It's been dubbed Download Day, and it will run for 24 hours from the moment the final version of the third incarnation of the Firefox browser is release. Mozilla are properly going to town on the attempt, creating a website purely to mark the occasion, and urging people to do all they can to spread the word. This includes the chance to organise Download Day parties (I like Firefox but not that much), and securing pledges from work colleagues and friends.

This is all well and good, but there are a couple of issues. For starters, this record doesn't actually exist at this time, and Mozilla are actually trying to invent one. To that end, they have stated that without a record to beat, they are merely aiming to set the bar high, and secure 1.6 million downloads in the 24 hour period. Although, they'd actually like to have a number closer to 5 million. 

Also, there is the obvious fact that this is merely a publicity stunt, designed by marketeers to get the Firefox brand out there and in the minds of more people who are too used to just updating Microsoft's Internet Explorer and not looking at the other options available. Existing Firefox users will get an automatic update notification anyway, so this really is aimed at users of other Web browsers.

So what is the current score on the browser, and what advantages will the new version give to Internet users? 

Firefox 3.0 is based on the Gecko 1.9 engine and features a cleaner, more user-friendly layout, better bookmarking features, more security, more stability, and most importantly a ramping up of the speed.

The latter improvement is arguably the most important one of all, as it's how most mainstream users will gauge the performance. The fourth beta version of the new Firefox was subjected to speed tests and compared to Internet Explorer 8, Opera 9, and Safari 3.1. Firefox, even in it's unfinished state came out on top, beating former leader Safari by quite a margin.

The Firefox 3 browser is currently on its second release candidate, and is almost ready for consumption by mere mortals like you and I. However, no release date has yet been set, and even when it finally is, I'd urge caution as new Firefox releases are notorious for messing with applications. 

I'll be downloading it on Download Day, but if even one of my add-ons doesn't work, it'll become Rollback Day, and Mozilla may find itself coping with a PR disaster. 

What sniff allows you to do is find the exact location of a friend by tracking down their mobile phone. It works by triangulating the mobile phone signal using nearby cell phone towers.

The service can be signed up for by either texting a number or using Facebook and is reportedly coming to a couple of major U.S. wireless carriers within the month. It’s expected the search texts will cost about a $1 each.

So, for example, say I want to know where my mate George is. I text “sniff  George” and I’ll get a text back with a link to a map that I can browse to on my web enabled mobile. At which point I guess I say something like "Ah hah George and you thought you could hide from me!" followed by a manic laugh of truimph.

Apparently it’s a closed network so that only the people you want can sniff you out. The service is also supposed to send frequent reminders, just in case your stalker has signed up your mobile phone to be sniffed and you know nothing about it. They’re even looking at being able to send faux locations to sniffers – perhaps your boss is trying to track you down and you want him to think you’re actually working.

What I don’t get about this service is that it’s supposed to replace the “world’s most texted question ‘where r u?’” Instead of asking my friend, I ask this sniffing service. But, am I not still asking where they are (in albeit a different way) and still sending a text? What happens if my friend is in a car driving along somewhere – I get a map of a spot on a road?

I think I might stick to actually texting my friends in the hope they might tell me where they are and more importantly where they are going. I think that way we have more of a chance of meeting up!

The technology known as ‘SeaGen’, costing around £12million, is the product of Marine Current Turbines Ltd and will generate enough electricity to power approximately 1100 homes. By taking advantage of the tidal waves rushing in and out of the fast flowing narrows it will be able to provide clean and predictable energy. It’s thought that such marine installations could provide up to a fifth of Britain’s power.

It works much in the same way as a wind turbine but instead of air turning the rotors it’s water. A SeaGen has two rotors that vary in size between 15m to 20m in diameter that drive a generator via a gearbox. The clever part of these rotors is they are able to be pitched by 180 degrees, meaning they can be turned by the tide whether it’s ebbing or flowing. They turn at a rate of about 10 to 15 rotations a minute, about ten times slower than a normal ship’s propeller.

