I have decided to create a page where I can track the speeds of USB Flash drives. The page can be found at http://wordpress.anykeycs.com/?page_id=550

I believe that the Western Digital network hard drive that I have is a slow device. Even though it has a Gigabit network port, I feel it may simply process requests slowly. To test this. I am doing some file copying to and from it.

First test: Copy a 3.8gig file from the MythTV box to the WD drive. The MythTV box has a Gigabit network port, and is connected to the same gigabit switch that the WD drive is connected to.

Result of copying a 3.8G file from MythTV to WD: 31 minutes, 10 seconds.

Next, I will copy that file from the Western Digital, to the Lenovo Laptop. This will be through a number of switches, including ones that are not capable of Gigabit. I should see a significant drop in speed, but I do not think I will.

Oddly enough, this was a faster transfer. It took 21 minutes to retrieve the file this way.

Next, I will copy the file from the Lenovo, back to the MythTV box. –> 12 min.

Next, I will copy the file from MythTV to Lenovo. –> 24 minutes

It occurs to me that the Processor handling the copy, may make a difference. The first copy was managed by the MythTV box, and the later transfers are managed by the Lenovo processor.

It is clear transfers involving the MythTV box are slow. I guess it is time to upgrade that processor.

I am thinking about putting together a study guide for Network+ certification. Below are some resources that might be useful.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Network_Plus_Certification

http://www.comptia.org/home.aspx

I do not know how well I will maintain this, but I have added a sub-domain for my students. The domain is wakext.brianthegeek.net. The things I need to remember to do to keep this up to date are as follows.

1. Create a new sub-folder in htdocs\wakext\<date>
2. Populate the new folder with the Student folders.
3. Edit htdocs\wakext\index to include the new folder.
4. Add an index file to the new <date> folder.

My final assignment for  my writing class this summer is to assess my own progress. What are my weaknesses and strengths.What have I improved, and what still needs work?

Much of this class focused on critical thinking, and on evaluating arguments. I have long been interested in this topic, and have studied it heavily.  The focus placed on it in this class, as well as the discussions and exercises in class made this much clearer for me.

I feel that a strength I possessed coming into the class was an analytical attitude, and a desire to seek the truth, whether I agree with it or not. I feel that as strong as that was coming in, it is a little sharper now.

One of the areas that I still need to work to improve is around building my arguments with my evidence as the foundation. I still seem to try to write my papers from an authoritative position. To people who do not know who I am, my authority will not be recognized. I need to lead with the evidence, and build from that.

Essay three was about my research into Ethanol in our fuel supply. This last paper is an expression of my thoughts based on that research.

—

This paper is part two of a study on the effects of Ethanol on our economy, and on the environment. The first paper was intended to reflect the results of research I had done into this topic, and this paper is intended to present my personal findings based on that research.

When Ethanol first became available, I was very excited about it. I was in my late teens, and was very happy that we had an alternative to oil for our fuel. I have always, and still do, believe that it is important to loosen the grip of foreign oil producers on our economy. It is good business to have an alternate supplier, in case something goes wrong with one of them. This thought is reflected by our own Government, in a statement from the U.S. Department of Energy Web Site (http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/benefits.html), “Ethanol is a renewable, largely domestic transportation fuel”. They make this statement as an opening to pointing out that Ethanol helps to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil, and helps to support the U.S. agriculture sector. Even if this was not about ‘foreign’ oil, I believe that demand for energy can only increase, and there is a limited supply of oil. Therefore, a replacement needs to be found. Maybe we will not run out tomorrow, but it is better to find the replacement before we need it.

Another factor that has been on my mind over the last decade or two, is the continually shrinking number of jobs in our economy. I was not predicting our current situation, but never the less, we have hit a bad time, employment-wise. Therefore, if we can produce fuel domestically, this could be a real boon to the economy. The Ethanol Industry via the American Coalition for Ethanol (http://www.ethanol.org ) indicates that the increased domestic production of Ethanol leads to more American jobs, and a boost to our economy. In addition to the jobs created in the production of Ethanol, there are the by-products of Ethanol which will lead to additional manufacturing jobs, and additional products to help fuel the economy.

The environment is the third leg of the argument to support the use of Ethanol in our fuel. I will save the discussion of the legitimacy of Climate Change for a little later. However, I will state now that regardless of Climate Change, I believe there is no point in producing more pollution than necessary. We should attempt to act in a responsible manor when it comes to how much waste we produce, and how we dispose of it. We can never really throw anything out, we can only put it somewhere else on the planet (unless we start launching it into space, that is). Therefore, we will eventually have to face the problem again, at some point in our future, unless we deal with it right away.

