Yes, tested in a lab with conditions simulating the real-world.
I can't tell you how many pieces of both code and hardware I have seen sent back or scrapped entirely because they passed every test with flying colors and then failed subtly and silently in the real world. Including life-critical medical machines and other extremely rigorously tested devices.
If it's so well-tested and fool-proof there should be no problem opening up the source and as part of the rigorous testing, it should have been opened and inspected by the customer (the state) in the first place!
There are many reasons why breathalizers can be inaccurate. They rely on a large set of assumptions -- things like your diet, and your mood can cause errors.
Breathalizers should never have been used as a tool to convict. There's some new technology that uses a subcutaneous laser to actually measure the concentration in your blood -- that would give you a true BAC without having to stack up a number of assumptions like the breathalizer has to.
My initial post was about how hypocritical it was for the CTIA spokesperson to make that statement, and act like Google was doing something new, drastic, and evil, when in reality the people he represents would take the same steps that he so vigorously condemns.
I never said anything about this not fitting in with Google's business plan, or that they were being altruistic. Just that it seems like their plans are shaking things up a bit and scaring some of the typical teleco's.
Because it would drastically lower how valuable the spectrum is. If your service can't be "country-wide", then it's not of much value.
I wouldn't buy a cell phone that works in San Fran but not in New York.
In fact, you'd have a hard time getting me to buy ANYTHING that doesn't work country-wide, and I imagine that a lot of people feel the same.
Not to mention all the technical issues with interference near the boundaries, etc. It would just be a total mess for no verifiable gain, especially since there are a large number of frequencies which can do nearly the same things (though not identical) which renders your monopoly argument moot.
My point being that what the CTIA is advocating is that the people whom buy the spectrum get to implement their business plan, and theirs only. Hence, they would also be buying a custom-fit business plan with regulation.
Second, it is not custom-fit to Google. It's a generic fit for a large number of people. There are plenty of other business plans that Google could implement that would be much less free, and would be a "custom-fit," such as requiring everything that any user or piece of software does be able to be indexed by Google.
John Walls, vice president of public affairs at the CTIA, said that the pledge re-affirms his organisation's belief that the proposed deal smacks of foul play.
"The letter highlights Google's scheme to have the auction rigged with special conditions in its favour," he told vnunet.com.
"Nobody should be able to buy a custom-fit government regulation tailored to their business plan."
Yea, this reminds me of the guy form "Thank You For Smoking"
That has to be one of the most blatantly false statements that I've heard in a while. Wow. I guess this really is rocking the boat, and has a couple of carriers pretty scared.
In 1999, I belive that the high school debate topic was American energy policy. One of the negative scenarios to not using alternative energies was that we would continue to piss off the Islamic faction, Osama bin Laden specifically, and that he would fly planes into the WTC. This was in 1999, and it was being debated in classrooms all across the US.
There were government research reports that predicted this. This was out there. It's just that no one cared. It seemed a long way off.
buy some Indium. It's toxic though. It's what people use in no-shit situations though where you can't afford problems. Of course, you have to smush it a little harder than you typically do with CPU paste.
Like how Boeing uses the latest CAD and Rapid Development tools to enhance production. They model every part and make sure that every process in the manufacturing chain works when implemented. Whereas Airbus has so many different, often older toolsets that incompatibilities and bugs have caused numerous problems, specifically in the wiring of the plane. Boeing is better at designing planes to be built. Who knows about the long-term decisions about the market. No one is going to be able to predict the market in 20-30 years, and saying that Airbus is going to be king of it is just being a fanboy. There will be many, many generations of airplanes built in those years, with any single generation being enough to turn around a slump.
Look for them to duke it out in the foreseeable future, which is a good thing.
No, it actually means that out on white Sands they could only shoot short-range targets. They hit those regularly. Out in the ocean by Hawaii they can shoot much longer range missiles since it's not flying over land, so they're testing the mid-range capabilities and those are working also.
White Sands proved that they could shoot down short range missiles, and the PMRF testing is ensuring that they can hit medium range missiles. It's just another step. Now they'll try more complex geometries. But the test was nearly 100% valid as a real-world training exercise. The system works now; they're not saying "we could make it work." They're saying that it just did.
That's actually how the THAAD tests work. Same with Aegis, and the GMD (ground-based on the coast).
