Energy Independence

Must be a code-word for something else. Otherwise, it is an oxymoron.

In this Universe, no 'Matter' is independent of 'Energy'. Einstein proved conclusively that matter and energy are different manifestations of the same thing. Everything needs energy.

From the earliest times in human history, men looked for energy. And always wound up with the most efficient way of getting that energy. This was evident even amongst cave men.

So, it essentially is a code-word for the enlightened greens' concern regarding human consumption of oil and such hydrocarbons. But at the current time, despite our technology, it is the cheapest form of energy. Otherwise, we would have moved onto something else - that is just human nature.

No other source of energy known to man is as efficient, as compact and as clean - all complaints to the contrary. One other source of energy, Nuclear - is as efficient, is neither compact nor clean nor safe. Can you imagine a wind-powered car?

Our congressmen and senators found a boondoggle known as Ethanol. It is neither efficient to produce it nor is it efficient to consume it. It takes 4 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of Ethanol - just during the extraction process. Add the 1600 gallons of water needed to grow the corn and you blow the economics of it all. Unfortunately, water is a relatively scarce commodity.

And proponents of wind-power want to erect wind mills every where. And for the ordinary folks, wind mills evoke the mystic of the lone, gigantic wind mills in the picturesque Netherlands. But the wind mills that would be erected are the modern contraptions - more functional than beautiful - and a whole lot of them. See, these are supposed to be powered by wind. With a string of them and the eddies they form, these wind mill farms will create wind patterns of their own. Wonder if anyone bother to run simulations of what such large wind mill farms would do to the wind patterns across our continent?

For sometime there was talk of Fuel Cells. And the best line was: they emit pure water vapor. Classic! And such a vehicle would consume hydrogen (its fuel) and oxygen from the air to emit pure water vapor. First let us think of the output: pure water vapor! Think - clouds. If a majority of the vehicles used fuel cells, our immediate problem would be the cloud cover - which then increases the albedo and that would result in - ta da...global warming. Then the inputs: I guess we humans now have to compete with these vehicles for the oxygen we breath. Next up, where do you get hydrogen from? Hydrogen is abundant in the universe. But here on earth - it is abundant in 2 forms: Water - inefficient to extract hydrogen from water, and "hydrocarbons" - isn't that where all of this started?

For one thing, corporations can do more to use solar power where they can. But it should not be due to egalitarian reasons - but largely based on efficient cost allocations.

I do not drive a large contraption. But neither do I like to be roadkill.

Until we run out of all forms of hydrocarbons or its use is inefficient and uneconomical, humans will continue to consume it. And when it does come to that, we would have moved onto the next optimal source of energy. This is how humans evolved.

Software Arsonists

Society will never forgive a fireman who is suspected of setting fires to appear heroic. Fortunately, there have been only rare occurrences of such behavior. Not quite so with software.

A multi-billion dollar industry that is yet to solve a problem that is seemingly important to the end users. Each new release touts 'fixes' - to the problems the programmers have created in the first place. And we have to cough up more money for this new release. And you got to love the 'dated' versions of software.

In my organization, every one was cheering a group that has supposedly solved 'performance' problems in their application. I asked a simple question: Aren't they the same guys who wrote the over-engineered bloat-ware to begin with?

Don't get me wrong. I am part of that industry. And I have been young too. And I have had my share of bad programs. But over the years I have become more of a cynic.

See, I am an Electrical Engineer who drifted into Software for one simple reason. Yes, I admit it - money and opportunities to make money - modest by comparison to some other professions, but pretty good in comparison to some others.

Software is not an engineering discipline. And most respectable folks agree with that. Most engineering disciplines do not change as dramatically in such short time frame as does software.

My criticism is not contained to software vendors. Even at companies that can ill-afford to write and maintain software invariably end up with an IT organization. And those organizations have yet to fulfill their mission. Instead they are fixing their numerous blunders and getting paid to do so.

And even folks who do not use computers often have heard the standard fix for your 'computer problem' - just reboot. Every software programmer must ask himself this question: Does your doctor/surgeon have the 'reboot' option? And what would happen if doctors were more like software programmers.

Sure, there are some bad physicians too. And they get sued. Is it time software programmers get sued as well? I think so.