I see your point. My suggestion is that the MAIN focus right now should be getting Nuclear power in place as the primary replacement for coal/oil. Wind, Geothermal, Tidal and Solar should be pursued at the same time as a replacement/augmentation of Nuclear, but people really need to stop looking at them as equals which are ready for prime time deployment. The fact is that technologically speaking they are not and the cost to manufacture and maintain the newer technologies is much higher and they will change signifigantly in design and effectiveness before a standard is settled and costs cut.

Eh. I thought you replied to me. Ooops.

Ok. Quick list before I head home from my engineering job.

Solar cell (photovoltaic) efficiencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell

Power grid issues with Wind and Solar.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/10grid.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/27grid.html

A host of nonpartisan (I'm independant BTW) issues can be found in the wikipedia articles for Geothermal and Tidal (waveform hydroelectric) power. Ironically enough, they can generate power, but are equally horrible for the environment in other ways. Not to mention they are extremely cost prohibitive in most circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide

Worldwide we are producing about 10GW of power using geothermal today. Overall, thats not alot. And geothermal has many construction and engineering hurdles to overcome that are different with EACH installation which increases costs and can reduce overall output. Technology can solve this problem, yet again, its not there yet. Not reliably anyways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage
http://www.reuk.co.uk/Severn-Barrage-Tidal-Power.htm
Even if they start the Severn Barrage right this second, it would not be fully operational and completed until 2020 at the earliest. The construction costs are nearly $40 billion (24bn. pounds), and the total power output would be around 8.6GW under ideal circumstances. Output is dependant on variable scenarious such as weather (which can also cause damage) and current. Expected average output is about 2GW. Current nuclear technology can generate upwards of 1.4-1.5GW of power per reactor with multiple reactors built at each plant.
http://www.reuk.co.uk/Severn-Barrage-Tidal-Power.htm

So, about that extensive data you have seen. Want to provide some links that have hard numbers and are based in facts or do you want to sit over there and provide no helpful commentary yourself other than to say I'm wrong and you're right?

Well, if solar panels were 100% efficient then we would only have to cover 1.8% of the land on our planet for them to cover all our needs.

Wait. The earth rotates with about 38% of the surface optimally bathed in sunlight at any given time. Doing the math on that means that we have to cover somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.2% of the land on the planet in 100% efficient panels to cover our needs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Oh wait, solar panels aren't 100% efficient. As a matter of fact, they aren't even nearly 20% efficient in most cases. Eh...back to the drawing board.

I love the idea of cleaner energy as much as everyone else, however there are a few things that many people don't realize.

1. Nuclear power is a known entity with known problems however it provides the most energy at the least cost in regards to both money and pollution.
2. Covering signifigant portions of any land mass in solar panels (solar farms) leads to serious erosion problems and other issues that are not widely publicized as a large problem. It is a large problem, so much so that some solar farms are only producing at about 60% capacity due to equipment failures caused by panel foundations shifting and wind issues. Read the article in Wired.
3. Wind farms can not adequately provide enough power to the grid to support everyone. In severely windy areas it can cause serious power spikes that our current power grid cannot handle potentially causing large scale outages. It is also worth noting that if you have an unusually non-windy month, your refrigerator might not turn on some nights. That sucks.
4. Technology is not there yet with geothermal, waveform hydroelectric or any other technology you hear routinely mentioned as a solution to all our energy problems. They are at least 20-30 years off before they start providing any useful power and that is at the earliest.

We get it. We need cleaner energy. Now, listen to those of us who agree with you but are more well informed: Nuclear is your first best option for the next three decades. Do you really feel like complaining about how bad coal and oil are for another 30 years?

--X

Dell DRAC 4 and up controllers work fine with firefox provided you set the console to use Java in the Remote Console -> Configuration screen. Most of the DRAC firmwares dont have a native console plugin that works with firefox though I have found a few variations that do. Your best bet is just to use the .jnlp version with Java Webstart. --X

What is the equivalent of that in unladen swallows?

The only AMD chips lacking this support that are currently on the market are the Semprons and some Turions. AMD doesn't market the old Athlon 64s without this support anymore though it still looks like you can pick them up OEM from NewEgg. Honestly though, if you are running a Sempron/Turion, you are probably not looking to run VM's on your machine.

It's a testament to the collective brilliance of /. that this is not modded 'Flamebait.'

Yeah. All their teeth have been kicked out by /. posters and Fark readers.

You might get something along the lines of:

"Of cats that live into their teen years the average life expectancy is...."

Now, if you enter 'fucking some teenage pussy', you will probably get something along the lines of the average prison term served for doing such a thing, how likely you are to be able to do it while living in your mom's basement, or maybe even some Debbie LaFave links.

Adobe can spend the time to put Flash on TV's right after they spend the time to accelerate its playback on GPU's via CUDA or some other interface language. I'd really like to be able to play back Hulu, YouTube, etc... on an Ion powered Atom media center box. That would be far more useful than having it on a television where 90% of customers would never use it. 100% of those people who design and build their own HTPC's would use it and get something out of it once it has GPU accelerated playback.