Good point. Though my lists were in no particular order and there are other items deserving of being on those lists that I'm either unaware of or simply didn't come to mind.
You're right, though. Insulation can have huge savings individually, and a huge impact on national/global energy usage with wide-scale deployment.
My main point is simply that just because one thing doesn't solve all of our energy problems that doesn't mean it's not worth doing and that it's only by using a diverse set of technologies that our energy crisis will be brought under control.
While I believe a lot of the claims made are a bit hyperbolic, this kind of biodiesel certainly is more scalable than food-crop based ethanol, and does have some promise (as well as problems).
I make a point to follow emerging trends in new energy technologies and there is certainly no silver bullet (unless we can get cold fusion going). However, I'm also of the opinion that the US (and certainly most other nations) has the ability to independently supply its own energy through using a healthy balance of diverse energy technologies.
Off the top of my head:
Solar (both photo voltaic and focusing mirrors): Huge potential (especially in south). This can be done both commercially as well as deployed residentially to offset customer's bills (and in some cases even sell excess energy generated back onto the grid).
Wave and tidal
Geothermal: Yellowstone is sitting on top of on of the earth's largest super volcanoes. I know it's a national park, but the material pumped from geothermal stations is water. As long as the infrastructure is responsibly deployed and maintained, this is a no brainier.
Wind: huge potential on coasts, mountain ranges, and through the entire mid-west. Concerned about the effects on birds? No problem. There are some pretty ingenious non-propeller turbines (some of which can work with wind blowing in any direction).
Hydro-electric dams: Tried and true.
Combine this with newer technologies that reduce consumption.
LED lamps
Better fuel efficiency (fuel mileage, hybrid drives, alternative fuels)
Broader use of recycled goods
Better energy consumption of electrical appliances and devices
Thermal underground radiation for residential and commercial climate control
Better insulation requirements
Again, none of the above (which are incomplete lists) alone can be a viable solution and each as their own set of problems to overcome. What is needed is a diverse portfolio of renewable energy technologies combined with a more conscious responsible use of resources. I really do believe that in doing this, there is a potential to achieve complete energy independence. What people seem to be having a hard time with is that this requires a huge infrastructural investment as well as the creation of a whole new industry. The infrastructural problems, I think, will work themselves out as the potential of ROI of these different technologies becomes attractive. A jump start from the government would help as well.
ID is a philosophy, and not an alternative scientific theory. As such, I have no problem with it being taught - just with it being taught in science class.
You nailed it right on the head. I'm amazed how each side of this debate gets so defensive so quickly. Teach science in science class and teach philosophy in philosophy class (we're still teaching our kids philosophy aren't we?). ID, as it hinges on the unprovability of the existence or non-existence of God, doesn't fit nicely within the rigid requirements of scientific theory and thus should not be taught in a science class.
I see no problem in exposing our children to both sides of the discussion as long as each side is presented in the right context. In fact, I think we do our children a disservice by avoiding engaging with them in mature philosophical or even religious discussions (not proselytizing). Philosophy and religion are a part of humanity and, whether or not you subscribe to them, pretending they doesn't exist or deserve any thought or discussion is willful ignorance at best.
This whole, "anyone who entertains the idea of ID is a complete idiot" is just narrow minded. Until the God question is exhaustively proven one way or another, there will always be people on both sides. Life is full of uncertainties, DEAL WITH IT. Attacking those who choose to believe in something that is neither provable nor disprovable is just as ignorant as attacking those who choose to not believe in something even though they can't disprove it. The important thing here is that when truth comes along, both sides should align themselves with it.
Actually, can anyone suggest rules for a fascism bingo game?
Yes, I can. Although not an actual bingo card, this list provides plenty of options for you to create your own bingo card to play with while listening to any politician. Give me a politician that prevents me from getting a bingo from this list and they'll have my vote. Sadly, this is unlikely as it seems many people don't understand why the items on this list are bad.
Get someone to say on TV that "studies have proven" it, and everyone will do it. Sorry, I had to chime in on a pet peeve of mine. What bothers me about this is that it seems like a significant portion of the population abandon all critical or independent thinking once the magical phrase "studies have proven" or "they've proven" is used, even when no context describing the "study" or who "they" are is given. I know several people who liberally weave these phrases into conversation or debates with the implied meaning that since "they've proven it" the matter is beyond debate. If you stop them and question who "they" are and/or the validity of the "proof" they become very defensive (even when your questioning is genuine and non combative). It makes for very narrow-minded and frustrating discussions.
