How does that explain why Shell or BP or whoever doesn't try to get a leg up and start putting some decent money into all the viable alternatives.
It's called collusion. The entire industry conspires to maintain the status quo. Nobody has significant research expenditures. Nobody worries about new technologies upsetting the industry. They all sit back, engage in price fixing, and watch the profits roll in. Essentially, all the companies in one industry act together as a single monopoly. It's illegal, but it's difficult to prove, especially when the government charged with proving it is in bed with the industry.
it takes a long time to actually recoup the amount of energy used to make the solar panels
This is FUD from Big Oil. In the early 1980s, Solarex had a solar panel manufacturing facility in the southwestern US that was powered by solar cells. Admittedly, they bought raw materials like aluminum and glass that are energy intensive. They didn't shovel sand in one side and get solar panels out the other. But the economics clearly indicate that the energy payback is not that long. The financial payback is currently many years because the panels are needlessly expensive. There is nothing inherently expensive about solar panels. It's the simplest and least expensive of the semiconductor processes. Some photovoltaic materials can actually be painted onto the substrate, but they are low efficiency and not as durable. The point is, with a concerted effort at volume production, the price would decrease dramatically. Houses need roofs. Imagine putting the roofing costs toward a solar roof with panels that snap together and have RTV silicone to seal the joints. That's what I'm talking about.
There are already government subsidies available
Very few federal alternative energy subsidies exist. Many were started in the Carter administration, when the oil embargo caused a shortage in the US. But those have almost all been eliminated. To my knowledge, electric companies are still required to purchase alternative energy at grid rates, and there is a hybrid automobile tax credit (though not as large as the mega-SUV business tax credit).
We need to increase insulation in houses. It's fuelish not to do so. The payback on this investment is short. Then we need more solar thermal heating. It's easy to do, and it's attractive if integrated with the initial house design. Retrofits are often ugly, but they work well enough. Small scale wind power and small hydro power could be used a lot more than it is. India does a great job with small scale hydro power. Everyplace in the continental US receives plenty of sunshine, so solar is a universally applicable solution. Everyone can benefit from solar power. If the panels were cheap enough, imagine all the parking lots in the US covered in solar panels. Cars wouldn't be subjected to the elements, and the electric cars could charge as they park. Think of all the US jobs that would be created designing, building and installing solar power systems. As a geek, it's frustrating to see such an obvious solution not being implemented. Why? Big money.
Name them. If there are plenty of them available then plenty of companies would be making plenty of money on these viable alternatives.
Here they are. Some of them anyway. There are many other technologies that would exist if we spent a small amount of time and money developing them, instead of supporting the oil and gas industry.
My other post also attempts to explain why free market competition isn't solving this problem. It's a lot like the problem with Windows security. There are good alternatives, but anticompetitive practices ensure that a free market economy doesn't exist.
show me a solution to the problem and will back it
The problems are:
1) Convention. We have infrastructure in place to burn fossil fuels, and inertia being what it is, we continue along that course. Maintaining the status quo is bad for the environment. It also results in an unfavorable balance of trade for the US. I was amused by the public service announcements equating drug use with funding terrorists. The US is addicted to oil from the Middle East, and that addiction is the real source of funding for Middle Eastern terrorists.
2) Subsidies. There are pseudo-subsidies which make it difficult for alternative energy to compete with fossil fuels. These aren't direct government subsidies to the oil industry, although some amount of that wouldn't surprise me. Many of the costs of burning fossil fuels are not paid by the fuel infrastructure. Pollution is paid for in a number of other places, including everything from the EPA budget, to the increased cost of insurance and health care relating to environmentally related illnesses, to the increased maintenance costs we all pay for tasks such as repainting because smog damages almost everything it touches. And who pays for medical care of coal miners with black lung? How much of our taxes does the US government contribute to cleaning up oil spills? If fossil fuels paid for all the problems they cause our society, solar and wind power would be more than cost effective in a fair comparison.
3) Fuelish Government Policies. As one example, the US government offers a substantial tax break to businesses who buy trucks of a certain size. The idea was ostensibly to encourage small businesses to buy delivery trucks and farmers to buy farm related vehicles. But the policy was almost instantly exploited. It encouraged automakers to produce the land barge sized SUVs. Almost every auto maker has a model large enough to qualify, and they're sold to businesses that provide them as company cars. So the government is encouraging auto makers to build 12 mpg SUVs, by offering tax incentives for businesses to buy them.
GM created the EV1 electric car. They leased them to many customers, and the customers loved them. They were very low maintenance, requiring no oil changes and even reduced brake wear because they employed regenerative braking. Best of all, there was never a need to stop for gas. It charges automatically while parked in the garage at night when the off peak electric rates are low. It's easy to imagine solar charging for the EV1. But GM decided to focus 30+ years down the road on the hope of hydrogen cars. Despite angry protests from their customers, they pulled the EV1 off lease. Some of their customers wanted to absolve GM of all liability and support for the EV1 and purchase it outright, after essentially already buying it during the lease period. GM refused. It sure looks like an attempt to suppress technology.
So, here are the solutions to the problem. Start backing them.
We could have electric cars today that pollute much less than internal combustion engine cars, even when they're ultimately powered by coal powered plants as an interim solution. Solar power is available almost everywhere and even though Moore's Law does not apply to solar cells, a similar effect seems likely. Once we converted our energy system to mostly solar, huge economies of scale apply and the price drops enormously. Solar panels have proven to be low maintenance with long term reliability. If we get the initial cost down, the payback period will be shorter and this technology will appeal even to short sighted American businesses.
We need less expensive solar cells, more efficient energy storage devices, and a change in our infrastructure to support alternative energy solutions.
Finally, one obviously simple technique that would have the single largest impact in our energy policy would be to drastically reduce the amount of fossil fuels being burned for space heating and water heating.
When you have hard data, you don't need consensus.
In the case of global warming, the only data you'd probably accept would be a couple of centuries with melted polar ice caps, massive species extinctions, and catastrophic climatic change.
Yeah, hard data is generally preferable to informed opinions, but not when collecting the data is a planet destroying process. We sometimes need to extrapolate from incomplete data to derive a prudent course of action.
