Still why can't someone buy OSX 10.6 and put it in a VM?
Because Apple can't make any money off their hardware if people weren't forced to buy it along with OS X.
The big barrier keeping OS X from running on any ol' box came down when they switched to Intel, so now they protect their income stream with a EULA and a bunch of lawyers instead.
Except that isn't it either. Snow Leopard was the first Mac OS that required an Intel CPU. Leopard, released on 26 October 2007, could be installed on a PowerPC G4 from 2001. That's 6 year old hardware. If Apple wanted to sell more hardware they would have required newer hardware.
I know it is related to support. Jobs is afraid of people having OSX issues and people complaining about OSX. This would go against the belief that OSX is perfect and never crashes or has problems. Simply put in a disclaimer: If you run OSX on non Apple hardware or in a VM you are on your own for support.
Jobs is also concerned about Apple losing money allowing OEMs to install OS X on non-Apple hardware. Apple already tried that.
There's really no difference between a mac and a high end Dell.
There is a big difference, they both make money on hardware. Apple makes software too though whereas Dell doesn't. Once upon a tyme Apple did allow Mac clones but Apple lost money on them.
Apple's money comes from hardware and software both.
and by restricting their software to only run on their hardware
Apple releases software for Macs and Windows. QuickTime 7 Pro for Windows. Apple even has iTunes and Safari for Windows. While not much there are some Windows software from Apple.
they are creating a consumer insentive to buy their hardware.
Insensitive? I switched from MS Windows PCs to Linux and Macs and I have not had as many problems with my Mac in the almost 3 years I've had it than I had with all but one of my Windows PC had in 1 year. Of 4 PCs within the first year two had to have the motherboard and hard disk drive replaced. A third PC was a laptop the LDC cracked on about 3 months after I got it. The only PC I got I did not have hardware problems with is a DEC Alpha running NT4. I constantly had software problems with them as well, most Windows. For my money Apple hardware is more reliable.
This shows how the only way the world manages to deal with the insanity that is so called "intellectual property
I agree. However they include a quote by Thomas Jefferson, who started out as opposing patents. His friend James Madison convinced him patents could encourage progress though, and Jefferson eventually took out some patents himself. Jefferson was the one who determined how long patents should last, using actuary or Life tables he calculated they should last 14 years with one 14 year extension possible.
You can dislike Windows all you like, but Windows 7 is actually pretty good.
I plan to install Ubuntu on my Mac, but unless Microsoft stops requiring Activation and all the spyware I will not install Windows on any computer I own if I don't have to. Activation, Windows Genuine Advantage or WGA, phoning home, and other spyware are some of the reasons why I switched from MS Windows.
What disappointed me about the VirtualBox article is that it doesn't say how to install OS X in a VM. I plan to set up my Mac to dualboot and I want to install VirtualBox or another VM in both Snow Leopard and Ubuntu so I can run one while booted into the other OS. A setup like that would be quicker and better when either the second OS is only needed for a short period, intermittently, or both are needed. Other Guests has some threads about installing OSX as a guest, one provided the How to Install Snow Leopard on VirtualBox link however that's for VirtualBox on Windows.
You should give it a try some time, maybe run it in your virtualbox.
I'd try NT4 but the version I have is for DEC Alphas.
Actually, one could argue reasonably about whether he was, indeed, a christian, but I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that he was, at worst, a Deist, and more probably either a Gnostic or an Agnostic.
Thomas Jefferson was a Diest, however by 1 definition he was also a Christian. Being a Diest he didn't believe Jesus was the "Son of God" but he did believe Jesus was a great teacher. TJ took the Bible and cut out all the stuff about miracles, the supernatural, and such and published his own Jefferson's Bible.
Agnostic: One who is not certain that such a truth exists.)
"Agnostic" is used in another way, a, without and gnosis, knowledge, so "without knowledge". That's how I use it myself, I am agnostic or without knowledge.
Loss of transmission is on the order of 5-10% to transmit power halfway across the US even with our current outdated grid.
Yes, with our current grid. Because it's mostly, but not only, AC. HVDC has lower losses over long distances. However smaller scale alternative energy sources can be located closer to where the energy is used. Such as roof mounted PVs. Or wind turbines located on food crop farms. A Walmart in my area has a verticle windmill mounted on it's roof.
5: No, the point is that you are wrong about solar in every fundamental way. Nuclear power is a good idea. It is clean and efficient.
Nuclear power is dirty from cradle to grave, ie from the mining of it to the disposal of it. As for what the efficiency is studies on the EROEI, Energy Returned on Energy Invested, are all over the place depending on who did the study. Pro-nuclear groups say it is efficient while anti-nuclear groups claim it is inefficient.
Breeder reactors are the only way to solve the nuclear waste problem that we are already dealing with
While reprocessing reduces to quantity and half life of the fuel it also creates a lot of toxic chemicals.
I thought that the Civil War technology to make die out of Pokeberries was about the least interesting part of the story, but for some reason the writer chose to focus on the berries instead of the innovative fiber-based solar cells - odd?
