Maybe it is just engineers, but my average work conversation goes as such:
"business, business, business, business. oh yeah, and how're the kids/hobby/weather?"
Like the personal bit is tacked on at the end almost out of guilt.
I don't really mind, since I generally have little interest in the kids/hobby/weather of the person on the other end.
I'm just saying it is weird, is all.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
National G Study find Americans are least poor
Yep, out of all of the nations surveyed, we buy the most new stuff and use the most energy.
Technically, the focus of their study was to determine how "green" various nations are, but instead, they basically just put together an inverse ranking of GDP per capita.
If you're poor, you repair stuff instead of buying new. You only buy what you need. You buy basic items with as little processing as possible. And you don't use very much fossil energy, because fossil energy is expensive. Some goes for clean water.
I just wish we were all poor enough to make this world a better place.
This is my favorite line:
"Consumers in Brazil, Russia and Mexico increased their Greendex score the most, when compared to last year’s results."
Maybe Nat G failed to notice this, but Brazil, Russia, and Mexico are amongst the countries most strongly impacted by the recent economic mess. Remember the riots in Mexico over grain prices last year? Neither does Nat G. They do strongly approve of the decrease in wanton tortilla consumption, though.
A useful study of relative greenness might consider what efforts are made to reduce the impact of consumption. Such as smokestack scrubbing, water management laws, portions of land that are permanently off limits to use. All things that the US has led the way in developing.
Any study that puts China's "foggy" cities and India's exploding population of grinding poverty on the #1 and #2 pedestals as examples to follow is 100% bad for humanity.
The link.
Technically, the focus of their study was to determine how "green" various nations are, but instead, they basically just put together an inverse ranking of GDP per capita.
If you're poor, you repair stuff instead of buying new. You only buy what you need. You buy basic items with as little processing as possible. And you don't use very much fossil energy, because fossil energy is expensive. Some goes for clean water.
I just wish we were all poor enough to make this world a better place.
This is my favorite line:
"Consumers in Brazil, Russia and Mexico increased their Greendex score the most, when compared to last year’s results."
Maybe Nat G failed to notice this, but Brazil, Russia, and Mexico are amongst the countries most strongly impacted by the recent economic mess. Remember the riots in Mexico over grain prices last year? Neither does Nat G. They do strongly approve of the decrease in wanton tortilla consumption, though.
A useful study of relative greenness might consider what efforts are made to reduce the impact of consumption. Such as smokestack scrubbing, water management laws, portions of land that are permanently off limits to use. All things that the US has led the way in developing.
Any study that puts China's "foggy" cities and India's exploding population of grinding poverty on the #1 and #2 pedestals as examples to follow is 100% bad for humanity.
The link.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
the other kind of fusion
Who knew there was another kind?
There's natural fusion, which powers the stars.
Plasma-based fusion, which attempts to replicate natural fusion and is the only approach that has had significant funding for decades.
Cold fusion, which had been taboo for so long that only people on the margins of science studied it, except in France and Japan.
And now I'm hearing about laser-based solid fusion, which works as such: ultra dense hydrogen isotopes + lasers = huge amounts of energy + non-radioactive waste (helium, presumably). Worth the read.
There's natural fusion, which powers the stars.
Plasma-based fusion, which attempts to replicate natural fusion and is the only approach that has had significant funding for decades.
Cold fusion, which had been taboo for so long that only people on the margins of science studied it, except in France and Japan.
And now I'm hearing about laser-based solid fusion, which works as such: ultra dense hydrogen isotopes + lasers = huge amounts of energy + non-radioactive waste (helium, presumably). Worth the read.
Monday, May 11, 2009
loud bathrooms
I think there should be white noise generators in public bathrooms.
I recently read an article about the new ultra mega jumbo airbus plane and how the flight crews didn't like it because it is quieter than most planes. During long flights the crews take a rest and the white noise from normal planes drowns out passenger noise and provides them privacy enough so that they can sleep.
Privacy in a bathroom is generally a good thing. A cheap way to add privacy to a space is to make it loud. White noise is the least offensive form of loud.
Therefore, adding white noise to public bathrooms is a good idea.
I recently read an article about the new ultra mega jumbo airbus plane and how the flight crews didn't like it because it is quieter than most planes. During long flights the crews take a rest and the white noise from normal planes drowns out passenger noise and provides them privacy enough so that they can sleep.