The fact remains that the vast majority of climatologists believe humans are contributing to a process of global warming, with undesired results. Only a few vocal fringe elements have their theories amplified to create enough doubt to justify the policy of continuing along our present course while we "study the situation". Credible scientists believe the time to do nothing but study this situation has passed, and we now need to study it as we try to correct the problem.
This is another case where big money dictates public policy. US energy policy is driven by fossil fuel suppliers, much to the detriment of our national security, balance of trade and environment. There are already plenty of viable renewable energy resources and technologies that would convert the US from an energy importer to an energy exporter, and many more promising technologies await in the near future. Promoting these energy technologies would be good fiscal policy, good defense policy, and good environmental policy. But it won't happen in an administration that invited Enron CEO Ken Lay to secret US energy policy meetings.
Didja know that Condoleezza Rice had a Chevron oil tanker named after her?
Microwave ovens operate at 2.4 GHz, same as the clock frequency in my laptop PC's P4, and the same as many wireless devices such as cordless phones and 802.11b wireless networking. Cell phones work at slightly different frequencies, but they're close enough that similar issues are involved.
I don't think most people who worry about RF are concerned with localized heating of body tissue. I think most people are worried about possible mutagenic characteristics of the magnetic field. There has still been no proof of this in low power devices such as cell phones or wireless networking cards, and a lot of recent studies have tried to find such a link. But I think we'd all agree that staying warm by standing in front of a distant early warning radar transmitting antenna in Alaska is not good for you. BTW - This is a real example. A friend was stationed there in the late 1960s (before we all had microwave ovens) and the radio engineers totally freaked when they saw the guards doing this while on guard duty.
Sorry. I knew that was confusing when I wrote it. I was referring to other things. I did not intend to imply that GPS is a right.
I think we are far safer than we were 3-4 years ago
I disagree. There have been some changes. I think most of the positive changes are in personal attitudes. There is no way that a terrorist is going to take over an airliner now. The pilots won't allow it, and neither will the passengers. Public opinion is (rightfully) such that I'd almost feel sorry for a terrorist who tried. People accepting responsibility for their own safety and the safety of others is a good thing. But the government has spent a lot of money with dubious improvements to real security while major security issues remain. One big example that has shocked me since way before 9/11 is the way air cargo is almost completely uninspected. There are so many ways this is dangerous.
But there is a much bigger reason we're less safe. I think invading and occupying Iraq without legitimate cause (WMD, supporting terrorists, etc.) has led to massive resentment in the Arab world and has provided a recruitment poster for al Qaeda. The US has ignored it's own laws and international treaties by capturing US citizens and citizens of other countries, declaring them "enemy combatants" and insisting that they have no legal protection, either under the US Constitution or the Geneva Convention. Countless examples of graphic prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib and similar Red Cross and Amnesty International reports from Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay add to anti-US sentiments. So do the dead Iraqi civilians, currently numbering about 16,000 and counting. Then a US soldier is found guilty of the premeditated murder of an Iraqi teenager. All of this creates hatred for the US, and that is used to enlist terrorists. I'm all for killing terrorists, but this is creating three for every one that's eliminated, and that's moving in the wrong direction.
Many people I've spoken to believe "It's better to fight 'em over there than fight 'em over here." The obvious flaw in that argument is the assumption that there is a constant number of anti-US terrorists. We need to understand that our actions are creating terrorism by drastically increasing anti-US sentiment around the world.
I voted for the person who I believed would do the best job handling my top concern of security
Security was a big issue for most people in the 2004 US election. It all boils down to what each person thought was most likely to provide security. I think it could be best summarized by the choice between "fight harder" or "fight smarter". I wish we had better candidates than those trotted out by the two party system.
I just hope we can put the nastiness of the election behind us
Me too. It was very divisive. I also hope we can regain some international respect in the process. Some people apparently don't think so, but we really do need allies to fight international terrorism.
Coast Guard may conduct thorough searches of your boat at any time, anywhere
The FAA exercises control over personal aircraft that is more severe than that. Most pilots fear a ramp check, with mental images of Nazis demanding, "Your papers, please." and then, "Your papers are not in order."
Does the Coast Guard require you to pay an authorized mechanic to disassemble and inspect your boat every year, then make the required log entries? Are sailors required to spend about $5000 getting a license to sail, then force you to log all your relevant sailing information every time you go? All pilot and airplane logs must be presented anytime an FAA agent or any law enforcement agent requests them, along with a few other required documents. The regulation book pertaining to flight looks like a major metropolitan telephone book, and a pilot is responsible for knowing and following each of these regs. It's a lot of regulation, and now the associated rights are being gradually taken away.
I'd say there is too much government intervention in sailing, and way, way too much in flying.
Comparisons between using GPS and piloting an aircraft carrier are not useful. This is not an extension to the absurd to make a point. The two are completely different. When I use GPS, the military is not deprived of its use in any way. There is no additional cost when I use GPS navigation.
Besides, for a reasonable financial contribution, I could have piloted a large US Navy vessel, up until the time some civilian contributors were piloting a nuclear submarine during a simulated emergency surfacing maneuver when it struck a Japanese vessel and killed four students and five adults. http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/02/17/s ub/
I would prefer that than the "shock and awe" of watching planes hitting the twin towers. A lot of people seem to have forgotten what that was like.
I certainly haven't forgotten 9/11. That's the reason I'm upset whenever I see the US government taking away the rights of US citizens under the guise of national security, or doing things that make anti-US terrorism worse when they should be fighting terrorism.
But I think your "planes hitting the twin towers" scenario is misleading in the context of your comment about restricting the interstate highway system for military use. How would militarizing the highway system have prevented a terrorist act such as the Trade Center Towers disaster?
I'm not arguing against the capability of disabling GPS under some extreme circumstances, if warranted. The point I was trying to make is the military is an arm of the government, and the government should be an extension of us. The more we see our government as a huge omnipotent entity, the fewer our freedoms will be. We need to get back to seeing the government as working for the people, not the other way around. If the government is not working for you, vote until it does.
Unfortunately, our two party choices have been dismal. Neither seem truly interested in the people, despite their claims. Consider third party candidates. It's an interesting exercise in game theory. If everyone is conviced that only one of two candidates can win, voting for anyone else is "throwing your vote away". But when the situation is so bad that people would rather throw their vote away than vote for one of the two major party candidates, then we have a chance to elect candidates who serve the constituents. I reached that point several years ago. I'm hoping other people do too, and soon.
