This is an example of the simplest and clearest code ever. How can you go wrong when your CPU only has 35 instructions, 224 bytes of ram, 128 bytes of eeprom, and 2048 bytes to store code in ? Talk about elegance!
Before these great brilliant minds of the 21st century start whacking away at making these technological monstrosities there are obstacles to go cross and barriers that have to be broken. One of these barriers is to stop calling technological achievements as "man-made" and pick a gender-neutral term.
"Man-made brain" -- what a terrible example of male chauvinism. Lets toss in a few aspects of modern humanity into the fray before we focus on computing and nerdware (tm). Solutions to some of these social problems are less than spectacular in technical complexity yet they are things which technocratic experts fail to talk about.
To my knowledge most high-powered modern cars can go from 0 to stuck in a traffic jam in exactly 2.3 seconds. But cynicism aside, our (American) average commute-to-work time has been on the rise. Therefore I predict what is already being reflected by the automotive industry: priorities lay with comfort and gadgets over gas mileage or reduced emissions.
For example, MP3 players came to be standard part of low-end cars way before they came in as a luxury option on high-end cars (one example- Ford Focus vs Volvo S80). Secondly, there have been some advancements in seat technology: there was at least one prototype out there that had a pony tail cubby hole in the headrest.
Alright, so it's not exactly a hole - but I am moving along. I predict that before long there will be audio games on the stereos which are voice controlled (kind of like the kind that Ford is developing). E-mail while you are stuck on 23rd street. Tell your World of Warcraft guild that you are running late with Ventrilo over OnStar (tm). As you can tell, I am not very enthusiastic that the principle idea behind a car is going to evolve at all: and that is taking the driver from point A to point B. Legislation and some clever marketing is going to force part of the market share to actually try new automotive technologies but for the most part it'll be a question of gimmickry. Tell me that I am wrong after a decade has passed.
Henry Ford once said "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black." I seem to be picking on Ford too much - but that's an indicator of how he focused on the car selling itself as a tool rather than the car being sold for its gimmicks. (Well, to be more accurate he also focused on profit through volume and consumerism).
Sure, traffic optimization would rock. Just punch in your destination and the the DOT GloboComputer will tell you how best to go about your way without causing compressive delays. Maybe you can even work off some of your license points by cooperating - sacrificing your commute time to alleviate congestion from your normal route. Of course - more entities than just the government are going to tap into that treasure trove of information.
I hope I don't sound negative, but, you are a good reflection of just what I described. I know exactly what is supposed to happen. So do you. So did the two technicians. Everything should sound normal, yes? Plug in, get IP address. End of story.
However, the normal does not happen. IE: DHCP server does not issue an IP address. Why - is not only beyond me, but beyond anyone working for the company in this part of the world. What exactly two field techs are supposed to do on-site is not entirely clear to me - as the signal cohesion was never an issue for at least a year preceeding this event nor is it now.
Comcast has always issued a sticky IP to me and changed it in the event of a longer disconnection - but - in the past 2-3 weeks, if I lose that IP address, I am unable to obtain another one for many hours. My guess? DHCP server issues or communication between their router and the DHCP server. Perhaps a local admin decided to optimize leases and his/her hubris got in the way of clear thinking. That's besides the point - I am supposed to be able to, as a customer, call up and complain that the service is down and they are supposed to fix it.
As you can see, that's just not happening. My level of knowledge, or lack thereof, should be irrelevant to the conversation. The techs scratched their heads and after two hours offered a solution where I would throw money on something that I did not and do not need. They did not have a technical solution for a technical problem so they reverted to an administrative solution to a technical problem.
So I lost the ability to renew my IP address. After a week's time and numerous attempts to regain it, including minimizing my equipment and cabling, the techs finally showed up. They did their job as they were trained; afterwards, they witnessed four or five different pieces of equipment experiencing the same problem I was having and promptly said "Oh, why don't you upgrade to a dedicated IP?"
"Sure, I'll consider that.. if you can get me a dynamic IP address."
Well that's disheartening. Are you saying hydroelectric is losing money? Then those subsidies contribute to the national debt, and eventually in some form or other we'll have to pay the piper. Or are you saying that it eventually became profitable, but not soon enough for a private company to have made the initial investment? Yes, hydroelectric is losing money -- but hasn't always. It's very difficult to isolate money because: for one, how do you quantify state interest when they offer tax breaks to companies? Their incentive is to provide more voting power (amongst things) and thus increase population. Due to the nature of how operating costs are externalized, it comes down to a very complex issue that cannot and should not be oversimplified. However, I am not the only person saying that. Richard White, author of "Organic Machine" is saying that. Evidence is saying that (see environmental lawsuit records - they are intriguing). The government is saying that (see congressional hearings around 1979-81). Private businesses are saying that (see what happens after Reagan demands that localities fund part of dam costs in order for one to be built).
