I came across an interesting white paper from Sony on recycling styrofoam.

Additionally, and this is an important point, the evaporated limonene is returned to a clean liquid state and can be reused any number of times. This system can be said to be a thoroughgoing recycling system which generates no waste.

Not only is the process use fully recyclable (and natural (linoene being extracted from the peels of oranges)) raw materials, it also does not degrade the chemical qualities of the original substance:

Since thermal processing is known to degrade the properties of some materials, one might wonder if this heating is safe. However, oxidation and breakdown of the polystyrene is suppressed since limonene oxidizes before polystyrene.

In addition, from a carbon output perspective:

Overall, the limonene method has CO2 emissions of about 0.6 kg of CO2 per 1 kg of styrofoam recovered. This is the smallest of all the methods, and about 1/3 the emissions associated with new polystyrene synthesis.

I hope we see this process becoming more widespread in the future.

Because of the nature of how Office add-ins are loaded, it's an easy enough mistake to try to name your configuration file as:

<library-name-with-extension>.config or in my case, <executable-name-with-extension>.config.

In fact, the configuration file actually needs to be named WINWORD.exe.config and it should be located in the same location as the as the Word runtime.  It's kinda of baffling though, since as far as I understand, Word is not a native .Net application. 

Of course, I didn't notice this since the application was designed to run as a standalone executable and as an add-in, so the configuration file worked fine when launched as a standalone, but not so well when launched as an add-in.

Just some random stuff for today:

I came across an interview on CNN.com with Scott Adams that is a good read. Especially insightful is:

I start at 5 usually, 5 in the morning. I just walk across the street in my flip-flops and pet my cat for 10 minutes so she won't bother me for the next few hours. There's kind of a toll you have to pay with a cat; if you don't pet her for 10 minutes she'll bother you for six hours.

Truer words of wisdom have never been spoken.

I also came across an awesome little tidbit on MSNBC the other day:

In a whale-sized project, the world's scientists plan to compile everything they know about all of Earth's 1.8 million known species and put it all on one Web site, open to everyone.

Sounds completely awesome...I could totally see myself spending endless hours just browsing through it.

It has been raised in various discussions on the topic of the 2008 presidential elections: just how important is a candidate's belief in the theory of evolution? Should the people even care?

I say yes.

It shows that one has a respect for the sciences and scientists. It shows that one has an understanding of the scientific method and how a large majority of respected scientists have arrived at the conclusion that evolution is an established and accepted scientific theory. It shows that one can objectively evaluate the data and evidence that has been produced that show evolution to be undeniable.

This is the information age. We are in an era defined by the technological and scientific advancements that have been made over the last century. Antibiotics, the personal automobile, nuclear energy, peering into the depths of space via the Hubble telescope, the Internet...all of these discoveries, inventions, and conveniences are the direct result of science, not faith. Religious faith would have one believe that prayer alone will overcome a serious infection. Religious faith would have had us believe that the Earth is the center of the universe. Religious faith would have had us believe that the Earth is flat. Religious faith would have us believe that "because that's how God designed it" is an acceptable answer to anything we do not yet understand. Faith is a cop-out of an answer.

When our scientists and engineers are shunned (e.g. re:stem cell research), when peer reviewed results are discarded or deemed irrelevant (e.g. evidence of human driven global warming), when generally accepted scientific theories are questioned (e.g. evolution), then you know that the leadership of this country has failed to put a premium on knowledge and grant respect to those in our society who seek to enrich the collective knowledge of the Humankind.

If one cannot fathom evolution, even given the consensus of the world's leading scientists, If one cannot accept evolution, even given the large amount of evidence (on a micro and macro level), if one cannot objectively make a decision based on unbiased data without the interference of personal faith/beliefs, then such a person is not of the mental capacity and certainly not of sound judgement to lead the United States of America.

You know, I found it quite humorous to hear these candidates babble on about the manufacturing sector and how we simply cannot compete with China, Mexico, and other countries where low cost labor is abundant.

