|
|
Saturday, May 11, 2002
|
|
| |
Even NASA has a need for old computer parts.
Mr. Carr of the United Space Alliance said that when the government bought complex systems like jet fighters, the contracts often had provisions that called for routine upgrades and improvements as a way to limit obsolescence. But the shuttles, with a design lifetime of a decade, never had that kind of built-in refurbishment plan.
The winged spaceships are to fly until 2012. But NASA is researching whether their retirement date can be pushed back to 2020.
For parts hunters, it could be a long haul. The shuttles, Mr. Renfroe of the United Space Alliance noted in an awed tone, "could go for 40 or 50 years."
More than ten years ago, when I was still working at Lockheed, we had all sorts of problems keeping a long-standing program going because the guidance computer vendor wasn't interesting in continuing in the business. That's the problem with government programs that have to continue over decades when the civilian world flips generations in eighteen months.
10:39:46 PM 
|
|
Andres Martinez has an article in the New York Times about what happens to old computers -- his friend's old Kaypro still works, but most get tossed into the landfill or are recycled.
A shocking report issued earlier this year by two environmental groups, titled "Exporting Harm: The Techno-Trashing of Asia," contended that most electronic waste collected for recycling in the United States was exported to developing nations, mainly China. There it is dismantled, often by child labor under unregulated conditions, with dire health and environmental consequences. The report had a galvanizing effect on electronics manufacturers, which have agreed in principle to the establishment of a nationwide recycling program. Last month the European Union approved a measure to require electronics manufacturers to recycle their own products.
Another approach -- speaking of the TRS-80 Model 100 I mentioned in a previous post -- is to just keep using the old hardware.
2:43:12 PM
|
|
Matthew Miller suggests that the FERC's recently published "smoking gun" memos from Enron may not help California's demand for rebates.
...FERC also knows that Enron's supposedly evil "market manipulation"
mostly involved the pursuit of legal "arbitrage" opportunities (in which
traders exploit short-term price differences to buy low in one market
and sell high in another). Such arbitrage is widespread and considered
beneficial in commodity markets everywhere - including energy markets in
other states.
So here's the ploy. FERC may now tell California that it's given the
state all the help it needs by putting out these "shocking" memos -
giving the state the basis, it will say, to pursue refunds and other
financial remedies in court. But because experts parsing the details in
court will show these practices are largely legal and common, they'll
never work as a basis for getting California's money back.
Boy, somebody's been studying his Machiavelli.
(Via Glenn Reynolds)
12:50:43 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2002
Ivan Heling.
Last update:
6/1/02; 12:16:03 AM.
This theme is based on the SoundWaves
(blue) Manila theme. |
|
|
