The Environment Department asked me to suggest a strategy for reducing energy use of PCs and monitors in Australia. The draft is on the web (look for: "Personal Computer and Monitors Energy Efficiency Strategy"). This recommends a 50% reduction by 2020, through voluntary use of the US developed Energy Star program by industry and mandatory use by Government, plus web education programs.

The technology for reducing energy use is not too difficult. A 50% cut may sound large, but is much easier for computer equipment than for older more mature technologies. The difficult part is motivating people to actually do it.

Why didn't you just mention that 'Standby' status is the main culprit ?

Tom

"The difficult part is motivating people to actually do it."

Not sure whether you're referring to manufacturers and industry people or to consumers here. Either way, there has to be a combined regulatory and educative response. In what other ways, besides turning off stand-by, can the average consumer reduce their environmental impact? For example, I'm still using an old monitor because I hate waste and there seems to be no reason I can see to change to a flat screen. If I knew there were clear environmental benefits, and possibly health reasons too, I would definitely make the switch.

An issue that has always concerned me is the turnover of computer equipment. It seems to be superseded so quickly and so much wastage results. Another concern is the mercury and other environmentally hazardous materials used in the production of computer equipment. Much more has to be done on the part of industry to address recycling and durability issues.

The issue of data storage is also looming as a real environmental problem. The trend to constructing massive buildings just to house data is mushrooming and the amount of energy to run and cool the computer systems within must be adding enormously to greenhouse emissions. When you consider we seem to be moving towards a situation of having the whole world connected online, you have to wonder how much data we can keep generating and storing. On a personal basis alone, it seems to be the accepted norm that everyone will have a facebook page and the numbers of photos and contacts people collect on these pages must run into staggering quantities. This of course pales into insignificance when compared to the truly mind-boggling amount of data generated by business.

Had a quick peruse (not a read!) through your draft strategy. A summary of the main points in an article for OLO would be a useful discussion starter. I don't think many will take the time out to read the document you've linked to here. A great start though and good to see action at long last happening on this front.

Polycarp wrote 22 September 2008 1:58:27 PM:
"Why didn't you just mention that 'Standby' status is the main culprit ?"

As I was doing a high level policy document I didn't want to get down into the detail too much: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/pcmees/pc-report-04.html#1.Executive%20Summary|outline

Also standby is only part of the problem. The Energy Star program I recommended currently covers only standby power for PCs. The new version 5 is supposed to also measure the power used by a PC when running typical applications. US EPA have called a meeting in a few days time to see if everyone can agree exactly how to do that.

Bronwyn wrote 23 September 2008 10:35:07 AM:

" '... difficult part is motivating people ...' Not sure whether you're referring to manufacturers and industry people or to consumers here."

I had in mind a mix of measures for motivating both computer makers and users: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/pcmees/pc-report-04.html#1.Executive%20Summary|outline

The original proposal was for mandatory standards and labelling for PCs. But these would be unique to Australia. So instead I proposed the US approach: mandatory for government sales, but voluntary for companies and consumers.

Apart from making sure they have stand-by on their PC, there is not much the average consumer can do to reduce the environmental impact of a computer. But they can buy a more efficient new computer.

Like you I was using an old CRT monitor on my desk. But the IT support people came around and explained how much extra power the unit was using, so I gave in and got an LCD unit.

I believe that we are likely to see a slowdown in the turnover of computer equipment. I have assumed five years in my report, about double the current rate. This will be partly brought about by applications being run on remote servers, so the power of the computer on the desktop will matter less. This way of computing is variously called thin client, cloud, or netPC: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2008/09/cloud-computers-for-australia.html

The issue of the environmental impact of large data centres is one that I hope to help the Environment Department and the industry address, after we have PCs sorted out. In a way this is much easier than PCs, as there are far fewer large data centres to worry about. Also the people paying the bills for them are very aware of the cost of power and land. Amongst others, IBM <http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2008/07/ibm-green-it.html> and Sun <http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2008/08/green-rationalised-data-centres-at-sun.html> have a plausible approach to green data centres. But I am a bit sceptical of some, such as data centres in shipping containers: <http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2008/07/data-centre-in-shipping-container-from.html>.

In response I have proposed solar powered data centres built from low cost pallet warehouses: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2008/09/combined-data-center-and-solar-power.html

When it comes to "return on effort",

I figure it is more effective to either

turn down the temperature on a electric water system by one degree or

trun up an airconditioner by one degree,

or swap your light globes (if you are into glaring white)

than bother with PC standby status.