In “Clearing the Air with Ethanol” (by Brett Hulsey and Brooke Coleman, published by REAP – Renewable Energy Action Project), They cite a study conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources , in which they claim there is evidence of a 16% drop in Ozone exceedance days since the adoption of 10% ethanol (E10) in 1994. The Department of Energy Website, along with many other supporter of Ethanol point out that since Ethanol is distilled from plant material, CO2 produced by burning Ethanol is absorbed by the plants while they are growing. The argument is that the net production of CO2 would be negative.

We have seen many of the arguments that support using Ethanol in our fuel. It offsets the need to import fuel (oil), it promotes American jobs, it has secondary markets (by-products), and it may be better for the environment. Now, I want to look at a few of the arguments against Ethanol. One of the biggest arguments I could find was that Ethanol still uses a lot of fossil fuels in its production.

According to the New York Times, in an article titled ‘ A Range of Estimates on Ethanol’s Benefits’, published June 25th, 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/25ethanolside.htmlom/), more energy is consumes to make a gallon of Ethanol, than you can get back out of that same gallon. Natural gas is used to produce fertilizers to grow the crops, diesel is used in the farm machinery, and then natural gas, or sometimes even coal is used to run the plants that distill the ethanol.

In the paper “The Rush to Ethanol: Not All Biofuels Are Created Equal”, published jointly by Food & Water Watch, and The Network for New Energy Choices, (available for download from http://www.newenergychoices.org/uploads/RushToEthanol-rep.pdf) environmental concerns are raised. Intensive harvesting may lead to soil erosion. The heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides can lead to further air and water pollution. There is already concern over an area of the Gulf of Mexico referred to as the ‘Dead Zone’. This area is thought to be caused by all of the farm pollution already coming down the rivers into the Gulf.

The current supply of Ethanol is no where near large enough to replace our current need for oil. There is a race to create more farmland, all around the world the ‘Rush to Ethanol’ document also points out all of the land that is being converted. We are loosing farmland that used to be dedicated to food crops, as well as rain forests. On page 21 of this report, they cite a researcher from the University of Minnesota, who points out that if you were to convert every corn and soybean field in the United States to bio-fuel production, you could reduce gasoline usage by only 18%. If we loose native forest land (rain forest, or regular forest), to the production of Ethanol, are we really improving the environment?

The Ethanol refineries themselves may be a cause of pollution. According to an article titled “Ethanol comes with environmental impact, despite green image” published May 5th of 2007, in USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/environment/2007-05-05-ethanolenvironment_N.htm), Ethanol plants produce a great deal of ozone, which is a known health risk. Some Ethanol plants are granted permits to produce over 450 tons of various pollutants.

The final point on the environmental arguments against Ethanol addresses the water usage. Water is becoming a real concern in many parts of the world. In the article I mentioned earlier, “The Rush to Ethanol”, on page 29, The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy is identified as estimating that four gallons of water is required for every gallon of ethanol that is to be produced.

I have reviewed the arguments both for and against Ethanol usage in our fuel. Below, I will challenge some of the ideas presented, and provide my own, current views on this topic. First I want to address the topic of domestic production. We have a supply of oil available to us in the United States, but we choose not to use it for a number of reasons. Therefore, if domestic production were the real goal, we do not need Ethanol to achieve that goal. I agree that we should reduce our dependance on foreign sources, but Ethanol is not the only/best way to accomplish that goal. There are new technologies on the horizon that may be better than either oil or ethanol.

In answer to the point about all the new jobs that may be created with Ethanol, I ask about all the jobs that will be lost in the oil industry. The oil may be produced overseas, but much of the actual refining and blending is done here in the United States. There will be a boost in jobs during the period of time that we use both fuels, but if we eventually eliminate oil, we also eliminate the jobs related to oil. In the end, will we really have more jobs? Another argument that was made had to do with secondary markets from the by-products of ethanol. This is good, but what about all the markets that exist for the by-products of the petroleum industry, such as films and plastics, just to name a couple?

On the environmental front, I do find it a bit troublesome that so much land is being cleared for the production of ethanol crops. I think there is a long-term problem brewing here that is not really being looked at. There is some merit to the idea that these crops absorb CO2 during the growth cycle, but it seems to have been ignored that the same plants tend to release CO2 during their rest period (at night, for example). The plant still consumes more CO2 than it emits, but I do not know that it consumes enough to offset the CO2 produced by the whole process (farming, distilling, burning, etc.).

