Mini Nukes for the Masses
We have a change in government so it could also be a good time to rethink the flawed leftie, greenie policies of generating electricity from renewable resources such as the ever unreliable wind and rain.
It seems Hyperion has released a safe and affordable mini nuclear power plant that will provide enough power for between 10,000 to 20,000 households. The Hyperion Power Module or HPM is shipped sealed and ready to go, all you need to do is dig a very big hole.
With a purchase price of $25M US (or between $1250 to $2500 per household) it is got to be one of the cheapest options for continuous power generation. Think about it, this is between $125 to $250 per year, per household based on a 10 year expected life for the fuel.
Apparently it requires some sort of security detail to make sure the HPM is safe from 'nefarious threats'. Being buried underground is an obvious advantage but as an added security measure the local neighborhood could form a volunteer detachment to keep an eye on things.
This has got be a much better value option than the Meridian Energy project West Wind being constructed at Makara which will provide enough electricity for 110,000 homes (when the wind blows) for a cost of $500M.
It seems Hyperion has released a safe and affordable mini nuclear power plant that will provide enough power for between 10,000 to 20,000 households. The Hyperion Power Module or HPM is shipped sealed and ready to go, all you need to do is dig a very big hole.
With a purchase price of $25M US (or between $1250 to $2500 per household) it is got to be one of the cheapest options for continuous power generation. Think about it, this is between $125 to $250 per year, per household based on a 10 year expected life for the fuel.
Apparently it requires some sort of security detail to make sure the HPM is safe from 'nefarious threats'. Being buried underground is an obvious advantage but as an added security measure the local neighborhood could form a volunteer detachment to keep an eye on things.
This has got be a much better value option than the Meridian Energy project West Wind being constructed at Makara which will provide enough electricity for 110,000 homes (when the wind blows) for a cost of $500M.
I Smell a Conspiracy
By Gary R, in
Rantings from the Right, posted: 3-Jul-2008 15:04
On the 1st of July the NZ government became the proud owner of the whole rail network - track, rolling stock, etc.
On the 3rd of July Transport Minister, Annette King, announced road user charge increases of between 7.5 to 15%
According to KiwiRail:
'KiwiRail is New Zealand's leading transport operator. We provide a cost-efficient linehaul service for the movement of bulk commodities or containerised freight.'
KiwiRail uses tracks not road so immediately they have an advantage over truckies because they do not pay road user charges
The government has paid over the odds for KiwiRail and must now pay even more to upgrade the rail corridor and rolling stock.
What is the best way to recover your investment?
Simple - monopolise the long haul, bulk freight market by making it significantly cheaper to use rail over road.
On the 3rd of July Transport Minister, Annette King, announced road user charge increases of between 7.5 to 15%
According to KiwiRail:
'KiwiRail is New Zealand's leading transport operator. We provide a cost-efficient linehaul service for the movement of bulk commodities or containerised freight.'
KiwiRail uses tracks not road so immediately they have an advantage over truckies because they do not pay road user charges
The government has paid over the odds for KiwiRail and must now pay even more to upgrade the rail corridor and rolling stock.
What is the best way to recover your investment?
Simple - monopolise the long haul, bulk freight market by making it significantly cheaper to use rail over road.
Disposal of Eco-bulbs
By Gary R, in
Rantings from the Right, posted: 26-Jun-2008 16:55
From the Housing Corporation website:
'At the end of the bulb’s life — Dispose at your local refuse station so that the mercury can be collected and recycled. Freephone 0800 10 21 31 for locations that collect energy efficient light bulbs for recycling. If possible, don’t put the bulbs in your household rubbish.
Ecobulbs have a 2-year warranty, so any bulbs that fail within that period can be returned to the retailer and exchanged for a new Ecobulb (no receipt required).
If the bulb breaks — Air the house for about 10-15 minutes. Broken bulbs fragments should then be swept into a bag (don’t vacuum) and taken to your local refuse station for recycling. Be sure to wear gloves to avoid being cut'
So, if Eco-bulb (or CFL) breaks evacuate house, put on Hazmat suit, sweep glass into a sealed airtight container, gas up SUV and drive 10km's to local refuse station for disposal.