They use nothing but the actual hardware that's in the field. No special stuff to track the target. This is actually a working, real-world style system. Typically, they put the operator on alert for a couple of days or a week (at least in Aegis tests), and they fire it sometime during that window without notifying anyone. They also usually fire a couple of other missiles at the cruiser (well, near misses) that the crew also has to destroy while launching their interceptor.
It's a neat, nearly totally mature capability and it is currently a real deterrent.
Actually, depending upon the type of network, a geographic ocntext is better than a frequency network.
Typically, each hex cell is divided up into 3 frequencies of 120 degree coverage because you need the extra frequency bandiwdth to shove extra users into the cell -- it's more cost effective. The next cell's 3 frequencies are aligned so that adjacent cells don't have antennas of the same frequency pointing at each other.
Regardless, cells are largely still determined geographically. If there's a lot of users in a geographic location, there's a large number of small hex cells to handle the volume. If you're in the country, the hex cell is much larger. Nothing to do with frequency concerns, but rather geographic distribution of people.
Cells do use spatial and frequency diversity to work their magic, so it's misleading to say that the important issue is the frequency, when really it's both -- and in general is determined by the user distrubution geographically, rather than frequency concerns.
How much you care to bet that this hacker has a lot of Oracle stock shorted? Release the big 0-day exploits first, see the stock drop like a rock and cover on the short. Then pick it up in a little as it slowly rebounds and make more.
One week, two weeks, the timeframe doesn't matter. It just has to be enough to make an event out of it.
I wrote an essay in college about a very specific topic, and noticed that there wasn't a Wikipedia entry on it. So, when I was done with my paper, I tweaked it to fit Wikipedia's formatting and uploaded it. I got smoked for copying from Wikipedia, and the professors and the administrators couldn't understand that I could upload whatever I wanted to the site.
It was foreign to them...it almost got me kicked out of school. We fincally convinced them that anyone could upload or alter things on Wikipedia. Then the whole IT department and everything had to get involved, and pull up their logs to show that I had been the person to make that post from my dorm computer.
Satellite? You want to add half a second minimum of latency to everything that you do?
Or do you want them to put LEO satellites into orbit and maintain them and launch new ones and have a huge switching network that would cost them nearly as much as just laying new cable with much more headache?
There aren't many sources of water, but there are some. We have enough dams and lakes built up that work very well. Our largest problem is how much water we have to push downstream for endangered species (the silvery minnow) and for people further down river. We're always draining our lakes to meet water demands downstream. If we could make fresh water out of industrial and city waste, that's a huge boon. People downsteam need less water, and we need to pull less out. Thus, our lakes would always be full (instead of pitifully low like they are now).
Not a permanent solution, but one that would last until the next huge population boom.
Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I would say that the networks should really start looking into it -- in about 20 years all the politicians are going to be people who lived through the shutdown of napster, the lawsuits, and the general stupidity.
I'd say that there's plenty of room for other means of revenue. Product placement in show, micropayments, paying to download the show ala iTunes, not giving their actors a million a show, dvd sales of the series, etc. There are lots of revenue streams that the station currently makes money on; they just need to enhance a couple and stop spending so extravagantly and they'll be just fine.
We need to stop worrying about them, and they need to start worrying about other content usurping their marketplace. In the future, their actors will likely be paid less and they will likely make less money. But that's a direct result of us having more to occupy our free time. That's business, and they need to plan for it, not try to legislate it out of existence. But so far, they're winning with the legislation so they're going to keep pushing it.
Actually, the legislation is a very bold move to prevent other content from usurping their marketshare, and what we're reading on slashdot is the natural backlash to their effots. They've made their decision, and are going to try to execute their gameplan regardless of criticism because billions are at stake here. We need to vote with our votes, because nothing else will work. They have way too much money and influence currently to vote with our wallet or our voices. They're going after the legislators, and so far they're winning them over.
here's the proof that they're evil
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The most tell-tale part:
In 2003, 321 Studios, of St. Charles, Mo., launched a software product called DVD X Copy for these more typical DVD owners. The company built in aggressive measures to prevent piracy, including an antipiracy splash screen that appeared when viewing any copy and watermarks that would enable copies to be traced back to those who made them. The management at 321 Studios hoped that these cooperative measures would stave off Hollywood's wrath.