The Pokeberries increase the efficiency of the panels, that's why they are brought up. "By coating the plastic sheets with a layer of purple pokeberry dye, the fibers can absorb even more sunlight to convert to power."
That however is not the original article, Science Daily has it, Purple Pokeberries Hold Secret to Affordable Solar Power Worldwide. It says "Nanotech Center scientists have used the red dye made from pokeberries to coat their efficient and inexpensive fiber-based solar cells. The dye acts as an absorber, helping the cell's tiny fibers trap more sunlight to convert into power."
I read an article the other day about some villagers in a remote corner of Afghanistan. There was a large generator which had been given to them years before which was lying unused. Apparently they had used the gas that came with it, calculated that it would cost 20 cents per house per night to run it, and never fired it up again. They couldn't afford the gas, which anyway would have been difficult to transport. A donated solar panel installation, on the other hand, might actually do them some good.
The problem with this, solar panels, is that some sort of storage would be needed. Batteries require maintenance. Sure it's not hard but someone would have to do it.
Actually I support bringing solar power to more remote areas. I read an article in IEEE's Spectrum where people in south/southeast Asia built and put together small solar power systems, creating employment, then sold them to villagers. A villager with a work shop would be able to increase his/her income. Elsewhere I read how children could use lights to read thus increasing their education.
Perhaps serendipitously on the front page Spectrum has a link to the article Batteries That Go With the Flow "A new battery design promises to even out fluctuations in solar and wind power". RTFA though it will require more work.
Both parties do it, it simply has now gotten obnoxious enough for all to see. If you go back to Lincoln's era, the politics was just as nasty. Politicians do it when they have nothing to contribute but are afraid their opposition does.
Actually the nastiness goes back further, it goes back to the 1780s-90s at least. Some so called Christians campaigned negatively about Thomas Jefferson before he was elected President. A Reverend Jonn Mason[.doc] said Jefferson was "a profane philosopher and an infidel." "Christians!" he exclaimed, "it is thus that a man, whom you are expected to elevate to the chief magistracy, insults yourselves and your Bible!" During the campaign of 1800 TJ and John Adams, who were lifelong friends before the campaign, each camp accused the other of ugly stuff. In 1828 Andrew Jackson's wife Rachel Jackson was called a slut, adulteress, or bigamous. She ended up dying before he won, some say the scandal caused her to have a heart attack. Jackson blamed the press on her death.
So the Wall Street Journal is wrong? Even they say "The only way to handicap the field in nuclear power's favor is to put a big price tag on emissions of carbon dioxide." If however emissions of carbon dioxide had a price tag then geothermal, solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources would be more competitive as well not just nuclear power. And if nuclear is so great then why does the industry need subsidies and gets loan guaranties?
and is the only green energy source that is.
Nuclear power is not clean, it is dirty from cradle to grave, oops there is no grave for nuclear waste. Ask the Navajo how clean uranium mining is. Or some First Nations in Canada, the aboriginals in Australia, or any number of other indigenous peoples throughout the world.
It's also wrong that nuclear plants need to be these massive, expensive things. We've had portable nuclear generators since the '60s, and you can build out plants of various sizes from there all the way up to the mega installations.
Is that why Finland's Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant has costs overruns raising it's cost from 3 billion euros to more than 4.2 billion? Or seen it's operation delayed from 2009 to 2012 at the earliest? Since you didn't like the previous CATO article you probably won't like this one either but Nuclear Energy: Risky Business says "the industry in the early 1990s asked for-and got-exactly the sort of safety regulations, permit review process, and public comment regime now in place." Further, it says "Indeed, if government were the reason why investors were saying "no" to their loan applications, I would expect that industry officials would be the first to say so. But they do not."
Solar is currently 3x - 10x more expensive than coal.
Saying that's true now, I don't know, solar is constantly dropping in costs. And coal does not pay all of it's own costs. Like other energy sources coal is subsidized. Mountaintop removal probably the safest way to mine coal is very destructive and polluting.
The only reason it can be cost effective is because the government very very heavily subsidizes solar installations.
If ethanol subsidies, most of which go to corn and there are better feed stocks than corn, are removed from alternative energy subsidies coal comes in first place in the amount of subsidies it gets. The graph on the page linked to says alternative energy got $4.875 billion in 2007. Of that though $3 billion went to ethanol. Coal on the other hand is broken down into 2 categories. Refined coal, whatever that is, got $2.370 billion and coal got $932 million. Together coal got $3.302 billion whereas goethermal, solar, wind and other alternative sources got $1.9 billion excluding ethanol. I do see that it has nuclear as getting less than alternatives though, however I wonder how it breaks down for the different types? As that page asks, "which pig wears the most lipstick?"
Not only did I read the article but I also used my browser's search function. If I am wrong then include the sentence where it says parties were thrown because nuclear power plants were shutdown. Heck, just for the heck of it, I'll list all the sentences with "party" or "parties":
European affiliation European Green Party
Political parties
The Alliance '90/The Greens ( German: Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) is a green political party in Germany which originated from the merger of the German Green Party and Alliance 90 in 1993.
ts leaders are Claudia Roth and Cem Özdemir. In the last elections, the party won 10.7% of the votes and 68 out of 612 seats in the Bundestag.