It is so hard being green.
Welcome to Vuestar
By Gary R, in
Rantings from the Right, posted: 28-May-2008 10:16
Welcome indeed. It seems that Vuestar of Singapore (and Australia) is claiming to own a patent in Singapore, USA, Australia and little old NZ for, wait for it...
'A "technology" that enables a visitor to a web site to click on an image to go to another web page or web site'
In fact they have already started to send out invoices in Singapore:
'We hereby wish to advise the Commercial community that in the coming days you may receive an invoice and notice of a need to have a licence of “ USE ” where it is deemed that our intellectual property is being used to locate web – sites and/or web – pages using visual images pursuant to the various patents granted by the patent offices in the identified Countries.'
It seems that Vuestar claim to own the patent granted to one Ronald Neville Langford of Battery Hill, Queensland, Australia.
If correct then obviously Vuestar (and I assume Mr Langford) stand to make a sh_t load of money. The FAQ's are an interesting read. Here are a few highlights:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
At this stage Vuestar appear to be only sending invoices to Singapore companies and granting 'licenses' for the Singapore territory. I really do have to wonder how this patent was granted, why it was not contested and surely there must be prior-art in existence that totally invalidates any Vuestar claims.
'A "technology" that enables a visitor to a web site to click on an image to go to another web page or web site'
In fact they have already started to send out invoices in Singapore:
'We hereby wish to advise the Commercial community that in the coming days you may receive an invoice and notice of a need to have a licence of “ USE ” where it is deemed that our intellectual property is being used to locate web – sites and/or web – pages using visual images pursuant to the various patents granted by the patent offices in the identified Countries.'
It seems that Vuestar claim to own the patent granted to one Ronald Neville Langford of Battery Hill, Queensland, Australia.
If correct then obviously Vuestar (and I assume Mr Langford) stand to make a sh_t load of money. The FAQ's are an interesting read. Here are a few highlights:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you invoicing me?
You have accessed the VUESTAR , Vue Smart System by clicking, scrolling or streaming over a Visual Image to connect with a website or web page.My web page uses visual images am I the only one paying the Licence?
No. You are required to have a License, as is your Internet Service provider, your Telco whose phones connected to the web and anybody else contributing to the use of the patent. All search engine portals and web sites that have search facilities and images will require separate Licenses.What are Visual Images?
Icons, logos, brand names, photos, signatures, animations, graphics and other likeliness used or capable of being used to identify, isolate, promote, educate, market or otherwise exploit in commerce or otherwise visual images.-------------------------------------------------------------------
At this stage Vuestar appear to be only sending invoices to Singapore companies and granting 'licenses' for the Singapore territory. I really do have to wonder how this patent was granted, why it was not contested and surely there must be prior-art in existence that totally invalidates any Vuestar claims.
National to invest in broadband
The National Party has today announced that it will invest $1.5b to drive the roll-out of a 'fibre to the home' network which will deliver much faster broadband. It has been variously estimated that $5b of investment would be needed to give NZ a truly world class broadband network and that no single telecommunications company would have pockets deep enough to go it alone. The announcement by National is a large up front incentive that also shows that the next government does believe that faster broadband will have a positive impact on our economy.
National has outlined 5 principals for investment:
The network being open-access, ensuring the investment does not see already-planned investments cut back, ensuring increased broadband services, and making sure we do not end up lining the pockets of incumbent industry players.
It is good to see National taking a stand on a subject greatly politicised by our current inept leadership. So, while Labour continues to rip the balls out of Telecom (and its share holders) National has taken the lead and given this country a broadband direction. Ironically, with this announcement, National would be able to take NZ into the upper quartile for all OECD broadband indicators which was something Labour had aspired to but never achieved.
I am sure Cullen and co will announce a $1.6b investment tomorrow.
