This is a test blog posting from the new Windows Live Suite toolbar. I like the new Writer window and features...cool.
Microsoft unwraps Windows Live desktop suite Tech news blog - CNET News.com
November 6, 2007
Explaining OpenSocial to your Executives
Here's a succinct and cogent explanation of Google's OpenSocial initiative and what it means for people in the "Web 2.0" space.
November 3, 2007
Declarations - WSJ.com
Peggy Noonan Nails Hillary's Reality
Most certainly Peggy Noonan is a partisan operative. That said, I think she has seen the real Mrs. Clinton, a liberal with quadruple-speak as her language. But people who will listen openly for 5 minutes will see it if they are not blinded by their ideology. Kudos to Tim Russert for asking the hard questions in the Philadelphia Democrat candidates debate.
Most certainly Peggy Noonan is a partisan operative. That said, I think she has seen the real Mrs. Clinton, a liberal with quadruple-speak as her language. But people who will listen openly for 5 minutes will see it if they are not blinded by their ideology. Kudos to Tim Russert for asking the hard questions in the Philadelphia Democrat candidates debate.
The Feminine Critique - New York Times
Why do I get the sense that this is more about providing full employment for academics and researchers than anything else. Do we really expect to change a man into a woman or vice versa? Humans are divided mostly according to gender and act according to millenia of conditioning. Right or wrong, that's the way life is. Our system of laws can guarantee equal opportunity, but not equal realities.
Google to unveil 'Android' phone software | Webware : Cool Web apps for everyone
Google to unveil 'Android' phone software Webware : Cool Web apps for everyone
Tom Krazit has written one of the most thoughtful pieces on the impending Google announcement about it's thrust into the mobile device software.
Here, I think, is the most important possibility that could evolve from Google's play:
Here is another quote from a NY Times column by John Markoff.
The battle will rage when/if Google makes its announcement on Monday, 11/4/07.
Tom Krazit has written one of the most thoughtful pieces on the impending Google announcement about it's thrust into the mobile device software.
Here, I think, is the most important possibility that could evolve from Google's play:
"Google's stated open-source approach, or open net approach to life, is antithetical to the way cellular carriers look at the world," said Tim Hanlon, an executive vice president at Denuo, a consulting arm of advertising agency Publicis Groupe. Carriers are "loath to separate device from service. They're loath to let third-party applications play on their proprietary network."
If Google succeeds in opening up the industry it will be the biggest thing the search company has done in the last couple of years, said Stephen Arnold, author of The Google Legacy and a new book, Google Version 2.0: The Calculating Predator. "The phone companies "don't understand the business Google is in, and now they're talking to them!"
Nevertheless, Microsoft will certainly not sit still and let the device manufacturers and software developers migrate en masse to Google.
I think one very important Google thrust behind everything they're doing recently is to capture the attention and energy of software developers while at the same time capturing mind-share of consumers with all their free, and excellent apps and tools. Their OpenSocial and Google Gears initiatives are current examples.Here is another quote from a NY Times column by John Markoff.
“Instead of making money on software, you have someone who is saying they’re trying to make their money on services,” said Michael Kleeman, a technology strategist at the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology at the University of California at San Diego. “The interesting question is whether the carriers will authorize the Google hand-sets on their networks.”
The battle will rage when/if Google makes its announcement on Monday, 11/4/07.
Feel the Love - New York Times
Feel the Love - New York Times
David Brooks is hilarious in this column. I wonder if he wrote this himself because he's usually so serious. But given the debate among the Democrats in Philadelphia last week, they deserve this roasting by Brooks. These early and far too long campaigns have turned into a farce. I hope in 2012 the candidates for President have the good sense to campaign for a much shorter time.
I suppose in 2008 the reason for this interminable foolishness is the open office.
David Brooks is hilarious in this column. I wonder if he wrote this himself because he's usually so serious. But given the debate among the Democrats in Philadelphia last week, they deserve this roasting by Brooks. These early and far too long campaigns have turned into a farce. I hope in 2012 the candidates for President have the good sense to campaign for a much shorter time.
I suppose in 2008 the reason for this interminable foolishness is the open office.
November 1, 2007
Prices at the Pump
As petroleum trades near $95.00/barrel and the price of gasoline at the pump moves toward $4.00/gallon, it must be nearly time for politicians to rumble about investigating the oil companies.