I ask, why the **** would we even want to compete with them on such a level? The promise of the future lies not in manufacturing, but in knowledge, information, and the ability to innovate. These are all things that Americans excel at. These are things that science excels at. We should be glad to have this opportunity to continue our transition from an industrial economy to a knowledge and service driven economy.

Instead, the leadership has taken us backwards.

As energy costs soar in the next century due to increases in demand and decreases in the raw resources, alternative energy sources will be the only option. Instead of embracing this ideal, the US is letting the opportunity to innovate and lead slip away.

Instead of embracing the promise of stem cell research, our leadership views such science with disdain because of the uneducated masses that support them. Instead of taking a leadership position in this vital field, we force some of our brightest scientists in this field overseas to countries like China, Singapore, Japan, and various European nations where such pursuits are embraced because of the financial and medical promises of such research.

As we move forward, it will be the global alliances and friendships that we form that will help drive our markets and help drive demand for our knowledge and unique capability to innovate. And yet, instead of reaching out to allies and trying to mend torn relationships, instead of diplomatic solutions and dicussion, instead of dialogue and sound governance, we seek to take a bully like stand on the global stage with strong talk like a young child throwing a temper tantrum (or an e-thug).

To drive us towards a better, more prosperous future, we need leadership that will respect science. We need leadership that will respect dialogue. We need leadership that will look at subjects and look at the data objectively and not let personal faith muddy the waters of clear and sound judgement. It is innovation in the sciences and engineering that has made America the country that it is today. It is innovation in these areas that hold the greatest potential to drive us forward tomorrow and we need leaders that understand the importance of leading a global economy driven by information, technology, innovation, and science.

I saw Thank You for Smoking over the weekend, a great movie, and I wasn't planning on writing anything specific about it, but an article that I read this morning (and I guess thinking about the current circumstances of my life) changed my mind.

In an article on SI.com, Chris Mannix discusses how Jason Kidd, perhaps the greatest point guard of this generation (even though Nash has more MVPs to his name), has made a career or making his teammates better.  The most interesting observation that Mannix makes is:

For his part, Kidd relishes the idea of not only making his teammates better, but also serving as a human lottery ticket.

Well, what exactly does this mean, "human lottery ticket"?  Quoting Jason Kidd, he writes:

"I loved playing with all those guys," says Kidd as he walks down the tunnel towards the parking lot. "Rex Chapman. Shawn Marion. Kerry Kittles. Scalabrine. K-Mart. When you can help a guy make a better life for his family, it's the best feeling."

To go off on a tangent, for a moment, at some point in the last year, I was considering leaving Zorch as there were other opportunities available to me with better compensation overall.  But of course, there isn't that satisfaction of being a core component of a small startup.  At some point, the CEO of the company came out for a meeting with a client and had some time to meet me for lunch.  Perhaps the most interesting concept that I took away from this meeting was his statement that he's not in it for himself, he's in it to build the wealth of those around him.

And indeed, our employees are all a close knit bunch with one of our developers having been with him for over a decade through at least two companies.

In a sense, he has a Kidd-esque quality about him.

In quoting Lawrence Frank on what makes Kidd so great, Mannix writes:

"He takes away the thinking process for his teammates. He gets the ball to them on time, on target, so they can just go into their move."

Similarly, I like to think that our CEO (and any good leader) does the same: he creates the conditions for success by taking away the barriers for individual success; he makes it easy to do what you know how to do.

Okay, so back on the topic at hand.  So what does Jason Kidd have to do with Thank You for Smoking?  Well, Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart), the protagonist of this movie, is asked how he can do what he does, knowing that the entity he fronts produces a product that kills thousands of people a day.  His justification?  He's effortlessly good at it and it pays the mortgage.

In a sense - and I know it's quite cynical - life in the modern world (especially for my generation) boils down to doing everything you can to make that monthly payment; mortgages are a painful reality for the vast majority of us. 

So what is the conclusion to draw from all of this?  I guess this is really a post on career advice: find someone to work for or work with that will be your "human lottery ticket"

Rediscovered an awesome photolog of a tour of China today.

Note to self: visit China.

The Washington Post has a great narrative on the VT shootings.