What happened was that a great idea mutated over time and by time you had Carter in the office, building dams had become big business unconcerned whether or not we (USA) needed more dams in the first place. The intended way of paying back for construction of these dams failed (for example, irrigation farmers unable to pay for it due to a now created glut of their product - due to the improved irrigation: feedback effect) and then a backup plan failed. The biggest issue though revolved around not profitability but usability. As far as wasteful went, in some cases expensive irrigation dams added as little as 1/10th of an inch of ground water to farms that already had plenty of water. (By the way, those farms usually evolved to lake-front properties, missing their original intent by far). In a few other cases, they benefited a handful of individuals (at least one who had senatorial connections). Hydroelectric dams also had problems but in finding customers. For example, Columbia river dams were doomed to failure until the govt. solicited aluminum industry (giving them tax breaks) -- and then, they didn't have enough electricity to support the new industry (so had to import it from Canada).
Don't believe me? Good - please read case studies of it and see it for yourself. You should never blindly believe what other people are saying, but, examine the evidence yourself.
It's not just a matter of a large start-up cost. History has shown that it's also a matter of unintended consequences. For example, examine farm water issues in the U.S. You will see something fairly creepy time and time again: "red states," who have traditionally hated big government, demanding big government water subsidies for their farmers. Kind of defeats the whole idea of red standing against "welfare state," don't you think? See Donald Worster's "Dust Bowl" for more information about that. It's definitely worth the read.
Re:It's good to see ...
on
ISS Goes Solar
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
At the risk of being called a troll, I will bite again.
The real reason is lack of government support. Large scale public projects can rarely succeed until they receive government subsidies. In other words, 300,000,000 Americans all need to pitch in so that a large project can make it. As a prior proof of this, consider hydroelectric (and irrigation system) dams in America. They were privately funded prior to USACE/Bureau of Reclamations taking over and during that period they all failed - economically speaking. Once the govt. funded them, it was a different story. Despite still experiencing economic failure, they are still around today and churning out the juicy electrons.
Argument of many people is that solar panels are "inefficient" in terms of production. Same can be said about hydroelectric dams (due to the immense construction and maintenance costs), but, we have hundreds of them in the country and they are producing lots of electricity - so that argument is questionable.
So, why did dams succeed and solar panels did not? Perhaps it's an order of operation - dams came first, solar panels are coming now. It takes awhile for ideas to permeate through to bureaucracies and it certainly took awhile for the large amount of dams to be built. So, maybe in another 20-30 years. Note that no new major dams have been built since about the 70s. Also note that President Carter had solar panels installed on the White House; however, once Reagan took over the White House (hey, that's a synecdoche) he had them taken down. Why?
For detailed information about the development of dams in the U.S., please read Richard White's "Organic Machine." It is a fascinating text that puts this idea of large development, government participation, and abstraction of electricity into context. This book will, in my opinion, truly predict the future of the solar panel.
Consider the remote possibility that they revealed those numbers deliberately and that they routinely do that sort of thing to throw off foreign elements. Don't forget our D-Day counter-intel. Think about it - it's the perfect mechanism for slipping bits and pieces out that whoever looks at them might consider 100% genuine. Perfect distribution mechanism! No need to slip spies into organizations, just turn on track changes and "lose" USB keys every so often.
Of course my personal view is that they accidentally let information slip out more often than not.
Beware -- any time you see "..which would allow the United States to drastically reduce its dependence on foreign oil and the production of harmful exhaust emissions," it is marketing language designed to appease ignorant masses, investors, and assure loyal Republican investors that "they are with the program".
In case you are lazy, the economic numbers behind these 170 pages say basically:
- we're expanding our "energy" supply; ie volume of foreign oil fields - we've secured iraqi fields for better exploitation - we're converting our military to a more mobile fighting platform to secure remote oil - we ain't reducin' nothin' as far as consumption and conservation goes - anwr holds only a few drops in the vast sea of petroleum - it's a pawn of environmentalogists (as opposed to environmentalists)
Reduction of dependence on foreign oil? We passed escaping that point more than a decade ago (50% imported vs domestic). Ask yourselves why president Reagan removed the solar panels from the White House the moment he moved in. Our energy policy means we're going to take foreign oil and god help those who stand in our way.
Historically, in the US, projects that succeed have to be subsidized by the federal government. A prime example of big projects in the US that are "perceived as successful" are dams. Private construction of dams has failed time and time again (due to massive costs) until bureau of reclamation and USACE started siphoning from the federal budget for their construction. If you examine costs vs benefits on most dams in the US, you will see that a large number of them are "useless". Funding of these puppies has been weird, at best. Initially they were supposed to pay for themselves, but, that was abandoned some time ago.
So as it pertains to your argument, were the wealthy given benefits of expensive dam construction? No. The federal government secured funding to benefit all, rich or poor. (In the grand scheme of things, consider all of the beneficiaries poor). Sure, there were exceptions..but would you consider hydroelectric plants as dead-end technology?
Canada has no energy crisis or an energy shortage.
As you can see, Canada is the #1 supplier of oil to the US. Their population is around 33 mil and most of the population lives right next to the US border. So why would they bother with PV arrays? They are going to charge consumers normal electric rates for use --- however, big government projects are very patient. As inflation goes up and time goes on, the electricity will more than pay off for itself. Peak oil is theorized to start strangling energy exports in the next 10-15-20 years while this PV array will last 20-30-40 years without breaking a sweat.
