LizardBlog

There’s no such thing as “clean coal,” no matter what people want you to think.

“Clean coal” is a supposed method of making coal “cleaner” by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, therefore making it a viable future energy supply.  But clean coal really isn’t clean.

One of the first laws of physics people learn is known as the Law of Conservation of Matter.  It states simply: “Matter cannot be created or destroyed.” In any chemical reaction, combustion included, matter can never be destroyed – it can only take on other forms.  Take a stove, for example.  The methane (or propane, whatever the fuel is) is broken down (releasing massive energy, the flame and heat) into two components – carbon dioxide and water (in the form of water vapor).  If you were to burn exactly 10 grams of methane, you would end up with exactly 10 grams of water and carbon dioxide when completely burned.

This brings us to clean coal.  Applying the same law here, we see that the carbon (dioxide) that normally would go into the atmosphere supposedly doesn’t get into the atmosphere.  So where does it go?  Well, it can’t simply be destroyed, that would violate the laws of physics.  It will probably be “captured” in some “refining” process and then stored.  But stored where?  Carbon “scrubbers,” used in factory smokestacks to reduce CO₂ emissions.  But these scrubbers eventually get saturated, and must be replaced when they do.  Where do the old ones go?  A landfill, of course.  Likely, so-called “clean coal” technology would be sending millions of these saturated scrubbers to landfills.  Instead of polluting our atmosphere, we pollute our land and fill up already stressed landfills.  In addition, the chemicals used in many carbon-capture systems aren’t exactly the friendliest to the human body.  These chemicals would likely seep into the groundwater supply from the landfills containing the used scrubbers.  Strictly speaking, it’s a better alternative to polluting the atmosphere, which will have a more immediate and devastating effect, but it does not solve the problem by any means.

While clean coal may be a good temporary solution, it probably shouldn’t be researched at all.  Coal is inherently dirty, and always will be.  The best solution would be to, instead of wasting money on a project that really isn’t viable, put money into advanced energy technologies such as advanced solar panels, perhaps even orbiting solar panels, and batteries or even cold fusion.  While these technologies will most likely take much longer to develop, they are, unlike “clean” coal, permanent solutions to the problem.  We’ll never run out of sunlight to drive solar panels (at least not before the sun destroys the Earth in a cataclysmic explosion in a few billion years), and we’ll never run out of hydrogen to drive fusion reactors.

As a closing note, I should point out that nuclear fission reactors are not a good long-term solution either.  The nuclear waste products they put out are highly radioactive, dangerous, remain dangerous for a few thousand years, and must be disposed of properly.  There are only so many places where you can bury nuclear waste, and even in those places, they can contaminate ground water supplies which humans rely on.  Like clean coal, they make good temporary fixes, but are by no means a permanent solution to the problem.

I’d love to hear your opinions on this and invite you to leave a comment with your thoughts.

–FastLizard4 (Website|Wikipedia)

Here, after a long blogging hiatus, I have decided to take a look at Microsoft’s fun Windows naming scheme, and various other silly naming schemes. Up until Windows ME/2000, Windows naming actually made some sort of sense. However, with Windows NT, people started scratching their heads. What does NT actually stand for? Well, after digging around a bit, I finally found out that NT stands for New Technology. That sort of makes sense since it was a totally new kernel. XP makes some sense (XP – “experience?”), until I opened Command Prompt.

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\FastLizard4>

Wait – version 5.1? What happened to 5.0? Well, Windows XP, being based on the NT kernel, is technically Windows NT version 5.1, but what was 5.0? What about 4.0 and 1.0? As it turns out, Windows NT seemed to start at version 3.1 (maybe 1.0 was a beta version?), and Windows 2000 was, in fact, Windows NT 5.0. Vista, due to the extensive kernel rewrite, was 6.0. Windows 7 is 7.0, right? Wrong. Windows 7 is actually Windows Vista + .1 – that is, Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1. So where does the 7 come from? Your guess is probably as good as mine. Perhaps Microsoft is trying to go back to the days when they were state of the art (Windows 3.1, anyone?).

