“The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?” –David Sarnoff’s associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

“Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?” --H.M. “Harry” Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.

“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” –Western Union internal memo, 1876.

“But what … is it good for?” –Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.

“The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a ‘C,’ the idea must be feasible.” –A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith’s paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found FedEx.)

“640K ought to be enough for anybody.” — Bill Gates, 1981

(from this compilation of interesting business technology prognostications)

But not so with software. There are people still running Windows Me, for crying out loud. Software doesn’t wear out - mentally, we might perceive that it does, but in reality, that is not so. So when times are tight, companies will tend to retain their current software and not upgrade - until they absolutely, positively must (for logistical/developmental reasons, for example). Office 2000 works - why upgrade? We can continue using it through 2008, 2009,….

So this  would seem to spell trouble for software companies - in a recession, they should do especially poorly. And with all the free/open-source software out there, why spend $ if you don’t have to? Especially if you haven’t got it!

The main rush here is to produce ethanol from corn. The idea is, if we grow a bunch of corn, and convert it to ethanol, and mix the ethanol with gas to put in our cars, we will be “on the road” to becoming less dependent on foreign oil.

A farce. A joke. A scam. Brought to you, by who else, the folks in congress who are from, guess where, the farm states. And the others they have managed to “convince” or horse-trade with.

Here is why it’s so ridiculous. The basic reason involves the fallacy in farming for fuel. Now, farming is very useful - we absolutely need farming to produce vegetables and grains which we eat directly, or feed to our animals (which we may eat directly, or eat their products). Farming is necessary for food. But if you look at the costs of farming, you will see that it is indeed very expensive. It is expensive in terms of : land use, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers, sowing, plowing, harvesting, weeding, transportation, water use, human labor, etc. etc. These are all necessary, due to the inherent workings of the plant - yes, plants are indeed very efficient users of solar energy. But the “purpose” of a plant is not to produce sugar (from which we could make ethanol) - the “purpose” of a plant is to survive and reproduce. So much of the energy a plant absorbs is used for: reproduction, defense against being eaten by animals, defense against insects, viruses and other diseases, defense against other plants. So when we raise a ear of corn to turn into sugar and ferment into ethanol, we are also raising all of theses other systems which are not really relevant to our intent as a fuel. And we have to pay for all this - in terms of energy it takes to amass all of the chemicals and transportation to get the corn to grow and transport it to “market”. Estimates vary, but it seems clear that the net energy output from ethanol - that is, the energy it takes to produce the corn that produces the alcohol, minus the energy you get out of that alcohol when you burn it is close to zero. Yes, zero. That is, you are no better off, energy wise, after you take the trouble of raising all that corn and turning it into alcohol then you would be if you did nothing! In fact, I contend, you are worse off , because you are using all these precious resources which could be used to produce food to eat, and instead are using them to produce a very crude fuel which is burned in a car. Prices of all food will rise, as a consequence. In fact, that is already happening.

The positive thing I see about this ethanol-from-corn nonsense is that it will be self-limiting. That is, as the price of food (vegetables, meat, everything, really) rises out of sight, and people realize the ethanol craze does them no good whatsoever except raise the price of all of their food, the backlash will end these rip-off programs of subsidies and government inducements.

We can only hope.

1. What he calls a myth: “Energy Independence will reduce or eliminate terrorism.”

He says “remember, the two largest suppliers of crude to the US market are Canada and Mexico”, and since neither is known as a “terrorist haven”, the link between terrorism and oil is tenuous. Ok, but what about the other necessary 70% of our oil?? Yeah, you got it: it comes from other countries, many of which are politically unstable, unfriendly, or terrorist breeders at best. So regardless of who the largest suppliers are, we are still screwed! The third largest exporter is Saudi Arabia, followed by Nigeria, Algeria, and Iraq. Why do you think we are fighting in Iraq right now, increasing terrorism as we speak? Could maybe a large reason be …. oil? So what he says here is absurd. To me it is obvious that if we didn’t need foreign oil, our footprint around the globe would be smaller - and “terrorists” would be much less likely to attack us.

