3

LUG talks today

Today I gave three talks at my local LUG. The first was my latest SE Linux talk (I’ll put the notes online soon). The second was a talk about voting.

I asked for a show of hands, who has already decided which party they will vote for at the next federal election (about 12 people put their hands up). I then asked people to put their hands down if they were not a member of the party that they intend to vote for, including myself there were only two raised hands in the room (including mine)!

With the way party politics works nowadays the major parties are not very interested in representing their core voters. Why try to please for people who will vote for you anyway? Instead they try to appeal to swinging voters and pressure groups. If you have decided to vote for a party they have no reason to try and impress you. Therefore you should join the party and try and influence the policy decision making process from within.

The issues that I believe are most important to the Linux community are free software use in government, sane intellectual property laws, the right to a fair trial, and not pandering to the US (which is related to the previous two points).

If you have already decided who to vote for then you should join that party and make your vote count in the party room.

One member of the audience said that he had been a member of one of the major parties but that the internal politics turned him off. If that is your experience then I think you should ask yourself whether you want to vote for a group of people that you can’t work with.

The final talk I gave was about getting speakers for Linux Users’ Groups. There is always difficulty in finding speakers for clubs. Ideally we would have meetings planned a few months ahead of time so that they could be advertised in various ways. Newspapers often have columns dedicated to providing information about public meetings but the lead time is usually at least a week (and the meeting would have to be advertised at least two weeks in advance – so more than a month’s planning ahead is required).

Getting a larger number and variety of speakers will attract new members, encourage existing members to attend more meetings, and inspire members in their Linux work.

Talks can be given by almost anyone. There is a constant demand for speakers who have expert knowledge in the topic, but anyone who is a decent speaker and has the confidence to stand up at the podium can give a good talk. For expert speakers possibilities include academics, industry leaders, leaders of free software development projects, and journalists. But that’s not all, anyone who wants to spend the time researching a topic can give a talk on it. For example I’ve been learning about MySQL recently for my own servers and will probably offer a talk about MySQL aimed at sys-admins who don’t want to become DBAs but who just want to get a database running. I’m not a MySQL expert (and don’t plan to become one) but I believe that there are many people who want to do the things I do with MySQL and who could benefit from a talk that I might give.

The best place to find speakers is a conference or trade-show. If they give a talk that works well you can suggest that they give it again for your local LUG. You can also find speakers at conferences that you can’t attend. If someone visits your country for a trade-show in a different city you could send them an email saying “unfortunately I can’t attend your talk, but if you are interested in visiting my city in the same trip then there will be an audience of X people interested in seeing you”.

There’s no harm in asking, the worst that they can do is decline. Ask everyone who you think can do a good job. Also make sure that you don’t make any commitment (unless you are member of the LUG committee).

praying for rain

Paul Dwerryhouse posted a comment about the Prime Minister asking people to pray for rain. I don’t think that Johnny is suggesting this because he’s overly religious (compare his actions with the New Testament of the Bible). The fact is that the Australian government has no plans to deal with global warming, the inefficient distribution of water, and the large commercial farms that produce water inefficient crops such as rice and cotton in areas that have limited amounts of water. This means that small farmers should pray, no-one else will help them!

I wonder if the farmers will ever work out that the National party is doing absolutely nothing for them by it’s alliance with the Liberal party. Maybe if farmers could actually get a political party that represents their interests then things would change.

A Strange Interpretation of the US Constitution About Copyright

In a blog on infoworld the following strange statement appeared:

The US Constitution is clear that the reason for copyright/patent/etc. is to benefit creators of property, not users of property. I appreciate the reason: give creators a reasonable return on their investment.

Actually the US constitution seems to clearly say the opposite. Here is a link to section 8 of the US constitution. The important phrase is “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries“.

There is no mention of providing benefits to creators of written works and inventions. The aim is clearly stated to promote the progress of science and useful arts and the exclusive right which operates for limited times is merely a method of achieving that aim.

power saving

Adrian von Bidder made an interesting post in response to my post about Spanish wind power. He correctly points out that power sources that have seasonal variations and which may vary during the course of a day can not be used as the sole power source.