This ritual would seem overdue since the Congress has accomplished little in the past several months and making noise about the price of gas would divert attention from their sad record of accomplishment since last year's election.
This ritual would seem overdue since the Congress has accomplished little in the past several months and making noise about the price of gas would divert attention from their sad record of accomplishment since last year's election.
October 29, 2007
Reimagining the Automobile Industry by Selling the Electricity - New York Times
Ah, yes, the nirvana of plug-in electric cars! Marvelous idea, but one critical factor is missing in this story: How will all the electricity be generated for this vision, which essentially substitutes electricity for petroleum? What would be the total demand and from what sources?
Without addressing this requirement, the scheme is a little like Will Rogers' WWII plan to destroy all the German submarines by heating up the ocean and boiling them. When asked how to do that, he essentially replied "I'm a strategy guy, implementation is for others."
I support this electric vehicle idea, but the only realistic way for it to come to pass is additional large scale generation of electricity, probably nuclear, and upgrading the grid to handle it. Or you can decide to charge your car only when the wind blows or the sun shines and plan your travel accordingly.
Without addressing this requirement, the scheme is a little like Will Rogers' WWII plan to destroy all the German submarines by heating up the ocean and boiling them. When asked how to do that, he essentially replied "I'm a strategy guy, implementation is for others."
I support this electric vehicle idea, but the only realistic way for it to come to pass is additional large scale generation of electricity, probably nuclear, and upgrading the grid to handle it. Or you can decide to charge your car only when the wind blows or the sun shines and plan your travel accordingly.
October 28, 2007
What Part of ‘Illegal’ Don’t You Understand? - New York Times
Mr. Downes' rant about the word illegal as it applies to those living in this country illegally is an absurdity. Illegal aliens is a perfectly correct description of those who are in this country and have broken our laws to be here. I suppose its helpful to be exposed to all the views about this immense problem. But most Americans , Mr. Downes excluded, seem to understand the reality that we have not enforced our immigration laws nor secured our borders. Shame on us, but the 'illegals' are still illegal.
There is much debate about the problem and what to do about it, but there should be little about the descriptive adjective applied to those who have not followed our rules.
I can sympathize with the plight we and the millions of illegals face, and I understand all the arguments about amnesty, economic impacts, justice, fairness, etc., ad nauseam.
Mr. Downes would have us believe there is something sinister and nasty about the word. It does not 'pollute the debate' as he alleges. Words have meaning and illegal aliens is a proper use of the language.
Mr. Downes suggests no better descriptor or a solution to the problem. His rant is foolish and silly.
There is much debate about the problem and what to do about it, but there should be little about the descriptive adjective applied to those who have not followed our rules.
I can sympathize with the plight we and the millions of illegals face, and I understand all the arguments about amnesty, economic impacts, justice, fairness, etc., ad nauseam.
Mr. Downes would have us believe there is something sinister and nasty about the word. It does not 'pollute the debate' as he alleges. Words have meaning and illegal aliens is a proper use of the language.
Mr. Downes suggests no better descriptor or a solution to the problem. His rant is foolish and silly.
Vermont's Electricity Future
The Colchester Sun and the Essex Reporter published my views (below...without photos) about electrical energy on October 25, 2007.
Recently I attended a workshop in South Burlington, one of a series conducted by the Department of Public Service to obtain public input, about Vermont's electricity future. As we approach the expiration of contracts early in the next decade for most of our base-load power, examination of Vermont's choices for sources of electricity will help inform the electric companies and policy makers. However, when the public has its say and new contracts are negotiated, expect to pay more, perhaps considerably more, for your electricity if ideology replaces common sense.
Unless Vermonters agree to recognize that we have limited choices to meet our base-load demand for electricity, we will pay more than necessary and risk our economy. The clamor for green energy, energy independence and renewable energy sources has been deafening. Also high on the public's list of issues is climate change and efficient use of electricity. However, we must see clearly through the trees of this tangled forest and realize that our near-term choices for the bulk of our electricity are realistically limited. We should not waste effort on frivolous hopes for marginal electricity sources that cannot sustain our future demand.
Because two thirds of our extremely reliable supply for many years must be renewed or replaced within 3-5 years, the only rational choices to meet our needs for 24/7 electricity, assuming we (specifically our Legislature) have the wisdom not to oppose them as a matter of policy, continue to be nuclear and large scale hydro from Canada.