As usual there seems to not even be a thought of the continuously rapidly never-endingly increasing number of computers.

The object of the exercise seems to be entirely to reduce the per-capita or per-computer use of power, without a thought for the overall use of power via computers.

For goodness sake, a very large part of any increase in efficiency / reduction in energy use / reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.. has GOT to be limits to the growth of our population.

The scale of the overall usage is at least as important as the per-unit efficiency. Given our complete addiction to endless growth, it is a whole lot more important.

Surely you are not sucked in by this nonsense that carbon dioxide is a pollutant?
The IPCC took scientific research and altered it for their purpose which was to scare people.
Google Larry Gould and then read his first article, an Open Letter. Read it carefully, don't skip pages.
If CO2 is a polltant, why do hydroponic greenhouses recycle it? Because it promotes plant growth.
Scientists who are protecting their income are not suitable people to advise Government on global warming.

TomW and Bronwyn,
The whole approach you are assuming is a business as usual one.

Because of my life long interest and employment in electronics and
computers I have been attempting to research the effect of energy
decent, or in other words peak oil, on the infrastructure used by the
telecommunications industry.

There is virtually nothing published, yet talking to friends in various
parts of the radio & electronics industry it seems that the support
for the telecommunications infrastructure will be very shaky at some
not too distant time. The supply of spare parts is seen as a major
looming problem. A lot will depend on the allocation of oil products
to transport vs plastics.

Early in the depletion cycle video conferencing will load up the
network due to a reduction in air travel, and will require
rationing by setting tighter byte limits.
If those insisting on reducing coal burning get their way then the
elctrical supply reliabilty may become like Karachi.

I would strongly reccomend against adopting the "Cloud data system"
or you might in the future find that is where your data will remain.

If anyone has seen papers or articles on this subject I would be
pleased to know of them.

Col Rouge wrote 23 September 2008 1:00:59 PM:

"... more effective to either turn down the temperature on a electric water system ... or swap your light globes ... than bother with PC standby status."

Yes, computers only contribute about 1.5% to 2% of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the study the ACS funded, which I cited in my report: <http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/pcmees/pc-report-04.html#3.Background|outline>.

But it is a lot easier to increase the efficiency of a computer, than something like a hot water system or by changing light bulbs. If new computers come with standby turned on by default and we can convince people not to turn it off, that would be an easy 1% overall saving.

Ludwig wrote 23 September 2008 1:14:09 PM:

"... The object of the exercise seems to be entirely to reduce the per-capita or per-computer use of power, without a thought for the overall use of power via computers. ..."

Good point. But I took my inspiration from the Climate Savers Computing Initiative <http://www.climatesaverscomputing.org/about/>. They are proposing (as am I) an absolute 50% cut in computer power use. That is even if we ended up with more computers, in total they would use half as much energy as the ones we have now.

This is not as hard as it sounds, with more use of mobile devices instead of desktop computers, the overall power use should drop, as long as the people buying and installing the systems keep power use in mind.

This topic I find absolutely intriguing!

I visited tomw's website using the OLO icon below his post. I was immediately perplexed when I saw his experience and qualifications in IT. Had digitally saurian I seriously underestimated the technical literacy, with respect to computer hardware, of the average OLO user? It was not immediately obvious to me, at the level of technical knowledge I had, perhaps mistakenly, ascribed to such users, what they would be able to contribute towards strategy formulation that tomw couldn't do in his sleep.

I worry.

Bronwyn's post impresses me, particularly her observation: "An issue that has always concerned me is the turnover of computer equipment. It seems to be superseded so quickly and so much wastage results." One of the consequences of my move to the (Ubuntu) linux operating system (and it was a motivating factor for that move as well) was that I was able to use older, lower specification, equipment to do things which would otherwise have required newer hardware if I had stuck with the proprietary OS of Microsoft Windows and its forced upgrade path.

In that vein, tomw's response to Polycarp's post (and isn't it good to see a response from an author, even if its not an article thread?) "The Energy Star program I recommended currently covers only standby power for PCs. The new version 5 is supposed to also measure the power used by a PC when running typical applications." brought joy to my heart.