What about other operating systems? Mac has a pretty logical naming, or numbering, rather, scheme (increasing the “major version” number [currently 10] with major changes and the “minor version” number [currently 5] with minor changes). Most flavors of Linux operate in the same way (although I personally don’t see much of a difference between Ubuntu Linux 8.10 and 9.04 – except that it lost the driver for my graphics card).

Wait… whatever happened to Firefox 3.1? The newest version is 3.5 – and the last was 3.0.11. As said in PCWorld, Mozilla skipped four rev cycles almost overnight – and Microsoft should release Internet Explorer 13 just to teach them a lesson.

It’s been said that everything is in a name. Well, at least give your programs a name (or a version number) that makes sense!

–FastLizard4 (Website|Wikipedia)

Yesterday I finally found the time to watch the new Star Trek in an IMAX theater.  The film was simply amazing, definitely up there with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986).  The eleventh Star Trek film is a prequel, taking us to a time shortly before the events of Star Trek: The Original Series.  However, The Original Series aired in 1966, and the future looked different then.  The bridge control panels of the U.S.S. Enterprise were covered in “glowing jellybeans” (as William Shatner would put it in the History Channel TV show, How William Shatner Changed the World) – colorful, transparent, glowing buttons.  The great majority of them found throughout the ship seemed to lack any labeling whatsoever.  The ship was also populated with levers, switches, and other “tactile” controls.  Most computer screens on that Enterprise were nothing more than glowing red, yellow, and green rectangles (with the occasional blue rectangle mixed in).  Computers were fed by small tape drives, not too dissimilar from audio cassettes and floppy disks.

You could say that Star Trek’s predictions were true to some degree.  Many large businesses of today that require unattended, daily backup of their computer systems rely on tape drives.  They hold massive amounts of data, at the cost of no random access.  In the 1960s, the Apollo spacecraft – which carried the first humans to the moon – were completely operated by hundreds of switches on various control panels.  The sole computer screen in an Apollo capsule had a few lines of a digital LED display.  Yet one could say that this “antiquated” technology (albeit with the support of ground control in the form of NASA’s Houston Mission Control) took us to the moon.

But today, in 2009, our visions of the future are different.  Today, touchscreens are becoming the big fad, starting with the iPhone and iPod Touch, followed by competitors such as the T-Mobile G1 (the “Google Phone”) and the RIM Blackberry Storm.  But were there any touchscreens in The Original Series?  Absolutely not.  The concept of the touchscreen probably didn’t even exist back then, let alone a solid concept of the computer screen.

Yet Star Trek: The Original Series did get some things right.  Uhura wore a (large) earpiece for listening to subspace radio transmissions, which has appeared today (in much smaller and more stylish form) in the form of Bluetooth headsets.  The Enterprise used biometric security in the form of a voiceprint reader, and today, biometrics such as voiceprint identifiaction and (much more commonly) fingerprint scanners and retina scanners (first seen in the Star Trek universe in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan [1982]).

But 2009’s vision of the future is much different than 1966’s.  The new Enterprise has touchscreen controls, holograms, and many other systems decidely more futuristic than those portrayed in The Original Series.  However, J.J. Abrams took care to make his film similar to its classic counterpart in some way.  For example, Sulu pushes a hand throttle forward to drive the Enterprise to warp speed, and Chekov uses voiceprint identification to gain access to the ship’s intercomm system.

One plus about the 2009 Star Trek’s approach to technlogy is that it made it “closer” to us.  When Sulu tries to take the ship to warp for the first time and fails, Captin Pike reminds him to remove the parking break, something we’ve all forgotten to do (or, if you don’t drive yet, will forget to do).  Part of the movie’s humor draws from the problems we see with technology.  For example, Chekov’s attempts to gain access to the comm system initially fail because the voiceprint identification software can’t verify the access code through his Russian accent.