And with GWB back in the Whitehouse, I'm really glad I'm getting a sextant for Christmas.
I'd love to do more sailing. I may have to. I can't imagine the US government abusing sailors to the same extent they have private pilots the last four years. We have numerous Temporary Flight Restrictions all over the country that have been in place since September 11, 2001. Not sure what's so temporary about them. Even worse, every time some government official travels, there is a 30 mile radius No-Fly zone that pops up with no warning. You can check before taking off, and one of these can pop up around you as you're flying, and it's still your fault.
We are all losing our rights at an unbelievable rate, and being a small group with little political power, private pilots are at the tip of the sword. Of course, when there are no private pilots left, they'll eventually work their way down the list and eliminate the rights of sailors too.
Be glad you're not getting all the government you're paying for.
- Will Rogers
IMHO this is a military system that we civillians have been lucky enough to use around the world, and always remember that.
Where do you think the military got the money for GPS? Hint: It's as inevitable as death. Yep, you guessed it. Taxes. And you can bet a private enterprise global satellite navigational system would have been twice as good for a tenth of the money. So I wouldn't count myself too lucky.
I use a GPS when I fly and increasingly when I drive. But I don't bow down to the military industrial complex in gratitude. I paid for my share of the GPS system.
Do you feel lucky that your ISP lets you use their internet?
If my bank (suntrust) allowed me to use firefox, I'd never have to use IE for anything
Suntrust Bank keeps sending me emails telling me I need to update my profile. I go there and plug in all my bank account and credit card information, but they keep sending the emails. :^)
On a serious note, it's frustrating that many banking and credit card sites insist on IE, despite the fact that it's one of the least secure browsers available. The CERT recommendation to use Firefox instead of IE has finally forced them to rethink their IE only policy. CERT is the computing security division of the US Department of Homeland Security.
I've had good luck going to the about:config page in Mozilla and telling it to report that it's IE when queried by servers. They think they're talking to an IE browser and they provide the content which usually works as well in Mozilla as it does in IE.
Forcing the browser to lie has some downsides. You may get some IE specific code that doesn't work in Mozilla. You'll also be contributing to the problem you're trying to fight because your Mozilla or Firefox browser will be counted as IE when you visit sites. Their IT department will then say, "Why should we support Firefox? 98% of the people visiting our site use IE." Producing a "This site optimized for IE" website is a self fulfilling prophecy. Force your customers to use IE to do their online banking, and they either will, or they'll lie to you.
Webmaster suggestions:
1) HTML standards are good. Stop using browser specific crap.
2) Most times your Flash craplet only serves to drastically slow down your site and turn away visitors by not working on their machines. Want an animation? Use GIF89a.
I can see the point that open source applications make it easier to swap the underlying operating system. I was glad I used Netscape back in the dark days of Windows. When I switched to Linux, Mozilla read my bookmarks, address book and a LOT of archived email with no problem.
My concern with open source applications under Windows is the quality. From what I've seen, the open source applications were usually developed under Linux, then ported to Windows. Many times, the Windows port isn't close to the quality of the Linux version, probably because fewer people are developing and testing it. I can imagine Windows users saying, "If this is open source, I don't see what the big deal is."
So I think porting the many great open source applications to Windows could be a great introduction to open source, but only if the quality is maintained.
Firefox is currently ripping IE a new one, and that's a good thing. From what I've heard of the Windows version, it's as good as the Linux version.
Open Office on Windows didn't seem nearly as good as the Linux version, but it still beats paying for MS Office, so it has a good following. But it doesn't adequately convey the positive experiences I've had with open source applications running under Linux.
...only a handful of hobbyists will use something like gEDA for serious designing
That may be true... this week. But many people said the same sort of thing about Linux, and it's running tons of servers now and is rapidly making inroads on the desktop. Firefox is currently devouring Internet Explorer market share. OpenOffice.org is a great alternative to M$ Office. There are plenty of other examples.
You may be missing the point of open source software. By empowering users, any code that is used is inevitably improved. A critical mass phenomenon occurs where the more users there are, the faster the improvements occur.
EDA is a market that is definitely large enough to prosper as open source, especially given that a large percentage of the EDA users are geeks willing to add to or improve the code. gEDA seems poised to be THE open source EDA solution.
I use the Linux version of Eagle, and I like it. I particularly like the autorouter. But it won't be long until gEDA will have an improved user interface, integrated PCB layout, an autorouter, etc. In other words, it'll be a full featured open source alternative to commercial EDA software, with none of the annual update fees and licensing hassles.
I expected open source software would be free, but I was most impressed by the way open source felt. It's hard to describe, but when I wasn't forced to scroll through a 140 KB end user licensing agreement and then suffer through a lot of copy protection crap during the installation, I felt like the programmers were on my side. I'm not opposed to people making money from software, but open source is a lot friendlier to the user, and that attitude carries over into everyday aspects such as open file formats that make it easier to export and translate data or share my work with other people, as opposed to proprietary data formats designed to lock in customers and ensure a steady revenue stream by maintaining a de facto software standard based solely on marketing.
There are too many advantages of open source for it not to be a dominant force in the immediate future of computing.
Close. Actually, the two things you should do are:
1) Download and install Firefox.
2) Delete Internet Explorer (if you can).
On my computer, Internet Explorer is slightly faster for casual browsing than FireFox because Explorer is more tightly integrated into the operating system.
On my computer, I'm running Linux. IE is NOT integrated into the operating system. You can't see it, but I'm doing the Superior Dance.
If IE is integrated into your OS, there is a third thing you should do.
3) Upgrade to Linux or Mac.
I can't understand why everyone isn't more enraged by the fact that 80% of spam now comes from zombie Windows PCs. Lack of security hurts us all. As a society, we're far too complacent about PC security. We should take the attitude that a person's right to run an unpatched Windows box attached to a high speed cable ISP does not supercede the right of a million internet users not to drown in illegal V1aGr@ and warez spam.
The computer is restricted to ensure people don't screw it up.
Wouldn't want to break the PC before the latest Outlook worm turns it into a spam spewing zombie. I can hardly wait for there to be 5X as many Windows PCs in the world, 'cause I'm still not getting enough spam and Outlook worms.
