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.

30-years of experience

How did she come up with that? 30-years of experience with what? Politics? How so?

She was a young attorney during the Watergate episode. If she included that, it would be more like 40-years. After that she was just another attorney. While some attorneys (just a very few) do public service, most of them are just lining up their pockets - albeit performing a very important civic function. How could she include that in her resume?

Then she was the First Lady of Arkansas. That is not political experience - unless, she really ran the government while her husband was busy with you know what!!

Then she was the First Lady of US. And of course, she tried some politicking (Universal Health-care). And we all know how well it ended up. Well, she tried to defend her husband during the Lewinksky saga - somewhat effectively I should say.

Finally, as the Junior Senator from New York since 2000.

All I could count was about 10 or so years of political experience. How did it add up to 30? Don't most folks in their late-50s have about 30-years of experience?

And the big question is: Why did not any reporter bother questioning her math? Or, at least, ask her if that was all political experience?

Culture of Speed

Not sure if this happens everywhere. But where I live (Bluest State), I see people either zipping past me on the highway or impatiently tailgating me on local roads. It is not like I am a slow driver. I always drive at the speed limit - no matter what the speed is or what my situation is. And I am not hogging the left lane either. So, here I am going at 65mph on the right lane and everyone else is zipping by me on the other lanes. And then there are all these impatient guys who want me to go fast - just so they can get off their exist at their pace. And it is not just the young. Everyone alike. And then there are those that don't even let you get into the right lane after safely passing someone who is slower (this does not happen often, but it still does).

And of course, there is the school zone. Teachers and parents with kids are flying by to the school. And here I am - not much to do with that school or its safety, but simply obeying the speed limit. Gosh, wonder what these teachers do teach!!

And the guys zipping past me when they see a cop is to SLAM their brakes and start going at 50mph. I am sure they have no idea what the speed limit is.

My question is this: Does any one realize that 'Speed Limit' is one of the most basic "laws" of a civil society? And it is not just when a cop is near by. Even if you have never been caught speeding, your civic duty is to not speed even when the cop is not around.

Car commercials don't help - it is all about zoom, zoom.