# 1.4 1998-2002: Greens as governing party, first term
# 5 Literature about the German Green Party
In 1982, the conservative factions of the party broke away to form the Ecological Democratic Party (ödp).
Those who remained in the Green party were more strongly anti-military action and against restrictions on immigration and abortion, while supporting the decriminalization of marijuana use, placing a higher priority on working for the rights of homosexuals, and tending to advocate what they described as "anti-authoritarian" concepts of education and child-upbringing.
Those who left the party at the time might have felt similarly about some of these issues, but did not identify with the forms of protest in which Green party members took part.
Photo taken at 2001 party convention
Numerous anti-war party members resigned their party membership when the first post-war deployment of German troops in a military conflict abroad occurred under a Red-Green government, and the party began to experience a long string of defeats in local and regional elections.
Disappointment with the Green participation in government increased when anti-nuclear power activists realized that shutting down the country's nuclear plants would not happen as quickly as they wished, and numerous pro-business SPD members of the federal cabinet opposed the environmentalist agenda of the Greens, calling for tacit compromises.
In 2001, the party experienced a further crisis as some Green Members of Parliament refused to back the government's plan of sending military personnel to help with the 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan.
On the other hand, a major success of the Greens as a governing party, was the 2000 decision to phase out the use of nuclear energy.
2002-2005: Greens as governing party, second term
his was partly due to the perception that the internal debate over the war in Afghanistan had been more honest and open than in other parties, and one of the MPs who had voted against the Afghanistan deployment, Hans-Christian Ströbele, was directly elected to the Bundestag as a district representative for the Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg - Prenzlauer Berg East constituency in Berlin, becoming the first Green to ever gain a first-past-the-post seat in Germany.
Certain lobby groups which had benefited from Green-initiated legislation in the 1998-2002 term, such as the environmental lobby (Renewable Energies Act) or homosexuals (Registered Partnership Law), also rewarded the party with their votes.
Perhaps most important for determining the success of both the Greens and the SPD was the increasing threat of war in Iraq, which was highly unpopular with the German public, and helped gather votes for the parties which had taken a stand against participation in this war.
One internal issue in 2002 was the failed attempt to settle a long-standing discussion about the question of whether members of parliament should be allowed to become members of the party executive.
Two party conventions declined to change the party statute.
As a result, former party chairpersons Fritz Kuhn and Claudia Roth (who had been elected into parliament that year) were no longer able to continu
I don't think you can really call us "good" or "bad":
If by "us" you mean humans I agree, but I believe specific people can be good or bad.
And species come and go, sometimes with the help of others.
Therein lies the problem to me, "with the help of others". If climate rapidly changes, earth warms for instanced, due to human activity and species are driven extinct because of it then I hold people responsible. Mind you not all but some. I also see problems trying to do something as a counter, some of the geo-engineering schemes to combat Global Warming for instance, without understanding it. A good example of this is asbestos. For centuries asbestos was used and called the miracle mineral fiber. It was only found to be bad in the 1960s. Now I doubt a day goes by when I do not see a lawyer's add for an asbestos lawsuit.
Not that we should be trying, of course.
Overall I believe we, humans, should try to reduce our negative effects on the biosphere and that we can make improvements in the way we live to help the biosphere.
"Early SUVs were descendants from commercial and military vehicles such as the World War II Jeep and Land Rover.SUVs have been popular for many years with rural buyers due to their off-road capabilities.
Except they were not called SUVs. From the page you linked to: According to the transportation curator at the Henry Ford Museum, Robert Casey, the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) was the first true sport utility vehicle in the modern understanding of the term." And according to the wiki article on the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) it came out in 1978. As I said in the post you replied to I am a relic. Before that Jeep model ever came out I was mud stomping. Heck I was doing that in Massachusetts in a 6 wheeler before then.
"According to the transportation curator at the Henry Ford Museum, Robert Casey, the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) was the first true sport utility vehicle in the modern understanding of the term."
So my list is correct, those are all SUVs.
I see you include the same quote I did above, but you did not check out when design for the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) started, 1978. So you are still wrong. You also neglect to mention the first XJ Cherokee wasn't introduced until 1984.
I grew up in South Dakota and we used Blazers and Suburbans all the time when going off road in the farm and on friends ranches, going up 40 degree slopes.
But they were not called SUVs. Depending on where they were located they were called 4X4s, 4 Wheel Drives(4WD), or All Wheel Drives(AWD). Try going up those slopes in most SUVs made today. Heck someone I knew rolled over a Suzuki Samuria a couple of weeks after it was bought new.
Except all those vehicles you list are or were 4X4s, 4WD, or AWD meant for off-road driving. Well except the Range Rover maybe. SUV's are not meant for off-road driving, sure they are capable of some but they aren't meant for it. There are only a few SUVs made I'd take off-road like I used to do, some of those places required a truck to have a snorkel to breath. Others places you finished the trip only by airboat or something similar. Other places I've been to and camped at these SUVs would rollover trying to climb a hill or embankment.