Yea, bring it on, tomw! Just make sure comparable applications under Windows are run under Linux and show the resource usage comparison as between operating systems. To my way of thinking, mandating hardware compatibility with Linux would be an important strategy to pursue. I suspect OS bloat and clunckiness may be a major factor in determining power usage in an holistic sense.

I worry because I sense in setting a strategy related solely to hardware standards an attempt may be being made to lock open source out of government procurement.

Please write an OLO article as Bronwyn suggested, tomw.

Tomw, it is good to hear that there is a goal of an absolute 50% cut in power use.

However, I bet that there is absolutely no intention for the Climate Savers Computing Initiative (and with respect, yourself) to have any input whatsoever into the issue of continuous growth. In fact, I bet they don't even have a single word to say about it.

I presume that they, like just about every other person or organisation working on energy reduction and improved efficiencies....and I've come across many on this forum....just blithely accept continuous human expansionism. (BTW, the link you provided wouldn't work)

This acceptance, or lack of significant input into the issue, makes a complete mockery of the goal of an absolute reduction in power usage of 50%...or of any significant amount for that matter.

Our population is growing rapidly, along with the still-increasing percentage of the population using PCs. Even a 25% or 50%... or 75%... reduction in power per computer will be greatly compromised if not completely cancelled out before long by this rate of increase.

Once we have achieved the best level of per-unit efficiency possible, the number of units will just continue to increase, thus continuously undermining the gains.

An absolute reduction in computer power usage requires an absolute limit to the overall scale of usage...or solid efforts to make it happen, implemented as a fundamental part of the strategy. To leave the magnitude of usage open-ended is just nonsensical.

It is also just completely nosensical for anyone who is conscious of the need to reduce overall power and resource usage and pollution output to not be heavily involved with efforts to limit the magnitude of the scale of the human demand for energy and resources.

I'm probably about to make a complete fool of myself, given my lack of qualification in the ICT field.

I've read the "The Personal Computer and Monitors Energy Efficiency Strategy: Report and Recommended Plan of Action" to which tomw provided a link in his second post to this thread. I'm afraid I'm about to rain on his, and DEWHA's, parade.

The whole program is misconceived.

The Ethan Group research for the ACS found that "ICT usage by Australian businesses represents 2.84% of the emissions attributed to the stationary energy component (energy consumed excluding transportation), and 1.52% of the total national emissions, ...".

The key phrase is: "STATIONARY energy component". It is in the area of stationary energy supply that the most attainable reduction of GHG emissions is capable of being achieved. Be it by substitution of coal-fired generation with hot dry rock geothermal generation of electricity, for distribution via the grid, or be it by any number of distributed generation possibilities, grid-interactive or stand-alone, the supply of renewable non-GHG emitting electricity production will be most effectively made available to meet stationary energy requirements.

Once the power required for what are primarily desktop PCs or laptops is primarily being provided from non-GHG sources, reductions in power usage, be it absolute or pro-rata for such equipment, given its such relatively small significance in the stationary energy picture, are about to become virtually superfluous and insignificant. Any reductions achieved at the PC level will be completely overshadowed by those achieved at the generation point.

The computer power usage reductions will have become pointless, because the power they are now using will be CLEAN ALREADY.

It'll be double counting!

The requirement reeks to me of the use of a smokescreen of 'environmental responsibility' as a vehicle for the securing of selective corporate advantage for a favoured few. I reckon its all about forcing upgrading of hardware in such a way as to attempt re-entrenching proprietary software as the only option in government procurement.

Mandate Linux compatibility for all hardware.

Forrest

Personal question - although it is valid in light of topic.

I currently run Windows ME (due to lack of finance and a lot of patience).

To run Ubuntu/Linux do I have to reformat my hard drive, or is it possible to install alongside Windows and if it works, then I could just delete windows ME? Would this involve sectioning hard drive?

I already use Firefox. And would love to be free of Microsoft completely. And of course this means I would retain my present system, thus recycling. (although I could use a larger monitor).

Fractelle,
If you start to install Linux the first thing it will do will be to partition your disc by giving you the options of setting
the size of the partition s.
Before you do start you need to run defrag on windows in case there are
files scattered across the drive.

I have installed Linux on machines with less than 10gb for Linux.

Cheers, but it can be a steep learning curve.

Bazz

I didn't know Linux would give me that option. Thank you.
Also will have to create some extra space, and I regularly defrag - something that windows ME demands.

