Posts by Michael C

Soot almost as bad as CO₂ for global warming

Incentives work...

If we want this process moving, we need incentives... Some of these may be extreme, and could use a lot of discussion, likely major tweaking, and certainly are not the only options, but here goes:

Here's a few, starting with passing a few general laws:

- require all new window installations (and all existing windows starting in 2020) to have thermally sensitive solar films and a minimum efficiency rating

- start systematically increasing EnergyStar rating targets.

- Require all plug-in adapters for personal electronics to use no power when the device is not attached or fully charged and powered off.

- Increase the minimum SEER rating for AC units (again)

- Require all single family home construction to include solar generation for not less than 50% of it's expected energy use in any market where this system could pay itself off in less than 10 years from electric bill savings alone at current rates. (some locations due to weather cycles, daylight hours, or shade from hill or other immovable object should be exempt)

- make the sale of all incandescent lights illegal, and require LED over CF where applicable (night lights, etc)

- Guarantee financing for any vehicle being traded in for a more efficient vehicle if the new car payment will be the same or less than the existing car payment, including estimated fuel cost savings (old payment was $300, new payment could be up to $400 assuming $100/month savings at the pump). Guarantee this regardless of credit rating, so long as the current vehicle is in good standing with a bank. For those not currently making payments, guarantee financing for any vehicle purchased that will have a $100 or less monthly payment plus fuel cost savings, provided a downpayment of 25% of the vehicles fair market value is paid, along with all taxes, title, etc. Lock interest rates at prime plus 4% for this purpose unless their credit rating provides a better rate under existing finance laws.

- make it illegal to resell a passenger vehicle that gets less than 50% of the current MPG peak for new vehicles of in its class. Their fair market value will be set at ther scrap/recyclable value for trade-in.

- require tire pressure sensors in all new vehicles.

- Require 25% of all vehicles sold in 2012 to have CVT transmissions, 50% in 2013, 75% by 2014, and 100% by 2015.

- Require power companies to buy excess power from you that you generate at the same $/KWH that you are billed for.

A few tax incentives for folks and businesses:

- Government subsidy for solar panel installaltion up to $5000 / 1000 sqft heated home space, or 50% of total solar solution cost, whichever is greater, assuming the solution will pay itself back by power bill reduction within 12 years. (the limit should keeps nuts in Alaska from trying to install solar panels)

- When trading in a car for a newer model (new or used purchase) provide a one time tax rebate equal to $100 for each MPG the new purchase is more efficient than the traded in vehicle.

- allow 100% of all interest paid for financing a home efficiency project (new windows, upgraded insulation, solar installation, etc) to be tax deductable.

- Tax rebate of $500 anually for each employee converted into a telecommutor. (prorated for the number of months of employment in such a position)

- $3500 tax rebate towards the purchase of a plug-in electric commuter class (sub compact) vehicle

- Eliminate 50% (or more) of toll charges for any vehicle traveling commuter freeways with 3 or more occupants inside.

- 2% energy bill discount, if you allow your thermostat to be monitored by the power company for load balancing (so they can cut off your AC or heat for not more than 30 minutes per 12 hour period in order to load balance the power grid). This should be credited by the power company, not the government, since it's in their benefit for you to do this.

A few new taxes: (used to pay for incentives above. If there's extra left over, it all goes to building either a superconducting electrical grid or 100% renewable poewr plants)

- 1% additional sales tax on all household grocery purchases totaling less than $75 (penalizes those who shop more than once per week for household items) This would not apply to purchases of individually packaged items (personal size bag of chips, a cold soda, pack of gum, etc, though these items would count towards the $75 if purchased together with other items).

- 1% sales tax for each % under 87% that a power supply in an item is rated for.

- 2% federal gas tax, increasing by an additional 2% anually to 20%, then 5% per year thereafter

- Designate by purpose of vehicle (not type or class or size, but intended USE) a target MPG rating. This should be such that only 20% of the vehicles used for that purpose meet or exceed this goal. For each 1 MPG below this target for a vehicle, add 1% use tax, payable ANUALLY based on the fair market value of the vehicle. This also applies to used car purchases. This will take effect 5 years after passing. ALL vehicles will start paying this tax after 5 years (giving existing owners pleanty of time to save up and trade in before being taxed). The laws and tax incentives listed above to assist trade-ins for bad or no credit buyers should make this painless. An equivolency rating for electic cars needs to be published as well as for renewable fuel vehicles. perhaps instead of MPG, we need to look at CO2/mile, including "wells to wheels" not "tank to wheels" (accounting for production of the renewable energy source, not just it's in-vehicle efficiency).