The ideal design would be to have wind power stations that are designed to have a peak power that is greater than the expected use for the country. Then when wind power is slightly below peak the entire use for the country could still be satisfied.

There are a number of power sources that can quickly ramp up, this includes hydro-electric and gas-fired power stations. Such forms of power generation could be used as backup for when wind and solar power are limited. Incidentally one thing to note about Solar power is that it is most effective during the day in summer – which is when there is the highest demand for electricity to run cooling systems. There is also an option for having the sun heat up rocks which can be used for generating electricity at night or at periods of peak demand. So eventually we could have all our energy needs supplied by solar and wind power.

If wind power was designed to exceed the demand at windy times there are a number of ways that it could be used. The first thing to do is to implement billing systems that vary the cost according to the supply. This information could be provided to customers via X10 (or a similar technology). Home appliances could take note of this information and perform power-hungry operations when it’s cheap. Your freezer could cool itself to -30C when electricity is cheap and allow the temperature to rise to -5C when it’s expensive. You could program your washing machine to start when electricity becomes cheap – usually a few hours delay before starting the washing is no inconvenience.

Ideally home power generation from solar and wind sources would be used. There is significant loss in the power lines that lead from power plants to the consumer, so there are efficiency benefits in generating power locally. A wind turbine for a home will give highly variable amounts of power, and the electricity use of a home also varies a lot. So batteries to store the power are required. When you have local battery storage you could use your batteries to power your home when electricity is expensive and use mains power when it’s cheap. Also if it was possible to feed power back to the main grid then home battery systems could be used to help power the main grid at expensive times (if the electricity company reimburses you for putting power back in the grid then you want such reimbursement to be done at the highest rate).

Adrian also mentioned turning devices off when leaving home. It is common practice in hotels that when entering your room you will insert your key in a holder by the door which acts as a master switch for all lights and some other electrical devices (such as the TV).

This same idea could be adopted for home use, not based on key storage (although this would be an option) but instead on a switch near the front door. Push a button and all lights turn off as do human-focussed appliances such as the TV and DVD player turn off (not the VCR), etc. There could also be a night option which would turn off the TV, DVD player, and most lights. Obviously at night you want bedroom and bathroom lights to still work but many things can be turned off.

This is all possible with today’s technology, small changes to usage patterns, and spending a little more money on technology. Currently you can get a basic solar power system for your house for about $10,000. That isn’t much when you spend $300,000 or more buying the house!

Spanish wind power

The latest news is that Spain has wind power as it’s main source of electricity. The second largest source is nuclear and the third is coal. This is due to some particularly windy weather recently, but Spain is also a world leader in both manufacture and installation of wind power systems.

Other countries should follow their lead. Wind power is very cheap once it’s installed, there are minimal ongoing costs and when things go wrong the scope of the problem is very small (unlike nuclear power plants which have the potential to contaminate large areas).

Sorry no link, this news is too new to be indexed by google.

fluorescent lights and why it’s worth saving resources

A common criticism of fluorescent lights is the inability to use dimmers, as mentioned in Julien Goodwin’s blog.

However with some thought at the time the lights are installed this problem can be solved. The first thing to keep in mind is that an infinite number of levels of illumination (analogue scale) is not really required. In most cases two or three levels should do.

If you have two compact fluorescent lights that use 5W and 10W then you have the options of 5W, 10W, and 15W. If you have a large room to light (such as a lounge room) which needs 30W of fluorescent lighting for full illumination then you could have six 5W globes dispersed and have anything from one to six of them turned on to give different levels of illumination.

Of course if you don’t plan electrical work then it’s easiest to just use incandescent lights in those areas. As long as the areas that use the most light for the longest time have fluorescent lighting it shouldn’t make too much difference.

In response to a post on Planete Beranger, saving energy DOES matter. Sure you saving a few KWh isn’t going to make much difference on it’s own, but when a million other people do the same it all adds up.