Privacy in a bathroom is generally a good thing. A cheap way to add privacy to a space is to make it loud. White noise is the least offensive form of loud.
Therefore, adding white noise to public bathrooms is a good idea.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
two miracles in one week
At least three miracles are needed for hydrogen vehicles to become practical and progress has been made on two of them this week.
1) cheap way to produce the hydrogen.
2) practical way to store the hydrogen in a car.
3) cheap fuel cell to use the hydrogen - progress is coming along generally. this is probably the easiest miracle, but it is at the product development stage so companies don't talk about their progress.
We obvious still need to get the energy to produce the hydrogen from somewhere and I think the crazy unschedule-able wind plants will do just fine for that. The hydrogen production facilities will only be profitable with the lowest cost electricity. The electric companies will give them the lowest rates in exchange for the hydrogen companies agreeing to follow the wind plants' output.
1) cheap way to produce the hydrogen.
2) practical way to store the hydrogen in a car.
3) cheap fuel cell to use the hydrogen - progress is coming along generally. this is probably the easiest miracle, but it is at the product development stage so companies don't talk about their progress.
We obvious still need to get the energy to produce the hydrogen from somewhere and I think the crazy unschedule-able wind plants will do just fine for that. The hydrogen production facilities will only be profitable with the lowest cost electricity. The electric companies will give them the lowest rates in exchange for the hydrogen companies agreeing to follow the wind plants' output.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Battlestar Gallactica and the smart grid
There is a compelling story here, but I can't think of a clever way to state it.
Simply put:
There is a consistent (and fairly blind) effort to increase the level of automation in our nation's electrical system at all levels.
This creates an obvious and I think unavoidable way for hackers to play with stuff that might actually hurt people.
Some argue the benefits outweigh the dangers and that robust cybersecurity policies can protect us. I think that is 100% grade A BS. I don't think there is such a thing as a secure network and neither does the CIA. Their sensitive information is kept on computers that aren't connected to any networks. Networked information is basically public information.
As part of my work, I've seen some cybersecurity policies for the energy industry and I'm pretty sure the only reason we haven't seen a major hacker-induced outage is because nobody has really tried to cause one yet. Or maybe because they never learned power flow calculations.
Point being, I think we're better off going the Battlestar Gallactica route - embrace individual computing devices, just never let so many of them talk to each other and make automated decisions that they could endanger the reliability of the power supply.
Simply put:
There is a consistent (and fairly blind) effort to increase the level of automation in our nation's electrical system at all levels.
This creates an obvious and I think unavoidable way for hackers to play with stuff that might actually hurt people.
Some argue the benefits outweigh the dangers and that robust cybersecurity policies can protect us. I think that is 100% grade A BS. I don't think there is such a thing as a secure network and neither does the CIA. Their sensitive information is kept on computers that aren't connected to any networks. Networked information is basically public information.
As part of my work, I've seen some cybersecurity policies for the energy industry and I'm pretty sure the only reason we haven't seen a major hacker-induced outage is because nobody has really tried to cause one yet. Or maybe because they never learned power flow calculations.
Point being, I think we're better off going the Battlestar Gallactica route - embrace individual computing devices, just never let so many of them talk to each other and make automated decisions that they could endanger the reliability of the power supply.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
World Depression II
Lots of writers are claiming that the current economic issues aren't as bad as the Great Depression.
These comparisons are based on the US experience during the Depression vs the US experience today.
This article claims that if you compare the World then vs World now, every sign indicates that World Depression II is going to make World Depression I look like World War I.
World Depression I was severe, prolonged and unpleasant and all, but since then we've learned far more efficient and effective ways of turning our cash into confetti.
And yet I'm perfectly happy pulling up stakes and moving to a less secure new position. Am I really so confident in the invulnerability of my industry or do I not believe that things are as bad as the analysis indicates?
These comparisons are based on the US experience during the Depression vs the US experience today.
This article claims that if you compare the World then vs World now, every sign indicates that World Depression II is going to make World Depression I look like World War I.
World Depression I was severe, prolonged and unpleasant and all, but since then we've learned far more efficient and effective ways of turning our cash into confetti.
And yet I'm perfectly happy pulling up stakes and moving to a less secure new position. Am I really so confident in the invulnerability of my industry or do I not believe that things are as bad as the analysis indicates?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)