2. What he calls a myth: “A big push for alternative fuels will break our oil addiction”

Well, yes, I agree - this is completely a myth if you consider the utterly ill-conceived push for ethanol from corn, or even cellulosic ethanol. But why did he only mention these (to me), obvious failures? Of course we can break our addiction if we come up with the right alternative ways of getting energy - like solar cells producing hydrogen. This won’t happen tomorrow. But it can if we decide that’s what we should do!

3. What he calls a myth: “Energy independence will let America choke off the flow of money to nasty countries”

Oh, again, his argument is based on small thinking. If an alternative to oil energy is developed, all over the world people will use it. So of course the petrodollar flow worldwide will be reduced.

4. What he calls a myth: “Energy independence will mean reform in the Muslim world”.

Well, I don’t know what will reform the Muslim world. I am not sure that energy independence, directly, has anything to do with it, to be sure. But all the money we send over there from our profligate use of foreign oil does indeed enrich especially a select few and enables them to stay in power (witness the current arms deal we are doing with the Saudi rulers). And our wars to defend our oil interests don’t exactly inspire reform.

5. What he calls a myth: “Energy independence will mean a more secure US energy supply”.

His arguments here are just plain absurd. Yes, we are woven into the world’s economy. But if we went solar, for example, a lot of what he says just wouldn’t matter as much.

What I really find disgusting about this article, is that he seems to be saying: “Just give up! - becoming energy independent is impossible. You are all idiots for even contemplating that!”. I submit that the current path the world is taking, with the insatiable and rising demand to burn increasingly rare and expensive petroleum products will lead to nothing but more war, terrorism, blackmail, higher prices for everything, starvation, and worldwide pollution, all with potentially devastating consequences. So we must become energy “independent” if we (the world, really) are to survive. And of course, it won’t happen overnight. It will be a long path with many ups and downs. It actually has begun. But it needs a major push to put it on the front burner.

Coal, while plentiful, is filthy - at every level, there is an extreme negative environmental impact from its processing. And its combustion.

And the burning of oil and coal, along with natural gas, in addition to any other pollution, produces tremendous amounts of CO2. Whether you believe that this is definitely harmful or not (while the evidence suggests that it might very well be), it certainly makes sense to be prudent with something so potentially devastating.

So in the long run, the use of so-called fossil fuels for energy, which have powered our society for over 100 years is doomed.

Nuclear energy has its own set of problems. One critical issue is what to do with long-lived nuclear waste, and that has never been solved, and might never be. This could be nuclear energy’s death knell.

Wind, tides, geothermal - they are all nice, but hardly provide enough juice to power our world.

So that leaves solar. Which might be the only sure fire way to propel us to the next generation. It has been said that more solar energy hits the earth in an hour then is used by the worlds’ societies all year. Of course, collecting that energy is the challenge, since the density of solar energy hitting the earth in any given area is rather low. But the density is high enough, given efficient collection devices. Solar cells really could be everywhere - on every surface exposed to the sun, such as roofs, car-tops, vacant lots. But solar is intermittent. No matter what is done at the collection front, without an efficient storage system, energy from the sun is not practical.

The way to store solar energy is in the form of hydrogen. Use energy from the sun to split water into its constituent atoms (electrolysis), and store the hydrogen in some convenient form. How, then, do you use the hydrogen? Well, other then directly burning it (which could be done, say, in a special engine), the best way is the fuel cell. The fuel cell is just the reverse of the electrolysis which produced the hydrogen in the first place - combine the hydrogen with oxygen in a controlled manner, say via a special membrane, to produce electric power on demand. And a sole byproduct: water.

So for us to survive, our future has the following:

1. efficient solar cells everywhere, producing electric power directly, as well as hydrogen which is stored and collected;
2. fuel cells everywhere (as well as in central power stations), making use of this hydrogen to generate electricity when and where it is needed.

A solar-hydrogen economy.

This is currently our greatest challenge - to develop the technologies, infrastructure, industries and political will for this to all be possible. With a potential huge windfall - our survival!

Child’s Stool Great for Use in Garden
Stud Tires Out
Stiff Opposition Expected to Casketless Funeral Plan
Drunk Gets Nine Months in Violin Case
Iraqi Head Seeks Arms
Queen Mary Having Bottom Scraped
Columnist Gets Urologist in Trouble with His Peers

Yoko Ono will talk about her husband John Lennon who was killed in an interview with Barbara Walters.