- 2% use tax if you heat your house to above 70 or cool it below 78. (actually, to make this easier, we'll give you for free a thermostat that locks you in to these temp ranges that's compatible with your unit, and is also programable for home/away modes and allowing you to set even more environmentally concious ranges, but if you don't have one installed within 3 years, we'll add this tax to your electric bill until you prove you have installed one).

US government cools on Real ID threats

They already have this information...

Why are you fighting the ID. You ALREADY HAVE ONE! ...and the federal government and every lesser agency in each state already have you in their database with every peiece of information that will be stored in the Real-ID.

The chip in the ID is only a backup for the information easily read on the front of it. It's a RFID feedback, not a tracking system. Every guard post at every building and every airport gate is not going to be networked back to some massive central mainframe where every move you make is recorded. The sheer amount of information would be rediculous, and useless. The chip is only a means of the card being scanned so the guard can see if the information on the face of the card has been altered or forged in any way, and also to make it easy to update changing address information, vehicle registration, etc, without having to print another card.

The whole point here is to make the EXISTING ID SYSTEM more practical and less expensive.

If they want to know where you go, what you do, etc, it's much easier for them to get your debit card records than to mess with the database you propose they "might" create. Why would they be looking at your activity anyway unless they suspected you of a crime?

They already know when you get on planes, when you pay tolls, how much you make, and where you live. They track this with your existing ID, and for good reasons. Getting a fancy new ID that is universal for all Americans just makes it more reliable and CHEAPER. It also helps track criminals who might move from state to state to avoid imprisonment or to avoid paying taxes, or to get a new drivers license if they lost one in a previous state. It's a social security card with a picture on it for fuck's sake!!! That's all it is!

X Prize comes to earth

Fuel requirements

I think people are misreading the fuel requirement section. "All cars will have to run on petrol, diesel, electricity, natural gas, bio-diesel and E85 - ethanol and petrol."

My read of this is it will have to run one of: petrol, diesel, electric, lpg, or biodiesel, also run e85 (ethanol petrol mix). This means it could be electric/e85, diesel/e85, natural gas/e85, etc.

There's no such engine that by itself can run all of these. To put all fuels under one hood would require as many as 4 engines: diesel/bio-diesel; petrol/e85/ethanol, natural gas/propane, and electric. Sure a petrol engine can be converted to run natural gas, but it has to be converted... you can't reasonably do them all...

Note Hydrogen and methane are both distinctly left out. No fuel cells need apply! I think between the rediculous cost of H2 itself, fuel cell costs, plus the dangers, costs, and logistics inherent to other proposed H2 systems (highly compressed gas dangers, solid infusion refuleing times, etc), plus the complex systems for delivery and storage logistics, the energy put in and carbon footprint of that alone, and the extreme total costs automatically disqualify all forms of it. Finally, someone noticed H2 wasn't even "in the race" as a competing technology. lol.

Electricity

Andrew:

Electricity can be made from Charcoal (completely renewable form of coal), water/tide power, solar power, geothermal, wind, nuclear, etc. very little of electricity need to come from fossil fuels, but that's not even the point. thie entire contest is designed to reduce dependency on oil. Power plants don't run off oil...

Also, electric generation is FAR more efficient than 40%, even from natural gas. Burning oil in the car is AT BEST 40% efficient. Energy loss over the wire can be reduced to as little as 1% using superconducting

I'm a bit surprised that air piston engines are not being considdered, but then again, they're a relatively new idea, and the race plans and restrictions are being reqritten following the public comment persion that expired in November. It may yet be included.

Good base (realistic) requirements

It's nice that this is expected to be a fully functional, marketable car, including things like air bags, space for radio, speakers, GPS, and other common inclusions. They're not building some rediculous solar racer that no one will ever drive, they're building real cars that can be mass produced with reasonable (market bearable) costs.