So the moral of the story? Count your chickens before they hatch.
Well, I merely weighed economic evidence and tied it to known political doctrines and policies; however, I believe that the overall U.S. foreign policy is completely oversimplified. Oversimplification always leads to unpredicted results. It is true enough that Iraq oil exports have yet to reach "normal" levels, but, what you need to understand is that oil production is not restored or upgraded overnight. In fact, that is the costliest part of the industry - revamping and upgrading infrastructure. Iraq was not allowed to do this during the period of economic sanctioning.
But now, it is a matter of an external company coming in and working hard.
It is predicted that even the very wealthy kingdom of Saudi Arabia is incapable of affording to construct new pumping facilities, stations, etc to meet the upcoming 25 year market growth; therefore, it's implied that foreign corporations will need to somehow tie into the situation.
As far as hegemony is concerned, I do not think that the U.S. is attempting to embrace the popular open imperialism of the past centuries. However, keep in mind that it takes nothing but a small wrench to be thrown into a right place in any powerful engine to make it break. Remember the British patrol boat incident from not too long ago? Well, there were similar preceding events out there involving Iranian ships in the Caspian sea. Anything that threatens "energy security", including force and expansion, will scare the world. Watch for any news that have "energy" and "war against terrorism" in the same paragraph.
Iran has a frighteningly large population of young, educated, restless, unemployed men. Under the right circumstances, propaganda, and dissenting views could yet again cause instability in Persia. For your own "amusement", pay attention to upcoming news about:
- Student riots in Iran - External pressure on Iran - Nuclear reports on/about Iran - Reports of broadcast propaganda heard in Iran - Caspian sea politics and military maneuvers
Iran, or Persia, is a fascinating country. For example, around 1891-1892, the entire country stopped smoking after a fatwa was issued against using tobacco. Imagine that - forces in Persia exist that can exert power over the shah, the economy, and a vice all at the same time.
Environmental concerns? None that matter. The growth of the economy will snub that. All it takes is some strong wording about "diversification," "investment in new technology," and a continued way of life for everyone to keep ignoring the big issues. A typical American is said to use anywhere between 1000 and 2000 gallons of petroleum in their lives every year (rest of the world follows that level). This petroleum is not only transportation fuel -- petroleum went into design and creation of our very own computers and many other things. Therefore, our very own way of life, material culture, is ingrained with the perceived necessity of hydrocarbon fuels.
It's true enough that the overall public sentiment is that we shouldn't pollute the environment, cause global warming, or steal candy from children. However, very few people are aware of what their very own lifestyles cause to occur on a larger scale. Even fewer people are willing to sacrifice creature comforts of their lives to make a difference.
What is overlooked in most cases is not whether a particular spot on the Earth has oil, but whether it has political stability, infrastructural and investment capability of putting that natural resource to some use. For example, South America has plenty of oil capability - but hostile forces limit that oil flow out of the countries such as Venezuela. USA would love to see more imports from that part of the world (examine US govt press releases for "diversification" of energy. Secondly, Iraq and Iran never regained their pre-war (1980s) oil production levels.
Russia has no investment capital to boost their production levels.
Controversially, oil has started wars before (duh, but wait for strength of argument). Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because their country did not have natural oil resources required to campaign in World War 2. Their source of oil at the time would had to have been Dutch East Indies (check my facts please). I believe at the time DEI was one of the largest oil potentials in the region. Japanese takeover of that resource would have upset America; therefore, to secure an energy source, Japanese sources preemptively attacked the U.S. Pacific fleet and thus secured some time to operate uninterrupted.
Russian oil production level is still lower than from times of the USSR.
Saudi Arabia faced a double front in 1990s- internal dissent and possible invasion by Iraq. Reluctantly they allowed US troops to be stationed on "the island", at cost of putting the Saud family in an uneasy situation. The US troops were supposed to leave the peninsula once fighting stopped but strategically that would be stupid without eliminating a military threat - so they didn't, infuriating the Arab sentiment. The threat, in this case, was securing Strait of Hormuz to ensure steady oil shipments. Therefore, Saudi citizens fumed for years until Jihad was brought to American soil.
There are untapped, proven oil reserves in N-W Russia. Problem has ALWAYS been transporting oil.
To ensure oil flow, we had to get our military out of Saudi Arabia -- but still retain military ground in the region. So here is a quadruple whammy - America was willing to commit blood to: (1) Eliminate the Iraqi threat to Saudi Arabia, (2) Eliminate Iraqi threat to Oil Transport (3) Eliminate political threat to the Saud family and (4) Lift economic sanctions from Iraq to bring oil production levels to pre-1980s war levels.
Did you get that? Lift economic sanctions. To bring oil production levels up.
Therefore, as stupid as it sounds, the "world's longest tunnel" linking the two continents just might do the trick. Drilling in the Arctic region of Russia has always been an expensive and highly technical challenge because the seas freeze - and you cannot pump oil year-round. Russia is a stable country and therefore would easily bring foreign investments to the effort. Read the official U.S. energy policy for any clarification of intentions. "Diversification" of energy resources is a high priority.