The company was wrong. Before the DMCA, 321 Studios would have been on relatively safe legal ground. From the time of the Betamax case, U.S. courts had made it clear that copying devices were legal so long as they had any substantial lawful use. But the DMCA changed the rules. When the movie studios sued 321 Studios, the Hollywood contingent did not argue that any of their movies had been unlawfully copied. Instead, it said that the product circumvented a "technical protection measure," which in this case was the Content Scramble System (CSS) on DVDs.
The CSS is the scheme Hollywood uses to encrypt movies on DVDs. Decryption requires a key, which manufacturers of DVD players obtain by signing a license with the DVD Copy Control Association, a consortium of movie studios, including Fox and Warner, and technology providers, such as Intel and Toshiba. This license, in turn, forbids licensed devices from making digital copies of DVD content or from offering playback modes that the studios disapprove of. (DVD recorders can copy only unencrypted digital material, such as home movies.) The licensing rules and DMCA put companies like 321 Studios in a quandary. If they signed the license in order to obtain the CSS decryption keys, the document prohibited them from using those keys in software capable of copying a DVD. If they didn't sign the license and forged ahead anyway, deriving the CSS keys on their own, they risked prosecution or a civil suit under the DMCA for circumventing the CSS. After consideration, 321 Studios opted to go forward without a license. The DMCA quickly washed away DVD X Copy. After the movie studios prevailed in court in 2004, manufacturers pulled DVD X Copy and similar ripping tools off the U.S. market.
THAAD, airborne lasers, etc can operate in the uprange -- we're talking when the missile is fired and still climbing.
Satellite systems, and airborne lasers can still work in the mid-stage if you're really good. This is a very hard time to get to the missile -- it's cold-soaked in space with no plume or anything. Just a piece of space debris flying way too high, way too fast, out thousands of miles from anywhere.
In the down-range, that sucker is flying right for a US city. This is the most likely scenario -- by the time we see the shot, identify it, and try to scramble troops it's in the down-range.
These missiles have a total flight time of under 30 minutes. You need permanent ground emplacements that operate in the down-range. AKA ground-based missiles and ground-based lasers. You do not have time to scramble a plane and get it in position, even if you start an hour before the missile is even launched!
But, if you need to project missile-defense capability to say, a fleet or another country, you use the plane and some AEGIS ships with THAAD. Totally different uses.
Accelerometers drift. They are not perfect devices. They produce integration error, and that would become very large over the course of a gaming session. The controllers would become unusable after an hour or so and need to be re-calibrated. You can buy some amazingly accurate accelerometers, but they're expensive, very finicky and you have to do your design 100% perfectly, and you can't tolerate a single error. It is a serious PITA to design a system to do this, and probably nearly impossible to do it cheaply, and do it such that mass manufacturing in China with only ok quality control won't produce flaky units.
Put in a couple of sensors on a bar to re-zero the accelerometers integration error transparently every now and then, and now you have a very robust system that's easy to design, cheap, simple and pretty fail-safe.
While I generally agree with your sentiment, I would like to see the background behind how this data got onto the laptop. In some cases I've seen, the IT department has decided that it would more secure to put sensitive information on one or two laptops rather than serve it up on the web -- while you might be able to do the latter securely, it is a tempting target and much larger compared to two personal laptops. I can see many situations where the company might conclude that it's safer to put the information on a portable machine rather than put up a webfront for it.
In many estimates, the amount of material we have to sustain a breeder reactor program here on Earth is comparable to the length of time that the Sun will continue to output energy. No energy is truly "renewable", some just have such big supplies of fuel that they might as weel be considered inexhaustable (eg solar, and it's derivates like wind, hydro, etc and some forms of breeder reactors).
If there's anything we need in the energy industry right now, it's a pragmatic approach instead of the knee-jerk reactions that we typically get. Put up wind plants, put up solar plants, put up nuclear plants, put up some new clean coal plants, but for christ-sakes put up something! While you're at it, update the grid!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, tested in a lab with conditions simulating the real-world.
I can't tell you how many pieces of both code and hardware I have seen sent back or scrapped entirely because they passed every test with flying colors and then failed subtly and silently in the real world. Including life-critical medical machines and other extremely rigorously tested devices.