The lack of public transport in the US causes more problems for the country than just environmental damage. It hurts the economy by making it more difficult for people to get to work. It will hurt the defence forces in the (unlikely) event of an invasion (trains are the best way of moving large numbers of troops, heavy weapons, and military supplies. It also hurts the national interest in decreasing the ability to react to civil emergencies. For example the entire population of New Orleans could have been evacuated in time using a single platform of a European station. If every city had multiple stations that had a reasonable number of platforms and multiple redundant train lines then evacuating civilians and bringing in emergency equipment and workers would be very easy. In the Netherlands train lines often run on top of dikes, this means that the dikes are very strong (if they can sustain the weight of a freight train then they aren’t going to be washed away by a wave) and that trains can still operate while flood waters are rising. If New Orleans is to be rebuilt to it’s former glory then the Americans should consider a similar design.

Large cars are a temporary issue. As fuel prices rise people will choose smaller cars. Also hopefully people will start to realise that 4WD and SUV vehicles are actually less safe than cars and stop buying them for perceived safety.

The Chinese government doesn’t worry about the same environmental issues, however they have more agressive targets for renewable energy use than most countries. It’s not a matter of being nice (they aren’t), but of looking out for their own self interest. It’s a pity that the governments of the US, Australia, and EU countries have not yet done the same – but it will happen eventually.

As for supermarkets using open fridges, if the vent the heat outside the building then it will be just part of the building air-conditioning system. Every adult dissipates about 100W of heat when at rest, when shopping it would be more than 100W. Get 100 people in a supermarket (not the peak business time) and 10KW would have to be removed by the A/C system without counting heat from lights (fluorescent lights dissipate about half their energy as heat, they are much more efficient than incandescent lights but much less than LEDs),
and heat from other machinery.

Finally, if you want to see changes in government policy then join your local Green party!

2

worse than fossil fuel?

I just read an interesting blog post from December 2005 about the environmental impact of bio-fuels. It makes some really good points that should be studied by everyone who is interested in protecting the environment.

However this doesn’t mean that bio-fuels are inherently bad, just that some methods of production are bad.

The blog claims that reusing oil that had been used for frying would cover 1/380 of the fuel used for road transport in the UK. There are some technologies that have been recently invented to process farm and industrial waste into oil, some of which are already in production in the US. The volume of farm waste (and equivalent waste from restaurants) would significantly exceed the frying oil from restaurants and converting waste plastic into fuel would add even more. I’m sure that these sources of fuel from waste would add up to at least 1% of the current transport fuel use.

A better train system has the potential to halve the use of fuel for transport (or better), when living in Europe I never considered owning a car, the trains were so good and the car parking was so bad that it wasn’t worth doing. A combination of less cars and the cars being driven less would significantly reduce fuel use.

Hybrid vehicles and vehicles with smaller and more efficient engines could halve the use of fuel again (or better). Diesel hybrid cars that are currently being tested use as little as 1/4 the fuel of current petrol cars. Add further technological improvements such as the six-stroke engine and we could be looking at something better than four times the current fuel economy of cars.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that a combination of a good public transport infrastructure, fuel efficient vehicles, and government incentives for using both could reduce the transport use of fuel by a factor of 8. This would mean that fuel produced from restaurant, farm, and plastic waste (which I conservatively estimate at four times the volume of used frying oil) could account for more than 8% of the fuel supplies. The EU wants to have 5.75% of fuel oil to come from renewable sources, it seems to me that this is possible without importing any bio-Diesel from developing countries!

Electric cars could of course significantly decrease the use of fuel oil too. A Prius+ (Prius modified to take mains power) would be an ideal vehicle for me. I rarely make long journeys and rarely make multiple journeys in one day so I could use mains power most of the time. I estimate that with a Prius+ I would use no more than two tanks of petrol a year.

Then of course there’s the issue of market protection. It seems that every first-world country has a farming lobby that convinces the government to pay them to produce more crops than they can sell at market rate. Instead of subsidising food that is sold to other countries such government money could go towards subsidising development of bio-fuels. The US subsidy of corn production is a classic example of this, corn syrup can be easily fermented and distilled to make fuel – much better than eating the nasty stuff!