"_________ sits passively and waits for ______________ packets to pass by on the ethernet card. It rebuilds the data stream and displays useful information about the data being sent between client and server."
So, nearly a hardware-isolated implementation (think ethereal). What's Blizzard going to do when there is no programmatic link between WoW client, their server and cheating utility? Who or what will be scapegoated?
Be careful in labeling that as an "eco-friendly" computer. The issue is not power consumption as much as it is the overall production impact on the environment. I am, quite frankly, impressed at the power consumption footprint of the VIA EPIA series (and their acoustic noise reduction); however, the issues are how close the machine comes to positive on the environmental ledger sheet when you account for negative cost adjustment due to pollution.
In other words, in the standard view of the product it is temporarily profitable for companies to produce the "Damn Small Machine." However, once you consider other factors (such as pollutant cleanup costs) does the base profitability of the machine become questionable?
In all likelihood, the "Damn Small Machine" is eco-friendly only as far as leaving externalization out of the big picture. Once you consider where various compounds end up on a case-to-case basis, it might shock you. In other words, how can a private company be allowed to make profit (think eco-friendly as a marketing tag line in any particular case) in exchange for public debt (in terms of environmental drain)?
You're on the money there. What's really amusing is that FEMA isn't really doing its job (or wasn't, historically speaking). A little map magic wouldn't affect their performance by all that much. Quoting a FEMA research:
By 1991, three billion dollars was spent on preparation for a nuclear war while only 243 million dollars was allocated to planning for an actual "natural disaster".
My workplace has a website frequented by thousands daily. The splash page for this website is the main entry point and it is a whopping 1.23 MB of crap. Why? good old 03.swf eats 1.02 MB of the breakdown, while images take up most of the remainder. There is only half of a kilobyte of real text on the page and that is precisely the text people come to look at.
The MySpace profile of my fiancee was only 160 KB. What does this tell you?
This kind of crap just amazes me. People think up a million ways to save the environment but we can't get them to share computers or use low power text-only terminals. No, instead they have to buy their own computers and even monitors! I've never owned one, and I'm not really convinced that I ever want to. There's only a couple of instances where I would really want a computer, like ordering groceries to be delivered but they have a telephone order service anyway. Going away for the weekend isn't too much of a problem. Using an internet cafe costs less than most people's internet access fees.
If I was a jerk, I'd call you a hypocrite, and here is why (hypothetically of course): you are using a computer to write this neat little commentary. Can you imagine how much energy it took to produce the computer, or how much pollution it created, or how much you are contributing to CO2 emissions by using predominantly coal-generated electricity? Or do you care- ?
Your convenient weekend car rental depends on the existence of the current car culture. In a hypothetical world where everyone did as you, the car rental company would not be there for you. Why? Because their profit margins are slim - and directly depend on the car world to purchase the rental cars after they've been used. Therefore you not owning a car but renting one doesn't really impact anything. Not even a thousand of people like you would make an impact (at least in USA). A hundred thousand might show up on a back-room graph somewhere -BUT- millions of you would put a dent somewhere. However, by then, the dynamics will have changed dramatically.
I am not saying that the car rental industry can't evolve into something more convenient and friendlier if circumstances change, but, what I am pointing at is the simple declensionist approach that you exhibit toward a complex issue. So what have you accomplished at the end of the day? You FEEL better about yourself and your impact on the environment. I guess that's as good as it will get.
A simple answer to a complex issue is arguably as bad as the issue itself.
I think many people have a problem with the cell phone camera quality: If manufacturers bother putting a camera on a cell phone, they may as well have decent quality, right? Well, one thing that is overlooked with these cameras is the possibility of digital (panoramic and frame) stitching.
By using OSS such as Hugin and Enblend one can increase the resolution of images, add to the field of view and basically achieve the following results:
How else could you tie a Sci-Fi show to current events? "Enterprise" had nothing to link it to current events (with the exception of the terrorism episode) and it neatly failed. On the other hand, you have Stargate SG1 making a human to Sci-Fi connection: Religious fundamentalism, Crusades, Terrorism, Homicide Bombings (is that the latest "hip" P.C. name for a suicide bomber?) etc.
However, I am curious how they will translate this cultural clash into the big screen: The Sheep Picture
More I learn about it, less I want to use it..which is a conundrum because I am developing a project especially meant to use it. It seems that AJAX goes well with entire GUI toolkits so I started with simple transactions and then eventually fell victim to all the shiny features of Dojo - and then got horrified when things started acting like they shouldn't. For example, a nested element causes a to lose the cursor while typing. I don't know how to resolve that -- but -- going back to the drawing board ought to be the way to go.
What are some of your experiences with using AJAX toolkits like Dojo?
Slashdot Mirror
Before these great brilliant minds of the 21st century start whacking away at making these technological monstrosities there are obstacles to go cross and barriers that have to be broken. One of these barriers is to stop calling technological achievements as "man-made" and pick a gender-neutral term.