If it's so well-tested and fool-proof there should be no problem opening up the source and as part of the rigorous testing, it should have been opened and inspected by the customer (the state) in the first place!
There are many reasons why breathalizers can be inaccurate. They rely on a large set of assumptions -- things like your diet, and your mood can cause errors.
Breathalizers should never have been used as a tool to convict. There's some new technology that uses a subcutaneous laser to actually measure the concentration in your blood -- that would give you a true BAC without having to stack up a number of assumptions like the breathalizer has to.
What do you mean "Oops"?
My initial post was about how hypocritical it was for the CTIA spokesperson to make that statement, and act like Google was doing something new, drastic, and evil, when in reality the people he represents would take the same steps that he so vigorously condemns.
I never said anything about this not fitting in with Google's business plan, or that they were being altruistic. Just that it seems like their plans are shaking things up a bit and scaring some of the typical teleco's.
Because it would drastically lower how valuable the spectrum is. If your service can't be "country-wide", then it's not of much value.
I wouldn't buy a cell phone that works in San Fran but not in New York.
In fact, you'd have a hard time getting me to buy ANYTHING that doesn't work country-wide, and I imagine that a lot of people feel the same.
Not to mention all the technical issues with interference near the boundaries, etc. It would just be a total mess for no verifiable gain, especially since there are a large number of frequencies which can do nearly the same things (though not identical) which renders your monopoly argument moot.
My point being that what the CTIA is advocating is that the people whom buy the spectrum get to implement their business plan, and theirs only. Hence, they would also be buying a custom-fit business plan with regulation.
Second, it is not custom-fit to Google. It's a generic fit for a large number of people. There are plenty of other business plans that Google could implement that would be much less free, and would be a "custom-fit," such as requiring everything that any user or piece of software does be able to be indexed by Google.
John Walls, vice president of public affairs at the CTIA, said that the pledge re-affirms his organisation's belief that the proposed deal smacks of foul play.
"The letter highlights Google's scheme to have the auction rigged with special conditions in its favour," he told vnunet.com.
"Nobody should be able to buy a custom-fit government regulation tailored to their business plan."
Yea, this reminds me of the guy form "Thank You For Smoking"
That has to be one of the most blatantly false statements that I've heard in a while. Wow. I guess this really is rocking the boat, and has a couple of carriers pretty scared.
Kudos to google, way to not be evil!
It wasn't even a failure in imagination.
In 1999, I belive that the high school debate topic was American energy policy. One of the negative scenarios to not using alternative energies was that we would continue to piss off the Islamic faction, Osama bin Laden specifically, and that he would fly planes into the WTC. This was in 1999, and it was being debated in classrooms all across the US.
There were government research reports that predicted this. This was out there. It's just that no one cared. It seemed a long way off.
solution is easy: book on tape while exercising. Try it.
buy some Indium. It's toxic though. It's what people use in no-shit situations though where you can't afford problems. Of course, you have to smush it a little harder than you typically do with CPU paste.
What do you mean by different approach?
Like how Boeing uses the latest CAD and Rapid Development tools to enhance production. They model every part and make sure that every process in the manufacturing chain works when implemented. Whereas Airbus has so many different, often older toolsets that incompatibilities and bugs have caused numerous problems, specifically in the wiring of the plane. Boeing is better at designing planes to be built. Who knows about the long-term decisions about the market. No one is going to be able to predict the market in 20-30 years, and saying that Airbus is going to be king of it is just being a fanboy. There will be many, many generations of airplanes built in those years, with any single generation being enough to turn around a slump.
Look for them to duke it out in the foreseeable future, which is a good thing.
No, it actually means that out on white Sands they could only shoot short-range targets. They hit those regularly. Out in the ocean by Hawaii they can shoot much longer range missiles since it's not flying over land, so they're testing the mid-range capabilities and those are working also.
White Sands proved that they could shoot down short range missiles, and the PMRF testing is ensuring that they can hit medium range missiles. It's just another step. Now they'll try more complex geometries. But the test was nearly 100% valid as a real-world training exercise. The system works now; they're not saying "we could make it work." They're saying that it just did.
That's actually how the THAAD tests work. Same with Aegis, and the GMD (ground-based on the coast).