Marine Current Turbines Ltd have had one eye on the environment with the construction of the SeaGen. Most of the installation is below water limiting it’s visual impact and it produces noise underwater to make sure marine animals are aware of it’s presence. Through studies it’s believed that because of the positioning in tidal areas these marine turbines are unlikely to have any affect on underwater life. Due to the strong currents feeding is generally not carried out in such places.

The only possible impact is on seals as Strangford is a known breeding ground but the company believes the speed of the rotors is slow enough not to cause any problems. A team of environmental scientists will be monitoring the turbine when it’s in operation to study any such impacts.

Assuming all goes well there are plans for a series of SeaGens to be deployed off Anglesey and on the Canadian seaboard within the next four years. It’s another step forward for green, renewable energy and proof that commercial electricity can be generated from tidal flows.

I had a similar experience with this company when I signed up with them for a simple 900 minute per month plan. I signed up for a total of $39.99/month, but after a while my bill kept getting bigger and bigger, but at a very small rate. It wasn’t until four months went by that I realized I was paying $89.99/month - $50 more than what I had originally agreed to. Upon consultation with an associate, they told me this story about government fees and pricing changes. Smelling of bull feces, I contacted the associates manager and told him that my lawyer advised me to call him and voice my complaint to him personally. I think that scared him (which was my intention - I didn’t talk to a lawyer at all) and he scheduled my account for termination without fee.

You can read all about how Sprint screwed Allen out of over $50k at his website sprint-really-sucks.com.

The survey, which was conducted by researchers at Park Associates and reported on CNET suggests that around a fifth of Americans still don't use the technology that many of us have come to regard as essential in many aspects of our lives.

The survey showed that about 20% of all U.S. heads of households have never sent an email, while 18%, or 20 million households in the States are without Internet access. 21% of the same responders have never visited a website, or searched for information on the World Wide Web. Lastly, the survey shows that almost 1 in 3 of those questioned have never used a computer to create any sort of document.

To someone like myself who almost lives on the Web for fair portion of the day, this seems utterly inconceivable. I must have sent thousands of emails in my life, and being 31 years old, I started doing so when I was still a teenager. The thought of never having sent one just strikes me as bizarre, although at least I wouldn't get the oodles of spam I currently have to endure were that the case.

As for having the Internet at home, visiting websites, and searching the Web for information, again, that is something that I have done for many years now, and to imagine my life without it is kind of like the thought of losing a limb. I would have to change my lifestyle completely, get information from other sources, and horror of all horrors, actually get some real friends rather than the virtual kind I rely on now. Okay, we've established I'm a geek, but the point still remains true.

The survey was conducted on U.S. citizens, which means that we don't know if the same proportions hold true in other parts of the world, and some of the statistics involved may help us work out why the results are as they are.

Half of those questioned for the survey that responded negatively to ever sending an email are over 65 years of age, and we all know how technology and old people don't really mix well. Having said that, my father is almost that age and has a newer computer than me so it doesn't always ring true.

The other interesting fact about those questioned was that 56% of those who weren't up on the technology had no formal education beyond high school, with the insinuation that they would be from lower income households and not be able to afford the technology. However, again this isn't always the case as I left school at sixteen, which although I'm British, is the equivalent of the end of high school, and I have owned and used Internet-enabled computers for many years.

This survey shows us two things, that there is still a digital divide along age and economic lines, and that some of us are probably now too reliant on computers and the Internet than is healthy. Who's to say us geeks are the ones in the right? You remember The Matrix don't you?

Google doesn't just consist of the search engine though, also owning YouTube, the massively popular market leader in Web video, which saw 4.3 billion videos watched during the month of March. There is also the Maps feature, which is increasingly being used around the world by people who need to know how to get somewhere quickly.

And lest we forget Google Mail, which came from nowhere when it first launched and just about took over the free Web-based mail market, with everyone seemingly having a GMail address now.