If the goal is to increase internet usage from 10% of the population to 50% by 2015, the best way I can think of to do that would be a program where the three year old PCs in the west that are being dumped in a landfill are retrofitted with Linux and open source applications with language configurations that are native to the new users in the developing countries. The target countries could do the retrofit. It's a hassle to do one at a time, but if it was done on a larger scale, it could be a nice efficient business, where the hardware and software was free and the only cost is labor. This would be *MUCH* better than the $100 PC that Balmer proposed.
I'd only recommend mailing a CD to nerdy friends and relatives. For everyone else (most people), I'd wait until the latest Outlook worm trashes their system and they call you for help. Invest a couple of hours installing your favorite distro, with OpenOffice and FireFox. Give them a few obvious-as-hell icons on the desktop. Tell them "You're now running Linux so you won't have problems with computer viruses." Hopefully, a couple of months later when they're still enjoying a stable and secure PC, they'll tell their friends and relatives how great Linux is.
BTW - Xandros now has a free demo version. Not quite a live CD, but it will quickly partition a hard drive, install a boot loader with a dual boot menu, and not mess with Windows , in case anyone wants to give it a try. Xandros is very newbie-friendly. Other than the lack of crashes and infections, your relatives probably won't know it isn't Windoze.
I recently bought a copy of Jeff Wayne's rock opera, War of the Worlds, on eBay (no $$$ to RIAA). I had heard it before on the radio, in bits and pieces, and always wanted to listen to it in its entirety. It's really good, and does a good job of following the original story. I wish there were more works like this, that blend a book-on-CD with a musical recording.
The Americanized movie in the sixties was good for its time. With Hollywood creativity in a slump and remakes all the rage, I figured a War of the Worlds remake was coming soon. I hoped it wouldn't be a Spielberg movie. I liked some earlier Spielberg movies, but none lately. AI was a great topic for a movie. I think it's a fascinating subject, yet I was only barely able to sit through the entire movie. It totally missed the mark.
So I'm glad there is a UK remake that stays true to the author's intent. That's the one I'll see. Unfortunately, the Schpeelberg crapola version will be the one making the money. It's the bane of engineers... marketing is much more important than the product.
Oh well, at least it can't be as bad as what Hollywood did to Starship Troopers. Can it?
People file FOIA requests all the time, successfully.
I've seen some of the info released under the FOI Act. If it's at all interesting information, like what the FBI was doing during the Nixon administration, the released "information" is nothing but large black redacted areas. After the security screening, all that is left is _____ was ______ _____ at ______ when ______ _____ and _________ ______ ____.
I guess only the little words are free. Hey, can I buy a vowel?
As for the sat photos, the US military bought exclusive rights to the commercial satellite images during the early days of the Iraq War. Compliance wasn't an option, and the order pre-empted any existing business agreements. Totally non-negotiable.
I'm not saying they should endanger troops by letting anyone with a $30 balance on their credit card download photos showing troop strength and deployment. Besides, Geraldo Rivera provided that info for free on the fair and balanced Fox News.
But on the other hand, it's bad for democracy when citizens aren't allowed to see what the government is doing. I can't think of a good middle ground in this case, but I don't like either extreme.
religious - 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
You left out what I believe is the original meaning.
religious - 3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious
I think the language has evolved so that the word now applies most often to beliefs in deities, but in the original meaning, it could apply to a staunch belief in no deity, which some would describe as atheism.
At the risk of agreeing with someone twice modded Troll, I also believe that most atheists are making a belief of the nonexistence of God. I'm an agnostic, because I take a scientific view. There is no evidence of God, so I can't believe in that, and no evidence that God doesn't exist so I can't bellieve in that either. It's a theory that can not yet be proven or disproven. We could argue about the many "proofs". Feel free to believe what you like. There are no right or wrong answers in philosophy. Here's an old joke:
Dean of Arts & Sciences: I appreciate the cuts the math department has made, but finances are tight and you'll need to cut back some more.
Dean of the Math Department: But we've already cut back to the point we only have paper, pencils and erasers.
Dean of Arts & Sciences: Yes, that's good, but your colleagues in the Philosophy Department are doing very well without erasers.
My working definitions:
Atheism - A belief in the nonexistence of God.
Agnosticism - A nonbelief in the existence of God.
It's a subtle distinction, but I bet most agnostics would think it's an important distinction.
I believe we are arguing semantics. I get along just fine with most atheists, even the ones who preach and try to convert me to atheism.
It's been humorously said that an agnostic is just an atheist who lacks conviction in his beliefs. I think that's essentially true.
Repent! Accept secular humanism as your personal savior or be cast into the pit and forever perish in the lake of fire and eternal... oh, nevermind.
I've got karma to burn, and I fully expect to waste some on this post. I'd be goofy to expect otherwise. That's the price to be paid for participating in a/. discussion of God.
I've seen this post about being a kid and recording off the radio a couple of times before, and it's right on target.
In any business transaction, there should be a fair exchange of value. Legal contracts even have wording such as "in fair exchange for...." But the RIAA companies are missing this point, probably because their executives are all coked out of their minds.
I recorded some stuff off the radio when I was a kid, but I also bought many albums and spent a very large percentage of my hard-earned disposable income on them, because I received something of value. I felt good about supporting the artists, I received a convenient package containing a high quality audio recording, lyrics, some artwork and pictures, maybe even a written article by a band member or a cartoon or something that seemed to personalize it or make it special.
Now, I feel abused. Many of the CDs are encumbered with copy protection. I had a CD that wouldn't play 80% of the time in my Sony in-dash CD player, but the CD-R I burned on my Linux PC always plays. And I'm supposed to PAY for this abuse and mistrust?
Basically, the RIAA companies are functioning as a monopoly, and have been found guilty in US courts of collusion and anticompetitive practices by engaging in price fixing. Once the competition is gone, the attitude toward customers becomes arrogant, hostile and even abusive. They clearly don't care about the music, they just care about maximizing their profits.
Note to all businesses (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy): If your business model requires you to sue your customers and potential customers... you might be a weasel.