I will leave you with this recent comment from Mr Cunliffe which dismisses NZ needing government investment to build a high speed network:
"We've turned the regulatory system on its head, we're negotiating a groundbreaking deal with Telecom around operational separation, and that's going to lead to an unprecedented level of investment."
You are correct Mr Cunliffe, the 'unprecedented level of investment' is going to come from the National Party.
National has outlined 5 principals for investment:
The network being open-access, ensuring the investment does not see already-planned investments cut back, ensuring increased broadband services, and making sure we do not end up lining the pockets of incumbent industry players.
It is good to see National taking a stand on a subject greatly politicised by our current inept leadership. So, while Labour continues to rip the balls out of Telecom (and its share holders) National has taken the lead and given this country a broadband direction. Ironically, with this announcement, National would be able to take NZ into the upper quartile for all OECD broadband indicators which was something Labour had aspired to but never achieved.
I am sure Cullen and co will announce a $1.6b investment tomorrow.
I will leave you with this recent comment from Mr Cunliffe which dismisses NZ needing government investment to build a high speed network:
"We've turned the regulatory system on its head, we're negotiating a groundbreaking deal with Telecom around operational separation, and that's going to lead to an unprecedented level of investment."
You are correct Mr Cunliffe, the 'unprecedented level of investment' is going to come from the National Party.
Finally - Mobile Convergence Sanity
From the look of this press release from Motorola we may finally see a future where mobile networks are no longer split down two camps - GSM and CDMA. Motorola have demonstrated at CTIA the first packet-data call handover from EVDO RevA to LTE. For those of you who do not know, LTE (or Long Term Evolution) is the GSM industry (3GPP) version of the future 4G (or Super 3G) mobile technology. In the CDMA world (3GPP2) we have UMB (Ultra Mobile Broadband) or EVDO RevC which was championed by Qualcomm but some of the rumours circulating recently are speculating that UMB may never 'see the light of day'. This is possibly driven in part by the decision of Vodafone owned Verizon who recently stated their intention of adopting LTE rather UMB even though they are a CDMA carrier.
What Motorola demonstrated was true handover from/to LTE and RevA with no packet loss. This represents the nirvana of inter-network interoperability. The experience today with handover from CDMA 1x to EVDO (and visa versa) is not exactly seamless.
In the 4G world voice over mobile is actually VoIP and it has always been the intention of EVDO operators to use VoIP over their RevA networks by utilising QoS infrastructure to ensure a consistent service. There is probably more incentive for EVDO operators to adopt VoIP now that the network migration path is much clearer.
What this also shows is quite a sound strategy by Telecom NZ to keep their RevA network while only building a much smaller footprint of HSPA.
Certainly LTE will offer quite a competitive challenge to WiMAX and also to fixed-line technologies. I can seea future where the GZ forums will no longer be filled with the same hyperbole over which is better - GSM or CDMA.
What Motorola demonstrated was true handover from/to LTE and RevA with no packet loss. This represents the nirvana of inter-network interoperability. The experience today with handover from CDMA 1x to EVDO (and visa versa) is not exactly seamless.
In the 4G world voice over mobile is actually VoIP and it has always been the intention of EVDO operators to use VoIP over their RevA networks by utilising QoS infrastructure to ensure a consistent service. There is probably more incentive for EVDO operators to adopt VoIP now that the network migration path is much clearer.
What this also shows is quite a sound strategy by Telecom NZ to keep their RevA network while only building a much smaller footprint of HSPA.
Certainly LTE will offer quite a competitive challenge to WiMAX and also to fixed-line technologies. I can seea future where the GZ forums will no longer be filled with the same hyperbole over which is better - GSM or CDMA.
Online Lotto Sales
By Gary R, in
Mindless Ramblings, posted: 28-Mar-2008 12:30
I have to wonder at the logic of providing online sales of lotto tickets when we apparently have such a gambling problem in this country. Apparently there will be 'safeguards' such as each person can operate one account and to set-up an account they must register on-line, the person is then required to set their own 'weekly and monthly' spend limits 'that can not be exceeded' and if you constantly spend to the 'maximum' you will be contacted and offered 'problem gambling' support.