Times change, and our vision of the future changes with it.

–FastLizard4 (Website|Wikipedia)

Those of you who used a “computer lab” in the 1980s knew that it wasn’t really a computer lab.  It was 10 terminals, hooked up to a giant mainframe that occupied several rooms.  It ran at a “blazing” speed (think along the lines of an old 386) and maybe had some basic network capability within your school.  It probably did word processing, but not much else.  This was before the age of the true personal computer.

Then, in the late ’80s, the first true “personal computers” came out.  On September 9, 1986, Compaq’s $6499 PC carrying Intel’s 386 processor came out.  Other computers followed.  In 1991, PCWorld reviewed four “blazing fast” 486 (!!) PCs, all starting at around $8300, and declared that they were too fast for most people.

Today, we run computers clocked in the gigahertz, many millions of times faster than the 386s and 486s of olde.  And yet, the newest concept of computing is “cloud computing.”

According to Wikipedia (if you can’t trust ‘em, who can you trust?), “Cloud computing is a style of computing in which dynamically scalable and often virtualised resources are provided as a service over the Internet. Users need not have knowledge of, expertise in, or control over the technology infrastructure “in the cloud” that supports them.”  In other words, you access and run programs based on resources stored from a master server.

Think of it this way:

1. The “cloud” program is emulated on your computer, as if it actually were running on your computer.  Actually, it isn’t – it’s actually running on the server, but appears to be running on your PC.
2. You provide input to your computer
3. Your computer sends the input over the internet to the “master” server
4. The server processes your input in the program, using its own processing power (not your computers)
5. The server outputs the processed data to your computer, which appears in the emulated program.

Does this sound familiar?  If it doesn’t, here’s a brief explanation about how terminal systems work.  In particular, this is a description of SSH, or Secure Shell.

1. User on his/her PC establishes and negotiates an encrypted SSH connection to the server.
2. The SSH client emulates the server’s terminal, or shell environment.
3. User provides input through the client to the server, which is encrypted
4. Server takes input and passes it to the “running” program, be it bash or nano or whatever
5. Server does the processing
6. Server returns the data (including the program environment to be displayed) to the client, thus the user

Sound very similar, don’t they?  Indeed, cloud computing is very much like terminal/mainframe connections on a larger and faster scale.  Perhaps that next gaming computer of yours won’t cost much, because it will rely on a server for processing power, including graphics processing.  This means that all you would need to play Crysis on your cloud  computing-enabled laptop is a good Internet connection.

The most interesting thing about cloud computing is that we are, in a way, returing to the past.  The terminal/mainframe concept existed long before the personal computer ever existed.  Perhaps there’s a moral in this story: Maybe they had it right the first time!

–FastLizard4 (Website|Wikipedia)

And now, it’s time for a (late) installment of Much Needed Humor.  To start us off, here’s one from my own computer.

HAL (The DLL file, that is)

One day I was browsing through Process Explorer (that’s Task Manager on steroids) when I came across the thread stack for APC’s PowerChute software.

Oh, so is this why my computer is trying to kill me?

What I want to know is what hal.dll!HalOpenPodBayDoors+0×2001 would do…

Source: My personal computer

Norton Internet Security is 1337!

I happened to come across this entry in Norton Internet Security 2009’s Security Log one night.  Apparently, security is leet now, too.

Apparently, having security software is leet, too!

…Or is leetspeak just considered a new virus now?

Source: My personal computer

Microsoft’s New Scapegoat

You know how Microsoft has been looking for someone or something to blame for Vista’s failure?  “I got this on my Vista machine recently,” Jing Zhang writes. “I guess Vista is now blaming XP for failure?”

Apparently, Microsoft now blames Windows XP for Vista's failure.

Source: TheDailyWTF

Software Bug Leads to Coldest Temperatures on Earth

“That cold front hit us here in Clearwater, MN,” Rob comments.

Apparently, the cold front really hit Minnesota.