Now I realize I'm a relic on slashdot but I grew up in Florida and spent a lot of tyme in the wilderness surviving off the land fishing and hunting and gathering food in Ocala National Forest, on the St Johns River, in the Everglades or on the coast.
First off, the wiki article you provided the link to says nothing about the Greens throwing a party, the only references to any party is to political parties. Next, the nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsidies. That's not me saying that, that is a freemarket institute and a business magazine saying it.
>>but clearly that is not what they do. because if they were doing that, they would be arguing against themselves on many occasions.
Actually, that's precisely what's happening. It's called the "Green on Green Battle", where environmental groups are on both sides of an issue.
Ah, so environmentalists aren't one big monolithic block.
By contrast, if they held more nuanced views (instead of these nutcase all-or-nothing views which )
Make up your mind, either they are a "nutcase all-or-nothing" monolithic block or they are not.
is that they're stupid....
This has led to:
1) A ban on nuclear power here in California
Except environmentalists or greenies didn't stop nuclear power. As the Hooked on Subsidies article the pro freemarket CATO Institute republished, originally published by "Forbes", said it is state actors not the market that decides what nuclear power plants are built. Even in France and other nations, here's the relevant paragraph:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
The "Hooked on Subsidies article brings up the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant being built in Finland. The French government owned business Areva and Siemans were building it, however Siemens sold it's interest to Areva. As of this tyme last year cost overruns have caused it's "3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion", to climb at least 50 percent. Market Watch published a story about a study that warns of steep cost overruns at new reactors.
2) The Sierra Club successfully shutting down a massive solar plant. (What? Solar is a green energy? But think of all the DESERT that would be covered by those panels! 25 tortoises live there!) Good luck getting more companies to put money into proposing green power generators, assholes. Similar stories exist for wind and tidal projects across the country.
I'm glad I don't donate to the Sierra Club. They're not the only hypocrites though. On the Atlantic Coast there are those who oppose offshore wind farms. Even Ted Kennedy opposed a wind farm, in Cape Cod. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States" lays out the wind potential of various regions of the US. The Rocky Mountains alone has enough potential to supply all of the US with energy. Meanwhile SciAm published the article A Solar Grand Plan lays out how solar power can "supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." Then there are other potential energy sources as well. Geothermal energy supplied California with 13 terawatts or 4.5% of the electricity used in CA in 2007. One geothermal project in Hawaii is the Puna Geothermal Venture and it supplies the big island of 20% of it's electricity. The SciAm article Hawaii Says Aloha (Greetings) to Clean, Renewable Energy says geothermal energy can be expanded to supply more electricity:
"Last January, Hawaii signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) that would make the Aloha State the country's most aggressive in pursuing renewable energy. By 2030, it plans to obtain 70 percent of its power from clean energy (40 percent from renewables and 30 percent from energy efficiency). Outstripping California's goal of 33 percent by 2020, the Hawaii initiative is a green light for clean-tech experts and enthusiasts to set up shop in the heart of the Pacific and may become a blueprint (or greenprint) for the rest of the country."
Geothermal isn't only available in the west either. It is being used now in
Either that or develop REALLY big heat-resistant corks for every volcano on the planet.
Actually if the goal is to slow Global Warming or induce cooling, perhaps an ice age, then having volcanoes erupt is a great way to do it. All the ash put in the atmosphere blocks sunlight from reaching the ground thus causes cooling. Since it's eruption I've been wondering how big an effect the volcano's eruption in Iceland will have on climate, temperatures probably will decline but just how much?
You don't even want to KNOW the plans for Yellowstone.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Global Warming has not been proven false or equal to the Flat Earth Theory. At most what has been shown is that more scientific studies need to be done.
How do you define what's bad for the planet anyway? All we can or should care about is what's bad for us. The planet has been inhospitable for human life before, and will be again. We just need to make sure that doesn't happen sooner rather than later.
That is generally what we mean by "bad for the planet" -- making it less hospitable for us as far as comfort, safety, adequate food, etc. goes. Obviously, the planet itself will survive with or without us. And life (of some sort) will somehow find a way
That depends on who "we" are. There are some people who think humans are the problem.
I'd rather we end up on the side of slightly higher temperatures rather than global economic collapse.
What if higher temperatures lead to a collapse, environmental and economic? Actually an environmental collapse will cause an economic collapse as well.
On the other hand I don't think we should be doing any of the geo-engineering schemes such as pumping sulfates or other sun-blocking particles miles high in the stratosphere either. Not without much more scientific studies. We don't have any idea of what the effects of these may be. For instance for centuries asbestos was considered a miracle. It wasn't until the 1960 when asbestos came under suspicion. Now hardly a day goes by when I do not see a lawyer's ad about an asbestos lawsuit.
Okay, so you were right. However I noticed on the page linked to above says that Israel doesn't allow Israelis to visit some countries too. See "Enemy States"
"The Israeli law dictates that Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen are considered "enemy states" or 'enemy countries.' If you're an Israeli citizen, you are not allowed to visit any of these countries unless you have a special permit issued by Israel's Ministry of Interior. Hence, if you visit this country, whether with an Israeli or a foreign passport, you may be prosecuted upon your return to Israel. Iran has been recently suggested as an addition to the list."