They use nothing but the actual hardware that's in the field. No special stuff to track the target. This is actually a working, real-world style system. Typically, they put the operator on alert for a couple of days or a week (at least in Aegis tests), and they fire it sometime during that window without notifying anyone. They also usually fire a couple of other missiles at the cruiser (well, near misses) that the crew also has to destroy while launching their interceptor.
It's a neat, nearly totally mature capability and it is currently a real deterrent.
Actually, depending upon the type of network, a geographic ocntext is better than a frequency network.
Typically, each hex cell is divided up into 3 frequencies of 120 degree coverage because you need the extra frequency bandiwdth to shove extra users into the cell -- it's more cost effective. The next cell's 3 frequencies are aligned so that adjacent cells don't have antennas of the same frequency pointing at each other.
Regardless, cells are largely still determined geographically. If there's a lot of users in a geographic location, there's a large number of small hex cells to handle the volume. If you're in the country, the hex cell is much larger. Nothing to do with frequency concerns, but rather geographic distribution of people.
Cells do use spatial and frequency diversity to work their magic, so it's misleading to say that the important issue is the frequency, when really it's both -- and in general is determined by the user distrubution geographically, rather than frequency concerns.
uh yea.
How much you care to bet that this hacker has a lot of Oracle stock shorted? Release the big 0-day exploits first, see the stock drop like a rock and cover on the short. Then pick it up in a little as it slowly rebounds and make more.
One week, two weeks, the timeframe doesn't matter. It just has to be enough to make an event out of it.
Don't be so quick to write it off.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan05/2777
While I don't think that this company is going to do it, it isn't out of the realm of possibility.
Well, you see, because we contribute to it.
I wrote an essay in college about a very specific topic, and noticed that there wasn't a Wikipedia entry on it. So, when I was done with my paper, I tweaked it to fit Wikipedia's formatting and uploaded it. I got smoked for copying from Wikipedia, and the professors and the administrators couldn't understand that I could upload whatever I wanted to the site.
It was foreign to them...it almost got me kicked out of school. We fincally convinced them that anyone could upload or alter things on Wikipedia. Then the whole IT department and everything had to get involved, and pull up their logs to show that I had been the person to make that post from my dorm computer.
You do realize that they don't build a new school for every class of students, right?
It's a lot of money, but the building will probably be used for the next 50 years or so.
Satellite? You want to add half a second minimum of latency to everything that you do?
Or do you want them to put LEO satellites into orbit and maintain them and launch new ones and have a huge switching network that would cost them nearly as much as just laying new cable with much more headache?
I live in Central New Mexico.
There aren't many sources of water, but there are some. We have enough dams and lakes built up that work very well. Our largest problem is how much water we have to push downstream for endangered species (the silvery minnow) and for people further down river. We're always draining our lakes to meet water demands downstream. If we could make fresh water out of industrial and city waste, that's a huge boon. People downsteam need less water, and we need to pull less out. Thus, our lakes would always be full (instead of pitifully low like they are now).
Not a permanent solution, but one that would last until the next huge population boom.
I would say that the networks should really start looking into it -- in about 20 years all the politicians are going to be people who lived through the shutdown of napster, the lawsuits, and the general stupidity.
I'd say that there's plenty of room for other means of revenue. Product placement in show, micropayments, paying to download the show ala iTunes, not giving their actors a million a show, dvd sales of the series, etc. There are lots of revenue streams that the station currently makes money on; they just need to enhance a couple and stop spending so extravagantly and they'll be just fine.
We need to stop worrying about them, and they need to start worrying about other content usurping their marketplace. In the future, their actors will likely be paid less and they will likely make less money. But that's a direct result of us having more to occupy our free time. That's business, and they need to plan for it, not try to legislate it out of existence. But so far, they're winning with the legislation so they're going to keep pushing it.
Actually, the legislation is a very bold move to prevent other content from usurping their marketshare, and what we're reading on slashdot is the natural backlash to their effots. They've made their decision, and are going to try to execute their gameplan regardless of criticism because billions are at stake here. We need to vote with our votes, because nothing else will work. They have way too much money and influence currently to vote with our wallet or our voices. They're going after the legislators, and so far they're winning them over.