Now, if a scientific study has been made and has conclusive results (which happens less often than we'd like to think), you should initially have reason to believe it. But stopping there is just intellectually lazy (or ignorant). You should look into the context of the "study". Find out who "they" are (and more to the point, who's funding them). Find out how strong the correlation was (you've studied statistics haven't you?). Find out if there is a consensus in the scientific community about this "study". Find out if there are any conflicting studies. Etc.
I'm not saying you need to detailed analysis on every study you come across. All it takes is a few minutes of searching to gain a better understanding of the context that surrounds a "study" (assuming the referenced "study" even occurred in the first place). Doing this, you can avoid many of the conspiracies or frauds out there that prey on the intellectually lazy.
launching yourself into orbit dwarfs the effect on the environmental most people would ever cause. The technological advancements achieved from space programs alone offset any sort of emissions chemically powered rockets emitted in order to get us into orbit (and that's not to mention the potential for human unity that trans-national space programs have nor any other human benefits technological advancements space programs have introduced). If we (as a human race) had never engaged in the challenging exercise of optimizing existing technologies or creating new technologies in a way that is necessary for operations in space, we may instead be using technologies that are much less efficient with resources and thus the net effect would be MORE carbon emissions.
Are we (as a human race) damaging this planet? Yes. Are we (again as a whole) being irresponsible in some ways with our resources? Yes. Is the net effect of human space activity anywhere near a leading contributor towards atmospheric pollution? No!
Now, you may not have been challenging the ethics of space programs, but space tourism (let alone space programs in general) are the wrong environmental trees to bark up.
For the married guys, it keeps the wife from seeing it or the kids from stumbling across it if they're playing on the computer. Don't you think that there's something fundamentally wrong with your life if you're constantly having to worry about your wife or children discovering something about you? Either marry someone who is totally fine with your pornographic habits, lose the habit, or don't get married at all. Having to constantly cover tracks or hide things from friends and family is generally an unhealthy practice (emotionally/physically/relationally/etc).
Rubbish. Vista runs fine on the modern-day machines it was "designed for".
Heck, you can run Vista usably on hardware up to about 8 years old, with minor upgrades.
That's funny, because hardware that's 6-8 years old is exactly why I removed Windows from my desktop computer, kid's computer, my laptop, and replaced it with Linux. Windows XP simply ran too slow (and no, the computers weren't full of malware), so I was faced with a decision. I could throw money at putting more RAM into those 3 systems, buy 2 new computers and 1 laptop, or I could remove Windows and spend nothing but my time to install Linux on all three.
These three computers now run beautifully and I thoroughly enjoy noticing that after upgrades sometimes things run faster not slower.
One thing that bothers me, both as a consumer and as someone who tries to be environmentally conscious, is that the continual trend towards more bloat in Windows results in the premature obsolescence of perfectly good hardware. I can foresee getting a total of 8-10 years of good use out of these computers (even more if I do things like reuse them as NAS devices or routers). I save money, do a bit to reduce waste in landfills, and don't have to deal with the frustration of working with an operating system that prevents me from fully utilizing the potential of hardware I bought.
Frankly, I'm seeing less and less valid reasons for the continued use of Windows other than 'it works' or 'that's what I'm familiar with.' And even those arguments are becoming less and less valid themselves.
My two year old can click a mouse and my whole family uses GNU/Linux without missing a beat and has for years.
That's interesting. I recently wiped Windows from all of our computers (except for one image production box that has CS3 and Lightroom on it or a small business my wife runs) after the OOXML shenanigans put me over the edge. As I'm typing this, my 3 year old son is playing Bzflag on an Xubuntu machine my kids use. His screen name is 3YearOld and he's probably the one shooting off into empty space (but hey, he gets one of you every once in a while).
Also, I have a friend who bought a Windows Home Server when they first came out to backup important documents. Ever since the file corruption bug was confirmed, he has put it in a closet until the bug is fixed. I told him about the Ubuntu server I use as a music/web/ftp/samba/backup server and how well it works (yes, I know I'm a Ubuntu fan.... but hey, if it works it works). He's said that next time he'll bring a box over and would like to have the setup I have.
IMO, MS lost its direction when they became entirely marketing/business/lawyer driven instead of engineering driven. If they dumped the power hungry upper echelons (Balmer I'm looking at you) and started actually making engineering decisions (maybe even sound ones) they could turn things around.
