First, you are so not thinking "production", system management and security. You are obviously a newbie Linux user/developer who has never deployed anything where security was important.

NEVER, and I mean NEVER, use "root" to do anything, at least not directly, you apparently do. If you want "ifconfig" to work for you, put it in your PATH, if you want it to run for everybody, put it in the skeleton account or modify the necessary files at the system level. Some folks don't want this kind of stuff to show up for the "normal" user anyway, because what on earth do they need 'ifconfig' for anyway?

Red Hat has a long list of problems, but the stuff you are wining about are not on the list (except for systed complaint), unless the "short between the monitor and the keyboard" counts as a Red Hat problem. The systemd thing really shouldn't be an issue for you though. Once you get it working and the system boots as you want, don't mess with the thing and you won't have an issue with it anymore. Better yet, stick with the Red Hat tools to configure everything and you shouldn't have an issue configuring it either.

If you want "up to date" then Red Hat is NOT for you. Their claim to fame is that they are far enough behind the bleeding edge to be stable. Fedora is for people who need the latest stuff and have blood to spare when the patches go awry.

MS isn't alone.. Everybody has issues with patching... Except perhaps for Sun, but they went out of business, I mean got purchased by Oracle who discontinued them..

Your argument is "Nobody is stupid enough to sell something at a loss!"

Consider this. Lets say you are thinking that gold is going to rise, so you buy $10,000 worth. You figure that it's going to double, so you buy your gold and pay the dealer $1,000 (10%) to store it for you. You own $9,000 in gold, but you paid $10,000. You also know that the dealer collects 10% on the sale too, so your $9,000 in gold is only going to net you $8,100. You hold on to your gold, but the price doesn't double as you expect, but starts to fall. What do you do? Eventually you sell at a loss so you loose less money.

That's where the wind farm guys are. They where expecting higher electric rates though increased demand and higher generation costs for fossil fuels. Problem is, the rate increase has not yet materialized. So what can they do but sell the power they can for whatever the wholesale market will pay? You got to make the debt payments, you have to pay your maintenance costs, you have to take the cash, even if you are loosing money in the long haul so you can try and stay in business. So YES, they sell power at a loss, it is what they can get for it.

So your logic is faulty. Yes, they are selling at a loss. $0.024 KW/h is not enough to cover their costs, despite not having to pay for fuel. They need about $60 MW/h to turn a profit, which is about 3x the wholesale baseload rate.

Yes, I know it's absurd, but it's the argument you are making, not me. I'm saying that your position logically leads to that. I'm just cutting to the chase and bypassing all the sideline arguments (like your last post).

Look, you can put on the rose colored glasses if you want, but until it makes financial sense enough to get places like China and India to start using this stuff because it's cheaper than the CO2 emitting stuff you are trying to replace, it's USELESS. If they don't follow suit, all your efforts are only going to cripple you, your people and your economy and weaken our position in the world, and not have any effect on the issue you are trying to solve. The Chinese will just burn more of the fuels that you only succeeded in making cheaper for them. The ONLY way this works is if the renewables you are pushing become CHEAPER, actually CHEAPER, not including subsidies. Until then, blather on, it's pointless.

So Solar will never be cost effective. It's 4-5 times more expensive now. Wind is close, but it's still more expensive by 2 times. Geothermal is a limited resource, but it's still 1.5 times natural gas. There is ZERO chance that solar will knock off 3/4ths of their costs in the next decade. Wind is not going to get 1/2 of their costs cut either, being it's a more mature technology now. The engineer in me says "NOT GOING TO HAPPEN" at least not without a huge jump in technology. So far I am unaware of any technology advances that could possibly lead to such cost reductions. Oh I see all the prognostications of the "save the world" advocates, I just don't see any technology on the horizon that is going to allow their ideas come true.

So, Yes, the case you are advocating is stupid and absurd, when pushed to it's logical conclusions. Either that, or it's already doomed to fail and a stupid thing to advocate. Take you pick...

Everybody expected Electric prices to be going though the roof about now. Wind farm operators chief among them. There are a lot of unprofitable generators who are going out of business, mainly because of the huge reductions in fuel costs for Natural Gas due to fracking, but also because of the extremely slow economic recovery since 2008.

Once you have spent the money to build a windmill, your incremental costs (what it costs you TODAY to generate power) is pretty low, at least if the thing doesn't need maintenance. So you will sell your power at what ever price you can, TODAY even if it means you are not able to make enough to service your debt, maintain your equipment and turn a profit. It's a case of loosing all your money or loosing some of it. Sure, I'll take a fraction of what it costs to generate this power so I don't loose as much money, but electric rates better go up or my creditors are going to end up holding debt for an operation that cannot pay it back..

But, all this also ignores the fairly large subsidies for wind power, which is about the only thing that makes it even close to possible to break even. However, even then, they are loosing money operations even where the wind conditions are the most favorable.