All I need now is the time and the right frame of mind.

Fractelle,

How to begin? It is a great oddysey upon which you express an interest in embarking.

Truly, if you persist you will learn the real meaning of hatred. The roadblocks seemingly deliberately placed in the way of such transition to a new plane of existence will astound and frustrate you. Relative immunity to forced obsolescence will be your reward in the end, however. Also reverence. You will be a guru.

That I, of all people, should be considered fit to advise you has taken me somewhat by surprise. But I will try, seeing that you, as a number person and self-confessed nerd, should presumably very rapidly assimilate the concepts and jargon of the Linux world. I am only a word person, and it is hard for me. You will soon leave me for dead, I'm sure. (Hehe, something from which you will no doubt derive great satisfaction, recent events considered.)

What I suggest you do is register on the Ubuntu Forums, similarly to what you have done on OLO. This is the link to the Forums Home page: http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php . Bookmark it. The privacy security is, I believe comparable. The Ubuntu Forums, in addition to normal posting facilities, have a Private Messaging facility. There is no word limit, and believe me, there will be a need for many questions and answers if you want a pain-free and satisfying transition. Bazz has given good advice re the learning curve.

Just let me know your userID should you decide to take this course, and I will be happy to PM you with further questions re your hardware specs and some general strategies for making the transition. My userID on the UF is the same as here, Forrest Gumpp. One of my posts there is on this page: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=399997&page=30 . It is a summary of things you can do in Linux you cannot do in Windows.

Sorry for the delay. I started to answer you straight away, but there were just too many questions, and too few words.

Cheers.

Probably one of the best practical and least pc ways would be to get kids out exercising instead of sitting in front of computers. The exercise would cause them to need a bit more sleep instead of sitting on a computer half the night. Education Departments could insist assignments are done by hand. You could also limit OLO posts to 2 a day. Reduce the porn and you will not only reduce computer usage but also child sexual abuse meaning less counselors (less computer use). The list could go on and on and on!

Forrest Gumpp wrote 24 September 2008 6:31:19 AM:

"... I visited tomw's website using the OLO icon below his post. I was immediately perplexed when I saw his experience and qualifications in IT...."

I will take that as a complement. ;-)

"... underestimated the technical literacy, with respect to computer hardware, of the average OLO user?..."

Sorry, I hoped the executive summary of my report was reasonably understandable for people without a technical background: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/pcmees/pc-report-02.html#0.1.Executive%20Summary|outline

Basically I was suggesting the government should buy energy efficient computers, using the same standards and procedures the US government uses. There should be a standard easy to read format for the environmental data about the products. Progress with energy efficiency should be monitored annually and computer people should be trained on environmental sustainability.

"To my way of thinking, mandating hardware compatibility with Linux would be an important strategy to pursue. ..."

I was aiming for some easy and non-controversial proposals which government and industry were likely to accept. Mention of Lunux, or any other operating system, would be a distraction.

But on the subject of Linux and application bloat, I had a message from someone the other day saying an Indian company was going to offer low power Linux based "Cloud Computers" in Australia: <http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2008/09/cloud-computers-for-australia.html>.

"I worry because I sense in setting a strategy related solely to hardware standards an attempt may be being made to lock open source out of government procurement."

It was not my intention to lock out open source.

"Please write an OLO article as Bronwyn suggested"

Would be happy to write an article.

Ludwig,

I'm not trying to undermine your concerns with respect to unrestrained population growth. I share them. Perhaps I have a more optimistic view as to the self-correction that is already occurring in that area. Take away the masking, and indeed reversing, effect of migration with respect to Australia, and it will be seen that net population growth has been arrested here already.

Japan and, I think, China, also may have, or be close to having, achieved this status.

This proposal to reduce notional GHG emissions of personal computers by 50% in absolute terms by 2020, although perhaps well-intended by some, I see as a direct threat aimed at our (potentially worldwide) relative freedom to communicate via the internet.

Bazz has warned in this thread against the 'cloud computing' concept for reasons associated with 'energy descent'. Whilst if we go on as we presently are such energy descent may well occur, I am by no means so pessimistic that it need happen. I see dangers in the 'cloud computing' or thin client area arising from the business model that would seem to be a likely corollary of that concept. As a concept it seems tailor-made to enhance the dominance of major service providers and proprietary software marketers, and to facilitate internet censorship.