The most tell-tale part:
In 2003, 321 Studios, of St. Charles, Mo., launched a software product called DVD X Copy for these more typical DVD owners. The company built in aggressive measures to prevent piracy, including an antipiracy splash screen that appeared when viewing any copy and watermarks that would enable copies to be traced back to those who made them. The management at 321 Studios hoped that these cooperative measures would stave off Hollywood's wrath.
The company was wrong. Before the DMCA, 321 Studios would have been on relatively safe legal ground. From the time of the Betamax case, U.S. courts had made it clear that copying devices were legal so long as they had any substantial lawful use. But the DMCA changed the rules. When the movie studios sued 321 Studios, the Hollywood contingent did not argue that any of their movies had been unlawfully copied. Instead, it said that the product circumvented a "technical protection measure," which in this case was the Content Scramble System (CSS) on DVDs.
The CSS is the scheme Hollywood uses to encrypt movies on DVDs. Decryption requires a key, which manufacturers of DVD players obtain by signing a license with the DVD Copy Control Association, a consortium of movie studios, including Fox and Warner, and technology providers, such as Intel and Toshiba. This license, in turn, forbids licensed devices from making digital copies of DVD content or from offering playback modes that the studios disapprove of. (DVD recorders can copy only unencrypted digital material, such as home movies.) The licensing rules and DMCA put companies like 321 Studios in a quandary. If they signed the license in order to obtain the CSS decryption keys, the document prohibited them from using those keys in software capable of copying a DVD. If they didn't sign the license and forged ahead anyway, deriving the CSS keys on their own, they risked prosecution or a civil suit under the DMCA for circumventing the CSS. After consideration, 321 Studios opted to go forward without a license. The DMCA quickly washed away DVD X Copy. After the movie studios prevailed in court in 2004, manufacturers pulled DVD X Copy and similar ripping tools off the U.S. market.
Upper, mid and down-range support.
THAAD, airborne lasers, etc can operate in the uprange -- we're talking when the missile is fired and still climbing.
Satellite systems, and airborne lasers can still work in the mid-stage if you're really good. This is a very hard time to get to the missile -- it's cold-soaked in space with no plume or anything. Just a piece of space debris flying way too high, way too fast, out thousands of miles from anywhere.
In the down-range, that sucker is flying right for a US city. This is the most likely scenario -- by the time we see the shot, identify it, and try to scramble troops it's in the down-range.
These missiles have a total flight time of under 30 minutes. You need permanent ground emplacements that operate in the down-range. AKA ground-based missiles and ground-based lasers. You do not have time to scramble a plane and get it in position, even if you start an hour before the missile is even launched!
But, if you need to project missile-defense capability to say, a fleet or another country, you use the plane and some AEGIS ships with THAAD. Totally different uses.
Well, technically yes, but practically no.
Accelerometers drift. They are not perfect devices. They produce integration error, and that would become very large over the course of a gaming session. The controllers would become unusable after an hour or so and need to be re-calibrated. You can buy some amazingly accurate accelerometers, but they're expensive, very finicky and you have to do your design 100% perfectly, and you can't tolerate a single error. It is a serious PITA to design a system to do this, and probably nearly impossible to do it cheaply, and do it such that mass manufacturing in China with only ok quality control won't produce flaky units.
Put in a couple of sensors on a bar to re-zero the accelerometers integration error transparently every now and then, and now you have a very robust system that's easy to design, cheap, simple and pretty fail-safe.
Which would you choose?
While I generally agree with your sentiment, I would like to see the background behind how this data got onto the laptop. In some cases I've seen, the IT department has decided that it would more secure to put sensitive information on one or two laptops rather than serve it up on the web -- while you might be able to do the latter securely, it is a tempting target and much larger compared to two personal laptops. I can see many situations where the company might conclude that it's safer to put the information on a portable machine rather than put up a webfront for it.
http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad8301cohe n.html
In many estimates, the amount of material we have to sustain a breeder reactor program here on Earth is comparable to the length of time that the Sun will continue to output energy. No energy is truly "renewable", some just have such big supplies of fuel that they might as weel be considered inexhaustable (eg solar, and it's derivates like wind, hydro, etc and some forms of breeder reactors).
If there's anything we need in the energy industry right now, it's a pragmatic approach instead of the knee-jerk reactions that we typically get. Put up wind plants, put up solar plants, put up nuclear plants, put up some new clean coal plants, but for christ-sakes put up something! While you're at it, update the grid!