Two cars were reported stolen by the Groverton police yesterday.

The License fee for altered dogs with a certificate will be $3 and for pets owned by senior cetizens who have not been altered the fee will be $1.50.

Tonight’s program discusses stress, exercise, nutrition and sex with Celtic forward Scott Wedman, Dr. Ruth Westheimer, and Dick Cavett.

We will sell gasoline to anyone in a glass container.

For sale: Mixing bowl set designed to please a cook with round bottom for efficient beating.

One witness told the commissioners that she had seen sexual intercourse taking place between two parked cars in front of her house.

New Housing for Elderly Not Yet Dead
New Missouri U. Chancellor Expects Little Sex
12 on Their Way to Cruise Among Dead in Plane Crash
N.J. Judge to Rule on Nude Beach
Chou Remains Cremated
Chinese Apeman Dated
Hershey Bars Protest
Reagan Wins on Budget, But More Likes Ahead
Deer Kill 130,000
Complaints About NBA Referees Growing Ugly

Squad Helps Dog Bite Victim
Man Eating Piranha Mistakenly Sold as Pet Fish
Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant

Ingres enjoyed painting his models nude.
My son has grown another foot.
Visiting relatives can be boring.
Vegetarians don’t know how good meat tastes.
I saw the man with the binoculars.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.

The judge sentenced the killer to die in the electric chair for the second time.

Dr. Tackett Gives Talk on Moon

No one was injured in the blast, which was attributed to the buildup of gas by one town official.

The summary of information contains totals of the number of students broken down by sex, marital status, and age.

The man who fishes goes into work seven days a week, but the man who hunts ducks out on weekends.

The cotton that sheets are usually made of grows in Egypt, but the cotton clothing is usually made of grows in Mississippi.

The mediocre are numerous, but the prime number few.

Carbohydrates that people eat are quickly broken down, but fat people eat accumulates.

Delays Dog Deaf-Mute Murder Trial
British Banks Soldier On

The musicians are master mimics of the formulas they dress up with irony.

Family Leave Law a Landmark Not Only for Newborn’s Parents

Condom Improving Sensation to be Sold

My husband got his project cut off two weeks ago and I haven’t had any relief since.

An invisible car came out of nowhere, struck my car, and vanished.

The pedestrian had no idea which direction to go, so I ran over him.

Artificial insemination is when the farmer does it to the cow instead of the bull.

A really cool feature of the OSD is that it is “open source” - “open source” hardware, and open source software. It is designed from the ground up for others to hack on it (”hack” in the good sense, meaning tweak, create, improve).

I haven’t used this thing, but it is definitely interesting to me. No one condones piracy, but anything which facilitates using the media a person has purchased in any way desired for personal use, should really be considered important.

This has dire consequences - 32 is effectively a multiplier of the world’s population. There are currently 6.5 billion on the planet - but most folks’ consumption factor is way below this 32. As this factor gets higher for more people (which it is, especially in places like India and China), the effective load on the earth goes up proportionally.

This might be what is principally (partially?) responsible for some very troubling things we see today: $10/bu wheat, $100/barrel oil, species extinctions galore, vanishing habitats, worldwide mercury pollution from coal burning, CO2 inundation, …..the list goes on.

Our current path (to me) is clearly unsustainable.

Hope lies in two areas:

• Sustainability
• Population control

Sustainability means emphasizing efficiency in everything that we do, and recognizing the finite nature of just about all resources. No matter what we do about population, efficiency is essential. If you are running out of heating fuel, but your walls a paper thin - wouldn’t you want to concentrate on insulating your walls?

And who knows, with smarts and technology, what the limits to efficiency might be and what unintended rewards await.

What this means for us lucky participants in the physical universe, is that we have chemical elements - each with different characteristics, but exhibiting a remarkable periodicity.

The periodicity and incredible variety of the chemical elements with their manifold characteristics are a consequence of Pauli’s Exclusion Principle.

Of course, without the elements there would be no molecules (or, certainly, not much variety), and we wouldn’t be here to contemplate this!

Basic principles like this one give us the infinite variety of everyday existence.