supply all the energy needs of much of the East Coast and then some". From British Columbia to Southern California on the Pacific Coast could provide a lot as well. Actually hook a hard left in S Ca through AZ and NM to western Texas and the wind potential grows.
For baseloads geothermal is good though not for all of the baseload. Until large scale storage is available currently used power plants could provide the baseload.
Enhanced geothermal is very promising but there is still no commercial size power station.
If it comes to raising the planet's temperature by 5C or nuclear power, I'd have to say nuclear is the clear choice.
Fine, let businesses pay for it not taxpayers. No loan guaranties, limited liability, or other subsidies. However left to their own devices corporations will not build nuclear power plants.
When all is said and done, I think that the carbon pollution problem will only be solved by inexpensive clean electricity. Some hard choices will have to be made.
Unfortunately there is no inexpensive clean electricity. Well, except for the Negawatt, the energy not produced due to energy efficiency or simply cutting the energy used. Therein lies the hard choice, people don't want to give up what they have even if they will s
a Capitalist system is an unstable social construct that tends to slide into Corporativism.
Only if the rules for granting corporate charters are not observed. Corporate charters, which grant limited liability, were only granted when it served the common or public good. That is why the Dutch East India Company in 1602 and the British East India Company in 1600 were granted their corporate charters. They were both shipping companies and it was understood that international trade was positive, however shipping was a risky business. Ships, their cargo, crews, passengers, and the ships themselves were frequently lost due to bad weather or pirates. Without limited liability people did not want to risk everything they owned, including their homes, by investing in shipping. Those charters can be revoked though.
Thomas Jefferson warned about the Corporate Aristocracy, saying "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." Corporations no longer have to challenge our government, instead they buy the politicians who make the laws and the bureaucrats who enforce them. With a smaller, limited, government they wouldn't be able to do so.
I postulate that, given the way Politics (the rule setters), Power and Money interact, it is impossible to have a situation where the Players do not influence the Rules and furthermore, the bigger the player the more influence they have in setting the Rules.
That's true because of the size of government and it's regulations grows. Corporations use regulations, and often take part in writing those regulations, to limit their competition. For instance lawn care businesses like TruGreen lobby local governments to regulate lawn care businesses going so far as to require licenses. Hell, some places even regulate yard sales.
which embody most of the capitalistic world, so let's not go splitting hairs.
One, it's not splitting hairs when correcting other for the improper use of words. And two, communications requires people to use words correctly. Why communicate when the definitions of words can't even be agreed upon? Newspeak is only good for pulling the wool over people's eyes or make them ignorant.
If it quacks like a duck...
It might be the dictator trying to brainwash people.
Slashdot Mirror
Goat, GTO, is missing.
Falcon
I can't even say I had "gay old time" anymore without people looking at me funny!
You may be looked at funny for calling a reporter or other writer a "hack" too.
Falcon
Not true, "Sugar Daddy" is also a forbidden adult term.
Did you read the NYT article and suffer from low reading comprehension or are you making things up. TFA specifically says "Google, which has more than a million advertisers, would not comment on why sugar-daddy sites are still considered family safe, but cougar sites are not." Google is allowing "sugar-daddy".
TFA says that "arrangement" is not banned, when that's code for paying tuition in exchange for sex
It does not say it is not banned either. What it does say is "Avid Life Media executives said that while some specific advertisements for the ArrangementSeekers site had been rejected, the ads were evaluated on a case-by-case basis and the site was still advertising with Google."
Falcon
Oh, btw if my own comprehension of what you meant is off explain what you mean.
When I bought my Amiga 1000 part of the reason was that they advertised TurboPascal for the Amiga.
I bought a used Amiga 500 but I don't know if either Turbo Pascal and Turbo C was available for it. I did buy Borland C++ Powerbuilder for my PCs, one running Win 95 another with a DEC Alpha running NT4. The Win 95 PC is long dead and gone but the NT4 PC is under my desk. What I find ironic is that of all commercial software I bought the only one I was able to install on the Alpha was C++ Powerbuilder.