Everything up to this last statement makes sense. If you don't control India and China though, it doesn't matter what the rest of us do. Think about it. IF CO2 is going to kill us then everybody (not just the industrialized countries) needs to participate in fixing the problem. But, you can bet that they won't unless they are forced. We can cripple our economies willingly to limit our CO2 production, but in the end it doesn't matter if everybody is not participating in CO2 reduction. If China continues to burn fossil fuels when we stop, and if alternatives are more expensive who will suffer? It won't be China.

Like I said before, think though the obvious results of what you are suggesting. Yes, we can reduce our CO2 emissions unilaterally, but it is the moral equivalent of disarming unilaterally. If somebody doesn't follow your example and disarm too, you just sealed your fate, just as if you decided to take your own life. Think about it...

There is also the problem that in order to sustain our current population, even marginally, we will simply have to use fossil fuels and continue to produce CO2. It cannot be avoided without subjecting the world's population to some serious problems staying fed. People WILL die, and most likely it will be the poor disadvantaged people who are hit hardest by the ever increasing food costs that your ideas about CO2 emissions reductions bring. Or are you willing to live with the results of CO2 emissions?

So, I"m just logically cutting to the chase here. Who do you want to eliminate from the world so humanity can survive? Your side's "reduce CO2 emissions!" battle cry really just hastens the deaths of the poor and disadvantaged who cannot afford to pay more than they do now.

You are talking different prices. You are discussing what they get paid, I'm talking about the TOTAL burdened cost which includes all costs (setup, transmission, maintenance, fuel, decommissioning) over a 30 year plant life.

The difference is how much money they are loosing on those wind farms.

So you don't care about cost, you care about CO2. So it doesn't matter to you what anything costs, we have to reduce CO2.

This debate has been about ROI and cost not CO2 emissions. You've been barking up the wrong tree with me.

Logically your position leads us to having to greatly reduce human population of the world. If CO2 is your primary concern, there is no other way. So let's just cut to the chase here and start talking about who you plan to kill and why? And start discussing how one can enforce this mandate in places where the USA has no control.

You need to start asking yourself a lot of "what happens then" questions and thinking though how you think all this will work on a geopolitical scale, because if you don't have a world wide solution that everybody follows, you will have failed in your goal and killed the industrialized world in the process. You will be responsible for the unnecessary deaths of billions of people both at your own hands and as a side effect of your policies.

IMHO, going down this road is stupid, even if we have to deal with global warming. We need to be careful with the environment in all respects, but just living on this world has environmental impacts so we cannot avoid it, in order to survive, we must deal with it.

Not even close, not even close to reality. $25 MW/h? You wish. It's more like $80 MW/h when you consider the full costs (setup, maintenance, transmission costs etc) for wind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Natural Gas is cheaper, thus wind is not cost competitive. It makes sense for peak load production, but if your investment only provides you a return during peak load when the wind's blowing, you made a bad investment and should have built a Natural Gas plant instead.

I don't know where you are getting your numbers from, but when I look at the following: http://www.awea.org/Resources/... It shows that Natural Gas is still slightly cheaper than Wind. This from a site that is obviously pro-Wind power. I'm digging out their original source material. But, what this site assumes is that you build both kinds of plants. Build your wind farm, just remember the wind doesn't always blow so you need to pop for a Natural Gas plant too. I don't see the savings when you still have to build the NG plant....

But look at my original post.... "All of the above" where it makes financial sense. When and where it's cost effective, build it. Wind is still not quite there and requires subsidies to make it close. I'm betting your number reflects the subsidized price, not the actual price, in the USA.

Almost the same thing happened to my Mother in law. She got diverted from HP's tech support to some third party who proceeded to help her printer to work. I think it was an HP CSR that gave her an alternate number to call, but they went though the song and dance, talked her into paying big bucks to load and configure her printer drivers and loaded their "support" software package.

Took me 2 weeks to get the credit card charges reversed and I had to totally reload the laptop from scratch to undo all the stuff they did to her machine.

I don't know if HP actually sent her to this company or if the CSR did that on their own, but this is a growing problem. If it was the CSR, I hope they got fired and quick. If it was HP, well they get what they deserve... Personally I don't use HP for anything, but I won't go into that story here...

I doubt their success rate is 1%.. Maybe 1% of people they actually talk to who happen to be sitting next to their computer.

But, even if you can get 1 call out of a thousand, it's an easy $300, not to mention a paypal account or credit card and a continuing "customer" you might be able to string along. Say you get 2 a day, $600/day isn't that bad for 8 house of getting hung up on.

The poster was saying that they think this is all valid, so that the CLSID always matches and is always the same thing doesn't seem to be a problem to them. I figure, they are just not bright enough to really think about it, which means this could be true.

But, I'm with you... It looks pretty clear that the operator and the engineer are pretty much the same person and if not, have to be sitting next to each other and are obviously both in on what's going down.