The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum | Stock Discussion Forums

web analytics

web analytics

Technology Stocks | The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum

Previous 10 | Next 10

To: axial who wrote (34344)	7/10/2010 3:09:42 AM
From: Maurice Winn	5 Recommendations of 42853

The "clearance" of the climate scientists subject to the investigation wasn't exactly a ringing exoneration. The "cleared" was a very limited clearance and [as far as the investigators were concerned] cleared Jones of criminal wrong doing - thanks perhaps to a very limited number of emails being available, namely 0.3% of the total, with one comment from Jones being "about 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all". In the other 99.7% of unavailable emails, there were surely some juicy tidbits. Some media might misread the "clearance" to mean "Oh, they were right all along, CO2 is causing the end of the world". I'll be interested to see the various media responses and what individuals think of it. In fact, Jones was found guilty of the trick of hiding the decline. He was strong on hiding. "We have a data protection act which I will hide behind". "He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that". He was into hide and seek as enthusiastically as Anne Frank when the Germans were after Jews. Coal Train Holocaust* Denialists on the rampage are obviously worth hiding from. Contrast that with real scientists such as Einstein, Feynman and Popper who produced strange ideas which are not part of the Greenhouse Doomster "science": Einstein - it doesn't matter how many agree with me because it takes only 1 to show I'm wrong.[Alarmists conduct surveys of "scientists" to decide the truth] Popper - the idea of falsifiability [rather than the Climate Doomsters' idea that anything at all proves that the proposition is true, even apparently including weather getting cooler] Feynman - all data should be published and is important, not just the data which shows a theory is true. [No way in climate science - hide the decline and everything else] I'll take Einstein, Popper and Feyman against Jones, Mann and Briffa [even if they have Gore with his second chakra on their side]. It's true that Einstein introduced a cosmological constant as a bodge, but that's not quite in the same league as Briffa's bodge. Jones was found guilty of withholding data which should have been made available. The Mann Made Warmists were found guilty of a consistent pattern of unhelpful and defensive responses to reasonable requests for information. Jones: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it".... see Einstein, Popper and Feynman = that's why Phil. In science, the aim is to find the way things actually objectively work, not protect a fiefdom to ensure further cash flow. He should be pleased that somebody cares enough to go to the trouble of seeing if there is something wrong with it. The report also said that they were very pleased that IPCC will review its processes and stressed the importance of reflecting the statistical uncertainty surrounding the data. I read only half way through the report, skimming the rest which was not so "juicy". It did look well studied and that they had done a good and objective job. guardian.co.uk Overall, Jones and Mann Made Warming are guilty as charged, but not of criminal scientific fraud [as far as the study could determine]. They fail the test, "Would you buy a used car from them based only on their claims?" Mqurice * <In his final testimony submitted to the Iowa Utilities Board on the proposed coal-fired power plant in Iowa, NASA’s James Hansen used a very provocative metaphor about the trains that deliver coal: If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains — no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species. >

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (34349)	7/10/2010 4:03:03 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation of 42853

Frank, as wide area network oligopolists get more competition from wifi/Wi-Fi, WiMAX and public access spectrum [in other than wifi space], and data becomes a megabyte commodity with some quality of service variations, the femtocell rort will lose ground and become just another access technology. As the range of such competitors goes up from their currently puny wifi base stations, the proportion of [captive] market the wide area network oligopolists enjoy will dwindle and they'll have to become more price sensitive. Globalstar will next year be back in business with a new constellation. farmside.co.nz and other satellite providers can also deliver reasonably priced data. Wide area network wifi providers such as eol.co.nz also take a bite. A wifi router with a Ubiquiti Nanostation2 does a good job of providing a lot larger area of coverage than an oligopoly femtocell. With the increasing power, intelligent software, software defined radio, and data demands of cyberphones, it will become a simple matter for a device to ask the various wireless providers that are in range, "What's your price and speed and reliability right now?" The device [perhaps called Watson] will then connect It's node to the best available service, perhaps with instructions to the user to "Walk over toward the window on your right to improve reception. While there, take a 5 second video of the scene please - I want to check on the traffic." Meanwhile, the malodorous business models keep zenbu.net.nz in business as people use wifi where possible instead of the extorquerationate wide area networks. Mqurice