Something about the statements in a transcript from Bill Maher's show is really scary and yet it evokes a "HAHA WTF IS HAPPENING TO THIS COUNTRY...LOL" feeling in my mind.

New Rule: Now that liberals have taken back the word, "liberal," they also have to take back the word, "elite." By now, you've heard the constant right-wing attacks on the "elite" media and the liberal "elite," who may or may not be part of the Washington "elite," a subset of the East Coast "elite," which is overly influenced by the Hollywood "elite." So, basically, unless you're a shit-kicker from Kansas, you're with the terrorists.

You know, if you played a drinking game where you did a shot every time Rush Limbaugh attacked someone for being elite, you'd almost be as wasted as Rush Limbaugh.

I - I don't get it. In other fields outside of government, "elite" is a good thing, like an "elite" fighting force; Tiger Woods is an "elite" golfer. If I need brain surgery, I'd like an "elite" doctor. But, in politics, "elite" is bad. The "elite" aren't down to earth and accessible like you and me and President Shtt-for-brains.

Which is fine, except that whenever there's a Bush Administration scandal, it always traces back to some incompetent political hack appointment, and you think to yourself, where are they getting these screw-ups from? Well, now we know. From Pat Robertson. I'm not kidding.

Take Monica Goodling, who, before she resigned last week, because she's smack in the middle of the U.S. Attorneys scandal, was the third-ranking official in the Justice Department of the United States. She's 33 years old. And though she never even worked as a prosecutor, she was tasked with overseeing the job performance of all 93 U.S. Attorneys.

How do you get to the top that fast? Harvard? Princeton? No, Goodling did her undergraduate work at Messiah College. You know, Messiah, home of the Fighting Christ-ies? And then went on to attend Pat Robertson's law school. Yes, Pat Robertson, the man who said that the presence of gay people at Disney World would cause earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, has a law school.

And what kid wouldn't want to attend? It's three years, and you only have to read one book. U.S. News & World Report, which does the definitive ranking of colleges, lists Regent as a Tier Four school, which is the lowest score it gives. It's not a hard school to get into. You have to renounce Satan and draw a pirate on a matchbook.

This is for people who couldn't get into the University of Phoenix.

Now, would you care to guess how many graduates of this televangelist's diploma mill work in the Bush Administration? 150. And you wonder why things are so messed up. We're talking about a top Justice Department official who went to a college funded by a TV host. Would you send your daughter to Maury Povich U.? And if you did, would you expect her to get a job at the White House?

In 200 years, we've gone from "We, the people," to "Up With People." From "the best and the brightest" to "dumb and dumber." And where better to find people dumb enough to believe in George Bush than Pat Robertson's law school?

The problem here in America isn't that the country is being run by "elites." It's that it's being run by a bunch of hayseeds. And, by the way, the lawyer Monica Goodling just hired to keep her ass out of jail, went to a real law school.

Wow...this actually explains a lot. I mean, a certain level of cronyism is to be expected. But I would have much rather have seen appointees from Yale instead...

Perhaps one of the best comments I've read on this:

That totally reads like an Onion article. Pat Robertson School of Law?

Indeed, our government is becoming even more like satire.

I just noticed moments ago that the final release of Enterprise Library 3.0 released recently.

Unfortunately, after a quick glance at the documentation, it seems like ObjectBuilder has been left off the table (link goes to online documentation for ObjectBuilder, which at the time of this post, is "under construction")...again.  I'm gonna have to dig a bit deeper and see if there's more info to be found.

If you're running Reporting Services 2000 and you accidentally change the password or remove the original account used by Reporting Services, you will have to update this information.

With Reporting Services 2005, there's a nice GUI utility that you can use to do this, but for Reporting Services 2000, you'll need the rsconfig.exe command line utility which can be found, in a typical installation, at: <drive>:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\80\Tools\Binn

To update the account or password information, the following command will probably do:

rsconfig -c -s servername -d ReportServer -a sql -u username -p password -t

Useful to know...odd that with all of the RS development I've done in the past, I've never had to use this utility once until today.