Seriously this is another example of 'nanny state' madness. Think about this:
1. If you have a gambling problem just keep buying tickets anonymously at a retailer
2. Everyone knows that it is not difficult to set-up and operate multiple on-line accounts in different names even if they require ID like a driver licence it wouldn't be difficult to sign up under multiple family members.
3. Why would you want the 'nanny' government to know how much you spend on Lotto?
4. If you spend up to your maximum limit and get barred just go off to a retailer and pay cash
5. It hasn't been said but you have to assume that on-line Lotto would require you to purchase via credit card. How bad is that? Using a credit card to gamble!
This sounds like an experiment in 'social engineering' where we are looking at a future of all Lotto purchases going on-line and the government telling you what you can and can not spend. Not only that but they are also cutting out the 'middle man' which is all those little retailers who invested in Lotto serving equipment and probably derive a good income from Lotto sales.
I occasionally buy a Lotto ticket with the milk and there is no way I am signing up to a data-mining website so that Helen can tell me off for buying too many 'Mega Power Dips'. How stupid!
Seriously this is another example of 'nanny state' madness. Think about this:
1. If you have a gambling problem just keep buying tickets anonymously at a retailer
2. Everyone knows that it is not difficult to set-up and operate multiple on-line accounts in different names even if they require ID like a driver licence it wouldn't be difficult to sign up under multiple family members.
3. Why would you want the 'nanny' government to know how much you spend on Lotto?
4. If you spend up to your maximum limit and get barred just go off to a retailer and pay cash
5. It hasn't been said but you have to assume that on-line Lotto would require you to purchase via credit card. How bad is that? Using a credit card to gamble!
This sounds like an experiment in 'social engineering' where we are looking at a future of all Lotto purchases going on-line and the government telling you what you can and can not spend. Not only that but they are also cutting out the 'middle man' which is all those little retailers who invested in Lotto serving equipment and probably derive a good income from Lotto sales.
I occasionally buy a Lotto ticket with the milk and there is no way I am signing up to a data-mining website so that Helen can tell me off for buying too many 'Mega Power Dips'. How stupid!
Off to Space aboard an XCOR Lynx
Well I wish.
XCOR Aerospace has announced that they will be offering suborbital flights from 2010 using their Lynx spaceship. I think I would prefer this option to the Virgin Galactic offering because you get to sit up front in the co-pilot seat rather than being a passenger sitting in the back. Also it is just you and the pilot. The Lynx takes off under its own power rather than being launched at 50,000 feet from another craft which is what Virgin Galactic are intending. The Lynx looks like one hell of a ride.
XCOR has produced this really cool animation of the entire journey. I couldn't help but notice that the Lynx vehicle design looks very similar to a VKA-23 which was designed in 1959 by the Soviet OKB-23 Myasishchev design bureau
XCOR Aerospace has announced that they will be offering suborbital flights from 2010 using their Lynx spaceship. I think I would prefer this option to the Virgin Galactic offering because you get to sit up front in the co-pilot seat rather than being a passenger sitting in the back. Also it is just you and the pilot. The Lynx takes off under its own power rather than being launched at 50,000 feet from another craft which is what Virgin Galactic are intending. The Lynx looks like one hell of a ride.
XCOR has produced this really cool animation of the entire journey. I couldn't help but notice that the Lynx vehicle design looks very similar to a VKA-23 which was designed in 1959 by the Soviet OKB-23 Myasishchev design bureau
Boston Dynamics Quadruped - Big Dog
This is absolutely amazing. A quadruped robot from Boston Dynamics that moves effortlessly over all terrains although it had a bit of trouble with ice. Designed for the army as a pack horse I can't help but wonder what happens if you blow out a leg with a standard Soviet era RPG. I think they need to do something about the noise as well. Even the hard of hearing would be able to tell a Big Dog was on the way.