The population-related pressure for many more computers is already here. A very large part of that demand has a prospect of being at least partly satisfied by the one laptop per child (OLPC) program, a program that has recently been subject to some disruption arising out of what appear to be spoiling tactics designed to displace the free Linux operating system that was designed to be pre-loaded on the OLPC hand cranked laptops. HAND CRANKED: no GHG emissions there. LINUX OS: no ongoing licence fees either.

Should grid-distributed electricity supply become unreliable, the very first things that will attract renewable energy sources for the small scale power requirement will be personal computers and related peripherals. Again, the power source will be non-GHG emitting.

This energy efficiency strategy appears largely redundant.

Re-reading my earlier posts, I realize I may have left the impression that I was calling tomw's work into question.

That is not so.

tomw is of course responding to the Environment Department's request that he develop strategies for reducing personal computer energy usage. It is the likely relevance, by the target date of 2020, of the Environment Department's request that I am challenging.

Now for sure reducing the power requirement for computers and peripherals is a commendable aim in itself, but effectively forcing obsolescence of existing hardware to achieve it, via government procurement specifications, is, I suggest, self-defeating.

Would not a better strategy be to assist the development and marketing of small, simple, robust, relatively portable, stand-alone renewable energy power packs specifically designed to provide power for PCs and related equipment? Something like a UPS, but providing continuity of power supply from renewable energy sources. In this circumstance, whatever the power demand, be it in aggregate significant or not, within the capacity of such portable power supply, that demand would be being met from non-GHG emitting sources.

The natural market preference move toward laptops and away from desktops is dramatically reducing power demand anyway. Further strengthening the endurance and operability of such hardware remote from grid supplies by development of such portable renewable energy based power supplies will be of great relevance in the area of greatest foreseeable expansion in computer usage: the less developed part of the world.

An example has already been set here in Australia around 80 or more years ago. Pedal radio.

Pedal computing. Fat busting work stations, indoor or out, static or mobile.

Fitted with small (< 50cc) IC engines fueled by wood gas, such bikes would become small portable renewable energy generating sets. Designed to be reconfigurable (like transformer toys), the bikes could be capable of being set up as wind turbine generators where winds blow. Or positioned in streams or tidal races like anchored tow generators.

Small-scale distributed generation from renewables: it computes.

Just be sure to mandate Linux compatibility.

On yer bike, tomw.

"Ludwig, I'm not trying to undermine your concerns with respect to unrestrained population growth. I share them. Perhaps I have a more optimistic view as to the self-correction that is already occurring in that area."

I'm not sure how you figure that Forrest. Even without immigration we would still have considerable population growth for a long time to come, with our current birthrate. But the biggest component is indeed immigration, especially with Rudd's increase on top of Howard's already record high rates.

We are an awful long way from dealing with this issue. It does indeed make a complete mockery of any attempts to reach overall and long-lasting reductions in just about any areas of energy or resource consumption in this country.

It is not just a matter of people like Tomw just passing over this issue, it is a matter of them actually helping continuous-growth grossly-antisustainability-oriented big-business and big-business-pandering-governments. As I said previously; by striving to reduce the per-capita footprint, we are just making room for more and more 'capitas'...for as long as the continuous growth mindset remains entrenched.

This is serious stuff of the highest order. But alas, so very few people are really interested in it.

Fractelle,

I was beginning to think you had attempted to install Ubuntu and had inadvertently blown your Windows ME away in the process, but I see that you have recently been posting. That's a relief.

Partitioning and installations do not always go the way one thinks they should.

A strategy that may be helpful if you want to adopt a 'suck it and see approach' could be to purchase a second-hand hard drive at a computer fair, if you are comfortable with opening your computer case and swapping over hard drives, and physically remove your existing Windows ME system drive from the computer while you experiment with installing Linux. That way, if you strike problems, you can always swap drives again and pick up where you left off with your Windows ME.

Second-hand IDE HDDs of around 10 to 40 GB capacity can generally be purchased for between $20-$40. Try and get one of the same capacity as you already have, rather than a larger one, as with older computers (as I infer yours may be) there is sometimes a motherboard limitation to the size of HDD you can use.

If, as I suspect, your computer is a little under-specced for the latest release of Ubuntu, there is a version known as Xubuntu which requires only 128MB RAM to run the Xubuntu Live CD version for just a look at the OS, and 192MB RAM if you wish to actually install it to your HDD. You will need at least 1.5 GB of free space on the HDD, which of course you will have.

