What we need to do now (not part of assignment)

We need to focus our priorities on renewable, domestic energy sources. It is in the interest of the United States and the world environment to do so. Investments in technology like cellulosic ethanol (currently my favorite transition technology) would produce enormous geopolitical benefits for the United States. Imagine the possibilities of our foreign policy if we no longer had to worry about foreign oil. The Middle East would be stripped of the majority of its relevance, reducing its clout and its ability to raise funds. We're paying for the Iranian nuclear program (peaceful or not, either way). We're sending our money into the unknown where it can potentially fund terrorism. Imagine all the current oil money flowing into the coffers of domestic farmers and refiners instead. Many whine that cellulosic ethanol will require billions of dollars more to perfect and implement. Yet what could the 1/2 trillion dollar estimated cost of the Iraq war have done for programs like cellulosic ethanol? The War on Terror is extremely important, however the need for a domestic replacement for petroleum supersedes it in the short term; the War would be more easily successful if we could perfect that ethanol process, bolster our economy, and then return our attention to it. Not to mention, an economy based on cellulosic (and corn/soybean ethanol, if it could remain price-competitive) ethanol is carbon-neutral, which solves yet another problem. The infrastructure exists: we have the fueling stations and increasing numbers of flex-fuel vehicles. If we can perfect cellulosic ethanol, then agricultural waste and other plant material can be easily turned into the carbon-neutral basis for our economy. This would give us the time we need in order to develop renewable supplies of electricity, which in turn could form the basis for a clean hydrogen economy. Here's an abstract timeline: (dates not given because it's simply a potential sequence of events, not a prediction)

Cellulosic ethanol process perfected ------> production and refining infrastructure created ------> carbon neutrality achieved in the transportation sector ------> carbon emissions slowed down from the United States, resulting in more time for renewable sources of electricity to be developed -------> clean electricity provides basis for electrolysis-based hydrogen ------> hydrogen infrastructure developed ------> clean hydrogen economy

Keeping energy dollars spent domestically in the domestic economy would produce obvious economic benefits (probably more than enough to justify the investment), as well as removing the political Achilles heel of foreign petroleum from the United States. The environmental benefits are side-effects, but excellent ones. Thus would the carbon problem in the US be solved through a self-strengthening measure, rather than business-depressing carbon caps imposed by a green-minded but misled Congress.

Sites that have evidence for global warming ( Again, I acknowledge climate change, though I am uncertain of what degree of significance our actions will have) :

The scientific consensus on climate change: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The EPA's information page:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Borderline propaganda found in Google search for "global warming":
http://www.climatehotmap.org/

Answers to the Assignment Questions

1.) Fossil fuel usage, industrialization, CO2 levels, and average temperature are all directly related. Each has increased alongside the other. (And though these trends have a mathematical relationship, I stand by my earlier statement that trends are not sufficient proof to pin total responsibility on humans. An exacerbated natural trend is an equally if not more plausible interpretation of these trends)
2.) The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement under the UN intended to reduce world CO2 emissions. This is intended to occur either through lowering emissions directly, or by buying and selling "Carbon Credits" in the international community. Major signatories: China, Canada, India, major members of the EU, and Russia. Note the absence of the US and Australia. (source: Wikipedia)
3.) Three possible effects of global warming are vastly more powerful storms, increased droughts/ heat waves, and rising sea levels.
4.) Three ways to reduce personal energy consumption: Use CFL bulbs, use appliances prudently by turning them off when not in use, and use a programmable thermostat to reduce furnace usage when it's not needed.
5.) A new technology that could change energy use is the hydrogen-based economy. Using renewable resources to produce electricity for clean electrolysis of water would provide hydrogen without harmful emissions. Hydrogen would then be the primary source of energy; it would replace gasoline through fuel cells in cars. It would replace batteries through small-scale fuel cells. Essentially, our energy economy would operate on the energy of electricity produced through renewable sources, which is conveyed to the market in the form of hydrogen. Forgive the whimsical nature of this answer, but such an economy would require a Herculean effort far beyond that of any of the greatest public works projects ever. Though it's possible, it's a long, long way off in the future.