By way of anecdote, being a developer in Seattle you will inevitably work with other who have at one point or another worked at MS. One common thread I've heard (as a developer in the Peugeot Sound) is that the MS company culture is severely dysfunctional (ie: many meetings and decisions are nothing but a contest to see who can position themselves for the next raise/promotion). At first I thought this was a given as these developers, program managers, and executives are EX-employees (if they liked it they would have stayed). However, the universality of their experiences combined with the complaining of those I know who still work at MS makes me believe there's merit to their comments.
Using the "Product Level" approach to above, does that fact that comparing the cost of MS products to the cost of *nix systems (free) mean that MS's entire worth is in its brand?
And if so, does that mean that MS is severely underestimating the potential effects blemishes will have on their name/brand and thus worth? I know that MS's entire worth to me as disappeared for this very reason.
Sorry for the disjointed posts (I guess I wasn't done with original thought).
There are many ways to measure a brand. Some measurements approaches are at the firm level, some at the product level, and still others are at the consumer level.
Firm Level: Firm level approaches measure the brand as a financial asset. In short, a calculation is made regarding how much the brand is worth as an intangible asset. For example, if you were to take the value of the firm, as derrived by its market capitalization - and then subtract tangible assets and "measurable" intangible assets- the residual would be the brand equity...
Product Level: The classic product level brand measurement example is to compare the price of a no-name or private label product to an "equivalent" branded product. The difference in price, assuming all things equal, is due to the brand.
Consumer Level: This approach seeks to map the mind of the consumer to find out what associations with the brand that the consumer has. This approach seeks to measure the awareness (recall and recognition) and brand image (the overall associations that the brand has). Free association tests and projective techniques are commonly used to uncover the tangible and intangible attributes, attitudes, and intentions about a brand. Brands with high levels of awareness and strong, favorable and unique associations are high equity brands.
Any of these calculation are at best approximations. A more complete understanding of the brand can occur if multiple measures
Using the "Product Level" approach to above, does that fact that comparing the cost of MS products to the cost of *nix systems (free) mean that MS's entire worth is in its brand?
Actually they can and are losing, they are being exposed as a blatant corrupt corporation, willing to destroy any business, government organisation, international standard, or individuals in order to maintain and extend their monopoly.
I've been following this whole process for 6 months now and I have to say that this was the final straw for me.
I have already vowed to never use Vista (XP is the last MS OS for me). But this has pushed me over the edge. I have a few Windows programs that I really enjoy using that don't work in Wine, but I don't care any more. MS will not only never get another cent of my money but I am going to purge them completely from my life. Over the next few weeks I am going to remove XP from my computer (100% *nix now), never use the Office suite (Open Office and IMAP), and look for opportunities to inform others about their choice in OS and software.
I'm not alone either. As I've been tracking this I've been politely forwarding information to friends and family, several of which have started expressing interest in using *nix or other MS alternatives. My wife, who runs her own business, has now stated that as soon as professional Adobe products are ever available on *nix platforms then she will remove MS as well (she already chooses Thunderbird/Lightning) over Outlook. My children are more familiar with a *nix system than they are Windows system (my son loves the Tux suite of games as well as Gcompris).
My efforts are just a drop in the sea, but my immediate friends and family are now at least are aware of the choice they have. And I think that this realization of choice is what MS fears the most.
n my research, I've reduced female behavior to a set of 50 million parameters. By partitioning this space into subspaces and finding equivalent sets, I think I might be able to get laid.
However I've noticed a problem: if I introduce a parameter to model a female's response to this research, the spaces collapse to zero, i.e., a null set.
I find this quite puzzling. Simply by examining my chances of getting laid, I reduce my chances to zero.
Aha! You've discovered the Heisenberg effect of female relations due to their inherent quantum nature (a source of great confusion for most males). This effect is related to the observer effect, with which it is often conflated. In the Copenhagen interpretation of female relations, the uncertainty principle is a theoretical limitation of how small the male observer effect can be. Any attempt to logically analyze a female relationship must negatively affect the emotional state of that relationship by a large indeterminate amount, and vice-versa.
While this is true in all interpretations, in many modern interpretations of female relations (many-worlds and variants), the quantum relational state itself is the fundamental quantity, not the logical or emotional states. Taking this perspective, while the emotional and logical states are still uncertain, the uncertainty is an effect caused not just by analysis, but by any entanglement with a female.