"Man-made brain" -- what a terrible example of male chauvinism. Lets toss in a few aspects of modern humanity into the fray before we focus on computing and nerdware (tm). Solutions to some of these social problems are less than spectacular in technical complexity yet they are things which technocratic experts fail to talk about.
To my knowledge most high-powered modern cars can go from 0 to stuck in a traffic jam in exactly 2.3 seconds. But cynicism aside, our (American) average commute-to-work time has been on the rise. Therefore I predict what is already being reflected by the automotive industry: priorities lay with comfort and gadgets over gas mileage or reduced emissions.
For example, MP3 players came to be standard part of low-end cars way before they came in as a luxury option on high-end cars (one example- Ford Focus vs Volvo S80). Secondly, there have been some advancements in seat technology: there was at least one prototype out there that had a pony tail cubby hole in the headrest.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3528757.stm
Alright, so it's not exactly a hole - but I am moving along. I predict that before long there will be audio games on the stereos which are voice controlled (kind of like the kind that Ford is developing). E-mail while you are stuck on 23rd street. Tell your World of Warcraft guild that you are running late with Ventrilo over OnStar (tm). As you can tell, I am not very enthusiastic that the principle idea behind a car is going to evolve at all: and that is taking the driver from point A to point B. Legislation and some clever marketing is going to force part of the market share to actually try new automotive technologies but for the most part it'll be a question of gimmickry. Tell me that I am wrong after a decade has passed.
Henry Ford once said "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black." I seem to be picking on Ford too much - but that's an indicator of how he focused on the car selling itself as a tool rather than the car being sold for its gimmicks. (Well, to be more accurate he also focused on profit through volume and consumerism).
Sure, traffic optimization would rock. Just punch in your destination and the the DOT GloboComputer will tell you how best to go about your way without causing compressive delays. Maybe you can even work off some of your license points by cooperating - sacrificing your commute time to alleviate congestion from your normal route. Of course - more entities than just the government are going to tap into that treasure trove of information.
I hope I don't sound negative, but, you are a good reflection of just what I described. I know exactly what is supposed to happen. So do you. So did the two technicians. Everything should sound normal, yes? Plug in, get IP address. End of story.
However, the normal does not happen. IE: DHCP server does not issue an IP address. Why - is not only beyond me, but beyond anyone working for the company in this part of the world. What exactly two field techs are supposed to do on-site is not entirely clear to me - as the signal cohesion was never an issue for at least a year preceeding this event nor is it now.
Comcast has always issued a sticky IP to me and changed it in the event of a longer disconnection - but - in the past 2-3 weeks, if I lose that IP address, I am unable to obtain another one for many hours. My guess? DHCP server issues or communication between their router and the DHCP server. Perhaps a local admin decided to optimize leases and his/her hubris got in the way of clear thinking. That's besides the point - I am supposed to be able to, as a customer, call up and complain that the service is down and they are supposed to fix it.
As you can see, that's just not happening. My level of knowledge, or lack thereof, should be irrelevant to the conversation. The techs scratched their heads and after two hours offered a solution where I would throw money on something that I did not and do not need. They did not have a technical solution for a technical problem so they reverted to an administrative solution to a technical problem.
Hope that makes more sense.
So I lost the ability to renew my IP address. After a week's time and numerous attempts to regain it, including minimizing my equipment and cabling, the techs finally showed up. They did their job as they were trained; afterwards, they witnessed four or five different pieces of equipment experiencing the same problem I was having and promptly said "Oh, why don't you upgrade to a dedicated IP?"
.. if you can get me a dynamic IP address."
"Sure, I'll consider that
What happened was that a great idea mutated over time and by time you had Carter in the office, building dams had become big business unconcerned whether or not we (USA) needed more dams in the first place. The intended way of paying back for construction of these dams failed (for example, irrigation farmers unable to pay for it due to a now created glut of their product - due to the improved irrigation: feedback effect) and then a backup plan failed. The biggest issue though revolved around not profitability but usability. As far as wasteful went, in some cases expensive irrigation dams added as little as 1/10th of an inch of ground water to farms that already had plenty of water. (By the way, those farms usually evolved to lake-front properties, missing their original intent by far). In a few other cases, they benefited a handful of individuals (at least one who had senatorial connections). Hydroelectric dams also had problems but in finding customers. For example, Columbia river dams were doomed to failure until the govt. solicited aluminum industry (giving them tax breaks) -- and then, they didn't have enough electricity to support the new industry (so had to import it from Canada).
Don't believe me? Good - please read case studies of it and see it for yourself. You should never blindly believe what other people are saying, but, examine the evidence yourself.
It's not just a matter of a large start-up cost. History has shown that it's also a matter of unintended consequences. For example, examine farm water issues in the U.S. You will see something fairly creepy time and time again: "red states," who have traditionally hated big government, demanding big government water subsidies for their farmers. Kind of defeats the whole idea of red standing against "welfare state," don't you think? See Donald Worster's "Dust Bowl" for more information about that. It's definitely worth the read.
At the risk of being called a troll, I will bite again.