It's also nice that they've specified minimum speed/maximum time requirements and that the track will be long distance and through various terain, traffic conditions, and weather types. Solar and similar vehicles have distinct advanatages in some conditions, but will be heavily penalized in others, and liekly can't win. H2 vehicles will also have distinct advantages in CO2 outputs and power/performance, but will suffer badly on refueling (Actually, H2 was not a listed fuel, so X-prize is automatically, and rightly so, disqualifying hydrogen cars! YAY!). Electric only cars will also suffer in this race unless Toshiba gets together with a few compnaies and provides those cool new 90 second charging batteries. Any electric car will also be required to run flexifuel engines as a backup if I'm reading the terms of the race correctly. It's possible the engines in those cars may get worse than the standards described for CO2 output, but if it's averaged over the entire course it shuold work out.

100MPG is by no means impossible. Getting a car that can do 70PMH, accelerate with good force, go 250 miles minimum on a fill-up/charge, include modern accessories, and also be buildable at a cost the market can bear, that's not been done yet successfully. I do expect 10-20 of the 66 registrants to complete the race within goal. I expect at least 1 to exceed 120MPG.

US scientists puncture the ethanol biofuel bubble

Debunking myths and rumors

1st, most cellulostic ethanol crop will NOT be grown on usable farm land. That's the fucking point! Making ethanol from things that grow well wehre food does not. We have millions of acres of land that we can't grow food on, but certain weeds and grasses thrive on. We can also make it from wood byproducts that most considder waste products. It can also be made from felling trees that would otherwise naturally fall and degrade releasing their CO2 back into the atmosphere anyway.

2nd, there's no "releaseing" stored CO2 when we clear land. Yes, CO2 will be made once we convert the plants to ethanol and then burn it, but new plants growing in their place reclaim that influx. Pretty Obvious stated "Just because the carbon based chemicals are fom plants that died a couple of months ago rather than plants that died a couple of ages ago doesnt make that much difference." Well, actually it's ALL the difference. We burn ethanol from plants, which makles more plants, which gets burned again. Hence RENEWABLE fuel. Burning the oil in the ground makes CO2, and yes, plants reclaim some of that, but those plants die and release their CO2 back again anyway as part of normal biodegrading cycles. It takes millkions of years to put that CO2 back underground, and it was CO2 that wasn't part of the system recently and therefore 100% adds to the system. Some CO2 is added to the system when we clear a lot of bio matter, but somewhere else we're growing more to compensate. We can't cut it all down at once because it would take a few years to regrow it... it will be a CYCLE.

3, celulostic ethanol is not a myth. It exists TODAY. See this article: http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/02/12/cellulosic-ethanol-makes-its-racing-debut. It's being produced. It does exist. A plant in Georgia will open soon (see http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47371) and when running at full capacity will be making ethanol for about $1 per gallon.

4, ethanol from starch (corn) is bad. The energy required to make it is nearly equal to what is acquired from it. Unless we can come up with a way of making it using free renewable energy, it's pointless to try. If we DO make it using 100% renewable energy, whell then why the fuck wouldn't we just send that energy as electricity to the car's batteries, which gets near 60% return vs using an ICE at 35-40% efficiency...

5, ethanol from sugars, (sugarbeets, cane, etc) is much better than corn, higher yilds per acre, higher yield per bushel, and lower cost per acre, but it requires high grade soils, rotation, and is suceptibale to climate conditions and growing days. It also still produces less ethanol per acre per year than cellulosic processing.

6, celulosic plants and fungus grow in water too. Ocean water. This also helps clean toxins from the ocean water, a double good effect. We have a whole lot of ocean we can grow fungus and plants on without impacting food supplies at all, and it can help the ocean to boot? Sign us up! Foriegn nations are experimenting with methods for growing and harvesting massive crops just like this.

7, we won't be powering cars on ethanol in place of gas. We'll be using ethnol in the future only as a SUPLEMENT to plug-in electric driven vehicles. You only need to burn fuel when the battery is low or on long trips. Power can be generated centrally and run over super conducting lines from clean generating facilities run by wind in the north, solar in the west, water most places, coastal tide power, and goe thermal as well. With investment, it is possible to run almost everything off of 100% renewable carbonless power. We only need fuel for when we are not near a power source.