The project appears to be funded by the deep pockets of DARPA.
I suppose in the future there could be a version with side mounted laser canons or ED-209 style rocket launchers and machine guns.
The project appears to be funded by the deep pockets of DARPA.
I suppose in the future there could be a version with side mounted laser canons or ED-209 style rocket launchers and machine guns.
FBI - 'Bait and Hook'
By Gary R, in
Mindless Ramblings, posted: 25-Mar-2008 13:15
An interesting story over at El'Reg regarding the FBI and the baiting of suspects with an unhealthy interest in children. Apparently the FBI solicits suspects through forums via an enticing link (FBI hosted) and then nabs them by tracking their IP number.
Obviously the word 'entrapment' springs to mind and certainly anyone wanting this sort of content should be apprehended and dealt with severely but does clicking a hyperlink pointing to a server that does not actually host any or display any of the 'advertised' content constitute a crime? Well, apparently it does. This raises the obvious question of how far 'entrapment' can go and your rights when 'innocently' being led down the link clicking path.
For the first time ever I got severely caught out today at work. Drinking my morning coffee I was looking for a tutorial on puttying - as in puttying windows. So, I search on Google for 'puttying windows' which in the second page of search results throws up this:
Not really concentrating on what I was going on I opened multiple windows from lots of links with the above being one of them. This page (do not go there!) asked me to install an ActiveX control for a media codec which stupidly I did. I know, I know, I should have known better but I was still in morning brain fuzz phase and simply thought 'great a video tutorial'. Well, the link is not what it purported to be and it sent me to this internet nugget http://porn-youtube-8.com/freemovie/Video%20-%20puttying%7CSpecial%20Archive%20-%20puttying/725/6/ which went about infecting my laptop with all manner of nasties like multiple Trojans (which disabled my task bar) and some pop-ups. Luckily AVG, Spybot and HiJackThis cleared out the mess.
So, what if my innocent search had re-directed me to a fake FBI web site specifically set up to entrap viewers of illegal content and how would you actually prove your innocence? It wouldn't take much effort for a hacker to place an Open Redirect to the FBI server from an innocuous looking hyperlink with the true link hidden through URL encoding.
My colleagues awarded me the 'Turkey Trophy', because 'I should have known better' which is fair enough. Needless to say I have learnt my lesson and will be more diligent in the future.
Obviously the word 'entrapment' springs to mind and certainly anyone wanting this sort of content should be apprehended and dealt with severely but does clicking a hyperlink pointing to a server that does not actually host any or display any of the 'advertised' content constitute a crime? Well, apparently it does. This raises the obvious question of how far 'entrapment' can go and your rights when 'innocently' being led down the link clicking path.
For the first time ever I got severely caught out today at work. Drinking my morning coffee I was looking for a tutorial on puttying - as in puttying windows. So, I search on Google for 'puttying windows' which in the second page of search results throws up this:
Not really concentrating on what I was going on I opened multiple windows from lots of links with the above being one of them. This page (do not go there!) asked me to install an ActiveX control for a media codec which stupidly I did. I know, I know, I should have known better but I was still in morning brain fuzz phase and simply thought 'great a video tutorial'. Well, the link is not what it purported to be and it sent me to this internet nugget http://porn-youtube-8.com/freemovie/Video%20-%20puttying%7CSpecial%20Archive%20-%20puttying/725/6/ which went about infecting my laptop with all manner of nasties like multiple Trojans (which disabled my task bar) and some pop-ups. Luckily AVG, Spybot and HiJackThis cleared out the mess.
So, what if my innocent search had re-directed me to a fake FBI web site specifically set up to entrap viewers of illegal content and how would you actually prove your innocence? It wouldn't take much effort for a hacker to place an Open Redirect to the FBI server from an innocuous looking hyperlink with the true link hidden through URL encoding.
My colleagues awarded me the 'Turkey Trophy', because 'I should have known better' which is fair enough. Needless to say I have learnt my lesson and will be more diligent in the future.