Climate Change
Global warming, as we all know, is a highly volatile debate in the modern political and scientific arena. Billion-dollar profits for corporations, political career paths, and the future of our planet and race are all at stake. Historical climate change is an undeniable fact; there have been ice ages and warmer, balmier times over the years. As manifest logic would imply, humans were not responsible for those changes. In the current times, however, humans have the population and technology necessary to affect the natural cycles. Since the industrial revolution, humans have undeniably released a steadily increasing amount of greenhouse gases. The effect of humans cannot be discounted without also dispensing with logic: CO2, CH4, and the other greenhouse gases produce the greenhouse effect. Humans have released increasing amounts of these gases in the last 250+ years. Hence, humans have enhanced the greenhouse effect. No person may correctly state that humans have had no effect on our climate. The question that I raise is how much have humans affected the climate? How much CO2 and CH4 are we truly releasing, and how much must there be in order to significantly change our climate? It is my opinion that the current climate change is a natural one that is being exacerbated but not caused by human activity. The question of the day is, again, how much are we exacerbating the change? As far as I know, we have no truly definitive answer yet. The arguments for human responsibility tend to lack lack unquestionable facts, and simply point to trends between human industrialization and the warming cycle. Arguments for the natural responsibility foolishly assert in essence that greenhouse gases from human society don't somehow compound the natural cycle of those gases. There is no acceptable answer at the moment. We need to find out how much the greenhouse gases must increase in order to affect a significant change , and then we can compare that amount to how much we produce. If our emissions are close to that critical amount, then we can justify limits on carbon and other greenhouse gases. If not, then we can focus that effort on other environmental initiatives.

Atomic Number: 37
Atomic Symbol: Rb
Atomic Weight: 85.4678
Electron Configuration: [Kr]5s¹
Atomic Radius: 247.5 pm
Melting Point: 39.3 C
^{Oxidation States: 1}


The name is derived from the Latin "rubidus", or "deepest red".
The element gives a reddish-violet color to a flame, hence its name. Honestly, I chose this element because it has one of the best names of any element.
Rubidium is very reactive, and is a very soft metal. It has been reported to ignite spontaneously in air. Also, it reacts violently with water, like the other Group 1 elements. The hydrogen released in a water reaction may ignite, if enough energy is released. Though this is only my opinion, I postulate that perhaps water vapor in the air may react with the rubidium, resulting in the reported spontaneous reaction. But of course, that's only an idea.
This element is, at the moment, considered to be the 16th most abundant element in the Earth's crust. Rubidium has many applications. There is a potential application in thin-film batteries and other electrical uses, because RbAg4I5 has the highest room conductivity of any known ionic crystal. At 20oC its conductivity is about the same as dilute sulfuric acid. It is also used as a "getter" in vacuum tubes (that is, it is used to bind any gas that enters into a vacuum tube). Also, Rubidium can do many things that its "cousin" Cesium can do. Like Cesium, it can be used as the resonant element in atomic clocks (clocks that are far more accurate than our digital wristwatches, which use silicon in the form of quartz as the resonant element.) Also like Cesium, it has a potential application in ion propulsion engines (for space shuttles). Other applications include laser cooling, use in fireworks (to give a purple color), and an ingredient in special uses of glass. Rb-87 is known as an alternative to Carbon in carbon-dating, because of its long half-life.
Rubidium occurs naturally in the minerals leucite, pollucite, and zinnwaldite, which contains traces of up to 1% of its oxide. Lepidolite contains 1.5% rubidium and this is the commercial source of the element. Rubidium's most common compounds are RbCl, RbF, and Rb2SO4.
Links: http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/37.html
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Rb/key.html
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/Rb.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium

Atomic Number:	37		Atomic Radius:	247.5 pm
	Atomic Symbol:	Rb		Melting Point:	39.3 �C
	Atomic Weight:	85.4678		Boiling Point:	688 �C
	Electron Configuration:	[Kr]5s1		Oxidation States:	1

Regarding this whole blogging project, I'm really quite pleased. It was great to be able to write about what I want; one would be amazed at how much one writes when discussing a topic of great interest. It was much more fun to learn the chapter keywords in a context that we ourselves understand, rather than simply trying to understand the textbook-given example. Also, I feel that synthesizing information and context is learning on a much higher level than simple "copy-it-out-of-the-textbook" busy-work. I'll give you an idea of the thought process. First, I'd look at the keywords that I needed to incorporate. Then, I'd think of a situation in the computer industry that applied to the given keyword. For example, when I needed to use "asset" and "stockholder", I wrote about AMD's aquisition of ATI. Of course, such an article would use those keywords in a way that did not sound artificial and forced. Then, I looked up specific information regarding the article, in this case by viewing AMD's press release about the aquisition. After that, I put it all together in a coherent manner that sent the message that I was looking for. This is the kind of passion and initiative that this project creates. I really and truly think that this is an excellent idea, and has a major role in the future of education.