Do you have any idea how much software was written in Turbo Pascal and Turbo C?
And how much of it might have been ported to the Amiga?
A lot, that's it. I don't know how much commercial software was written with them. When I took Pascal and C/C++ those are what we used in my classes. Now I use, only to relearn and continue Java but I haven't done much lately because it hasn't been running right, is Eclipse. As for how much was written for Amiga OS/Workbench I don't know. I say about programming with the Mac, Macs can be used to write programs that run on Linux, Macs, and Windows. Well Amigas was able to do that and program for Amigas. From a purely development/programming perspective using an Amiga seemed best. Of course the user interface would have to do programmed separately, however that's where modularity and UML comes in.
Just to many misses.
I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'll answer as if you mean not many programs were written for Amigas. If more Amigas were sold more software would have been written for it. Demand stimulates production. When Microsoft started it had software written for a number of microcomputer systems from Altairs with Intel 8080 CPUs to systems with Motorola 6800 CPUs to Tandy (Radio Shack) TRS-80s with a Zilog Z80 CPU. Even today MS programs for Macs. MS never stopped programming for Apple, though Bill Gates threatened to stop.
Falcon
When we learned to clothe ourselves, our range changed, but most of our evolvin' was done during the huge time period before we started doing that.
If by "hairless naked apes" you didn't mean humans I have no idea what you did mean. Do tell me.
Falcon
Talk to home darkroom photographers (chemical prints, enlargers, etc).
Oh gosh, I loved working in darkrooms developing film and making enlargements. I hope, but doubt, to start working in darkrooms again. I'd like to try some alternative processes as well.
I've heard there's "red-light" areas in some cities where not too much sleeping is going on in bed. I suggest further research, maybe get a grant to fly to Amsterdam?
Many large cities in Europe, and around the world, have red-light districts but legal prostitution in the US is as close as Nevada. Actually prostitution used to be legal in many states but some of the same sort of people who brought us Prohibition, campaigned to ban it as well.
Falcon
Someone above posted that trick. While I like it, with it on, my eyes are starting to cross and become glazed.
Falcon
Although urban lighting has always been with us, we have not (yet?) recognised it as a disruptive influence.
No, some of us were blessed by growing up without street lights, instead we were treated to a multitude of bright stars in the sky. In the US there is hardly any place that does not suffer from light pollution. Even after first seeing night photos from space years ago of the light pollution covering the US, parts of Canada, and elsewhere still shocks me.
Oh, and it's been known for year that light pollution takes a toll on wildlife too.
Falcon
I fall asleep like a baby whenever I'm out backpacking as soon as the lights go out, but in front of a computer I normally fall asleep at about 2-4AM or so.
Growing up I hated, absolutely hated, sleeping at night. I loved going out laying down in the grass to stare at the stars, or bring a book to read by starlight. When I was in the army and we were out in the field it hard for me to sleep at night but in broad daylight I could tune-out for 15 to 30 minutes and feel refreshed.
Been that way since college.
Later, in college at one period it got to the point where I left home to ride my bike the almost 9 miles to campus to be there by 7 am. That took about 35 minutes. It'd be closer to 11 pm than 10 pm when I left campus to go home. Later when I got a full-time job in construction I'd be at the company yard by 6 am, driving my car I could leave home around 6:40 but when I rode my bike I left about 6:10. Being up by 5:30 I still had trouble going to bed by midnight.
As I said before, in the past I hated sleeping and didn't need much. But now with my disability and doing hardly anything I'd prefer to either sleep until I was better or not wake up.
Falcon
dusk/dawn start before sunrise, so the "blackest night" should be less than 12 hours for all but the deep winter at extreme latitudes, places where hairless naked apes really don't belong anyway
Take away Inuits from the Arctic Circle and they'll be lost.