They study that cites the reduction in Ozone Exceedance Days in Wisconsin seems to want to claim that Ethanol is responsible for that reduction. I would point out tat during the same period, the public has become far more aware of the problems of Ozone, and the state has implemented ‘Ozone Action Days’. Considering these facts, How much effect did Ethanol really have?

The problems associated with farming, such as soil erosion, pesticide, and fertilizer usage, are problems we have with or without Ethanol. The “Dead Zone” in the Gulf of Mexico is not only due to Ethanol crops. However, the demand for Ethanol has required far more production from our limited farmlands, that it has had its own effect.

The food and water issues should not be ignored. As much of the world is attempting to find new sources of drinking water, Ethanol production uses a large supply. Combined with the effect on our food supply, it seems foolish to take food and water out of the hands of people who need it, so that we can burn it in our cars.

It was pointed out that Ethanol plants themselves produce pollution. What is not mentioned in that same statement is that oil refineries also produce pollution. In the same way that I argued that there may be little change in the job market if we converted to ethanol over oil, I also have to ask how the pollution from an ethanol plant may differ from an oil refinery. If I had to guess, Ethanol plants are cleaner than Oil refineries, but the truth requires more research.

So, what is the bottom line? I have pointed out that we cannot count on oil forever. It is not an unlimited supply, and it would be nice to do away with the pollution it causes. However, I do not believe that Ethanol is the replacement that will save us. The total impact of Ethanol on the environment does not appear that much better than oil, especially since it does not appear that it could ever completely replace oil. There are a number of other technologies emerging, which may be better replacements for our fuel. I would recommend that we skip over Ethanol, continue to use oil for now, and develop other technologies, such as fuel-cells, bio-diesel, and more efficient batteries.

One last thing I will toss in here (thought there are many, but this is getting pretty long already). The interviews with the Lieutenant got me to thinking. He is in a no-win situation in these interviews. Basically, the interviewers can say and do anything to try to goad a reaction out of him. The only thing that is guaranteed to be shown, is if he looses his cool. Any taunting the interviewers do, is likely to be cut from the coverage, or from this documentary. On the flip side, the Aljazeera personnel know that they are being filmed, and can ‘act’ to emphasize elements of the program. If I am watching the invasion, I know that the cameras are on. If I do something dumb, it will be cut. If I do something striking, it will be shown to the world. Something like covering my mouth while watching an invasion to appear shocked at what I am seeing.

The next in my series of papers written for my classes, this paper looks at the arguments around whether Ethanol is a good replacement for petroleum in our fuel supply. This is the first of two papers on this subject. This one simply collects the ideas and evidence that exist on this topic, and the next paper will be an analysis of these ideas. There are two general categories that the arguments around Ethanol fall into. Is Ethanol good for our economy, and is Ethanol good for the environment?

I will start by identifying the stated benefits of Ethanol. According to the U.S. Department of Energy Web Site (http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/benefits.html), “Ethanol is a renewable, largely domestic transportation fuel”. According to the same page, Ethanol helps to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil, and helps to support the U.S. agriculture sector.

These same claims are echoed by the Ethanol Industry via the American Coalition for Ethanol. The web site for this organization can be found at http://www.ethanol.org. In addition to the claims mentioned above from the Department of Energy, the Ethanol.org web site indicated that the increased domestic production of Ethanol leads to more American jobs, and a boost to our economy.

In “Clearing the Air with Ethanol” (by Brett Hulsey and Brooke Coleman, published by REAP – Renewable Energy Action Project), They cite a study conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources , in which they claim there is evidence of a 16% drop in Ozone exceedance days since the adoption of 10% ethanol (E10) in 1994.

The Department of Energy Website, in addition to others points out that burning Ethanol does still produce carbon dioxide, however, the crops that are grown to produce the ethanol consume carbon dioxide, resulting in a net reduction of CO2 in the environment.

The New York Times, published June 25th, 2006, (also available on the web at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/25ethanolside.htmlom/) mentions that there are beneficial by-products of ethanol production that need to be considered when weighing the total costs and benefits of Ethanol, such as Corn oil, and Corn gluten.