Source: TheDailyWTF

MSSQL Can Do Anything!

“This came up whiel configuring a Dell 2950 machine,” writes James Robinson, “I guess SQL Server can do everything!”

Microsoft SQL Server can even power your computer, no PSU needed!

Source: TheDailyWTF

That’s all folks!  See you in a week or two!

–FastLizard4 (Website|Wikipedia)

Almost everyone knows what Twitter is.  Up until recently, I thought it was simply useless.  To me, it just seemed as another way to sink more time.  But, yesterday, I created an account and completely changed my mind.

Twitter, as some of you may know, is a service where you, using a computer or your cell phone, answer a simple question: What are you doing right now?  It seems silly, but actually, it’s very neat.

With Twitter, you can follow your friends and see what they’re doing right now – you no longer need to call them to see if they have already gotten home or not.  And, you can now direct people to your Twitter profile whenever they ask you what you’re doing.

However, Twitter is more than just your very own recent changes feed, it’s a neat way to get the latest news.  For example, the U.S. Department of Defense tweets travel advisories on Twitter, and you can catch the latest news from CNN on their profile.

Twitter may be a glimpse into the future, providing a look into the future of how the world communicates.  The prospect is both interesting, and scary.  And, much like a tweet, I’ll leave this post short and simple.  Follow me on Twitter, and look for another installment of Much Needed Humor next week!

–FastLizard4 (Website|Wikipedia)

And now presenting: Another installment of Much Needed Humor!

You Do Not See the Error; the Error Does Not See You

This is what happens when you accidentally type in "DisplayMesageToUser()" instead of "//".

Source: TheDailyWTF

Printer-9000 (or: SkyPrinter)

Clearly, there is more potential for my printer here than just printing...

Source: TheDailyWTF

The Ultimate Error Message

"A standard confirm() dialog? That's not a warning message," Mike scoffed, "THIS is a warning message!"

Source: TheDailyWTF

Yup, no risk for identity theft here…

      -->| MorderMobile (n=mordervo@70.89.75.75) has joined #memory-alpha
<{{lies}}> It's the new ModerMobile!
           Access your Morder from anywhere, anytime - guaranteed!
           (Subject to invisible fine print. Here at MorderMobile, we value your privacy. Your personal information,
           including but not limited to your social security number, name, and phone number, will be shared with no one
           aside from our 9,872 affiliate partners. Each partner is limited to one email per day, which means you will
           receive no more than 9,872 emails daily. If you wish to opt out,...
           please call our offices between the hours of 9:01 and 9:03 UTC)

Source: LizardQuote #494

And that’s all for this installment of Much Needed Humor.  Come back soon!

–FastLizard4 (Website|Wikipedia)

An Oxymoron, as defined by Wikipedia, “is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms.”

So, here’s the deal: I was watching a CNN news story about the Republican Party.  The speakers were talking about how Republicans need to reach out more to young people by taking advantage of the Internet, much like the Obama campaign did this election year with extremely good results.

Among the images shown in the news story was an image of a Republican Party blog.  The subtitle to the blog read something like this:

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS THE FUTURE!

Why is this an oxymoron?  Well, Republicans fall under the political classification of conservative, which is opposite of the Democratic Party’s liberal doctrine.  Liberalism is essentially forward-looking progress-based politics, tending to move towards new ideas, while conservatvism is “let’s-stay-where-we-are-so-we-don’t-ruin-anything” politics, tending to keep the same system and ideas as before.  Thus, the Republican Party can’t be the future, because their ideas are based in the past!

Q.E.D.

(For those it may interest, I would classify myself as a liberal independent – not quite a democrat, but leaning in that direction)

–FastLizard4 (Website|Wikipedia)

As many of you should know, yesterday (February 12) was Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday.  Charles Darwin can be considered the father of the theory of evolution, which is now the generally accepted theory among scientists as to how life came to be.