Falcon
as I've grown a little "less young" (ahem) I've started to have slight issues, and in particular I notice that if I work right up until bed, I toss and turn worrying all night
Maybe you're an insomniac. Even as a baby I didn't need much sleep, my mom used to say how when I was a baby she'd look to see how I was while in bed and I'd be quiet but wide awake. I've settled down some in my middle ages, what with the all the therapy I've had and the prescriptions I'm taking but even when I was 45 years old I'd be awake almost 60 hours straight, get 8 hours sleep then be up another day and a half before getting another 8 hours.
if I run home from work (about 10 miles) I feel awake all evening (good) and into the night (bad).
How are the roads, or other pavements, and traffic? If they're good then maybe you can ride bike or skate. Around here, Minneapolis/St Paul, we have some bike/hiking pathways people use to go to and from work. At least when there's no snow. Of course not everyone is even near one but many are.
Falcon
I've noticed an improvement in my sleep patterns since I set a curfew for the computers, stopping any use of them two or three hours before bedtime.
I don't need computers around to have erratic sleep patterns or get little sleep, though one may make it more enjoyable. Before I ever got my first computer I typically got from 4 to 6 hours sleep, sometimes less but rarely more. Of course that's the way I liked it, sleep was a waste of tyme.
Falcon
Command-Option-Control-8 on OS X, or Ctrl+alt+I in Windows Magnifier on Windows 7 will invert the screen colours which can make night time viewing better.
Thanks, I just tried it on my MacBook Pro and it was weird.
Falcon
Wait a moment. MacOS and Win 3.1 in their time being able to run on the same hardware?
Yes.
Win 3.1 has always been restricted to x86 processors.
DOS and Win 3.x ran on an add-on card installed in an Amiga. The Mac OS was run the same way, on an add-on card.
MacOS in it's time on what was it the Motorola 68something or so. Definitely not Intels. Win 3.1 was from even before the PPC era. Especially if Amigas were still around other than as museum piece.
Macs and Amigas used the same CPUs, those Motorola 68x00. However back then the Mac OS was in ROM so a board and the ROM or ROM image from a Mac was needed. Emulation on the Amiga has a little more info. There were other methods to emulate Macs too.
Falcon
If only amiga was able to make their OS more wide-spread and accepted... Sigh.
Yeap, the Amiga marketing was shitty. When Gateway bought the Amiga from Escom I was hoping they'd revive the Amiga but it looks like all they did was waste money. There is AROS but I don't know how that's going.
Falcon
The one problem (as with any solution here) is that 10TB is nearly impossible to back up.
That depends on whether all that data is changed or is only archived. For archiving 2 4TB external drives can be used to store most of the data with a 2TB drive used for data that is frequently changed. What is more problematic, because it takes action, is to transfer old data to new storage and test it.
Currently I've got a Mac and I use Carbon Copy Cloner to backup my internal HDD to external drives but I want to use Ubuntu as well and don't know how it will work with files backed up by CCC. CCC is supposed to do an exact copy but when I tested a backup once I noticed it didn't preserve all of the file metadata such as creation/modification dates and file attributes or permissions. There are 3 user accounts on my computer and each user was able to open files other users owned. Maybe I didn't use the right options when running CCC. So, will I be able to preserve the metadata and if so can Ubuntu work with it as well is something I'll have to find out. However I am able to make 1, 2, 3, or more backups some of which I can keep onsite while archives are kept off-site.
Falcon
I second this. I just bought my 2nd DNS 323 after the first one got full. (its cheaper to buy 2 DNS 323 which are 2 bays, compared to getting the 4 bay version). I shoot a lot of pics, and at 20-25 meg per RAW file, it adds up quickly. The first is stacked with 2x1.5 TB drives, the 2nd with 2x2TB drives.
I'd love to get the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, I still have a film based EOS Rebel and lenses for it, which has a file size over 60 MB according to Canon. And though maybe not all the tyme I'm sure there will be tymes I'll want to save photos in raw as well as tiff and or jpeg. Eventually I'll also want to get a medium format camera body, perhaps a 645 like Mamiya's 645AFD III, with film and digital backs. I don't know when but I want to start a photography business.
Right now for mass storage I have 3 external HDDs, two I have here with me while the third can be stored off-site. Now what I'd like is wide area wireless broadband so when I'm out hiking I can upload my photos, I mostly do nature photography but I want to try astrophotography as well.