The real reason is lack of government support. Large scale public projects can rarely succeed until they receive government subsidies. In other words, 300,000,000 Americans all need to pitch in so that a large project can make it. As a prior proof of this, consider hydroelectric (and irrigation system) dams in America. They were privately funded prior to USACE/Bureau of Reclamations taking over and during that period they all failed - economically speaking. Once the govt. funded them, it was a different story. Despite still experiencing economic failure, they are still around today and churning out the juicy electrons.
Argument of many people is that solar panels are "inefficient" in terms of production. Same can be said about hydroelectric dams (due to the immense construction and maintenance costs), but, we have hundreds of them in the country and they are producing lots of electricity - so that argument is questionable.
So, why did dams succeed and solar panels did not? Perhaps it's an order of operation - dams came first, solar panels are coming now. It takes awhile for ideas to permeate through to bureaucracies and it certainly took awhile for the large amount of dams to be built. So, maybe in another 20-30 years. Note that no new major dams have been built since about the 70s. Also note that President Carter had solar panels installed on the White House; however, once Reagan took over the White House (hey, that's a synecdoche) he had them taken down. Why?
For detailed information about the development of dams in the U.S., please read Richard White's "Organic Machine." It is a fascinating text that puts this idea of large development, government participation, and abstraction of electricity into context. This book will, in my opinion, truly predict the future of the solar panel.
Consider the remote possibility that they revealed those numbers deliberately and that they routinely do that sort of thing to throw off foreign elements. Don't forget our D-Day counter-intel. Think about it - it's the perfect mechanism for slipping bits and pieces out that whoever looks at them might consider 100% genuine. Perfect distribution mechanism! No need to slip spies into organizations, just turn on track changes and "lose" USB keys every so often.
Of course my personal view is that they accidentally let information slip out more often than not.
Fuse: a $3 part protecting a $0.01 piece of electronics.
Beware -- any time you see "..which would allow the United States to drastically reduce its dependence on foreign oil and the production of harmful exhaust emissions," it is marketing language designed to appease ignorant masses, investors, and assure loyal Republican investors that "they are with the program".
P olicy.pdf
And this program is the US energy policy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-
In case you are lazy, the economic numbers behind these 170 pages say basically:
- we're expanding our "energy" supply; ie volume of foreign oil fields
- we've secured iraqi fields for better exploitation
- we're converting our military to a more mobile fighting platform to secure remote oil
- we ain't reducin' nothin' as far as consumption and conservation goes
- anwr holds only a few drops in the vast sea of petroleum - it's a pawn of environmentalogists (as opposed to environmentalists)
Reduction of dependence on foreign oil? We passed escaping that point more than a decade ago (50% imported vs domestic). Ask yourselves why president Reagan removed the solar panels from the White House the moment he moved in. Our energy policy means we're going to take foreign oil and god help those who stand in our way.
Historically, in the US, projects that succeed have to be subsidized by the federal government. A prime example of big projects in the US that are "perceived as successful" are dams. Private construction of dams has failed time and time again (due to massive costs) until bureau of reclamation and USACE started siphoning from the federal budget for their construction. If you examine costs vs benefits on most dams in the US, you will see that a large number of them are "useless". Funding of these puppies has been weird, at best. Initially they were supposed to pay for themselves, but, that was abandoned some time ago.
_ publications/company_level_imports/current/import. html
So as it pertains to your argument, were the wealthy given benefits of expensive dam construction? No. The federal government secured funding to benefit all, rich or poor. (In the grand scheme of things, consider all of the beneficiaries poor). Sure, there were exceptions..but would you consider hydroelectric plants as dead-end technology?
Canada has no energy crisis or an energy shortage.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data
As you can see, Canada is the #1 supplier of oil to the US. Their population is around 33 mil and most of the population lives right next to the US border. So why would they bother with PV arrays? They are going to charge consumers normal electric rates for use --- however, big government projects are very patient. As inflation goes up and time goes on, the electricity will more than pay off for itself. Peak oil is theorized to start strangling energy exports in the next 10-15-20 years while this PV array will last 20-30-40 years without breaking a sweat.
So the moral of the story? Count your chickens before they hatch.
Hello,
Well, I merely weighed economic evidence and tied it to known political doctrines and policies; however, I believe that the overall U.S. foreign policy is completely oversimplified. Oversimplification always leads to unpredicted results. It is true enough that Iraq oil exports have yet to reach "normal" levels, but, what you need to understand is that oil production is not restored or upgraded overnight. In fact, that is the costliest part of the industry - revamping and upgrading infrastructure. Iraq was not allowed to do this during the period of economic sanctioning.
But now, it is a matter of an external company coming in and working hard.
It is predicted that even the very wealthy kingdom of Saudi Arabia is incapable of affording to construct new pumping facilities, stations, etc to meet the upcoming 25 year market growth; therefore, it's implied that foreign corporations will need to somehow tie into the situation.
As far as hegemony is concerned, I do not think that the U.S. is attempting to embrace the popular open imperialism of the past centuries. However, keep in mind that it takes nothing but a small wrench to be thrown into a right place in any powerful engine to make it break. Remember the British patrol boat incident from not too long ago? Well, there were similar preceding events out there involving Iranian ships in the Caspian sea. Anything that threatens "energy security", including force and expansion, will scare the world. Watch for any news that have "energy" and "war against terrorism" in the same paragraph.