Even at the height of the Cold War US citizens were allowed to visit the Soviet Union and China. American Industrialist and Occidental Petroleum stockholder Armand Hammer was a friend to the SU.
There are also some arab airlines that won't allow boarding if they find out you are jewish, it doesn't matter if you are landing on an arab country or not.
Namely Kuwait Airways, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Emirates Airline, perhaps others.
I wonder how many of those Arab airlines are state owned and not private or corporate businesses. Let's see... Kuwait Airways is state owned. Saudi Arabian Airlines started the process of privatization in 2006. And Emirates Airline is "a subsidiary of The Emirates Group, which has over 50,000 employees, and is wholly-owned by the Government of Dubai". I'd think that if these airlines were publicly traded corporations they would allow Israeli passengers.
Slashdot Mirror
Still why can't someone buy OSX 10.6 and put it in a VM?
Because Apple can't make any money off their hardware if people weren't forced to buy it along with OS X.
The big barrier keeping OS X from running on any ol' box came down when they switched to Intel, so now they protect their income stream with a EULA and a bunch of lawyers instead.
Except that isn't it either. Snow Leopard was the first Mac OS that required an Intel CPU. Leopard, released on 26 October 2007, could be installed on a PowerPC G4 from 2001. That's 6 year old hardware. If Apple wanted to sell more hardware they would have required newer hardware.
Falcon
I know it is related to support. Jobs is afraid of people having OSX issues and people complaining about OSX. This would go against the belief that OSX is perfect and never crashes or has problems. Simply put in a disclaimer: If you run OSX on non Apple hardware or in a VM you are on your own for support.
Jobs is also concerned about Apple losing money allowing OEMs to install OS X on non-Apple hardware. Apple already tried that.
Falcon
There's really no difference between a mac and a high end Dell.
There is a big difference, they both make money on hardware. Apple makes software too though whereas Dell doesn't. Once upon a tyme Apple did allow Mac clones but Apple lost money on them.
Falcon
Apple's money comes from hardware and software both.
and by restricting their software to only run on their hardware
Apple releases software for Macs and Windows. QuickTime 7 Pro for Windows. Apple even has iTunes and Safari for Windows. While not much there are some Windows software from Apple.
they are creating a consumer insentive to buy their hardware.
Insensitive? I switched from MS Windows PCs to Linux and Macs and I have not had as many problems with my Mac in the almost 3 years I've had it than I had with all but one of my Windows PC had in 1 year. Of 4 PCs within the first year two had to have the motherboard and hard disk drive replaced. A third PC was a laptop the LDC cracked on about 3 months after I got it. The only PC I got I did not have hardware problems with is a DEC Alpha running NT4. I constantly had software problems with them as well, most Windows. For my money Apple hardware is more reliable.
Falcon
This shows how the only way the world manages to deal with the insanity that is so called "intellectual property
I agree. However they include a quote by Thomas Jefferson, who started out as opposing patents. His friend James Madison convinced him patents could encourage progress though, and Jefferson eventually took out some patents himself. Jefferson was the one who determined how long patents should last, using actuary or Life tables he calculated they should last 14 years with one 14 year extension possible.
Falcon
You can dislike Windows all you like, but Windows 7 is actually pretty good.
I plan to install Ubuntu on my Mac, but unless Microsoft stops requiring Activation and all the spyware I will not install Windows on any computer I own if I don't have to. Activation, Windows Genuine Advantage or WGA, phoning home, and other spyware are some of the reasons why I switched from MS Windows.
What disappointed me about the VirtualBox article is that it doesn't say how to install OS X in a VM. I plan to set up my Mac to dualboot and I want to install VirtualBox or another VM in both Snow Leopard and Ubuntu so I can run one while booted into the other OS. A setup like that would be quicker and better when either the second OS is only needed for a short period, intermittently, or both are needed. Other Guests has some threads about installing OSX as a guest, one provided the How to Install Snow Leopard on VirtualBox link however that's for VirtualBox on Windows.
You should give it a try some time, maybe run it in your virtualbox.
I'd try NT4 but the version I have is for DEC Alphas.
Falcon
Actually, one could argue reasonably about whether he was, indeed, a christian, but I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that he was, at worst, a Deist, and more probably either a Gnostic or an Agnostic.
Thomas Jefferson was a Diest, however by 1 definition he was also a Christian. Being a Diest he didn't believe Jesus was the "Son of God" but he did believe Jesus was a great teacher. TJ took the Bible and cut out all the stuff about miracles, the supernatural, and such and published his own Jefferson's Bible.
Agnostic: One who is not certain that such a truth exists.)
"Agnostic" is used in another way, a, without and gnosis, knowledge, so "without knowledge". That's how I use it myself, I am agnostic or without knowledge.
Falcon
Loss of transmission is on the order of 5-10% to transmit power halfway across the US even with our current outdated grid.
Yes, with our current grid. Because it's mostly, but not only, AC. HVDC has lower losses over long distances. However smaller scale alternative energy sources can be located closer to where the energy is used. Such as roof mounted PVs. Or wind turbines located on food crop farms. A Walmart in my area has a verticle windmill mounted on it's roof.