8, "clean coal" is NOT an answer. It's a horroble polluting product. Sure, it's less polluting, but it still releases just as much CO2. We can scrub the CO2 out of the system to a limited extent instead of releasing it to the air, but not at an economical cost compared to other 100% renewable sources... and doing so completely destroys a local body of water to do it. Yes, it;s better than regular coal, yes we can reduce it's carbon output by 50-70%, but it costs more than solar or wind, still pollutes, and is still not renewable. Do the math, it;s bad.

9, bio diesel, OK, so pumping certain gasses into a lake filled with a fungus allows the fungus to convert it into a form of diesel fuel. How many lakes will it take to do this for just the population of California? more than we have in the total landmass of the USA. It also means we loose that lake as a source of fresh water, which is another resource in short supply. Bad idea...

The real scoop: We need solar, wind, water, and geo-thermal power expansion. We need investment in battery tech, CVT transmissions, superconducting grid infrastructure, etc. We need to shift more people to remote work sites (from home where possible, segmented small office space where not). We need a better commuting system, lots more tele-commuting, tighter environmental codes, tighter building codes. It's going to cots money. Lots of money. It's going to be cheaper than sealing Florida in a wall to keep it from sinking into the ocean, and it's going to be cheaper than the $10 per gallon we'll be paying by 2020.

Do we need computer competence tests?

I screamed about this in 2001...

...and nobody would listen. Are we starting to come around finally?

Where to an extent, and idiot and his money SHOULD be parted (natural selection and all), and idiots on the internet do cost themselves money if they don't smarten up quick, but identity theft leads to credit problems, which in turn effect the credit card and mortgage industries, company bottom lines, and the world economy at large. This is aside from the direct attacks on company systems, internet trash, and the general slowdown of productivity as we swim ever slower through the muck on our networks and inboxes.

It's a simple solution: unless you have special license to do do otherwise (issued simply by passing any of a dozen or so basic PC, OS, and security tests), you should only be allowed to use common accepted OS on the net. that OS must be open to be checked by your ISP for patch revision, AV, and other security settings. Should the ISP see you out of date, they only allow you to connect to the update site, and nowhere else, until patched. If your AV is out of date, missing, or in some other form non-sufficient, the ISP won't let you on the net, period. If they detect an infection (mass mailing, spam, DDoS, etc) you get cut off instantly. When you call for support, they'll tell you plain and simple to get clean, or stay off the net.

It's a simple system. You don't have to have a license to surf, you only have to have licensed software and an up-to-date PC to surf, and agree to let your ISP look at your security model and validate it before letting you on the net, and also to actively track your activity for likely virus infection (DDoS, lots of CC'd messages, etc). If you HAVE a license to do otherwise, then your ISP is off the hook as are you, but you become legally liable for any infections your PC causes.

Give people 1 year notice that as of their nect contract renewal, they either have to comply, find an ISP who doesn't enforce this, or get certified (and potentially insured) to not have to comply.

It starts by requiring BY LAW, today, that every PC sold, with or without an OS, must have an accompanying license for security software (free or otherwise I don't care). If you already have a license that's portable to your new PC (business class, VL, etc) then you'll need to fax proof to the company selling you the PC. That software should be tested and certified by some national organization in order to be accepted.

Microsoft has that integrated security center in Windows that can tell if you have or don't have proper security software, and how out of date it is. How tough would it be for MSFT to simply disable your NIC interface until you pass the test. Sure, its easy enough to get around that by installing some non-msft OS, but if you can get linux installed and running by yourself, then you by default should know enough to get licensed... pre-installed linux boxes, like those being sold by Dell, Walmart, etc, should be bound to include security software same as windows is, Macs too.

California teen offers GPS challenge to speeding rap

Commercial vehicle tracking systems should not be confused with GPS

I worked for a company in SC back in 2001 that designed a fleet tracking system based on GPS. Common vehicle and handheld GPS systems use a 4 point triangulation system to determine approxamately every 1 second the specific location (including altitude) of the device. (FYI, someone mentioned that 1 sattelite periodically goes out of servidce: first this is logged, second only 3 sattelites are needed for triangulation, the 4th is a built in redunndncy, and third, this very rarely happens for more than fractions of a second) In the US, GPS are accurate to 10 feet or closer (GPS itself is actually accurate to 0.5 inches, but the minitary limited civillian access to the more accurate signal, they haven't since Clinton was in office and new GPS can be accurate to as little as 2 feet).