It's unrealistic to think that wind, solar, small hydro, wood, cows or any other Vermont-based source of electricity can add significantly to our supply. For the moment, these are merely 'feel-good', but unrealistic choices; helpful, perhaps in 2050, but inconsequential in 2015.
If folks are ideologically disposed to obtain their power only from those specific electricity sources, e.g., Vermont renewables, they should pay the higher price for their choice and not burden the general body of consumers with higher costs. CVPS does it now for cow-power. We must take great care not to substitute ideological, but impractical thinking for a rational, common sense approach to choosing our base-load electricity. These minuscule sources of power in Vermont, with the possible exception of wood-fired generators, simply cannot meet any significant part of our future base-load demand, certainly not in the near future. Therefore, our short term decisions should be based primarily on the least-cost power from the most reliable sources.
We should also test our demand forecasts for accuracy. Very important factors in that demand will be the efficiency achieved through conservation, the need for considerably more electricity if/as we move to plug-in electric vehicles to substitute electricity from the grid for petroleum. We should heavily weight the high side of the possible demand rather than the low side as we move deeper into electronic-intensive lifestyles and work environments. Determining the future bill for our electricity should be based on a number of demand/source scenarios and presented to the public and policy makers to identify clearly how much more they would pay.
Let's not impair the reliability of the sources or delivery of our electricity. Vermont has had a beneficial and rational electricity policy for many years, one that is already greener and less expensive than in other New England states. Let's not torpedo it with specious arguments about climate change or believe that wind, solar, more local hydro or biomass choices can provide any more than a tiny fraction of the electricity that we will need. To do so would jeopardize our economic health.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant
Recently I attended a workshop in South Burlington, one of a series conducted by the Department of Public Service to obtain public input, about Vermont's electricity future. As we approach the expiration of contracts early in the next decade for most of our base-load power, examination of Vermont's choices for sources of electricity will help inform the electric companies and policy makers. However, when the public has its say and new contracts are negotiated, expect to pay more, perhaps considerably more, for your electricity if ideology replaces common sense.
Unless Vermonters agree to recognize that we have limited choices to meet our base-load demand for electricity, we will pay more than necessary and risk our economy. The clamor for green energy, energy independence and renewable energy sources has been deafening. Also high on the public's list of issues is climate change and efficient use of electricity. However, we must see clearly through the trees of this tangled forest and realize that our near-term choices for the bulk of our electricity are realistically limited. We should not waste effort on frivolous hopes for marginal electricity sources that cannot sustain our future demand.
Because two thirds of our extremely reliable supply for many years must be renewed or replaced within 3-5 years, the only rational choices to meet our needs for 24/7 electricity, assuming we (specifically our Legislature) have the wisdom not to oppose them as a matter of policy, continue to be nuclear and large scale hydro from Canada.
It's unrealistic to think that wind, solar, small hydro, wood, cows or any other Vermont-based source of electricity can add significantly to our supply. For the moment, these are merely 'feel-good', but unrealistic choices; helpful, perhaps in 2050, but inconsequential in 2015.If folks are ideologically disposed to obtain their power only from those specific electricity sources, e.g., Vermont renewables, they should pay the higher price for their choice and not burden the general body of consumers with higher costs. CVPS does it now for cow-power. We must take great care not to substitute ideological, but impractical thinking for a rational, common sense approach to choosing our base-load electricity. These minuscule sources of power in Vermont, with the possible exception of wood-fired generators, simply cannot meet any significant part of our future base-load demand, certainly not in the near future. Therefore, our short term decisions should be based primarily on the least-cost power from the most reliable sources.
We should also test our demand forecasts for accuracy. Very important factors in that demand will be the efficiency achieved through conservation, the need for considerably more electricity if/as we move to plug-in electric vehicles to substitute electricity from the grid for petroleum. We should heavily weight the high side of the possible demand rather than the low side as we move deeper into electronic-intensive lifestyles and work environments. Determining the future bill for our electricity should be based on a number of demand/source scenarios and presented to the public and policy makers to identify clearly how much more they would pay.
Let's not impair the reliability of the sources or delivery of our electricity. Vermont has had a beneficial and rational electricity policy for many years, one that is already greener and less expensive than in other New England states. Let's not torpedo it with specious arguments about climate change or believe that wind, solar, more local hydro or biomass choices can provide any more than a tiny fraction of the electricity that we will need. To do so would jeopardize our economic health.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)