Iran has a frighteningly large population of young, educated, restless, unemployed men. Under the right circumstances, propaganda, and dissenting views could yet again cause instability in Persia. For your own "amusement", pay attention to upcoming news about:
- Student riots in Iran
- External pressure on Iran
- Nuclear reports on/about Iran
- Reports of broadcast propaganda heard in Iran
- Caspian sea politics and military maneuvers
Iran, or Persia, is a fascinating country. For example, around 1891-1892, the entire country stopped smoking after a fatwa was issued against using tobacco. Imagine that - forces in Persia exist that can exert power over the shah, the economy, and a vice all at the same time.
Environmental concerns? None that matter. The growth of the economy will snub that. All it takes is some strong wording about "diversification," "investment in new technology," and a continued way of life for everyone to keep ignoring the big issues. A typical American is said to use anywhere between 1000 and 2000 gallons of petroleum in their lives every year (rest of the world follows that level). This petroleum is not only transportation fuel -- petroleum went into design and creation of our very own computers and many other things. Therefore, our very own way of life, material culture, is ingrained with the perceived necessity of hydrocarbon fuels.
It's true enough that the overall public sentiment is that we shouldn't pollute the environment, cause global warming, or steal candy from children. However, very few people are aware of what their very own lifestyles cause to occur on a larger scale. Even fewer people are willing to sacrifice creature comforts of their lives to make a difference.
Sorry for the long rant - morning coffee!
What is overlooked in most cases is not whether a particular spot on the Earth has oil, but whether it has political stability, infrastructural and investment capability of putting that natural resource to some use. For example, South America has plenty of oil capability - but hostile forces limit that oil flow out of the countries such as Venezuela. USA would love to see more imports from that part of the world (examine US govt press releases for "diversification" of energy. Secondly, Iraq and Iran never regained their pre-war (1980s) oil production levels.
Russia has no investment capital to boost their production levels.
Controversially, oil has started wars before (duh, but wait for strength of argument). Imperial Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because their country did not have natural oil resources required to campaign in World War 2. Their source of oil at the time would had to have been Dutch East Indies (check my facts please). I believe at the time DEI was one of the largest oil potentials in the region. Japanese takeover of that resource would have upset America; therefore, to secure an energy source, Japanese sources preemptively attacked the U.S. Pacific fleet and thus secured some time to operate uninterrupted.
Russian oil production level is still lower than from times of the USSR.
Saudi Arabia faced a double front in 1990s- internal dissent and possible invasion by Iraq. Reluctantly they allowed US troops to be stationed on "the island", at cost of putting the Saud family in an uneasy situation. The US troops were supposed to leave the peninsula once fighting stopped but strategically that would be stupid without eliminating a military threat - so they didn't, infuriating the Arab sentiment. The threat, in this case, was securing Strait of Hormuz to ensure steady oil shipments. Therefore, Saudi citizens fumed for years until Jihad was brought to American soil.
There are untapped, proven oil reserves in N-W Russia. Problem has ALWAYS been transporting oil.
To ensure oil flow, we had to get our military out of Saudi Arabia -- but still retain military ground in the region. So here is a quadruple whammy - America was willing to commit blood to: (1) Eliminate the Iraqi threat to Saudi Arabia, (2) Eliminate Iraqi threat to Oil Transport (3) Eliminate political threat to the Saud family and (4) Lift economic sanctions from Iraq to bring oil production levels to pre-1980s war levels.
Did you get that? Lift economic sanctions. To bring oil production levels up.
Therefore, as stupid as it sounds, the "world's longest tunnel" linking the two continents just might do the trick. Drilling in the Arctic region of Russia has always been an expensive and highly technical challenge because the seas freeze - and you cannot pump oil year-round. Russia is a stable country and therefore would easily bring foreign investments to the effort. Read the official U.S. energy policy for any clarification of intentions. "Diversification" of energy resources is a high priority.
Quoting an existing software description:
"_________ sits passively and waits for ______________ packets
to pass by on the ethernet card. It rebuilds the data stream and
displays useful information about the data being sent between
client and server."
So, nearly a hardware-isolated implementation (think ethereal). What's Blizzard going to do when there is no programmatic link between WoW client, their server and cheating utility? Who or what will be scapegoated?
Be careful in labeling that as an "eco-friendly" computer. The issue is not power consumption as much as it is the overall production impact on the environment. I am, quite frankly, impressed at the power consumption footprint of the VIA EPIA series (and their acoustic noise reduction); however, the issues are how close the machine comes to positive on the environmental ledger sheet when you account for negative cost adjustment due to pollution.
In other words, in the standard view of the product it is temporarily profitable for companies to produce the "Damn Small Machine." However, once you consider other factors (such as pollutant cleanup costs) does the base profitability of the machine become questionable?
In all likelihood, the "Damn Small Machine" is eco-friendly only as far as leaving externalization out of the big picture. Once you consider where various compounds end up on a case-to-case basis, it might shock you. In other words, how can a private company be allowed to make profit (think eco-friendly as a marketing tag line in any particular case) in exchange for public debt (in terms of environmental drain)?
