Slashdot Mirror

This is kind of off-topic, but your mentioning of the BK Whopper reminded of something I heard on NPR.

On one of their programs, they talked about using the "Big Mac Index" as a means for analyzing a country's economy. Instead of using the value of gold or silver, they use the value of a Big Mac in a country as a determination of a country's economic status. They were able to predict pretty accurately. If I knew anything about economics, I would give you an example.

But like you stated, because there are too many factors that can go into the pricing of a Big Mac (e.g., cost of cattle, cost of shipping, cost of lettuce, ...) this model will never be taken seriously.

The Economist has an article about this.

This week's Economist runs a story titled "No real help, and sometimes harmful" (unfortunately, only available with a paid subscription). It comments on a study that got just relased. From the article:

In the current Economic Journal, Joshua Angrist of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Victor Lavy of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem look at a scheme which put computers into many of Israel's primary and middle schools in the mid-1990s. Dr Angrist and Dr Lavy compare the test scores for maths and Hebrew achieved by children in the fourth and eighth grades (ie, aged about nine and 13) in schools with and without computers. They also asked the classes' teachers how they used various teaching materials, such as Xeroxed worksheets and, of course, computer programs.

In a nutshell, the study concludes that computers are of little help in the classroom, and sometimes even harmful (as students get easier distracted, etc.). It's interesting, however, that both, teachers and students, use computers heavily for homework and class preparation, where they are quite effective.

There was an article in the Economist on the same subject a couple of weeks ago, although with more of a focus on the developments of infrastructure for the region. The proposal to build a (Sunshine Skyway like) bridge from Hong Kong to Macau is particularly interesting. This one has a nice map, which shows the location of all the places in the Wired article. I also made some comments on my blog at the time.

Economist Article: Counter-culture

This isn't what I'm talking about. I mean an actual reported loss regardless of accounting tricks. This is an article about the cost of options, and what they say about MS is a 4.5B profit becomes an 18B loss when you account for cost of options given to employees (the bulk to executives, no doubt). The problem is that this doesn't really relate to operational profit/loss, although it is pretty important WRT stockholder value. I'm talking about the former.

No predictions, only fact: $18 billion loss in 1998. See about half way down the article.

Free Mickey Mouse is the Economist's story on Lessig, subtitled "Lawrence Lessig wants less copyright protection, including for Disney's famous rodent". Good article.

It begins as follows:

LAW professors rarely boast an army of "fans", but Lawrence Lessig is no run-of-the-mill academic. Now at Stanford University, formerly at Harvard, Mr Lessig has become a rock star of the information age, mixing scholarly inquiry with barnstorming activism on many issues.

There's a good article on Lessig and Disney in this week's Economist.

I was listening to the Monsters, Inc. commentary track recently, and there's a mention of a yodel that's heard in the background through one of the doors. They actually wanted to use a different (and supposedly funnier) one, but they couldn't find the rights holder to clear it.

So Disney's copyright extension lobbying effectively damaged one of the movies they distributed.

There's a good article on Lessig and Disney in this week's Economist.

I was listening to the Monsters, Inc. commentary track recently, and there's a mention of a yodel that's heard in the background through one of the doors. They actually wanted to use a different (and supposedly funnier) one, but they couldn't find the rights holder to clear it.

So Disney's copyright extension lobbying effectively damaged one of the movies they distributed.

The economist has a great article reviewing the latest codec offerings from different players. Specifically DivX 5.0 "is said to be particularly good at preventing tearing, a playback error that occurs when the software cannot render the video for display at the same pace that it is being decompressed and fed into the media player. And a new codec from supersecretive Pulsent claims to be object rather than block based. Whereas block-based compression and object-oriented codecs slice up backgrounds and foregrounds into grids, the Pulsent approach actually pinpoints real-world items in the frame--such as a person, tree or building--and processes each element separately. story here

No, it's easy to make that assumption since most of the people posting reasonable comments on this thread have had enough financial experience to have an opinion, while the younger "gen-X'rs" have not.

Firstly the dates of a generation are not clear-cut as generations are defined by generalized beliefs withing groups of people, it is absolutely asinine to say people born before 1976 (or whatever) have this attitude and people born after 1976 have a different attitude, doesn't work like that. the 'Baby Boomers' are the only generation actually defined by when they were born (as opposed to their attitudes) and thus grouped inappropriately. i've read reports of the Generation-X'rs (is this a really stupid fucking name or what?) extend all the way to 1980, which places yours truely as an "X'r" (1979).