This would explain why the introduction of a parameter to model a female's response to your analysis results in the spaces collapsing to zero.
I am currently working on a Heisenberg female relational compensator but I've hit some snags in my approach. I'll keep you posted if I've found a solution.
Yep, you're no biologist, and even less of an immunologist. You need to read up on antibodies. Now, part of the immune system does work on heuristics, but a big part of it is all the antibodies running around your body as a "chemical lookup table", but one with a massively parallel seek mechanism. I stand corrected. Thanks for the link ppanon.
Though I still question the approach of A/V engines relying so heavily on lookup tables. I guess my revised point would be that we (meaning the computer industry) should seek to keep these lookup tables as small as possible by maximizing the number of viruses that can be detected via heuristics.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. Though my lists were in no particular order and there are other items deserving of being on those lists that I'm either unaware of or simply didn't come to mind.
You're right, though. Insulation can have huge savings individually, and a huge impact on national/global energy usage with wide-scale deployment.
My main point is simply that just because one thing doesn't solve all of our energy problems that doesn't mean it's not worth doing and that it's only by using a diverse set of technologies that our energy crisis will be brought under control.
I make a point to follow emerging trends in new energy technologies and there is certainly no silver bullet (unless we can get cold fusion going). However, I'm also of the opinion that the US (and certainly most other nations) has the ability to independently supply its own energy through using a healthy balance of diverse energy technologies.
Off the top of my head:
Combine this with newer technologies that reduce consumption.
Again, none of the above (which are incomplete lists) alone can be a viable solution and each as their own set of problems to overcome. What is needed is a diverse portfolio of renewable energy technologies combined with a more conscious responsible use of resources. I really do believe that in doing this, there is a potential to achieve complete energy independence. What people seem to be having a hard time with is that this requires a huge infrastructural investment as well as the creation of a whole new industry. The infrastructural problems, I think, will work themselves out as the potential of ROI of these different technologies becomes attractive. A jump start from the government would help as well.
ID is a philosophy, and not an alternative scientific theory. As such, I have no problem with it being taught - just with it being taught in science class.
You nailed it right on the head. I'm amazed how each side of this debate gets so defensive so quickly. Teach science in science class and teach philosophy in philosophy class (we're still teaching our kids philosophy aren't we?). ID, as it hinges on the unprovability of the existence or non-existence of God, doesn't fit nicely within the rigid requirements of scientific theory and thus should not be taught in a science class.
I see no problem in exposing our children to both sides of the discussion as long as each side is presented in the right context. In fact, I think we do our children a disservice by avoiding engaging with them in mature philosophical or even religious discussions (not proselytizing). Philosophy and religion are a part of humanity and, whether or not you subscribe to them, pretending they doesn't exist or deserve any thought or discussion is willful ignorance at best.
This whole, "anyone who entertains the idea of ID is a complete idiot" is just narrow minded. Until the God question is exhaustively proven one way or another, there will always be people on both sides. Life is full of uncertainties, DEAL WITH IT. Attacking those who choose to believe in something that is neither provable nor disprovable is just as ignorant as attacking those who choose to not believe in something even though they can't disprove it. The important thing here is that when truth comes along, both sides should align themselves with it.
When that happens be on the look out for "Windows 7!"
Windows 7! = Windows 5040?
Ubuntu:
Vista Home Premium SP1:
And yes, I know that Frankenstein was the doctor not the monster. But ... didn't have the desired affect.
Ballmer get what Ballmer wants.
Imagine a tiny arsenic atom embedded in a tiny strip of silicon atoms.
Me: ??? <blink, blink>
Actually, can anyone suggest rules for a fascism bingo game?
Yes, I can. Although not an actual bingo card, this list provides plenty of options for you to create your own bingo card to play with while listening to any politician. Give me a politician that prevents me from getting a bingo from this list and they'll have my vote. Sadly, this is unlikely as it seems many people don't understand why the items on this list are bad.
Now, if a scientific study has been made and has conclusive results (which happens less often than we'd like to think), you should initially have reason to believe it. But stopping there is just intellectually lazy (or ignorant). You should look into the context of the "study". Find out who "they" are (and more to the point, who's funding them). Find out how strong the correlation was (you've studied statistics haven't you?). Find out if there is a consensus in the scientific community about this "study". Find out if there are any conflicting studies. Etc.