You get your Xubuntu by downloading it free from: http://www.xubuntu.org/get . (I am assuming you have a broadband internet connection.) The download is around 700MB, so you will need at least this much space on your existing HDD to get hold of it. You then have to burn this ISO file to a CD, which then becomes the installation medium for your newly acquired HDD.

Shut down, switch off, swap HDDs, and good luck!

tomw, in his opening post, concludes with a comment as to the difficulty of motivating people to adopt energy saving strategies in personal computer use.

In the brief he has been given by DEWHA do we see a 'green fog' being used to mask a corporate power grab? One of the energy saving strategies discussed has been 'cloud computing'.

The following quotes in relation to 'cloud computing' are from an article titled "Cloud computing is a trap, warns GNU founder Richard Stallman" by Bobbie Johnson, technology correspondent, guardian.co.uk, Monday September 29 2008 14:11 BST . The full article can be seen here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman

"The concept of using web-based programs like Google's Gmail is "worse than stupidity", according to a leading advocate of free software.

Cloud computing – where IT power is delivered over the internet as you need it, rather than drawn from a desktop computer – has gained currency in recent years. Large internet and technology companies including Google, Microsoft and Amazon are pushing forward their plans to deliver information and software over the net.

But Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and creator of the computer operating system GNU, said that cloud computing was simply a trap aimed at forcing more people to buy into locked, proprietary systems that would cost them more and more over time.

"It's stupidity. It's worse than stupidity: it's a marketing hype campaign," he told The Guardian.

"Somebody is saying this is inevitable – and whenever you hear somebody saying that, it's very likely to be a set of businesses campaigning to make it true.""

Thanks for the heads up on this one tomw. A parting thought from Richard M. Stallman: "Value your freedom or you will lose it, teaches history. "Don't bother us with politics," respond those who don't want to learn."

Fractelle (elsewhere): "I feel utterly wrecked, I put in so much effort in my previous posts and .... you want .... what?"

Know the feeling. :-(

Enjoy more time with the magpies :-)

Hey Bronwyn!

You have scored a hit! Re your post in this thread, check out http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7981#124961 It is tomw's Article, 'Digital education revolution is not sustainable', published today, 6 October 2008.

Haven't read it properly yet, just skimmed it.

Good one.

OT, be advised that your passing reference to my OLO persona in your refuge thread was much, if belatedly, appreciated. You were slightly in error attributing it to being a hijack of Pelican's thread; it was actually Fractelle's thread that I sort of (maybe) tricked her into letting me hijack. And I, too, have a similar bush outlook from where I sit at my keyboard. I have a mob of yellow-tailed black cockatoos which 'farm' the Pinus radiata around the district, and generally use the bathtubs around the yard as a water point. (The tubs all have weldmesh 'bird ladders' in them.) The 'big mob' is over 100 strong, but generally breaks into sub-mobs of 20 - 30 low-flying, slow-flying, curious, unthreatened birds. Good tactical disposition while watering, too.

I have since realized, from reading the 'Violence against women and absolute statements' thread, how unwittingly close to the bone I may have been cutting (or shooting) with respect to Fractelle in that little escapade. Although once specifically trained in the generation of a fair bit of violence, I have fortunately never had occasion to have had to put it into effect.

I have learned something about DV from that thread, a subject that has, in any physical sense, been outside my experience.

Sort of back on topic, or by way of potential solution of Fractelle's expressed desire to migrate, operating system-wise, this old UF post might give you a laugh: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4419590&postcount=16 It was written after a couple of good reds, I think. Be it known that I assert copyright over 'tempobidirectionality'. Do a Google search if you doubt me.

Forrest

"Hey Bronwyn! You have scored a hit! Re your post in this thread, check out http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7981#124961 It is tomw's Article, 'Digital education revolution is not sustainable', published today, 6 October 2008."

Thanks for the alert. I had noticed the title and made a mental note to read it tomorrow (when I'm feeling a bit fresher than I am right now!) but I hadn't noticed that Tom was the author. I think you might have given me the wrong link, but not to worry because that looked interesting too, I'll come back to that one tomorrow as well!

"And I, too, have a similar bush outlook from where I sit at my keyboard."

Enjoy! May it long inspire you to great posting. Watch out for those 'good reds' though!