Until the RIAA business model is replaced by something much more customer oriented, I'll continue to buy used CDs to keep my money out of the RIAA's pocket. And I look for good online music. Here's a great example. If you like Dave Mathews, you'll probably like the free music from Tempus. It's free, as in free speech and free beer.
Slashdot Mirror
How does that explain why Shell or BP or whoever doesn't try to get a leg up and start putting some decent money into all the viable alternatives.
It's called collusion. The entire industry conspires to maintain the status quo. Nobody has significant research expenditures. Nobody worries about new technologies upsetting the industry. They all sit back, engage in price fixing, and watch the profits roll in. Essentially, all the companies in one industry act together as a single monopoly. It's illegal, but it's difficult to prove, especially when the government charged with proving it is in bed with the industry.
it takes a long time to actually recoup the amount of energy used to make the solar panels
This is FUD from Big Oil. In the early 1980s, Solarex had a solar panel manufacturing facility in the southwestern US that was powered by solar cells. Admittedly, they bought raw materials like aluminum and glass that are energy intensive. They didn't shovel sand in one side and get solar panels out the other. But the economics clearly indicate that the energy payback is not that long. The financial payback is currently many years because the panels are needlessly expensive. There is nothing inherently expensive about solar panels. It's the simplest and least expensive of the semiconductor processes. Some photovoltaic materials can actually be painted onto the substrate, but they are low efficiency and not as durable. The point is, with a concerted effort at volume production, the price would decrease dramatically. Houses need roofs. Imagine putting the roofing costs toward a solar roof with panels that snap together and have RTV silicone to seal the joints. That's what I'm talking about.
There are already government subsidies available
Very few federal alternative energy subsidies exist. Many were started in the Carter administration, when the oil embargo caused a shortage in the US. But those have almost all been eliminated. To my knowledge, electric companies are still required to purchase alternative energy at grid rates, and there is a hybrid automobile tax credit (though not as large as the mega-SUV business tax credit).
We need to increase insulation in houses. It's fuelish not to do so. The payback on this investment is short. Then we need more solar thermal heating. It's easy to do, and it's attractive if integrated with the initial house design. Retrofits are often ugly, but they work well enough. Small scale wind power and small hydro power could be used a lot more than it is. India does a great job with small scale hydro power. Everyplace in the continental US receives plenty of sunshine, so solar is a universally applicable solution. Everyone can benefit from solar power. If the panels were cheap enough, imagine all the parking lots in the US covered in solar panels. Cars wouldn't be subjected to the elements, and the electric cars could charge as they park. Think of all the US jobs that would be created designing, building and installing solar power systems. As a geek, it's frustrating to see such an obvious solution not being implemented. Why? Big money.
Name them. If there are plenty of them available then plenty of companies would be making plenty of money on these viable alternatives.
Here they are. Some of them anyway. There are many other technologies that would exist if we spent a small amount of time and money developing them, instead of supporting the oil and gas industry.
My other post also attempts to explain why free market competition isn't solving this problem. It's a lot like the problem with Windows security. There are good alternatives, but anticompetitive practices ensure that a free market economy doesn't exist.
show me a solution to the problem and will back it
The problems are:
1) Convention. We have infrastructure in place to burn fossil fuels, and inertia being what it is, we continue along that course. Maintaining the status quo is bad for the environment. It also results in an unfavorable balance of trade for the US. I was amused by the public service announcements equating drug use with funding terrorists. The US is addicted to oil from the Middle East, and that addiction is the real source of funding for Middle Eastern terrorists.
2) Subsidies. There are pseudo-subsidies which make it difficult for alternative energy to compete with fossil fuels. These aren't direct government subsidies to the oil industry, although some amount of that wouldn't surprise me. Many of the costs of burning fossil fuels are not paid by the fuel infrastructure. Pollution is paid for in a number of other places, including everything from the EPA budget, to the increased cost of insurance and health care relating to environmentally related illnesses, to the increased maintenance costs we all pay for tasks such as repainting because smog damages almost everything it touches. And who pays for medical care of coal miners with black lung? How much of our taxes does the US government contribute to cleaning up oil spills? If fossil fuels paid for all the problems they cause our society, solar and wind power would be more than cost effective in a fair comparison.
3) Fuelish Government Policies. As one example, the US government offers a substantial tax break to businesses who buy trucks of a certain size. The idea was ostensibly to encourage small businesses to buy delivery trucks and farmers to buy farm related vehicles. But the policy was almost instantly exploited. It encouraged automakers to produce the land barge sized SUVs. Almost every auto maker has a model large enough to qualify, and they're sold to businesses that provide them as company cars. So the government is encouraging auto makers to build 12 mpg SUVs, by offering tax incentives for businesses to buy them.
GM created the EV1 electric car. They leased them to many customers, and the customers loved them. They were very low maintenance, requiring no oil changes and even reduced brake wear because they employed regenerative braking. Best of all, there was never a need to stop for gas. It charges automatically while parked in the garage at night when the off peak electric rates are low. It's easy to imagine solar charging for the EV1. But GM decided to focus 30+ years down the road on the hope of hydrogen cars. Despite angry protests from their customers, they pulled the EV1 off lease. Some of their customers wanted to absolve GM of all liability and support for the EV1 and purchase it outright, after essentially already buying it during the lease period. GM refused. It sure looks like an attempt to suppress technology.
So, here are the solutions to the problem. Start backing them.
We could have electric cars today that pollute much less than internal combustion engine cars, even when they're ultimately powered by coal powered plants as an interim solution. Solar power is available almost everywhere and even though Moore's Law does not apply to solar cells, a similar effect seems likely. Once we converted our energy system to mostly solar, huge economies of scale apply and the price drops enormously. Solar panels have proven to be low maintenance with long term reliability. If we get the initial cost down, the payback period will be shorter and this technology will appeal even to short sighted American businesses.
We need less expensive solar cells, more efficient energy storage devices, and a change in our infrastructure to support alternative energy solutions.
Finally, one obviously simple technique that would have the single largest impact in our energy policy would be to drastically reduce the amount of fossil fuels being burned for space heating and water heating.
When you have hard data, you don't need consensus.
In the case of global warming, the only data you'd probably accept would be a couple of centuries with melted polar ice caps, massive species extinctions, and catastrophic climatic change.