Comercial fleet systems monitor not only the GPS signal itself, but also the speedometer. In fact, good systems not only use speed info, but direction information from a digital compass contantly calibrated by the GPS location. The GPS information is actually made more accurate since the computer can access speed and direction information in real time to better calculate an exact position from the sattelites.

We used to sell these system in 2001 for about $1200 per vehicle. The comany I stopped working for them in 2003) still sells them, but for about $500 now. They also have options to monitor fuel status, gas caps, door locks, engine use, and more. Many also record audio in a 30 minute loop that can be saved should an accident occur. They record information contantly in 1 second intervals, and report via a cellular pack every 30-60 seconds back to a central tracking office (or via wireless when the vehicle comes back to the depot if they don't opt for the cellular system). If this kid was using one of these advanced systems, it's certainly accurate enough to prove that there is no way, given the make/model of his vehicle, that he could have been speeding.

Keep in mind, it's not instant accuracy that matters here. Even if the recording window was 30 seconds, based on 1 second interval data, all data before and after that window must be callibrated to estimate the begining and end positions of those windows (other wise it would look like the car was jumping from 70 to 30 and back again every 30 second, or that the car phased through space and jumped from point to point). Inside of a 30 second window, with his make/model of car, to do 65 in a 45, but have the software report he was doing 45, would mean he would have to, in less than 30 seconds, accelerate from 45 to more 65MPH, get clocked at 65 by the cop, then decelerate to 25 and run at that speed for the same amount of time he was at 65, then accelerate back to 45. This schnario, even if all the timing was humanly possible, is not possible given his vehicle type. It's even harder to believe since he would not have known when the window of time began and ended. Also, most commercial systems not only monitor overall speed, but also aceleration, breaking, lane changes, and more. Companies don't like their driver using passing lanes on public roads, nor do they like drivers stopping short as these usually indicate agressive driving or tailgating, and can be easily monitored. Even a simple GPS system would hold up to this scientific scrutiny in court. More so if the lawyer calls into question the speed gun itself, which is very easy to do. (i've gotten out of 3 tickets myself by simply asking to see the tuning fork and calibration chart and validate the serial number of the radar and fork match as regular radar must be tested and documneted inbetween each and every speed stop in most states. Do you have any idea how easy it is for a cop to loose the tuning fork, or forget to bring it to court?)

Apple restricts ringtone rights

It's not Apple, it's AT&T

First, it's not illegal to simply convery a ITMS purchase into a ringtone on your own. It's illegal to use tools to circumvent the DRM. However, Apple has given us a way out... Simply burn the song to CD, then re-import it as an MP3, then attack it normally with ringtone tools.

On the surface, all Apple is preventing you from doing is making rungtones without paying them a "service" fee to do so simple and using intelligent and integrated tools for existing software.

iTunes will, for .99 per use, allow approved songs to be edited, cut, converted, downloaded, and automatically added to your phone in a single operation using only 1 tool to do so. The restriction on what songs can be cut does fall under legal restrictions as Apple is commercially distributing edited works. Doing so on your own however is fair use and perfectly legal.

If you want to waste a blank CD, some time, and download several applications (one to crop the MP3, one to convert it to a supported ringtone format, one to crack the iTunes database and add the file, and possibly one to crack the phone to allow it to play your personal ringtone), go ahead, it's your right. btw: you might have to pay for some of the software I just listed. It even one of them is $20 or more, it's worth it just to pay Apple as you could get 20 ringtones without the trouble. How many ringtones does one man need??? I use 3 at any given time, most use 1. I change them less than 4 times a year.

What's really going on here though is not Apple trying to make money by providing a convenience service, it's Apple undermining the ringtone distribution industry. They have to play this carefully or possibly either violate AT&T contract terms or alienate themselves from getting contracts on other networks. This may be the reason Apple is considdering 700MHz air waves. Nobody likes the fact that Apple may very well steal a large portion of their ringtone business. You, me, and another 2% of america can figure out how to make a ringtone, but the rest either can't do it or don't have access to the software to do it. Ringtones are IMENSELY profitable, some say more than any other segment of the cellular industry (text messaging still wins in most cases there, but also remember, with wifi, that's a thing of the past now too...)

Apple slashes iPhone prices

Do you understand the cell industry?