Falcon
There's nothing that Amiga demos cannot accomplish.
I recall the first tyme I saw an Amiga demo IRL. It was set up to run the Mac OS and not just Workbench. Next to it was a new Mac running the same Mac OS. The Amiga ran the Mac OS faster than the Mac did. Another Amiga was running MS DOS and Windows 3.x.
Falcon
Current rollout of renewables is clearly not sufficient because carbon emissions continue to rise at the top end of IPCC projections. And new coal fired facilities are still being built (and not just in China).
Of course new coal power plants are still being built, because they pass external costs to others they are still the cheapest power source for those whop build them. If however caps or carbon taxes were placed on coal then the picture would be different. Of course some accuse cap and trade or similar ideas of harming the poor. That can be mitigated though, the average increase on people's utility bill can be offset by reducing their income tax the same amount. And for those who do not pay income tax then a credit could be given to them. Say for instance the average residential power bill went up $1000 a year they could be given a check for $1000 at the beginning of the year. Or so they won't spend it all on something else at once, they can be given $120 a month. It can even be included on their EBT card.
Besides China India is also building coal fired power plants fast. Kyoto exempted both nations from carbon emission limits. However China is doing more than just using coal. China is the world's fastest, largest, green energy market. Notice that that link is to an article on Bloomberg Businessweek's website and Bloomberg isn't exactly known as an environmental hotbed.
The problems with wind and solar are that they are not base load
I have already addressed the baseload. One, geothermal can be used as the baseload. Two, because Natural Gas fired power plants can quickly be ramped up or slowed down, unlike both coal and nuclear power, they can be used for the baseload until cleaner alternatives emerge.
When the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine they don't produce power.
The sun is always shining somewhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. As I have also stated power blackouts costs US businesses almost $100 Billion a year, according to a sidebar to SciAm's A Solar Grand Plan businesses loss $80 Billion a year from blackouts. The US National Grid is old and failing so it needs to be rebuilt period. Rebuilt it can use High-voltage direct current or HVDC powerlines from coast to coast and north to south. HVDC loses less energy over long distances than AC does, of course there is power loss from conversion from AC to DC then back but it's not as much as the loss from AC transmission over long distances. And while Concentrated Solar Power may need to be converted, depending on whether steam or something else is used to drive a generator, PVs don't.
I was referring to enhanced or engineered geothermal
Okay, however geothermal is being used commercially. Just not "enhanced or engineered geothermal" whatever those are, all those plants where it is used requires enhancements and engineering.
As to whether nuclear appeals to state planners or businesses, even if that assertion is true (which it may or may not be) who cares? What we want is the best decision.
If it takes state planners likely it's not a good idea. Government has to support nuclear power because businesses won't, it's too risky. Mind you I'm not saying everything government does is bad, there are areas where it does well relatively, but it can do better in areas by making sure others pay all their costs, keeping a level playing field, and regulating monopolies. Businesses though are investing in and supporting solar and wind power as well as geothermal, tidal, and other energy
"The government should end all subsidies, including allowing industries to pass external costs to others"
That would be a step in the right direction, but I don't think it is enough.
Neither do I. Another part of the problem is the grid, it is old and dumb. The national grid needs to be rebuilt and made smart.
In addition to all the other factors stated in posts above, we have to consider the massive infrastructure in place to support the status quo.
The infrastructure as it is today is part of the problem. Power outages in the US costs almost $100 Billion a year. So rebuild it using smart grid technologies. Now that is one place where government is needed, only government can allocate the easement or right of way needed for the cables and such.
Without subsidizing alternative energy, it might end up taking 50-100 years to completely replace all the infrastructure that currently supports coal and oil.
Not really, if anything blackouts, whether accidental such as those in the Northeast US and part of Canada in 2003 or rolling blackouts shows the national grid needs to be rebuilt. Businesses won't stand by idly losing billions of dollars year after year. Some are already working on it installing alternative systems of their own for instance.