Yeah, hard data is generally preferable to informed opinions, but not when collecting the data is a planet destroying process. We sometimes need to extrapolate from incomplete data to derive a prudent course of action.
The fact remains that the vast majority of climatologists believe humans are contributing to a process of global warming, with undesired results. Only a few vocal fringe elements have their theories amplified to create enough doubt to justify the policy of continuing along our present course while we "study the situation". Credible scientists believe the time to do nothing but study this situation has passed, and we now need to study it as we try to correct the problem.
This is another case where big money dictates public policy. US energy policy is driven by fossil fuel suppliers, much to the detriment of our national security, balance of trade and environment. There are already plenty of viable renewable energy resources and technologies that would convert the US from an energy importer to an energy exporter, and many more promising technologies await in the near future. Promoting these energy technologies would be good fiscal policy, good defense policy, and good environmental policy. But it won't happen in an administration that invited Enron CEO Ken Lay to secret US energy policy meetings.
Didja know that Condoleezza Rice had a Chevron oil tanker named after her?
The poster was probably thinking of X-ray crystallography, which is the same as X-ray diffraction.
I don't think most people who worry about RF are concerned with localized heating of body tissue. I think most people are worried about possible mutagenic characteristics of the magnetic field. There has still been no proof of this in low power devices such as cell phones or wireless networking cards, and a lot of recent studies have tried to find such a link. But I think we'd all agree that staying warm by standing in front of a distant early warning radar transmitting antenna in Alaska is not good for you. BTW - This is a real example. A friend was stationed there in the late 1960s (before we all had microwave ovens) and the radio engineers totally freaked when they saw the guards doing this while on guard duty.
I guess I don't see GPS as a "right"
Sorry. I knew that was confusing when I wrote it. I was referring to other things. I did not intend to imply that GPS is a right.
I think we are far safer than we were 3-4 years ago
I disagree. There have been some changes. I think most of the positive changes are in personal attitudes. There is no way that a terrorist is going to take over an airliner now. The pilots won't allow it, and neither will the passengers. Public opinion is (rightfully) such that I'd almost feel sorry for a terrorist who tried. People accepting responsibility for their own safety and the safety of others is a good thing. But the government has spent a lot of money with dubious improvements to real security while major security issues remain. One big example that has shocked me since way before 9/11 is the way air cargo is almost completely uninspected. There are so many ways this is dangerous.
But there is a much bigger reason we're less safe. I think invading and occupying Iraq without legitimate cause (WMD, supporting terrorists, etc.) has led to massive resentment in the Arab world and has provided a recruitment poster for al Qaeda. The US has ignored it's own laws and international treaties by capturing US citizens and citizens of other countries, declaring them "enemy combatants" and insisting that they have no legal protection, either under the US Constitution or the Geneva Convention. Countless examples of graphic prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib and similar Red Cross and Amnesty International reports from Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay add to anti-US sentiments. So do the dead Iraqi civilians, currently numbering about 16,000 and counting. Then a US soldier is found guilty of the premeditated murder of an Iraqi teenager. All of this creates hatred for the US, and that is used to enlist terrorists. I'm all for killing terrorists, but this is creating three for every one that's eliminated, and that's moving in the wrong direction.
Many people I've spoken to believe "It's better to fight 'em over there than fight 'em over here." The obvious flaw in that argument is the assumption that there is a constant number of anti-US terrorists. We need to understand that our actions are creating terrorism by drastically increasing anti-US sentiment around the world.
I voted for the person who I believed would do the best job handling my top concern of security
Security was a big issue for most people in the 2004 US election. It all boils down to what each person thought was most likely to provide security. I think it could be best summarized by the choice between "fight harder" or "fight smarter". I wish we had better candidates than those trotted out by the two party system.
I just hope we can put the nastiness of the election behind us
Me too. It was very divisive. I also hope we can regain some international respect in the process. Some people apparently don't think so, but we really do need allies to fight international terrorism.
The FAA exercises control over personal aircraft that is more severe than that. Most pilots fear a ramp check, with mental images of Nazis demanding, "Your papers, please." and then, "Your papers are not in order."
Does the Coast Guard require you to pay an authorized mechanic to disassemble and inspect your boat every year, then make the required log entries? Are sailors required to spend about $5000 getting a license to sail, then force you to log all your relevant sailing information every time you go? All pilot and airplane logs must be presented anytime an FAA agent or any law enforcement agent requests them, along with a few other required documents. The regulation book pertaining to flight looks like a major metropolitan telephone book, and a pilot is responsible for knowing and following each of these regs. It's a lot of regulation, and now the associated rights are being gradually taken away.
I'd say there is too much government intervention in sailing, and way, way too much in flying.
Comparisons between using GPS and piloting an aircraft carrier are not useful. This is not an extension to the absurd to make a point. The two are completely different. When I use GPS, the military is not deprived of its use in any way. There is no additional cost when I use GPS navigation.
Besides, for a reasonable financial contribution, I could have piloted a large US Navy vessel, up until the time some civilian contributors were piloting a nuclear submarine during a simulated emergency surfacing maneuver when it struck a Japanese vessel and killed four students and five adults.s ub/
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/02/17/
I certainly haven't forgotten 9/11. That's the reason I'm upset whenever I see the US government taking away the rights of US citizens under the guise of national security, or doing things that make anti-US terrorism worse when they should be fighting terrorism.
But I think your "planes hitting the twin towers" scenario is misleading in the context of your comment about restricting the interstate highway system for military use. How would militarizing the highway system have prevented a terrorist act such as the Trade Center Towers disaster?
I'm not arguing against the capability of disabling GPS under some extreme circumstances, if warranted. The point I was trying to make is the military is an arm of the government, and the government should be an extension of us. The more we see our government as a huge omnipotent entity, the fewer our freedoms will be. We need to get back to seeing the government as working for the people, not the other way around. If the government is not working for you, vote until it does.
Unfortunately, our two party choices have been dismal. Neither seem truly interested in the people, despite their claims. Consider third party candidates. It's an interesting exercise in game theory. If everyone is conviced that only one of two candidates can win, voting for anyone else is "throwing your vote away". But when the situation is so bad that people would rather throw their vote away than vote for one of the two major party candidates, then we have a chance to elect candidates who serve the constituents. I reached that point several years ago. I'm hoping other people do too, and soon.