So then, as a fellow "X'r" i will disagree with you on this point: i am 23, 6 months away from completing college (PharmD is a 6-year degree) which i started immediately out of high school. i worked my way through college (at one point i had 3 jobs while enrolled in 22 Sr. level credit courses (i believe it was 7 classes)) have $0.00 in debt, and had over $20k put away before the market crash, today i think i have around half of that (yes they are diversified investments: global, national, large cap, mid-cap, small-cap, techies, utilities, etc, etc). i do not come from an "advantaged" family other than that my family works for their money, i am one of three children and my parents have never made more than $40k or $50k per year combined (yes, tehy both worked full-time). The difference between myself and a billion other people my age that are broke and in debt, is that i was not, nor am i, a dumb-ass with my money. There are people with poor financial skills of every generation and age strata within those generations, it's no suprise to me that the majority of slashdotters (my perception anyway) are also fiscally responsible... This isn't bragging from a "high horse" or anything (it sounds kind of conceited now that i look at it), but a representation of how the world works, why some people don't "get it" is absolutely beyond me... If i can "do it" then a lot more people than currently are can too...

What'll really erk your cranks (everyone that's proud of this responsibility) is when the government steps in 40 years down the road and gives all those louts who never saved a penny a bigger pension than they give you. "Why should we give it to you?-you have money." they'll say.

Of course the US population could increase to 500m by that time (economist.com(might be subscription-only, sorry if it is)) so this could offset the babyboomers moving into retirement moreso than EU or Japan, but that's a different debate altogether.

-tid242

You'll need to check your local McDonald's to compare. I bet the India one is about the third the price. So - with all due respect, you appear to be wrong. We could of course cooperate on a more thorough comparative study if you wish.

I don't know if we have the Chicken McGrill here (I am in England), I can't find it on their website (only looked briefly, couldn't see prices) but my rationale for McDonalds as a comparator was based on an article in The Economist. They seem to have thought about this quite carefully.

To include the link to the Economist article he references:

http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm ?story_id=1353050

http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm ?story_id=1353050

To summarize the summary, Europe's TDMA has the tiny problem of basically being a broken piece of crap, while CDMA2000 actually works. This has been beautifully illustrated in Japan, where Docomo's TDMA network has been a miserable flop, while KDDI's CDMA2000-1X is booming. (Although I'll admit that KDDI's pricing is also a bit more sane.) Couple that with European governments kneecapping their operators with insane 3G license fees, causing immense financial problems right now, and the result is that European telecoms are going to fall off a cliff very soon.

And oh -- contrary to what the Slashdot brief claims, Den Beste's article says nothing about Japan having problems; quite the contrary, KDDI's network is the first successful 3G network on the planet. NTT Docomo is admittedly running into a brick wall, but that's only one operator's problem. The US, while it seems to have gotten the technology right for once (about time!), is still stuck with severe frequency allocation problems, a plethora of incompatible operators and generally a more cellular-hostile culture due to inanities like having to pay for received calls; my 5 is that Japan is the only country that's going to come out a winner from all this.

Cheers,
-j.

Basically what has happened in Europe is that Telecom companies have paid about $90 Billion for the spectrum and rights to roll out 3G services but are *only* allowed to use W-CDMA. The problem is it doesn't work yet, and who knows when it will. Meanwhile in Japan, South America, and elsewhere they are using CDMA2000-1X and they've signed up millions of users.

The Eurocrat regulators' stance seems to be "na na na na, I can't hear you, na na na na na na na" while telecom company debt builds up to the point where it may crush some companies before they ever get to actually roll out any 3G services.

For example, The USA keeps about 0.7% of the population behind bars. For comparison, a rate of 0.1% is common in western Europe. It gives a whole new meaning to "the land of the FREE". See this story from The Economist (may require registration...).

My Country, Israel, does not think that Humans have rights at all; like leaving their own front door. I am lucky on that front, I only got arrested three times, and my home was searched, for making minor protests, like waving a pirate flag on my own balcony.

Would rather (just) have my phone tapped.

For example, The USA keeps about 0.7% of the population behind bars. For comparison, a rate of 0.1% is common in western Europe. It gives a whole new meaning to "the land of the FREE". See this story from The Economist (may require registration...).

My Country, Israel, does not think that Humans have rights at all; like leaving their own front door. I am lucky on that front, I only got arrested three times, and my home was searched, for making minor protests, like waving a pirate flag on my own balcony.

Would rather (just) have my phone tapped.

The Economist has a great article about IP rights and the poor world. Very interesting article.

The Economist has a great article about IP rights and the poor world. Very interesting article.

Date: 12 APR 1979 1736-PST
From: MACKENZIE at USC-ECL
Subject: MSGGROUP#1015 METHICS and the Fast Draw(cont'd)
To: ~drxal-hda at OFFICE-1
cc: msggroup at MIT-MC, malasky at PARC-MAXC

In regard to your message a few days ago concerning the loss
of meaning in this medium:

I am new here, and thus hesitate to comment, but I too have
suffered from the lack of tone, gestures, facial expressions
etc. May I suggest the beginning of a solution? Perhaps we could
extend the set of punctuation we use, i.e:

If I wish to indicate that a particular sentence is meant
with tongue-in-cheek, I would write it so:

"Of course you know I agree with all the current
administration's policies -)."