Below is a list to help summarize the above points;

• Renewable Resource
• Domestically Produced
• Reduced dependence on foreign oil
• Supports U.S. Agriculture
• New economic sector
  • New Jobs
  • More tax revenue
  • Economic Growth
• Reduced production of CO2
• Crops absorb CO2 from atmosphere.
• Ethanol by-products (Corn oil, Corn Gluten)

Now, I shall review some of the arguments against the use of Ethanol in our fuel supply. In the article titled A Range of Estimates on Ethanol’s Benefits, from the New York Times, published June 25th, 2006, (also available on the web at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/25ethanolside.htmlom/) argues that more energy goes into the production of each gallon of Ethanol, than a gallon of Ethanol can deliver. The article goes further to point out that growing corn calls for heavy use of nitrogen-heavy fertilizers, the production of which consumes natural gas. The farm equipment used in growing and harvesting corn, tends to still be diesel powered.

According to the same article, Many of the plants built to refine ethanol, use Natural gas, or coal, as a fuel source. These fuel sources are both forms of the fossil fuels that Ethanol is intended to replace. In addition, coal power results in additional air pollution.

In the paper “The Rush to Ethanol: Not All Biofuels Are Created Equal”, published jointly by Food & Water Watch, and The Network for New Energy Choices, (available for download from http://www.newenergychoices.org/uploads/RushToEthanol-rep.pdf) the concerns of the  New York Times article are repeated. In addition, many new issues are identified. For example, concerns over soil erosion from intensive harvesting is mentioned, along with the threats to our water supply from the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can run off of the farm lands used to produce the corn needed for current production of ethanol. This run-off may be responsible for the “Dead Zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.

Using corn for the production of ethanol takes it out of the food supply, therefore raising the costs of foods around the world. It not only effects the price of corn, but of the other crops that yield land to corn production, and to the price of livestock, which is fed by these crops.

The question of land use becomes even bigger when you look to other countries which are now looking to clear-cut forests, and even rain-forests to plant corn for the production of ethanol. On page 21 of this report, they cite a researcher from the University of Minnesota, who points out that if you were to convert every corn and soybean field in the United States to bio-fuel production, you could reduce gasoline usage by only 18%.

“The energy content of ethanol is about one-third less than that of gasoline.” according to this same document. E10, fuel made with 10% ethanol may reduce the efficiency of a vehicle by 2-3 percent. This means that you must burn more fuel to gain the same effect.

Ethanol refineries alone are a large area of concern. An article titled “Ethanol comes with environmental impact, despite green image” published May 5th of 2007, in USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/environment/2007-05-05-ethanolenvironment_N.htm), reports the concern over the environmental impact of Ethanol plants. This article suggests that the Ethanol facilities produce a great deal of ozone, which is seen as a health risk to those living nearby. One of the plants mentioned in this article has permits for over 450 tons of various pollutants.

Returning to the publication, “The Rush to Ethanol: Not All Biofuels Are Created Equal”, Water use can be a major factor in ethanol production. many parts of the country are already facing issues obtaining adequate quantities of water. On page 29 of this report, The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy is identified as estimating that four gallons of water is required for every gallon of ethanol that is to be produced.

To summarize the above points, here is a list;

• More energy goes into producing ethanol than can be retrieved back from it.
• More fossil fuels are used in the production than are offset by its use.
• Ecological harms
  • Soil erosion
  • Fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide run-off
  • Dead-Zone in the Gulf of Mexico
• Corn and Soybeans moved from food supply to fuel supply resulting in higher food costs.
• Land-use questions, and the destruction of (rain) forests.
• The inability of ethanol to offset much of the existing demand for fuel.
• The lower energy content of ethanol compared to petroleum products.
• The pollution caused by the ethanol production plants.
• The demands ethanol plants place on the water supply

This paper was intended as a summary of the ideas and facts as found in various publications. My next paper will be an analysis and comparison of these ideas. In that paper, I will attempt to draw a conclusion as to whether ethanol is good for us.

—–

U.S. Department of Energy
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/benefits.html

American Coalition for Ethanol
http://www.ethanol.org

Clearing the Air with Ethanol
Brett Hulsey and Brooke Coleman, published by REAP – Renewable Energy Action Project

A Range of Estimates on Ethanol’s Benefits
The New York Times, June 25, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/25ethanolside.htmlom/

“The Rush to Ethanol: Not All Biofuels Are Created Equal”
Published jointly by Food & Water Watch, and The Network for New Energy Choices
http://www.newenergychoices.org/uploads/RushToEthanol-rep.pdf

“Ethanol comes with environmental impact, despite green image”
published in USA Today May 5th of 2007
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/environment/2007-05-05-ethanolenvironment_N.htm

Currently, in the State of Wisconsin, we have been involved in a war over whether unions belong in the public sector. The lawmakers attempted to essentially outlaw unions in the public workplace, and the courts initially acted to block that attempt. The Supreme Court has finally ruled, and will allow much of the power that unions bring to the table, to be stripped away. Thus leaving the unions with little actual power to negotiate with their employer, the Government. Are unions still needed in the modern work environment?