2

things to do for the environment

I got the idea for this from Ben Hutchings.
A. Copy the list below to your own journal and

Bold the actions you are already taking
Underline the actions you plan to start taking
Italicize the actions that don’t apply to you

B. Add one (or more) suggested action(s) of your own

C. Leave a comment here, so that she can track the meme to your journal, and copy your suggested action(s) back to the master list.

  1. Replace standard incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent light bulbs
  2. Choose energy efficient appliances – I’m documenting the power consumption of my computers
  3. Wash clothes in cold(er) water – Colder than what? I suspect this is based on American machines that are controlled by mixer valves rather than using a thermostat.
  4. Turn the thermostat of your hot water tank down to 50°C (125°F) – this is a good safety measure anyway
  5. Install a programmable thermostat (or turn the heat down over night and when you’re out of the house)
  6. Register with the [Canadian Marketing Association’s] Do Not Contact Service to reduce the amount of junk mail delivered to your house. – Substitute MPS.
  7. Eat less meat (particularly feedlot beef) – For practical purposes I’m vegetarian, with occasional exceptions.
  8. Walk, bike, carpool or take public transit as often as possible – I’m writing this on the tram
  9. Make sure you know what can be recycled in your area, and try to recycle as much household waste as possible
  10. Compost using an outdoor compost bin or an indoor vermicomposter
  11. Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditioner
  12. Buy local, organic or fair trade food where possible
  13. Reduce air travel – pity that long-distance trains suck in Australia
  14. Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanket
  15. Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possible – don’t own a clothes dryer, hanging up clothes inside near a heater works on cold days
  16. Plant a tree – pity my trees are dying because of the drought / climate change
  17. Buy fresh foods instead of frozen
  18. Keep your car tuned up and your tires inflated to their optimal pressure – also minimise driving. I drive about 5000Km per year.
  19. Use biodegradable dishwashing liquid, laundry soap powder, etc.
  20. Drink tap water (filtered if necessary) rather than buying bottled water – remember the Benzene incident…
  21. Turn the tap off while brushing your teeth
  22. Unplug seldom-used appliances and chargers for phones, cameras, etc., when you’re not using them – the power use is small so I only do this for rarely used chargers.
  23. Plug air leeks and drafts around doors and windows with weatherstripping
  24. Switch from disposable to reusable products: food and beverage containers, cups, plates, writing pens, razors, diapers, towels, shopping bags, etc – I’ve done this for most things, could improve though.
  25. Consider garage sales, Freecycle, eBay, or borrowing from friends/family before buying a new tool or appliance – second-hand and refurbished computers are so powerful and so cheap that you don’t need to care about the environment to do this.
  26. Reuse bathwater, maybe to flush the loo, water the garden, etc.
  27. Make sure your roof is well-insulated. – I think it is, but as tenants it’s not really our choice.
  28. Always wear a jumper/sweater and socks indoors unless it’s warm enough outdoors to go without both.
  29. Run your vehicle on biofuel/sustainable fuels
  30. Set up a grey water barrel to use when clean water isn’t necessary – grey water should never be stored. It contains chemicals that are used as food for bacteria.
  31. Put grey water on your garden immediately without storing it.
  32. Install tanks to collect rain-water from your roof for watering the garden, washing your car, etc.

John Howard is bizarre

Our despicable prime minister said “I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for (an) Obama victory“.

That statement is wrong in many ways, firstly the US (with Australian help) has destabilised and destroyed Iraq already. Claiming that removing US troops at this stage will do any further harm is unproven (and except for the Kurdish area extremely unlikely). Trying to link a presidential candidate with a terrorist organisation is the worst type of dirty politics.

Texas Republican senator John Cornyn requested that the Australian government stay out of US politics. It sounds like a reasonable request. But I wonder whether John Cornyn got involved when the US ambassador spoke out against the leader of the Labor party at the last Australian Federal election

Senator Obama suggested that if John Howard wants to criticise his policies in Iraq then he should first send another 20,000 Australian troops (there are currently 140,000 US troops compared to 1,400 Australians). According to the CIA World Fact Book Australia has a population of 20.3M while the US has a population of 298.4M. If the ratio of serving soldiers was to match the populations then Australia would have 9,500 troops in Iraq. If Australia was to be a full military partner of the US (but scaled down due to the smaller population) and therefore had troops in South Korea, Japan, and Germany then the number of Australian troops committed might be closer to the 20,000 number cited.