Anyone who didn't see this coming is a fool. Remember the RAZR? Original retail price on its Cingular debut in 2004 was $600, and it wasn't even a smartphone! Within 6 months that price dropped a couple hundred bucks. By 2006 you could get a RAZR for $199, minus rebates. Now you can buy one outright, no discounts at all, for $79 or get one free on contract signing or new-every-2 renewal. btw: the RAZR v1 sucked ass as a phone. It had an extremely weak signal and limited battery life compared to other much cheaper models sporting the same features.

It was cool, Cingular new it, and people lined up to buy them off shelves anyway even at the rediculous price.

This patter follows ALL cellphones. We all knew Apple would drop the price. We figured this would initially be through rebates, but I guess the amazing (and somewhat shocking) initial success, combined with component price drops and very little recall/warranty traffic, has made Apple a lot more money than expected. Also simplifying the line to just 8GB models, this can further reduce costs.

It's $399 now. In 6 months you'll be able to get one for $249 after rebates (or maybe just another simple price drop. I'd expect it to stay there for a while unless other smartphone manufacturers recoil and drop their own prices further.

The phone is priced in line with every other phone out there (after rebates) considdering it's features, in fact, even at $599 it was a greta deal. One nice thing is, especially one AT&Ts exclusive deal expires (no details on that deal are public yet) is that you'll be able to get it at that price even on an existing contract on several networks, without a new 2 year signup or get it for less after rebates.

Give it 2 more years, and if you sign up for a premium contract with data plan, I expect some version of the iPhone would be free, or at least sub $100.

Those who want new stuff from day 1 expect to pay more. They expect rapid price drops. Same not only applies to hot new phones, but also HD DVD. Players on intro day from Toshiba were $2000, now, not a year later, $399. Hear any early adopters in that camp crying?

Stop hating Apple because they understand the market. Stop hating Apple because you can't (or won't) afford their stuff. Stop hating Apple until you have tried it for 6 months...

iPhone's keyboard prompts patent violation suit

Obvious much?

Considering that even in the case where Apple accused Microsoft of stealing their desktop ideas (windows) it was seen as an obvious enough transition that Apple lost their case. Hundreds of software packages have used an on-screen keyboard display in the past. This is not rocket science. This patent is invalid, and this attack will likely leave the patent troll paying a few million dollars in Apple's legal fees and be another win for American companies thanks to our recent Supreme Court ruling on cases just like this.

It's long past time for serious patent reform in the US. Lets get this done and complete for 2008. If it happens, this might actually be 1 thing the republicans could say Bush did right (if they don't screw it up). Might be best we wait for 2009...

Windows Vista unreadiness revealed

Golden rule of OS deployment

This is simple guys... Thou shalt not deploy into a production an environment any OS that is not Service Pack 1 plus 3 months and for which every application required or requested has been certified on since the service pack.

This is the reason so many shops STILL run on Windows 2000. Home users who only use the bundled applications are the test bed for new OS. Even then, the new OS should be optional to users from day 1, and not even the default option for a good 3-6 months.

We all forget that back in 2001, when XP rolled out, if you bought a PC in a store it came with BOTH OS installed, and when you turned it on, you picked one and it took 30 minutes to install it from the hidden partition then wiped out the other option so it could not be used. Even then, XP was just a face lift for 2000, and almost every App on 2000 worked on XP without changes.

Power outage knocks out major websites

Routers down, not servers

There's 1 simple fact here nobody's paying attention to: The sites went down "at the same time" as the power outage. Even simple UPS systems would have kept running for 10-20 minutes, giving them plenty of time to bring generators online even if they didn't automatically kick in. What happen here is the power outage was multiple blocks, so although 365 Main was still up and running, the first link their router connected to (some hub down the street from the building that their parent ISP or telco runs) didn't have power.

I experience this regularly, even on my fiber-at-home connection. In some cases, I still HAVE power, but a junction box 3 miles from here doesn't, so i have no net or phone if that happens. If power outage is widespread (say from a hurricane) then every thing is out, cellular, terrestrial phone, internet, everything.

Unless someone can prove the systems went down (easy enough to do via event viewer or logging systems on the servers and the routers) then 365 Main is not responsible for this outage, and should not have to pay 365 uptime guarantees. They'd have an easier time suing the power company for lost revenue in that case.

