The solution is obvious: spend less time consuming media and more time hassling your politicians to change these stupid laws. Sucking on the glass teat until you die is no way to spend a life.
Maybe if you spent less time making apathetic comments on
No offense, but it looks like they did read the study. Either that or they are lying, since they make statements that only someone who has read the study could attest to.
They also aren't promoting their own personal worldview. They are simply calling the claimed results of the study into question based on observations about what is said in the study. That's allowed. If you disagree with what was said, say something to refute it—don't attack the person speaking, but rather what they said.
Yup. There's a pretty nice analysis of the study on MindHacker. It looks like the authors of the study found what they were looking for. Whether it's meaningfully there is less certain.
Bits, or it didn't happen. I'm looking forward to this if it's real, but we haven't seen any actual code drop yet. As for a PC-like standard, not really—there are too many variations in the hardware. E.g., different CPUs require significant differences in the drivers, plus there's the whole rooting/bricking issue. It would be great if market pressure for what you're describing started to develop, but we certainly aren't seeing that at present.
It is impossible to control the dissemination of information that you make available to other people. But it is not impossible to make it expensive to crack an entire social network and feast on the gooey interior. Best is the enemy of good enough. Right now it is clearly the case that everything that happens on Facebook and Google is visible and mineable at least by Facebook and Google, and possibly by interested governments. A peer-to-peer social network makes that kind of data mining much more expensive.
Wikipedia does frequent fundraising. Linux is all about the money—there are amateur linux hackers, but more professionals. Firefox makes money. Of course they aren't all about the money, but money is important. A geek's got to eat. So if you don't think about the economics of the development cycle, you are being unrealistic. It may well be that the economics of a good distributed social network do require that the hacking be done by amateurs; it may be that there's a way to make a business of it.
I don't know why a non-profit social network would be better. Have you looked in your email inbox recently? I get constant spam from the nonprofits I've made the mistake of supporting, even the ones I think are really important. And nonprofits can get harvested—IIRC some big church I won't name sued a nonprofit that had targeted it into oblivion, and then purchased the assets.
Personally I think the right distribution model is lots of smart CPE routers, with no paid hosting at all except maybe for some kind of DNS rendezvous system. The Diaspora model seems too centralized, despite the fact that it's technicall a distributed architecture. But I have no idea how it gets paid for, and apparently the Diaspora folks don't either, now that the initial funding is finished. Crowdfunding features and maintenance might be the best model.
That said, there has to be a model. It's not going to Just Happen.
Are you aware of anybody who's been able to do this based on the protocol description on the wiki?
Yup, as long as the oil companies can keep screwing people over to get oil for you, why count the cost? You're not the one paying it, so who cares? And so what if the crawdads taste a little funny anyways, right? It all mixes up in the stomach.
Sarcasm aside, it's probably true that a few of us fretting over how close to net zero we get aren't going to make any difference, but this article wouldn't have been written if it wasn't starting to make a difference. Also, you're very lucky that a $210 electric bill is in the noise. Not everyone is so lucky.
Wow, you must have a lot of free time if money is the only reason you're running Linux.
We're close to net zero in Vermont with a 4kw solar array. If you're in Portland or Seattle, I could see where you'd have trouble, but most parts of the U.S. can produce quite a bit of solar on a typical roof, at least if it faces the right direction.
Battery systems cost orders of magnitude more than that. And you can make more on your money putting it in a certificate of deposit than in batteries at that rate of return. We looked into this when we were setting up our solar system. Also, grid-tie with batteries isn't as straightforward as you think because you need a more expensive inverter, and you don't have an infinite source to throw your load at, so you aren't even getting the same service.
There's a reason why electric cars are so expensive, even with the subsidy.
Yes, well, that business model is a thing of the past in most states (I don't know about Virginia). In Arizona there's net metering; in Vermont you get retail for your excess power and a credit for every watt you generate, even if you use it on site. This is a great incentive now, but as the amount of solar increases, there will come a time when it isn't economically feasible anymore.
Rather than imagining, it might be informative to actually do the math.
We have net metering, but they still use two meters; otherwise there's no way to tell whether you were generating a shitload of power and using a shitload of power, or generating nothing and using nothing. I think this varies depending on local policy—if there is no subsidy, there's no need for two meters, but it's still interesting to collect the data, both for you and for the power company.