5: No, the point is that you are wrong about solar in every fundamental way. Nuclear power is a good idea. It is clean and efficient.
Nuclear power is dirty from cradle to grave, ie from the mining of it to the disposal of it. As for what the efficiency is studies on the EROEI, Energy Returned on Energy Invested, are all over the place depending on who did the study. Pro-nuclear groups say it is efficient while anti-nuclear groups claim it is inefficient.
Breeder reactors are the only way to solve the nuclear waste problem that we are already dealing with
While reprocessing reduces to quantity and half life of the fuel it also creates a lot of toxic chemicals.
Falcon
I thought that the Civil War technology to make die out of Pokeberries was about the least interesting part of the story, but for some reason the writer chose to focus on the berries instead of the innovative fiber-based solar cells - odd?
The Pokeberries increase the efficiency of the panels, that's why they are brought up. "By coating the plastic sheets with a layer of purple pokeberry dye, the fibers can absorb even more sunlight to convert to power."
That however is not the original article, Science Daily has it, Purple Pokeberries Hold Secret to Affordable Solar Power Worldwide. It says "Nanotech Center scientists have used the red dye made from pokeberries to coat their efficient and inexpensive fiber-based solar cells. The dye acts as an absorber, helping the cell's tiny fibers trap more sunlight to convert into power."
Falcon
I read an article the other day about some villagers in a remote corner of Afghanistan. There was a large generator which had been given to them years before which was lying unused. Apparently they had used the gas that came with it, calculated that it would cost 20 cents per house per night to run it, and never fired it up again. They couldn't afford the gas, which anyway would have been difficult to transport. A donated solar panel installation, on the other hand, might actually do them some good.
The problem with this, solar panels, is that some sort of storage would be needed. Batteries require maintenance. Sure it's not hard but someone would have to do it.
Actually I support bringing solar power to more remote areas. I read an article in IEEE's Spectrum where people in south/southeast Asia built and put together small solar power systems, creating employment, then sold them to villagers. A villager with a work shop would be able to increase his/her income. Elsewhere I read how children could use lights to read thus increasing their education.
Perhaps serendipitously on the front page Spectrum has a link to the article Batteries That Go With the Flow "A new battery design promises to even out fluctuations in solar and wind power". RTFA though it will require more work.
Falcon
Both parties do it, it simply has now gotten obnoxious enough for all to see. If you go back to Lincoln's era, the politics was just as nasty. Politicians do it when they have nothing to contribute but are afraid their opposition does.
Actually the nastiness goes back further, it goes back to the 1780s-90s at least. Some so called Christians campaigned negatively about Thomas Jefferson before he was elected President. A Reverend Jonn Mason[.doc] said Jefferson was "a profane philosopher and an infidel." "Christians!" he exclaimed, "it is thus that a man, whom you are expected to elevate to the chief magistracy, insults yourselves and your Bible!" During the campaign of 1800 TJ and John Adams, who were lifelong friends before the campaign, each camp accused the other of ugly stuff. In 1828 Andrew Jackson's wife Rachel Jackson was called a slut, adulteress, or bigamous. She ended up dying before he won, some say the scandal caused her to have a heart attack. Jackson blamed the press on her death.
Falcon
here Obama hate.
It could just be their turn at the cycle, but have you watched? jeez, they literally say one thing, then say the exact opposite an hour later.
That sounds just like Democrats, as does the rest.
Falcon
Troll
Falcon
Nuclear is actually cost competitive with coal,
So the Wall Street Journal is wrong? Even they say "The only way to handicap the field in nuclear power's favor is to put a big price tag on emissions of carbon dioxide." If however emissions of carbon dioxide had a price tag then geothermal, solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources would be more competitive as well not just nuclear power. And if nuclear is so great then why does the industry need subsidies and gets loan guaranties?
and is the only green energy source that is.
Nuclear power is not clean, it is dirty from cradle to grave, oops there is no grave for nuclear waste. Ask the Navajo how clean uranium mining is. Or some First Nations in Canada, the aboriginals in Australia, or any number of other indigenous peoples throughout the world.
It's also wrong that nuclear plants need to be these massive, expensive things. We've had portable nuclear generators since the '60s, and you can build out plants of various sizes from there all the way up to the mega installations.
Is that why Finland's Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant has costs overruns raising it's cost from 3 billion euros to more than 4.2 billion? Or seen it's operation delayed from 2009 to 2012 at the earliest? Since you didn't like the previous CATO article you probably won't like this one either but Nuclear Energy: Risky Business says "the industry in the early 1990s asked for-and got-exactly the sort of safety regulations, permit review process, and public comment regime now in place." Further, it says "Indeed, if government were the reason why investors were saying "no" to their loan applications, I would expect that industry officials would be the first to say so. But they do not."
Solar is currently 3x - 10x more expensive than coal.
Saying that's true now, I don't know, solar is constantly dropping in costs. And coal does not pay all of it's own costs. Like other energy sources coal is subsidized. Mountaintop removal probably the safest way to mine coal is very destructive and polluting.