Yahoo!, the market leader before Google grabbed the top spot, came second this time around with 140 million unique visitors during April. Like Google this is down to the company owning many different facets of the Web, from a mail service, Yahoo News, which I find myself using as much as Google News these days, and Flickr, the photo sharing service which recently added the ability for videos to be uploaded to the site as well.

eBay comes in sixth, which is a surprise to me as there has been a lot of talk recently of the company taking a downward turn. It has recently had to contend with a sellers boycott over changes to the fees and security systems on the site, and it's thought that a lot of those traders have now moved on to other sites offering similar service at a much cheaper premium.

Wikipedia is in seventh, proving its worth in this time when Web 2.0 is all the rage, and any service offering one place with multiple streams of content and information is seen as worthy. I know from personal experience that when I encounter a phenomenon, be it a new band or book or whatever that I have never heard of, the first place I visit to find out more is Wikipedia.

The rest of the top 50 is made up of a diverse collection of Web destinations which goes to prove that the Internet is a commodity made up of sites which cater not only for what is popular, but also some very niche interests. 

The bigger picture to these results, at least for me, is that we now all rely on the Internet to some extent for our day to day lives. I not only garner a lot of my information from it, I earn a living through it. Others use it purely for entertainment, while another set of people may use it to buy products saving them a trip down to the local mall. 

As a recent episode of South Park showed, the world would go absolutely to pot if the Internet were to suddenly not be with us. It scares me to think about that prospect.

In order to let that figure sink in you have to look at what it actually means in real terms. Recently the U.S. Energy Information Agency estimated that between 2005 and 2030 the electricity demand within the U.S. will rise 39%.  That’s a leap to 5.8 billion megawatt-hours. For wind farms to provide 20% of that power requirement, their current output of 11.6 gigawatts will need to increase to 300 gigawatts.

Andy Karsner, DOE Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for the U.S. Department of Energy, said “DOE’s wind report is a thorough look at America’s wind resource, its industrial capabilities, and future energy prices, and confirms the viability and commercial maturity of wind as a major contributor to America’s energy needs, now and in the future.”

It’s important to understand that the DOE are not predicting that this will happen. What they are saying is that it’s possible if certain challenges are met :

• Increased productivity of turbine technology – problems with the reliability of turbines and other components need to improve, more efficient turbines built, more domestic manufacturing encouraged and better monitoring of wind farm performance.
• Significant changes to existing transmission systems – harnessing the wind is only half the story. The electricity generated from the best wind resources needs to get to where the demand is high. This will mean an expansion to the current U.S. transmission grid.
• Better Load Balancing  - wind is a variable power source, it’s impossible to always guarantee the high wind you want. Wind power will need to be balanced regionally with other power sources.
• Expansion of markets – to meet the target set for 2030 the market for wind energy needs to increase annually by 16,000 megawatts starting 2018. The annual number of turbine installations will need to increase to around 7000 by 2017.
• Environmental – issues with where the wind farms are located, their impact on the local environment and wildlife need to be addressed. It’s thought the space required for the new wind farms will be around 50,000 square kilometers, split between land based and shallow offshore sites.

However, the report brings out some heavyweight numbers to show the benefits of turning to wind power. As well as avoiding air pollution and reducing greenhouse gases; in the production of electricity, water use would be reduced by about 4 trillion gallons and the CO2 emissions would be reduced by 825 million metric tons. It should also foster job creation and local economies in wind producing areas.

Anything that lessens the demand for fossil fuels has to be a step in the right direction. Wind isn’t owned by anybody, it won’t run out and could mean stable electricity rates. Certainly there is enough wind to be able to meet the demand, the only question is whether the desire to harness it is there.

 You can read the full report on the DOE’s Wind & Hydropower Technologies Program website.

1. I don’t have enough time in the day to post as regularly as I would like to. This website is a great idea with a lot of great authors coming together to produce some good stuff, but without my supervision and constant promotion, the website’s popularity is suffering.

2. The authors are a great bunch, but they are underpaid and aren’t going to stay much longer if they continue to be paid the same wages as someone who is just starting out.

3. Advertisers are few and far between. The website is popular - over 3000 pageviews last month! - I just think I need to do a better job at getting the word out.