But this is no criticism of Senator Obama. For a number that was made up to demonstrate his point that Australia is not pulling it’s weight in Iraq it’s a quite reasonable estimate.

The US Democrat Senator Ron Wyden correctly described Howard’s comment as “bizarre“. This may become a catch-phrase for the Howard regime (as the Bush regime is described as a “miserable failure“).

Johnny seems to think that it’s in his best interests to send Australians to fight a war that has no benefit for Australia (or the US for that matter), but he doesn’t have the guts to do it properly. Fortunately for him the Bush regime understands his position and allows him to send a token force to demonstrate support without the risk of any significant number of casualties or having to conscript soldiers.

This mutual meddling in elections is a demonstration of the way Bush and Howard conspire against the interests of the Australian and US citizens. Both countries need governments that look after the interests of their citizens at home and let the UN take a larger role in world issues.

The Squirrel and the Grasshopper

There’s a story going around the neo-con blogs titled “The Squirrel and the Grasshopper”. It was forwarded to me by a business associate with the claim that it’s “right on the money”. It’s strange that someone could be considered to be “right on the money” for Australia when essentially the same text is posted in the UK, New Zealand, and Sweden (from a 30 second google search – I’m sure that the neo-cons in other countries have posted it too).

The following are the neo-con ideas promoted by the story in question:

  1. To mis-represent a local main-stream political party that is known for representing workers (the ALP in the case of Australia) as being extremist and associated with Greenpeace (an organization that is out of favor at the moment and disliked by many people who vote for main-stream parties).
  2. To spread the “liberal press” lie that wing-nuts like to believe. Any analysis of the press will show that most multi-national media organizations are quite biased towards the right-wing groups.
  3. Making false claims about the legal system to drive support for recent fascistic legal changes. In the case of Australia this means allowing employers to lay off employees and immediately re-hire them at a lower rate, allowing employees to be laid off if factory equipment breaks down, and for almost any reason you can imagine. Driving the idea that the judges are incompetent and therefore imposing legislation to remove judicial discretion is an important step in removing civil rights.
  4. Claims that the government is communist and takes the property from the middle-classes and gives it to unworthy people. In fact the opposite is true (for Australia at least). Large companies and wealthy individuals are routinely given community property. The toll roads are the best example of this, the government closes public roads that can be used as an alternative to a toll road, and then politicians get paid off after they leave office. Far from taking money from people who work (as the neo-con propaganda claims) the government allows big corporations to do so with impunity. The Australian government (as many governments in first-world countries) has been becoming increasingly fascistic recently.
  5. The claim that asylum seekers are terrorists. If the government wanted to stop terrorism then they would cease involvement with those parts of the world. However only plebians (people like us) are likely to be hurt by terrorism so the government has little motivation to stop it – it’s good for winning elections! By joining the invasion of Iraq the Australian government helped al Quaeda establish new training bases while also giving al Quaeda (and related organizations) a reason to target Australia. Also whenever a war is started people will be forced to leave their homes and seek asylum else-where. If you don’t want asylum seekers seeking entry to your country then you don’t want to mess up other countries and force people to flee.
  6. Support for the “war on drugs”. That war has been at best a stale-mate and generally a loss for a century now. The approach that is being adopted experimentally of legal supply of hard drugs to addicts seems to have more promise. Incidentally the breaches in border security that are established for the purpose of drug smuggling are available for any illegal purpose that pays enough – if al Quaeda wanted to smuggle weapons into a first-world country they would probably get drug dealers to do it for them. I’ll blog more on this topic in future.

There you have it, The Squirrel and the Grasshopper covered all of the neo-con propaganda bases apart from the pro-Christian angle.

For the benefit of anyone who is thinking of forwarding on a “parable” in future, the first thing you might want to do is a google search on it. Search for comments and also search for who is promoting it. If a message you are considering forwarding is being promoted by people who are obviously racist or who discriminate against people on the basis of religion then you might consider whether you want to associate yourself with them by forwarding the message.