The only reason it can be cost effective is because the government very very heavily subsidizes solar installations.
If ethanol subsidies, most of which go to corn and there are better feed stocks than corn, are removed from alternative energy subsidies coal comes in first place in the amount of subsidies it gets. The graph on the page linked to says alternative energy got $4.875 billion in 2007. Of that though $3 billion went to ethanol. Coal on the other hand is broken down into 2 categories. Refined coal, whatever that is, got $2.370 billion and coal got $932 million. Together coal got $3.302 billion whereas goethermal, solar, wind and other alternative sources got $1.9 billion excluding ethanol. I do see that it has nuclear as getting less than alternatives though, however I wonder how it breaks down for the different types? As that page asks, "which pig wears the most lipstick?"
Geothermal will never amount to more tha
You didn't read the article, then.
Not only did I read the article but I also used my browser's search function. If I am wrong then include the sentence where it says parties were thrown because nuclear power plants were shutdown. Heck, just for the heck of it, I'll list all the sentences with "party" or "parties":
Agreed.
I don't think you can really call us "good" or "bad":
If by "us" you mean humans I agree, but I believe specific people can be good or bad.
And species come and go, sometimes with the help of others.
Therein lies the problem to me, "with the help of others". If climate rapidly changes, earth warms for instanced, due to human activity and species are driven extinct because of it then I hold people responsible. Mind you not all but some. I also see problems trying to do something as a counter, some of the geo-engineering schemes to combat Global Warming for instance, without understanding it. A good example of this is asbestos. For centuries asbestos was used and called the miracle mineral fiber. It was only found to be bad in the 1960s. Now I doubt a day goes by when I do not see a lawyer's add for an asbestos lawsuit.
Not that we should be trying, of course.
Overall I believe we, humans, should try to reduce our negative effects on the biosphere and that we can make improvements in the way we live to help the biosphere.
Falcon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suv
"Early SUVs were descendants from commercial and military vehicles such as the World War II Jeep and Land Rover.SUVs have been popular for many years with rural buyers due to their off-road capabilities.
Except they were not called SUVs. From the page you linked to: According to the transportation curator at the Henry Ford Museum, Robert Casey, the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) was the first true sport utility vehicle in the modern understanding of the term." And according to the wiki article on the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) it came out in 1978. As I said in the post you replied to I am a relic. Before that Jeep model ever came out I was mud stomping. Heck I was doing that in Massachusetts in a 6 wheeler before then.
"According to the transportation curator at the Henry Ford Museum, Robert Casey, the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) was the first true sport utility vehicle in the modern understanding of the term."
So my list is correct, those are all SUVs.
I see you include the same quote I did above, but you did not check out when design for the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) started, 1978. So you are still wrong. You also neglect to mention the first XJ Cherokee wasn't introduced until 1984.
I grew up in South Dakota and we used Blazers and Suburbans all the time when going off road in the farm and on friends ranches, going up 40 degree slopes.
But they were not called SUVs. Depending on where they were located they were called 4X4s, 4 Wheel Drives(4WD), or All Wheel Drives(AWD). Try going up those slopes in most SUVs made today. Heck someone I knew rolled over a Suzuki Samuria a couple of weeks after it was bought new.
Falcon
You'd better tell the Desert Tortoise that.
Falcon
Except all those vehicles you list are or were 4X4s, 4WD, or AWD meant for off-road driving. Well except the Range Rover maybe. SUV's are not meant for off-road driving, sure they are capable of some but they aren't meant for it. There are only a few SUVs made I'd take off-road like I used to do, some of those places required a truck to have a snorkel to breath. Others places you finished the trip only by airboat or something similar. Other places I've been to and camped at these SUVs would rollover trying to climb a hill or embankment.
Now I realize I'm a relic on slashdot but I grew up in Florida and spent a lot of tyme in the wilderness surviving off the land fishing and hunting and gathering food in Ocala National Forest, on the St Johns River, in the Everglades or on the coast.
Falcon
How about throwing parties for shutting down a nuclear power plant? =)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_'90/The_Greens
First off, the wiki article you provided the link to says nothing about the Greens throwing a party, the only references to any party is to political parties. Next, the nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsidies. That's not me saying that, that is a freemarket institute and a business magazine saying it.
>>but clearly that is not what they do. because if they were doing that, they would be arguing against themselves on many occasions.
Actually, that's precisely what's happening. It's called the "Green on Green Battle", where environmental groups are on both sides of an issue.
Ah, so environmentalists aren't one big monolithic block.
By contrast, if they held more nuanced views (instead of these nutcase all-or-nothing views which )
Make up your mind, either they are a "nutcase all-or-nothing" monolithic block or they are not.
Falcon
is that they're stupid. ...
This has led to:
1) A ban on nuclear power here in California
Except environmentalists or greenies didn't stop nuclear power. As the Hooked on Subsidies article the pro freemarket CATO Institute republished, originally published by "Forbes", said it is state actors not the market that decides what nuclear power plants are built. Even in France and other nations, here's the relevant paragraph:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
The "Hooked on Subsidies article brings up the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant being built in Finland. The French government owned business Areva and Siemans were building it, however Siemens sold it's interest to Areva. As of this tyme last year cost overruns have caused it's "3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion", to climb at least 50 percent. Market Watch published a story about a study that warns of steep cost overruns at new reactors.