Just something to consider..
You're on the money there. What's really amusing is that FEMA isn't really doing its job (or wasn't, historically speaking). A little map magic wouldn't affect their performance by all that much. Quoting a FEMA research:
By 1991, three billion dollars was spent on preparation for a nuclear war while only 243 million dollars was allocated to planning for an actual "natural disaster".Acts of God
There is a really good book out there written by Ted Steinberg - if you haven't read it, you would enjoy it.
I was disappointed to not see "Microsoft unleashes JPEG killer" as a title to this article.
Many books of antiquity have been bound in human skin. Science is not for the weak of heart.
i cles/2006/01/07/some_of_nations_best_libraries_hav e_books_bound_in_human_skin/
http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/art
It's easy - just have a good writer release a few Bible Code books.
- Bible code for children
- Bible code for dummies
- Bible code howto
My workplace has a website frequented by thousands daily. The splash page for this website is the main entry point and it is a whopping 1.23 MB of crap. Why? good old 03.swf eats 1.02 MB of the breakdown, while images take up most of the remainder. There is only half of a kilobyte of real text on the page and that is precisely the text people come to look at.
The MySpace profile of my fiancee was only 160 KB. What does this tell you?
This kind of crap just amazes me. People think up a million ways to save the environment but we can't get them to share computers or use low power text-only terminals. No, instead they have to buy their own computers and even monitors! I've never owned one, and I'm not really convinced that I ever want to. There's only a couple of instances where I would really want a computer, like ordering groceries to be delivered but they have a telephone order service anyway. Going away for the weekend isn't too much of a problem. Using an internet cafe costs less than most people's internet access fees.
If I was a jerk, I'd call you a hypocrite, and here is why (hypothetically of course): you are using a computer to write this neat little commentary. Can you imagine how much energy it took to produce the computer, or how much pollution it created, or how much you are contributing to CO2 emissions by using predominantly coal-generated electricity? Or do you care- ?
Your convenient weekend car rental depends on the existence of the current car culture. In a hypothetical world where everyone did as you, the car rental company would not be there for you. Why? Because their profit margins are slim - and directly depend on the car world to purchase the rental cars after they've been used. Therefore you not owning a car but renting one doesn't really impact anything. Not even a thousand of people like you would make an impact (at least in USA). A hundred thousand might show up on a back-room graph somewhere -BUT- millions of you would put a dent somewhere. However, by then, the dynamics will have changed dramatically.
I am not saying that the car rental industry can't evolve into something more convenient and friendlier if circumstances change, but, what I am pointing at is the simple declensionist approach that you exhibit toward a complex issue. So what have you accomplished at the end of the day? You FEEL better about yourself and your impact on the environment. I guess that's as good as it will get.
A simple answer to a complex issue is arguably as bad as the issue itself.
Hesiod described this human condition in 7th C BCE (give or take):
This Strife is wholesome for men. And potter is angry with potter, and craftsman with craftsman, and beggar is jealous of beggar, and poet of poet.And so is astronaut jealous of astronaut, and Airforce captain is jealous of Airforce captain. This tells us something about our human nature.
I think many people have a problem with the cell phone camera quality: If manufacturers bother putting a camera on a cell phone, they may as well have decent quality, right? Well, one thing that is overlooked with these cameras is the possibility of digital (panoramic and frame) stitching.
m .jpgi ty_of_books.jpg. jpgn .jpgg p gp g
m 1_corrected.jpg0 _corrected.jpg1 _corrected.jpga ny_corrected.jpgr ected.jpg
By using OSS such as Hugin and Enblend one can increase the resolution of images, add to the field of view and basically achieve the following results:
- http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/bedroo
- http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/divers
- http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/room33
- http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/jsd-va
- http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/car.jp
- http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/car3.j
- http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/ariz.j
Slightly wider shots:
- http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/livroo
- http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/par-ph
- http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/pan-ph
- http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/grandc
- http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/dd_cor
Please note that some of these processed images have not been color corrected with enblend - otherwise they would have turned out much better.
It's all about the religious fundamentalism.
How else could you tie a Sci-Fi show to current events? "Enterprise" had nothing to link it to current events (with the exception of the terrorism episode) and it neatly failed. On the other hand, you have Stargate SG1 making a human to Sci-Fi connection: Religious fundamentalism, Crusades, Terrorism, Homicide Bombings (is that the latest "hip" P.C. name for a suicide bomber?) etc.
However, I am curious how they will translate this cultural clash into the big screen: The Sheep Picture
More I learn about it, less I want to use it..which is a conundrum because I am developing a project especially meant to use it. It seems that AJAX goes well with entire GUI toolkits so I started with simple transactions and then eventually fell victim to all the shiny features of Dojo - and then got horrified when things started acting like they shouldn't. For example, a nested element causes a to lose the cursor while typing. I don't know how to resolve that -- but -- going back to the drawing board ought to be the way to go.
What are some of your experiences with using AJAX toolkits like Dojo?