Where to store the energy for later use or low wind times?
Coal doesn't have that problem because it's always being burned.
Not being able to build near existing lines if there isn't wind there.
Power grid not designed to handle spikes in power,
As stated above the grid needs to be rebuilt anyway, just make it smart and include methods by which energy can be transmitted.
Likewise if I wanted to start an electric car line. No 'recharge stations', no bulk battery makers, battery technology research needs to be furthered, etc..
There weren't gas stations everywhere when autos were first built either. Actually the first autos were electric. The internal combustion engine only came after electric vehicles.
Subsidize should be used to encourage industry to move in the direction the benefits the public. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be used in that fashion very consistently.
No, economically they were only meant to allow enterprises to get off the ground but they are not used that way at all. Frequently subsidies are used to prop up businesses that would otherwise fail or put more money into already wealthy people's pockets.
Falcon
I don't care who nuclear power appeals to. I'd rather spend $billions building and running nuclear power plants than $billions drilling for oil, or $billions on the military to protect that oil. In the end, taxpayer money is being spent regardless.
If government is going to spend any money on energy I'd rather it spend money on geothermal, hydrogen, solar, wind, and other sources before spending any on coal, nuclear, or petroleum energy. But as I've said elsewhere I don't want government subsidizing any of them. Instead what I would like to see is taxes cut, freer markets, as a consumer the ability to decide who I buy electricity from whether it be from coal or the wind, and as an investor have more money to invest how I want.
Falcon
Um... no. No they would not.
Yes they would. Simple economics says that as the cost of something goes up people look for cheaper sources or reduces the amount needed. That has been proven throughout history, even if not by choice. And as today's conventional energy gets more expensive people will move to other sources.
Geothermal, while prevalent in some parts of the world, is not that big of a resource here. And most of the places where geothermal is available are national parks. Could you imagine the uproar if you tried to build a power plant at Yellowstone?
The only reason it is not big here, in the US, is because little has been done to develop it. And it is even used in New York City. I myself have proposed geothermal in Yellowstone, but you're right so called environmentalists even oppose offshore and onshore wind farms. "Not in my backyard!" Of course I'd want a Yellowstone geothermal power plant to be blended into the landscape and I'd love both solar panels and a wind turbine on my property.
Solar is nowhere near efficient enough to power the country. It can be a nice boost, hardly economic, and government subsidies are not enough to help. For starters, government subsidies exist
Wow! Solar power got $62 million for R&D. That's dwarfed by coal's $3.302 Billion in 2007 alone or Nuclear Power's $145 Billion over the years. "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" Wars are even started over oil.
There are also several tax breaks you can receive for "greening" your home, but it will never be enough to make it cost effective
Tell all those who build off the grid that it's not effective. Solar hot water has a payback period as short as 5 to 6 years, and the equipment lasts a lot longer. The payback for PV panels is much harder but estimates have been as low as 7 years and panels come with 20, 25, even 30 year warranties. Even pro-rated replacing equipment is cost competitive. Individually owned PVs aren't the only way to go solar either. The same publication you provide a link to your article, Science Daily, also has this article, Solar Power in Ontario Could Produce Almost as Much Power as All U.S. Nuclear Reactors, Studies Find. On large scales concentrated solar power may be more effective. Another article it has, Fossil-Fuel Subsidies Hurting Global Environment, Security, Study Finds.
Oh, and does he consider the subsidies conventional energy gets too in the study? Does he factor in the billions of dollars coal and nuclear power get? The only mention I see about them is where "he favors more state and federal funding for research and development." Personally I don't think government should be subsiding most of what it does, whether energy or farms or ...
Of course, as the Kennedys showed us, some people don't like the way they look. You remember Ted Kennedy, right? That big green liberal that BLOCKED wind power because it might disrupt the view from some of his mansions?
I don't know how many tymes I commented, but I didn't find any, I posted about how Kennedy or that NIMBY environmentalists opposed wind farm o
We absolutely MUST replace coal fired electricity generation with low CO2 methods. Coal is the worst CO2 emitter.