So. The AMD corporation really bought ATI. Hopefully their BOARDS know what they're doing; AMD needs to borrow several billion dollars just to make the aquisition. They plan on paying 4.2 billion dollars and 47 million AMD shares to the ATI stockholders in a complete merger. This is a make-or-break move for AMD. If the future of graphics is a specialized part of a 24 (or more) core CPU, or if AMD designs a GPU that can fit into a processor socket, totally bypassing PCIe and becoming part of the HyperTransport link (as some believe may happen), then AMD will succeed. ATI's experienced ASSETS, especially their engineers, will be key in making such a thing happen. If the graphics market continues long-term (like, 5-10 years long-term)along the path that it has, then AMD is in trouble. It will take a miracle to save ATI's Crossfire, and any moves that AMD makes incorrectly could anger Nvidia. And if AMD fails, well, at least STOCKHOLDERS have LIMITED LIABILITY. We'll see.

Many ask the question: Am I better off with a pre-built rig, or with a DIY (do-it-myself, in this case) rig? My personal preference is definitely to build my own. However, I want an upper-midrange computer. Companies like Dell can produce low-end computers for less money, because of wholesaling and buying in bulk. However, upper-midrange and above systems from Dell-like companies command a premium. They figure that since the consumer is willing to pay more for a better computer, then they might as well boost the price. This is where they make their major MARGINAL REVENUE; they get much more money per high-end unit sold than per low-end unit sold. Thus, if one's grandmother needs an internet/e-mail PC, a Dell is the way to go. If you want a nice, highly customized system without the premium, then DIY is the way to go.

The latest battle in an old war? No, not sectarian violence in Baghdad. It's AMD vs. Intel. As I've said before, the Core 2 Duo has won Intel the performance crown, and they will begin agressively down-pricing their NetBurst chips. In order to stay competitive, AMD is cutting its costs too. After all, untill they can beat the Core 2 Duo, price will be their only option for competition. AMD's 1MB L2 cache in the X2 is toast. Unfortunately for performance, cache is expensive to add to the die. It's a MARGINAL COST in production; the more cache you have, the fewer chips per wafer of silicon one can manufacture (unless one drops to a smaller nm rating of manufacturing). Less chips per wafer boosts costs per chip, and thus we see AMD's problem. Although the on-board memory controller allows AMD to have much less cache than Intel in order to have comparable latency, any loss of cache will still cause a performance hit. On the bright side for AMD, its aquisition of ATI will save it millions of dollars per year (at least according to the press releases). Plus, ATI's access to AMD's production facilities will save much in FIXED COSTS, such as rent.

Hello everyone, and welcome to Army's blog. I'm ,of course, Army. If you have any interesting computer-related discussion, it's welcome here. I have some writing to do for economics class, so be prepared for some inter-relation between economics and computers.

As we all know, Intel has turned things around with it's Core 2 Duo. However, AMD still has a pricing edge for the time being. Demand for these Core 2 Duo's has far outran supply (it's still a little early) consistently, creating a shortage. Intel's projected quantity supplied is about 500,000 Core 2 Duo's by the official release date, August 7th. Even this seemingly large supply will not be enough to meet demand. This means that most e-tailers have their prices inflated over the MSRP of these CPU's. The law of supply will take hold in this case; suppliers will work to increase the supply. Intel's motivation to boost supply is motivated not by profit-seeking (because the e-tailers are inflating the price, not Intel), but by the need to lower prices to the MSRP in order to solidify competitiveness. Most blogs suspect this equilibrium date to be in mid-August (the official release date of these Core 2 Duo's is August 7th). Interestingly, Intel's efficient production allows the MSRP of these processors to be much lower than the current crop of Pentium D's and Extreme Editions, despite the vast performance improvement. If Intel doesn't drop the prices of the old architecture, the surplus of these NetBurst chips will be even more pronounced. In a month or two, I'm expecting large clearance sales just to clear out this inventory.