I really am excited about this website. With all the help of the authors it has become something a lot more than what I dreamed of it growing up to be. All we need is some good revenue in order to pay our authors and we will be all set. If we can pull in just enough money to pay for our authors to have a decent and competitive salary (which they more than deserve!) I will be happy. I’m not in this for profit, I’m in this to provide content to a community that I am a part of.

• Body Area Networks: Imagine a network contained within a body that could monitor how a patient is recovering – the movement, vital health signs etc. This could be wirelessly sent to a monitor to enable a doctor to remotely check on their progress.
• Smart Drug Dispensing: What if your pill bottle could tell the time? It could sense that it hasn’t been opened and remind you to take your medicine through a wireless signal to a monitor. It might also be able to determine if a change of dosage is required and notify your doctor for you.
• Nutritional Scanner: If you are diabetic or have certain allergies you could take a scanner with you to the food store. By scanning a food wrapper bar code it could tell you if it meets your dietary requirements.
• Intelligent Cars: The technology for cars to be able to talk to each other wirelessly will become standard. If the car in front brakes suddenly your car could react quicker than you to slow down your speed and hopefully avoid a collision
• Automatic Emergency Call-out: Okay, so your intelligent brakes weren’t fast enough and you’ve been involved in an accident. Wireless technology could automatically call the police and ambulance services as soon as it happens. It’s also possible that in-car images could be relayed to these services to enable on-route diagnosis of your condition.
• Congestion Alerts: The road talks to your car, your car talks to other cars and a picture of road congestion is built up. It might enable you to avoid traffic jams and provide alternative routes to your satellite navigation system.
• E-transport: A single e-ticket could be used on all modes of public transport. Services could provide up-to-date information on how far a bus/train is away from your stop, update the timetables accordingly and allow you to buy a ticket before it arrives.

It’s interesting to know that they’re looking so far ahead in order to make sure the kind of technologies that are emerging will be able to co-exist in the wireless world. It makes sense, after all you wouldn’t want your smart drug dispenser getting in the way of your body area network telling your doctor you’re about to have a heart attack!

Windows XP Service Pack 3 is now available on Windows Update as well as the Download Centre on Microsoft's website. But before downloading it, you may want to hear other people's experiences of the download, as it's fair to say some aren't exactly impressed so far.

The two biggest problems seem to be that the Service Pack can cause computers to continually reboot or suffer system crashes. The Windows XP message board has seen Microsoft customers complaining bitterly about the download. 

Michael Faklis posted "My external disks are having trouble starting up, which results in Windows not starting up." While Doug W moaned "After three attempts [to install XP SP3] with different configurations each time, System Restore was the only way to get me out of deep shit."

A guy called Dan was forced to reboot his PC in safe mode to bypass the problems directly created by Service Pack 3: "I installed SP3 this morning but when rebooting it loops between startup screen and restarting screen. I can boot into safe mode. Is uninstalling XP service pack 3 the only resolution?"

These aren't isolated case either, with dozens of posters trying to get their problems fixed. And with most people probably not posting on Internet forums about their individual problems, this is likely to be just the tip of a very large iceberg.

Problems with operating system updates aren't new, but with such a large number of people owning Windows XP (many more than Vista will ever be able to boast) you would have thought Microsoft would have tested, retested, and then tested again to make sure problems were kept to a minimum. Certainly, you would always expect some unexpected issues to crop up, such as incompatibilities between certain programs etc, but to cause a PC to continually reboot or crash is more than just a slight problem.

There are claims that the big issues are only affecting people with AMD processors, but that has neither been confirmed nor denied as of yet. In fact Microsoft is being very quiet on the whole issue, merely stating before the general release, that the final XP service pack "includes a small number of new functionalities, which do not significantly change customers' experience with the operating system". Actually, it's been proven that it can significantly change customers' experience - and cripple their computer at the same time.

It's likely that Microsoft will be sending out further updates to resolve the issues that have been brought to its attention, but until that happens, my advice would be to avoid Service Pack 3 like the plague.