To understand how Unions fit into the workforce in this country, a little bit of history is required. There was a time, when many employers had no concern for the welfare of their workers. If one was injured, it was easy to replace that worker. The employer had no responsibility to the worker who had become injured, or possibly maimed, while helping the employer generate money. As far as the employer was concerned, the worker was paid for his time, and that was all there was to it. The government did not regulate worker safety. Any equipment that would be installed in the plant to improve the safety of the worker was money the employer would have to invest, that did not go directly to improving the output of the factory. In some cases, working more safely, might have meant working more slowly, therefore reducing the output of the shop.

Workers spent time around moving machines and belts that could cause great harm, without so much as a barrier around such hazards. To keep workers productive, some employers locked the doors to prevent the workers from leaving the work floor during their shifts. In one famous incident, the doors had been chained shut to prevent the workers from wasting time outside. An accident caused the plant to catch fire. With the doors locked shut, the workers could not escape the inferno.

With these conditions in mind, I think it is very clear that there was no choice for the workers to band together, and form unions. Alone, a worker had no clout. The worker needed the job more than the employer needed that specific worker. However, by forming a union, whereby no worker would agree to replace one who was attempting to stand up for better treatment, the workers gained the ability to put an employer out of work, as easily as the employer could have put the individual out before.

This provided the unions with the ability to fight for more reasonable working hours, better safety, and better pay. Over the years, they have slowly made progress in making our places of work better. It is undeniable that these changes would not have happened without the force of unionized workers.

Looking at the workplace today, do we face the same problems that we did when unions were first created? The answer is clearly no. Do we need the unions to protect the ground they have fought so hard to gain? Perhaps. However, much of the ground they have gained is now part of law. The Government now has a department dedicated to monitoring the working conditions in this country (OSHA). We have laws regulating what constitutes a full-time work week. These laws also define what an employer must provide in the way of breaks, based on the length of the work day. We have minimum wage laws to try to establish a ‘fair’ floor to what an employer can pay workers. With so many things regulated by the government, what place is there for a union anymore?

It can be argued that when unions were first formed in this country, it was a matter of life and death. Workers were dying because they had no voice to negotiate with the employers. Unions are no longer ‘Life and Death’. The Government has taken over the role of making sure everyone is safe. So what role do unions fill now? They are still the tool by which the workers are able to negotiate over the compensation, and the nature of the work they are to perform. They can exchange labor for benefits and job security. While these are not Life and Death, it is perhaps a way of maintaining a fair balance of power between the workers and the employers.

If a job is safe, and there are people willing to do that job, does the union have the right to deny those people jobs, because they demand better compensation? If you want to buy a bag of pretzels, and are willing to pay the price the store is asking, should a group of shoppers be able to prevent you from doing so because they feel the price is too high? I think it is clear that if you want the pretzels, and are willing to pay the asking price, you should be allowed to buy them. However, that group of shoppers also has the right to negotiate with the store to get a group rate on the pretzels.

Unions still have a place in the workforce today. If a group of people choose to band together, and negotiate with an employer for better compensation for their work, then they should be allowed to do so. However, that group should not have the ability to block other workers from taking the job, if the terms are acceptable to that worker. It may be argued that allowing ’scabs’ to take the jobs from union workers undermines the power of a union, and to a certain extent they are correct. This is why unions will need to change the product they offer employers. Rather than using threats to coerce the employers, why not find ways of making the unions desirable. Perhaps the unions can perform various forms of screening, and training, thus providing a better candidate for the job than the employer would find off the street. The unions can become a form of employment service. You will pay more for a union employee, but in return you get a pre-qualified, trained, top-notch, employee. If the unions can demonstrate a value to the employer, then the employer will hire union workers.

I do realize that there are unions that work along the lines I set out in the last paragraph, especially amongst the trades. It seems to me that the trade unions are more stable than the unions that do NOT take this approach. I am suggesting that MORE unions should approach the employer with a carrot, not a bazooka. Rather than forcing workers and employers to work with the union, provide what is needed to make them WANT to.