So you're saying US taxpayers be paying for GPS in the future? With interest? This makes me feel better... how?
This looks like a good attempt at clarification.
I'd love to do more sailing. I may have to. I can't imagine the US government abusing sailors to the same extent they have private pilots the last four years. We have numerous Temporary Flight Restrictions all over the country that have been in place since September 11, 2001. Not sure what's so temporary about them. Even worse, every time some government official travels, there is a 30 mile radius No-Fly zone that pops up with no warning. You can check before taking off, and one of these can pop up around you as you're flying, and it's still your fault.
We are all losing our rights at an unbelievable rate, and being a small group with little political power, private pilots are at the tip of the sword. Of course, when there are no private pilots left, they'll eventually work their way down the list and eliminate the rights of sailors too.
Be glad you're not getting all the government you're paying for.
- Will Rogers
Where do you think the military got the money for GPS? Hint: It's as inevitable as death. Yep, you guessed it. Taxes. And you can bet a private enterprise global satellite navigational system would have been twice as good for a tenth of the money. So I wouldn't count myself too lucky.
I use a GPS when I fly and increasingly when I drive. But I don't bow down to the military industrial complex in gratitude. I paid for my share of the GPS system.
Do you feel lucky that your ISP lets you use their internet?
If my bank (suntrust) allowed me to use firefox, I'd never have to use IE for anything
Suntrust Bank keeps sending me emails telling me I need to update my profile. I go there and plug in all my bank account and credit card information, but they keep sending the emails.
:^)
On a serious note, it's frustrating that many banking and credit card sites insist on IE, despite the fact that it's one of the least secure browsers available. The CERT recommendation to use Firefox instead of IE has finally forced them to rethink their IE only policy. CERT is the computing security division of the US Department of Homeland Security.
I've had good luck going to the about:config page in Mozilla and telling it to report that it's IE when queried by servers. They think they're talking to an IE browser and they provide the content which usually works as well in Mozilla as it does in IE.
Forcing the browser to lie has some downsides. You may get some IE specific code that doesn't work in Mozilla. You'll also be contributing to the problem you're trying to fight because your Mozilla or Firefox browser will be counted as IE when you visit sites. Their IT department will then say, "Why should we support Firefox? 98% of the people visiting our site use IE." Producing a "This site optimized for IE" website is a self fulfilling prophecy. Force your customers to use IE to do their online banking, and they either will, or they'll lie to you.
Webmaster suggestions:
1) HTML standards are good. Stop using browser specific crap.
2) Most times your Flash craplet only serves to drastically slow down your site and turn away visitors by not working on their machines. Want an animation? Use GIF89a.
My concern with open source applications under Windows is the quality. From what I've seen, the open source applications were usually developed under Linux, then ported to Windows. Many times, the Windows port isn't close to the quality of the Linux version, probably because fewer people are developing and testing it. I can imagine Windows users saying, "If this is open source, I don't see what the big deal is."
So I think porting the many great open source applications to Windows could be a great introduction to open source, but only if the quality is maintained.
Firefox is currently ripping IE a new one, and that's a good thing. From what I've heard of the Windows version, it's as good as the Linux version. Open Office on Windows didn't seem nearly as good as the Linux version, but it still beats paying for MS Office, so it has a good following. But it doesn't adequately convey the positive experiences I've had with open source applications running under Linux.
That may be true... this week. But many people said the same sort of thing about Linux, and it's running tons of servers now and is rapidly making inroads on the desktop. Firefox is currently devouring Internet Explorer market share. OpenOffice.org is a great alternative to M$ Office. There are plenty of other examples.
You may be missing the point of open source software. By empowering users, any code that is used is inevitably improved. A critical mass phenomenon occurs where the more users there are, the faster the improvements occur.
EDA is a market that is definitely large enough to prosper as open source, especially given that a large percentage of the EDA users are geeks willing to add to or improve the code. gEDA seems poised to be THE open source EDA solution.
I use the Linux version of Eagle, and I like it. I particularly like the autorouter. But it won't be long until gEDA will have an improved user interface, integrated PCB layout, an autorouter, etc. In other words, it'll be a full featured open source alternative to commercial EDA software, with none of the annual update fees and licensing hassles.
I expected open source software would be free, but I was most impressed by the way open source felt. It's hard to describe, but when I wasn't forced to scroll through a 140 KB end user licensing agreement and then suffer through a lot of copy protection crap during the installation, I felt like the programmers were on my side. I'm not opposed to people making money from software, but open source is a lot friendlier to the user, and that attitude carries over into everyday aspects such as open file formats that make it easier to export and translate data or share my work with other people, as opposed to proprietary data formats designed to lock in customers and ensure a steady revenue stream by maintaining a de facto software standard based solely on marketing.
There are too many advantages of open source for it not to be a dominant force in the immediate future of computing.
Close. Actually, the two things you should do are:
1) Download and install Firefox.
2) Delete Internet Explorer (if you can).
On my computer, Internet Explorer is slightly faster for casual browsing than FireFox because Explorer is more tightly integrated into the operating system.
On my computer, I'm running Linux. IE is NOT integrated into the operating system. You can't see it, but I'm doing the Superior Dance.
If IE is integrated into your OS, there is a third thing you should do.
3) Upgrade to Linux or Mac.
I can't understand why everyone isn't more enraged by the fact that 80% of spam now comes from zombie Windows PCs. Lack of security hurts us all. As a society, we're far too complacent about PC security. We should take the attitude that a person's right to run an unpatched Windows box attached to a high speed cable ISP does not supercede the right of a million internet users not to drown in illegal V1aGr@ and warez spam.
The computer is restricted to ensure people don't screw it up.
Wouldn't want to break the PC before the latest Outlook worm turns it into a spam spewing zombie. I can hardly wait for there to be 5X as many Windows PCs in the world, 'cause I'm still not getting enough spam and Outlook worms.
If the goal is to increase internet usage from 10% of the population to 50% by 2015, the best way I can think of to do that would be a program where the three year old PCs in the west that are being dumped in a landfill are retrofitted with Linux and open source applications with language configurations that are native to the new users in the developing countries. The target countries could do the retrofit. It's a hassle to do one at a time, but if it was done on a larger scale, it could be a nice efficient business, where the hardware and software was free and the only cost is labor. This would be *MUCH* better than the $100 PC that Balmer proposed.
they might have to compensate for the higher speeds with stronger signals
It uses 2.4 GHz at 1 KW.
