Considering coal as a clean fuel
Enough is enough. I don’t want to lead with my operating system. I’ve returned to the familiar face of 32-bits.
There wasn’t any advantage to 64-bit technology, in my case, and I found enough packages that didn’t want to run to give me more than pause. My family tree stuff, in particular. The program that I’ve been dragging forward for years; past the DOS graves, through the Win 95/98/XP years, over the bumps of a new Vista, at peace with W7/32 had refused to go on. I tried virtual machines (too slow). I tried abstaining, which was simply frustrating. Today I reformatted, putting the new out to the curb and returning to where I was six months ago.
I can do a reinstall in an afternoon, thanks to ample hard drive space and a sense of zen about such things. Now all that remains is to get my web server running. Soon; very soon.
The political commentary on CBC is still on Wikileak watch. Probably the most interesting story to come their way in ages…
I’ve found a new paradigm to ponder. Is coal clean? This month’s issue of Atlantic provides some interesting material. Given that we don’t have a replacement in view, and our energy needs as a race continue to ramp up, we may have to accept that burning rocks is the only choice available. Wind and water alone won’t do it, and the sun doesn’t always shine. Nuclear lasts a long time. If the engineering class can figure out how to keep the soot and chimney gases down, we’re going to be mining for the next few decades. Seriously. None want to shut off the lights and stay in the caves.