2) The Sierra Club successfully shutting down a massive solar plant. (What? Solar is a green energy? But think of all the DESERT that would be covered by those panels! 25 tortoises live there!) Good luck getting more companies to put money into proposing green power generators, assholes. Similar stories exist for wind and tidal projects across the country.
I'm glad I don't donate to the Sierra Club. They're not the only hypocrites though. On the Atlantic Coast there are those who oppose offshore wind farms. Even Ted Kennedy opposed a wind farm, in Cape Cod. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States" lays out the wind potential of various regions of the US. The Rocky Mountains alone has enough potential to supply all of the US with energy. Meanwhile SciAm published the article A Solar Grand Plan lays out how solar power can "supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." Then there are other potential energy sources as well. Geothermal energy supplied California with 13 terawatts or 4.5% of the electricity used in CA in 2007. One geothermal project in Hawaii is the Puna Geothermal Venture and it supplies the big island of 20% of it's electricity. The SciAm article Hawaii Says Aloha (Greetings) to Clean, Renewable Energy says geothermal energy can be expanded to supply more electricity:
"Last January, Hawaii signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) that would make the Aloha State the country's most aggressive in pursuing renewable energy. By 2030, it plans to obtain 70 percent of its power from clean energy (40 percent from renewables and 30 percent from energy efficiency). Outstripping California's goal of 33 percent by 2020, the Hawaii initiative is a green light for clean-tech experts and enthusiasts to set up shop in the heart of the Pacific and may become a blueprint (or greenprint) for the rest of the country."
Geothermal isn't only available in the west either. It is being used now in
Either that or develop REALLY big heat-resistant corks for every volcano on the planet.
Actually if the goal is to slow Global Warming or induce cooling, perhaps an ice age, then having volcanoes erupt is a great way to do it. All the ash put in the atmosphere blocks sunlight from reaching the ground thus causes cooling. Since it's eruption I've been wondering how big an effect the volcano's eruption in Iceland will have on climate, temperatures probably will decline but just how much?
You don't even want to KNOW the plans for Yellowstone.
If the supervolcano Yellowstone Caldera erupts it can have a big impact on climate.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Global Warming has not been proven false or equal to the Flat Earth Theory. At most what has been shown is that more scientific studies need to be done.
Falcon
How do you define what's bad for the planet anyway? All we can or should care about is what's bad for us. The planet has been inhospitable for human life before, and will be again. We just need to make sure that doesn't happen sooner rather than later.
That is generally what we mean by "bad for the planet" -- making it less hospitable for us as far as comfort, safety, adequate food, etc. goes. Obviously, the planet itself will survive with or without us. And life (of some sort) will somehow find a way
That depends on who "we" are. There are some people who think humans are the problem.
Falcon
I'd rather we end up on the side of slightly higher temperatures rather than global economic collapse.
What if higher temperatures lead to a collapse, environmental and economic? Actually an environmental collapse will cause an economic collapse as well.
On the other hand I don't think we should be doing any of the geo-engineering schemes such as pumping sulfates or other sun-blocking particles miles high in the stratosphere either. Not without much more scientific studies. We don't have any idea of what the effects of these may be. For instance for centuries asbestos was considered a miracle. It wasn't until the 1960 when asbestos came under suspicion. Now hardly a day goes by when I do not see a lawyer's ad about an asbestos lawsuit.
Falcon
There are 16 arab countries which don't allow israeli passport holders to enter their country: http://bigpassportandvisa.com/israel-passports/
Okay, so you were right. However I noticed on the page linked to above says that Israel doesn't allow Israelis to visit some countries too. See "Enemy States"
"The Israeli law dictates that Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen are considered "enemy states" or 'enemy countries.' If you're an Israeli citizen, you are not allowed to visit any of these countries unless you have a special permit issued by Israel's Ministry of Interior. Hence, if you visit this country, whether with an Israeli or a foreign passport, you may be prosecuted upon your return to Israel. Iran has been recently suggested as an addition to the list."
Even at the height of the Cold War US citizens were allowed to visit the Soviet Union and China. American Industrialist and Occidental Petroleum stockholder Armand Hammer was a friend to the SU.
There are also some arab airlines that won't allow boarding if they find out you are jewish, it doesn't matter if you are landing on an arab country or not.
Namely Kuwait Airways, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Emirates Airline, perhaps others.
Though it allows Arabs Israel's El Al airline has targeted Arabs. El Al ordered to compensate humiliated Israeli Arab passengers.
I wonder how many of those Arab airlines are state owned and not private or corporate businesses. Let's see... Kuwait Airways is state owned. Saudi Arabian Airlines started the process of privatization in 2006. And Emirates Airline is "a subsidiary of The Emirates Group, which has over 50,000 employees, and is wholly-owned by the Government of Dubai". I'd think that if these airlines were publicly traded corporations they would allow Israeli passengers.
Falcon