Good news: The transmitting hardware is inexpensive because it's already used in microwave ovens.
Bad news: Battery life is gonna really suck.
Linux CD with the Xmas card - cool idea.
I'd only recommend mailing a CD to nerdy friends and relatives. For everyone else (most people), I'd wait until the latest Outlook worm trashes their system and they call you for help. Invest a couple of hours installing your favorite distro, with OpenOffice and FireFox. Give them a few obvious-as-hell icons on the desktop. Tell them "You're now running Linux so you won't have problems with computer viruses." Hopefully, a couple of months later when they're still enjoying a stable and secure PC, they'll tell their friends and relatives how great Linux is.
BTW - Xandros now has a free demo version. Not quite a live CD, but it will quickly partition a hard drive, install a boot loader with a dual boot menu, and not mess with Windows , in case anyone wants to give it a try. Xandros is very newbie-friendly. Other than the lack of crashes and infections, your relatives probably won't know it isn't Windoze.
I concur.
I recently bought a copy of Jeff Wayne's rock opera, War of the Worlds, on eBay (no $$$ to RIAA). I had heard it before on the radio, in bits and pieces, and always wanted to listen to it in its entirety. It's really good, and does a good job of following the original story. I wish there were more works like this, that blend a book-on-CD with a musical recording.
The Americanized movie in the sixties was good for its time. With Hollywood creativity in a slump and remakes all the rage, I figured a War of the Worlds remake was coming soon. I hoped it wouldn't be a Spielberg movie. I liked some earlier Spielberg movies, but none lately. AI was a great topic for a movie. I think it's a fascinating subject, yet I was only barely able to sit through the entire movie. It totally missed the mark.
So I'm glad there is a UK remake that stays true to the author's intent. That's the one I'll see. Unfortunately, the Schpeelberg crapola version will be the one making the money. It's the bane of engineers... marketing is much more important than the product.
Oh well, at least it can't be as bad as what Hollywood did to Starship Troopers. Can it?
People file FOIA requests all the time, successfully.
I've seen some of the info released under the FOI Act. If it's at all interesting information, like what the FBI was doing during the Nixon administration, the released "information" is nothing but large black redacted areas. After the security screening, all that is left is _____ was ______ _____ at ______ when ______ _____ and _________ ______ ____.
I guess only the little words are free. Hey, can I buy a vowel?
As for the sat photos, the US military bought exclusive rights to the commercial satellite images during the early days of the Iraq War. Compliance wasn't an option, and the order pre-empted any existing business agreements. Totally non-negotiable.
I'm not saying they should endanger troops by letting anyone with a $30 balance on their credit card download photos showing troop strength and deployment. Besides, Geraldo Rivera provided that info for free on the fair and balanced Fox News.
But on the other hand, it's bad for democracy when citizens aren't allowed to see what the government is doing. I can't think of a good middle ground in this case, but I don't like either extreme.
religious - 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
You left out what I believe is the original meaning.
religious - 3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious
I think the language has evolved so that the word now applies most often to beliefs in deities, but in the original meaning, it could apply to a staunch belief in no deity, which some would describe as atheism.
At the risk of agreeing with someone twice modded Troll, I also believe that most atheists are making a belief of the nonexistence of God. I'm an agnostic, because I take a scientific view. There is no evidence of God, so I can't believe in that, and no evidence that God doesn't exist so I can't bellieve in that either. It's a theory that can not yet be proven or disproven. We could argue about the many "proofs". Feel free to believe what you like. There are no right or wrong answers in philosophy. Here's an old joke:
Dean of Arts & Sciences: I appreciate the cuts the math department has made, but finances are tight and you'll need to cut back some more.
Dean of the Math Department: But we've already cut back to the point we only have paper, pencils and erasers.
Dean of Arts & Sciences: Yes, that's good, but your colleagues in the Philosophy Department are doing very well without erasers.
My working definitions:
Atheism - A belief in the nonexistence of God.
Agnosticism - A nonbelief in the existence of God.
It's a subtle distinction, but I bet most agnostics would think it's an important distinction.
I believe we are arguing semantics. I get along just fine with most atheists, even the ones who preach and try to convert me to atheism.
It's been humorously said that an agnostic is just an atheist who lacks conviction in his beliefs. I think that's essentially true.
Repent! Accept secular humanism as your personal savior or be cast into the pit and forever perish in the lake of fire and eternal... oh, nevermind.
I've got karma to burn, and I fully expect to waste some on this post. I'd be goofy to expect otherwise. That's the price to be paid for participating in a /. discussion of God.
I've seen this post about being a kid and recording off the radio a couple of times before, and it's right on target.
In any business transaction, there should be a fair exchange of value. Legal contracts even have wording such as "in fair exchange for...." But the RIAA companies are missing this point, probably because their executives are all coked out of their minds.
I recorded some stuff off the radio when I was a kid, but I also bought many albums and spent a very large percentage of my hard-earned disposable income on them, because I received something of value. I felt good about supporting the artists, I received a convenient package containing a high quality audio recording, lyrics, some artwork and pictures, maybe even a written article by a band member or a cartoon or something that seemed to personalize it or make it special.
Now, I feel abused. Many of the CDs are encumbered with copy protection. I had a CD that wouldn't play 80% of the time in my Sony in-dash CD player, but the CD-R I burned on my Linux PC always plays. And I'm supposed to PAY for this abuse and mistrust?
Basically, the RIAA companies are functioning as a monopoly, and have been found guilty in US courts of collusion and anticompetitive practices by engaging in price fixing. Once the competition is gone, the attitude toward customers becomes arrogant, hostile and even abusive. They clearly don't care about the music, they just care about maximizing their profits.
Note to all businesses (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy): If your business model requires you to sue your customers and potential customers... you might be a weasel.
Until the RIAA business model is replaced by something much more customer oriented, I'll continue to buy used CDs to keep my money out of the RIAA's pocket. And I look for good online music. Here's a great example. If you like Dave Mathews, you'll probably like the free music from Tempus . It's free, as in free speech and free beer.