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (34356)	7/10/2010 11:38:31 AM
From: ftth	of 42853

re: "...and obtained a good sense of the thinking that went into [the National BB Plan]" While there's no doubt the repetition of certain words indicates "something," I'm not so sure it's all that relevant or even possible to make any solid conclusions. If you could map the word usage to the individuals involved in creating the document, that would tell you more. But there's no way to do that. The document was prepared by more than a hundred people, sub-divided into little islands of topical information. Most of these islands didn't have a whole lot of interaction (sometimes for good reason, sometimes not). In turn the individuals were influenced to varying degrees by the tens of thousands of pages of filed comments, thousands of collective hours of meetings and phone calls with advocates or opponents of various causes, hundreds of hours of public workshops that included many very biased speakers, and probably dozens of round of edits to the individual sections (where the opinion of the ones at the top of the hierarchy of each island began to dominate). Then a group of "bulk editors" tried to tie the whole thing together with some continuity in writing style, and they no doubt had an edit bias to blend with the various biases already embedded into the early drafts of the component pieces. I guess my point is, it's hard enough to try and determine motive of an individual, seldom with certainty in any case, let alone a hierarchical process with political overtones. Plus, you'd really need to go back and carefully scrub the language of Congress directing the FCC to develop this report in the first place. That is going to be the primary roadmap of motive, since that set the expectations. PS an alternative "word count" approach would be to rank the citations and footnotes (by entity). That has it's inherent flaws too, but it does give a high-level view of the concentration (or not) of external influence. I suspect they were conscious of over or under citing, and probably spread it out fairly uniformly. Due to the sheer volume of comments and opinions, they had their choice of citation selection (i.e. for any given citation, there were probably at least a dozen other entities that said the same thing but were not cited).

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (34359)	7/10/2010 1:31:29 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	of 42853

Hi Mq. Does Zendu indulge in fixed-mobile convergence of the type that I was referring to through the use of in-home 3G-associated femtocells for the express purpose of avoiding build out costs by incumbents to cell sites? If so, malodorous, if not, not. If I'm mistaken please correct me. I looked at the site and it's decidedly not. To your other points I largely agree. The vision of which you speak, possibly minus the dictatorial predilections of a "centralized" intelligence asking me to indulge in voyeurism from my window, have long been my view as well. Our friend Bob Frankston has ever-so-eloquently characterized this quality as "ambient connectivity", which we should be striving for, but for the most part have persisted in deferring to the major bandwidth suppliers for daily diets of expensive Pabalum instead. Implicit in the direction you described, when price points for highly-capable and ubiquitous technologies approach zero, it will become increasingly difficult to justify a vig, especially where license-exempt and light-based (infrared, etc.) solutions abound. The technology for the most part already exists to take us there. As you noted, adoption and the evolution of the very necessary ecosystem to support ambient connectivity will take time, but to a greater extent, 'getting there' will require a greater sense of general awareness on the part of the public of all of the socio-techno-economic dynamics at play, as well. I'd like to personally evangelize this, but I've got other fish needing to be caught at this time. FAC ------

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read

To: Lou K. who wrote (34360)	7/10/2010 2:26:13 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	of 42853