I didn't say anything about replacing coal in the post you replied to. All I said was that nuclear power appeals to state planners not businesses.
I very much doubt that current renewable technologies are sufficient. The only stuff that is immediately deployable is wind and solar.
They are sufficient now. Those who build off the grid do so every day. And yea, solar and wind is employable today unlike nuclear power. According to Infoplease the Palo Verde 2, Ariz. is the largest reactor in the US, at 1,335 MWs. According to Wiki construction started in 1976 with it's first year of commercial operation in 1988, 12 years later. Now take wind turbines, erect and connect 10 5 megawatt turbines a month, and there are larger turbines, and in 1 year you've added 600 MWs or in 2 years 1,200 MWs. That's almost as much as Palo Verde 2 provides, in 1/6 the tyme. SciAm's A Solar Grand Plan says solar power "could supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the Unites States, created by the National Renewable Energy Lab of the Department of Energy, details the wind potential of various regions of the US. The Rocky Mountains along contain enough potential energy to electrify the US, but that's not the only region with large wind potential. On the East Coast from Massachusetts to North Carolina offshore wind farms could "supply all the energy needs of much of the East Coast and then some". From British Columbia to Southern California on the Pacific Coast could provide a lot as well. Actually hook a hard left in S Ca through AZ and NM to western Texas and the wind potential grows.
For baseloads geothermal is good though not for all of the baseload. Until large scale storage is available currently used power plants could provide the baseload.
Enhanced geothermal is very promising but there is still no commercial size power station.
Ah but there is commercial scale geothermal right now. In CA geothermal provided 13,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity in 2007. It provides 20 percent of Hawaii's Big Island electricity. Geothermal provides 27% of Philippine's energy. Geothermal is even available and used in New York City.
If it comes to raising the planet's temperature by 5C or nuclear power, I'd have to say nuclear is the clear choice.
Fine, let businesses pay for it not taxpayers. No loan guaranties, limited liability, or other subsidies. However left to their own devices corporations will not build nuclear power plants.
When all is said and done, I think that the carbon pollution problem will only be solved by inexpensive clean electricity. Some hard choices will have to be made.
Unfortunately there is no inexpensive clean electricity. Well, except for the Negawatt, the energy not produced due to energy efficiency or simply cutting the energy used. Therein lies the hard choice, people don't want to give up what they have even if they will s
a Capitalist system is an unstable social construct that tends to slide into Corporativism.
Only if the rules for granting corporate charters are not observed. Corporate charters, which grant limited liability, were only granted when it served the common or public good. That is why the Dutch East India Company in 1602 and the British East India Company in 1600 were granted their corporate charters. They were both shipping companies and it was understood that international trade was positive, however shipping was a risky business. Ships, their cargo, crews, passengers, and the ships themselves were frequently lost due to bad weather or pirates. Without limited liability people did not want to risk everything they owned, including their homes, by investing in shipping. Those charters can be revoked though.
Thomas Jefferson warned about the Corporate Aristocracy, saying "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." Corporations no longer have to challenge our government, instead they buy the politicians who make the laws and the bureaucrats who enforce them. With a smaller, limited, government they wouldn't be able to do so.
I postulate that, given the way Politics (the rule setters), Power and Money interact, it is impossible to have a situation where the Players do not influence the Rules and furthermore, the bigger the player the more influence they have in setting the Rules.
That's true because of the size of government and it's regulations grows. Corporations use regulations, and often take part in writing those regulations, to limit their competition. For instance lawn care businesses like TruGreen lobby local governments to regulate lawn care businesses going so far as to require licenses. Hell, some places even regulate yard sales.
Falcon
which embody most of the capitalistic world, so let's not go splitting hairs.
One, it's not splitting hairs when correcting other for the improper use of words. And two, communications requires people to use words correctly. Why communicate when the definitions of words can't even be agreed upon? Newspeak is only good for pulling the wool over people's eyes or make them ignorant.
If it quacks like a duck...
It might be the dictator trying to brainwash people.
Falcon