XM and Sirius propose a la carte options

I like choices

The only thing keeping me from either service was $13/month. If I can get 50 or so commercial free music stations for $7, I'll bite, assuming none of the all-music chanels I want are "premium". I don't want talk, commercials, or anything else, just music. Radio in my area of the country sux, so I use MP3 only right now. Streamripping helps keep the collection fresh, but it's a lot of work keeping that sorted, rated, and stuffed into iPod shuffle...

US seeks mini-Imperial Walker mule-bots

Fuel cells anyone?

If you can fit this thing with a small fuel cell and simple, exchangeable or refillable methane tank (hydrogen is not practical) I'm sure you can get 2 hours of electrical power out of it, especially if that was buffered by a battery. At peak load times (running, jumping etc) a battery can provide a boost in energy that the engine can't keep up with, and the engine could recharge the battery while walking at slower speeds and over light terrain.

On the other hand, if this thing is meant to walk with troops, then it's meant to go where trucks and cars can't... is 2 hours enough?

If they can't make it silent, then it's only real good use falls to survalence of hazardous terrain in cases where we don't care if we're seen (inside buildings that have been hit by bombs, etc). It looks a lot faster than traditional treaded robots used for this today so it has significant advantage there, especially if it's near autonomous. It could potentially even carry wounded. It could also be used to carry heavy munitions to top floors of buildings, ammo reloads and other equipment to troops entrenched or too far from roads (or anywhere trucks and men are at risk from snipe or other attack).

It has its uses, more if it can be made silent and easily refueled. I don't expect it will be used as a "mule" simply to carry packs over long distance, but over short distances, especially under fire, it frees our troops for movement. Imaging one of these walking back and forth between troop clusters, dropping to the ground in a safe spot to bring a few extra clips to each group every 10 minutes or so, running a small loop between several groups and a supply rig in a safer location.

As troops are running from corner to corner, building to building, in urban combat, covering each other as they run, this could carry their gear, allowing them to be more agile, but never far from supplies, radio, and even heavy weapons if they find a spot to set up. I like it overall.

Carmakers tout green motors in Geneva

A couple of points to make

First, Ethanol does require fuel input to make. Currently this process still yields about a 30% net energy gain from processing. Other materials are better suited to this process and bacterial or catalyst assisted conversion processes are in development and hope to improve this dramatically.

Second, the energy input required for conversion can be substituted with just about any system other than fossil fuels commonly used. Only heat is really required. Using solar heat or wind-to-electric energy is also possible for ethanol conversion. Other common farm processes can also be used to generate this heat which by the way themselves result in usable byproducts (charcoal)

Next, Ethanol production also yields material waste, which can be converted to charcoal (and provide heat in the process to make more ethanol!). This charcoal can be sold to power plats in place of coal. It's actually both cleaner AND more efficient for use in power generation than coal. The output of the coal power plants can be flushed through algae and other materials yielding a very powerful fertilizer which can be provided back to farmers for ethanol plant growth.

Ethanol can be used to power the vehicles that move the fuel and materials back and forth. More detailed explanations about how this all pulls together are found here: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/27/0432/3533

OK, now onto Hydrogen. Not only is it less efficient for direct combustion, cost nearly 5 times as much to produce, and the fact that we have to worry about boil off, we're talking about giving people mobile bombs to drive around in!!! Fuel cells work OK for making electricity on large scale, but are almost worthless for small vehicles. We're 20+ years from sufficient battery and motor technology to work this out.

Nuclear?!? We have at best 30 years of nuclear fuel at our current rate of use. We'll be out of it before we're out of oil or natural gas. Even if we bring online a dozen condensers, we're still looking at maybe 75-100 years of fuel. Besides, making a nuclear generator small enough to go in a car is at least 50 years off.

Wind, water, and solar power backing up plugin/ethanol hybrid's using recyclic turbines for electric power instead of typical combustion engines will give us plenty of power to move even 18 wheeled trucks, will more than triple current fuel economy, and it CAN be done. In fact, we can do it at a PROFIT of about $400 per person per year vs current fuel technology, and we can start today. Lets get that start by making farmers plant ethanol crop in their empty fields that their currently being paid not to plant tobacco in...

Oh, 1 last thing. FORGET CORN! It's not good enough. There are crops that produce more ethanol per yield with more yields per acre per year, and they cost less to grow, harvest, and process than corn.