Hi Lou. Thanks for posting this interview-article. The National Geographic piece referred to in the intro, also written by the interviewed Joel Auchenbach, "The 21st Century Grid: Can we fix the infrastructure that powers our lives?" can be accessed at bit.ly , and is also worthy of a read, tho there's considerable overlapping content with the NPR interview, as you might expect. The author communicates a goodly amount of the various flavors of Kool-Aid coming out of the industry's "power players" (pun intended, and more palatable to many than cabal) and various other interest groups from what he's been able to glean through interviews (multiple classifications of participants, including johnny-come-lately alarmists and opportunists seeking to make a killing in the smart angle of the story), which comes across loud and clear, along with some good reinforcing information about how screwed up the regulatory system is. Not much, however, in the way of critical analysis, which one must assume owes in large part to his own lack of knowledge on the subject in combination with the deference he appears to be paying to the sources who obliged him. In the main, he appears to be focused on the scarcity dynamic primarily, how to measure supply and evolving ways to pay for it, and the enormous and intractable size of a central supply model. Some of the secondary effects of the latter thinking with respect to scale and scarcity come across elsewhere in the interview, such as, when he talks about (presumably banks of) football field-sized storage batteries, which of course are problematic, as opposed to a more economically- and more appropriately- sized storage element that would be needed for a micro-grid footprint. Likewise, the discussion on smart meters was focused primarily on capacity, usage and kwh pricing considerations, with little to offer about how smart diagnostics could aid significantly in the pin-pointing of problem areas before they spread - i.e., how, through the use of intelligent surveillance and visualization applications, cascading events could be avoided or largely mitigated. In any event, I thought it was a good first pass for many lay listeners who, in all likelihood, haven't the faintest clue about what sits behind their electrical outlets. FAC ------

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (2)

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (34364)	7/10/2010 2:58:56 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	of 42853

Smart Grid - State Estimation Here's an example of a use case feom rhw EPRI Use Case Repository that seldom, if ever, appears in the popular press related to estimating the state of the (deeper) grid, far beyond one's immediate 'service' connections. Hat tip to forum member pltodms for this pointer and noting "Nice detail on sequence and timing of actions." Agreed. As an aside, it's encouraging to see that this model makes room for at least one "human" monitor at the controls ;) -- State Estimation Abstract: expansion of the SCADA Data Update use case. It separates the Power System State Model between three subsystems: Data Acquisition, Topology Processor and State Estimator. The State estimation application fetches data values from... Cont.: sgiclearinghouse.org ------

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read

From: Frank A. Coluccio	7/10/2010 4:05:06 PM
	of 42853

Has Twitter replaced SMS feeds? More than once I've been told by bloggers and authors that they'd like to include this forum on their blogrolls if only it were possible. The latter perception owes, perhaps, to the 'bulletin board"-like appearance a la Web 0.5 that many bloggers first experience when tuning in here. One blogger described it as a throw-back to the Compuserve era. Or course, those of us who've been here awhile don't see it that way, since it's second nature to us. Thanking those other bloggers, always, I neglect to tell them (with only rare exceptions) that SI is already SMS-capable, and I suppose I do this not out of a sense of self-deprecation, but due to not wanting to go the extra hassle - the scope of which, due to viral phenomena, has a way of escalating geometrically - of explaining how to loggin as a guest, what the implications of guest status are, and which this, and what that, they'll not be able to do. It's simple enough to do, at the root, as long as you know it's simple and don't look for reasons why it's not, but it's just human nature when addressing the unknown to want to explore the lay of the land. All of which brings me to the heading of this thread, "Has Twitter replaced SMS feeds?" which was inspired by a passage I ran across earlier today in the National Broadband Plan - cf. #msg-26674260. The passage reads as follows: "The Internet also provided new ways to involve the public. Through an innovative Web presence at www.broadband.gov, the FCC posted more than 130 blog entries and received nearly 1,500 comments in return. The FCC’s Twitter feed now has more than 330,000 followers, making it the third most popular government Twitter feed after the White House and the Centers for Disease Control." Is SI "Twitter-enabled", just as it is SMS-enabled? I allow that I may be missing something, but I've looked for a way to facilitate it, and short of writing my own script, nowhere is it to be found. Nor am I of the opinion that it's particularly harmonious with the SI biz model in its current overt iteration, and that's quite ok with me, too. I'm PM'ing this message to SI Bob to get his take on the subject. If I'm mistaken about any of this, hopefully Bob will show us the light. Does anyone else looking in here have any thoughts on this subject they'd like to share? FAC ------

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (2)

Previous 10 | Next 10

Copyright/IP Policy

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.