Evolution (sometimes called “Darwinism”) has been controversial from the beginning and continues to be a controversial topic.  Evolution seems to totally deny the existance of a God or any other life force – life evolved from the lower levels to the higher levels naturally, with selection pressures causing favorable genes (which arise from mutations) to persist into the next generation, meaning that favorable set of genes will eventually outnumber the unfavorable genes.

At the time Darwin released his theories, he was flouted by the Catholic Church (and other churches as well), much like Galileo’s theories were flouted.  The Church would provide Biblical proof that he was incorrect, while Darwin (and his supporters) would provide logical proof that he was actually correct.  Today, a sort of truce has been reached.  For example, many biology textbooks state something along the lines of “The theory of evolution does not necessarily disprove the existance of a God or other life force, as no one can prove (or disprove) that such a God or life force created life through evolution (or the guise of evolution).”

As you can probably imagine, debates were aplenty back then.  At the 1860 Oxford Evolution Debate (which you can read more about here) between Thomas Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, it is rumored that Huxley, in response to Wilberforce’s closing remark “Well, I’m glad I don’t have to tell my grandmother that she is descended from an ape,” stated that “I’d rather be descended from an ape that could think than a human that couldn’t, as has apparently happened in your case.” (The actual exchange was not recorded verbatim, so it is uncertain what they actually said.)

The question of the true origins of life may never be answered, but that is not the point of this birthday tribute.  Happy 200th birthdy, Charles Darwin!

–FastLizard4 (Website|Wikipedia)

As you hopefully know, Microsoft has released the first public beta of the much-anticipated (yes, it’s actually true) and somewhat mystical Windows 7.  Perhaps its a sign of more reliable days to come.  Those of you who remember it will remember Windows 3.1 (the last Windows OS to use a number – aside from the year it was released in, such as Windows 95, 97, 98, and 2000) as actually (gasp!) reliable.  Yes, Windows 3.1 (actually, the Windows 3.x series) was essentially text based, but hey, it rarely crashed.

I’ll admit it right now – I do prefer Windows to other operating systems.  My home computer dual-boots between Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 3 and Ubuntu Linux 8.04LTS (Hardy Heron), and I have found Windows to use my computer’s Intel Pentium 4 HyperThreading processor (an old 2.8GHz single-core dinosaur) much more efficiently than Ubuntu – apparently, Ubuntu cannot take advantage of HyperThreading (reporting only one core/processor), while Windows can (reporting two single-core processors).

Unfortunately, Windows (and Microsoft in general) has garnered a reputation for being unstable.  Windows ME was an absolute failure.  My grandfather’s old Windows ME machine (all I know is that it’s a Gateway tower) crashes almost every time we install new software.  Windows XP crashed on my machine twice in one day – immediately after installing Service Pack 3 (it has not crashed since then as of this writing).  The first thing Microsoft needs to do is create a stable OS.  I don’t want to boot up my computer to a cryptic blue screen of death reading MEMORY_MANAGEMENT (0x1A), I want to boot up my computer to the nice blue login screen.

Hopefully, this is where Windows 7 comes in.  The early returns have been favorable – PCWorld magazine published this article about a 72 hour experiment in Windows 7.  Essentially, it boils down to this: Windows 7 is Windows Vista, reloaded.  Microsoft revamped User Account Control (UAC) to have multiple levels of “annoyance” (I personally don’t find UAC annoying, having lived around sudo and gksudo on Linux systems for quite some time), a nice feature for those of you who do consider it an annoyance.  Indeed, no major application incompatibilities were encountered in the test drive.

The verdict that most reviews have ended up with is that Windows 7 is essentially Windows Vista reloaded.  It’s Windows Vista the way it should have been.

As for me, I have yet to download the beta and try it in a VM (I still don’t know if my GPU has enough power).  Should I do so, however, you will be the first to know.  As for will I buy Windows 7 when it comes out, the answer would still be a difinitive “no” – I have come to like Windows XP, no matter how many flaws it has.

–FastLizard4 (Website|Wikipedia)