I'm not saying you need to detailed analysis on every study you come across. All it takes is a few minutes of searching to gain a better understanding of the context that surrounds a "study" (assuming the referenced "study" even occurred in the first place). Doing this, you can avoid many of the conspiracies or frauds out there that prey on the intellectually lazy.
NASA has a site dedicated to listing some of these technologies that have been a direct result of the space program (never mind the somewhat awkward UI).
Are we (as a human race) damaging this planet? Yes. Are we (again as a whole) being irresponsible in some ways with our resources? Yes. Is the net effect of human space activity anywhere near a leading contributor towards atmospheric pollution? No!
Now, you may not have been challenging the ethics of space programs, but space tourism (let alone space programs in general) are the wrong environmental trees to bark up.
These three computers now run beautifully and I thoroughly enjoy noticing that after upgrades sometimes things run faster not slower.
One thing that bothers me, both as a consumer and as someone who tries to be environmentally conscious, is that the continual trend towards more bloat in Windows results in the premature obsolescence of perfectly good hardware. I can foresee getting a total of 8-10 years of good use out of these computers (even more if I do things like reuse them as NAS devices or routers). I save money, do a bit to reduce waste in landfills, and don't have to deal with the frustration of working with an operating system that prevents me from fully utilizing the potential of hardware I bought.
Frankly, I'm seeing less and less valid reasons for the continued use of Windows other than 'it works' or 'that's what I'm familiar with.' And even those arguments are becoming less and less valid themselves.
Also, I have a friend who bought a Windows Home Server when they first came out to backup important documents. Ever since the file corruption bug was confirmed, he has put it in a closet until the bug is fixed. I told him about the Ubuntu server I use as a music/web/ftp/samba/backup server and how well it works (yes, I know I'm a Ubuntu fan.... but hey, if it works it works). He's said that next time he'll bring a box over and would like to have the setup I have.
After living here most of my life you'd think I'd know how to spell it. ;)
Good point. Sometimes I forget that OSX is built on a Unix core. Next time design machines are due for an upgrade I'll mention that.
Short answer: Between Win 98/NT and Windows ME. They redeemed themselves a bit with XP but not much and it's been downhill from there.
IMO, MS lost its direction when they became entirely marketing/business/lawyer driven instead of engineering driven. If they dumped the power hungry upper echelons (Balmer I'm looking at you) and started actually making engineering decisions (maybe even sound ones) they could turn things around.
By way of anecdote, being a developer in Seattle you will inevitably work with other who have at one point or another worked at MS. One common thread I've heard (as a developer in the Peugeot Sound) is that the MS company culture is severely dysfunctional (ie: many meetings and decisions are nothing but a contest to see who can position themselves for the next raise/promotion). At first I thought this was a given as these developers, program managers, and executives are EX-employees (if they liked it they would have stayed). However, the universality of their experiences combined with the complaining of those I know who still work at MS makes me believe there's merit to their comments.
Sorry for the disjointed posts (I guess I wasn't done with original thought).
It's amazing what happens when people realize they have a choice.
I have already vowed to never use Vista (XP is the last MS OS for me). But this has pushed me over the edge. I have a few Windows programs that I really enjoy using that don't work in Wine, but I don't care any more. MS will not only never get another cent of my money but I am going to purge them completely from my life. Over the next few weeks I am going to remove XP from my computer (100% *nix now), never use the Office suite (Open Office and IMAP), and look for opportunities to inform others about their choice in OS and software.
I'm not alone either. As I've been tracking this I've been politely forwarding information to friends and family, several of which have started expressing interest in using *nix or other MS alternatives. My wife, who runs her own business, has now stated that as soon as professional Adobe products are ever available on *nix platforms then she will remove MS as well (she already chooses Thunderbird/Lightning) over Outlook. My children are more familiar with a *nix system than they are Windows system (my son loves the Tux suite of games as well as Gcompris).
My efforts are just a drop in the sea, but my immediate friends and family are now at least are aware of the choice they have. And I think that this realization of choice is what MS fears the most.
While this is true in all interpretations, in many modern interpretations of female relations (many-worlds and variants), the quantum relational state itself is the fundamental quantity, not the logical or emotional states. Taking this perspective, while the emotional and logical states are still uncertain, the uncertainty is an effect caused not just by analysis, but by any entanglement with a female.
This would explain why the introduction of a parameter to model a female's response to your analysis results in the spaces collapsing to zero.
I am currently working on a Heisenberg female relational compensator but I've hit some snags in my approach. I'll keep you posted if I've found a solution.