The "-)" indicates tongue-in-cheek.

This idea is not mine, but stolen from a Reader's Digest article
I read long ago on a completly different subject. I'm sure there
are many other, better ways to improve our punctuation.

Any comments?

Kevin

• Commercial speech (copyright law);
  
• Personal speech about "innocent" topics ("my kid likes dogs");
  
• Personal criticism on controversial topics (e.g., "I hate people that..." ;-) )
  
• Personal criticism of people ("Joe stinks!");
  
• Personal libelous speech of people ("Joe beats his wife");
  
• Personal libelous speech of public figures ("Senator Joe beats his wife");
  
• Personal speech criticizing government actions ("the Army kidnapped my grandmother");
  
• Asking the government questions ("Hey, Senator, where is my Grandmother?");
  
• Challenging religious thought ("God looks like Bella Abzug!");
  
• Hate speech ("I hate everyone who thinks God looks like Bella Abzug!");
  
• Incitement to Riot speech ("Let's Kill everyone who thinks god looks like Bella Abzug!");
  

I was only talking about the EU. Not the continent. I don't know the overall figures, but the current EU population is around 500M, IIRC. The US is up around 280M right now. And the birth-rate in the US is back around replacement, while Europe is shrinking (down near 1.6). Add to that much higher immigration in the US, and its not hard to see the US overtaking a smaller Europe. However this does not include Eastern Europe, or the Balkans, except Greece.

The Economist has a better explanation than I do.

Depending on how the study defines Europe, Europe is either slightly larger or substantially larger (100+ million people) than North America. The real news is that it took this long for Europe to pass North America, serving to illustrate North America's head start.

All this may have changed yet again in the coming decades, thanks to demographic trends, as this article in the Economist illustrates.

Depending on how the study defines Europe, Europe is either slightly larger or substantially larger (100+ million people) than North America. The real news is that it took this long for Europe to pass North America, serving to illustrate North America's head start.

All this may have changed yet again in the coming decades, thanks to demographic trends, as this article in the Economist illustrates.

Traditionally, vendors have driven most big IT markets. They have been, for example, quite successful at locking in corporate customers. Once a company has deployed a piece of proprietary technology--say, an expensive package of enterprise software--it is very costly to switch to another provider. Software vendors can thus milk their "installed base" by selling them one upgrade after another.

IT buyers, however, are increasingly reluctant to play this one-sided game. They are putting pressure on vendors to make it easier for them to link the various bits of their systems. Indeed, the concept of collaborative e-commerce makes sense only if applications have a common language. What is more, vendors themselves increasingly favour open standards as a defensive strategy to neutralise the power of proprietary-minded competitors.

Being forced to do more with less, IT managers are coming to like Linux, the free operating system. Linux and the universe of "open-source" businesses that surround it are one of the few areas of the technology business that is actually growing. Almost a fifth of server computers sold by Dell now have Linux installed rather than Windows. Sun Microsystems has begun offering Linux servers, and might soon add a Linux PC to its product line.

Traditionally, vendors have driven most big IT markets. They have been, for example, quite successful at locking in corporate customers. Once a company has deployed a piece of proprietary technology--say, an expensive package of enterprise software--it is very costly to switch to another provider. Software vendors can thus milk their "installed base" by selling them one upgrade after another.

IT buyers, however, are increasingly reluctant to play this one-sided game. They are putting pressure on vendors to make it easier for them to link the various bits of their systems. Indeed, the concept of collaborative e-commerce makes sense only if applications have a common language. What is more, vendors themselves increasingly favour open standards as a defensive strategy to neutralise the power of proprietary-minded competitors.

Being forced to do more with less, IT managers are coming to like Linux, the free operating system. Linux and the universe of "open-source" businesses that surround it are one of the few areas of the technology business that is actually growing. Almost a fifth of server computers sold by Dell now have Linux installed rather than Windows. Sun Microsystems has begun offering Linux servers, and might soon add a Linux PC to its product line.

I have not yet seen any evidence supporting the oft seen mantra Microsoft/Enron/Worldcom alone is sitting on enough cash that they could do XYZ. Sony, Disney and the rest of the RIAA/MPAA crowd do have a strong vested interest in DRM and could make money off it in the short term. Microsoft risks further alienating their shrinking user base with further decreases in functionality and interoperability, but must desperately need the cash flow to try betting on DRM:

First off, 1998's book keeping produced a discrepancy of about $20 billion:

"[microsoft] declared a profit of $4.5 billion in 1998; when the cost of options awarded that year, plus the change in the value of outstanding options, is deducted, the firm made a loss of $18 billion, a...

The Economist [economist.com]. 5 Aug 1999.

Secondly, the world economy is and has been sluggish and the U.S. economy is in a recession, it's probably safe to say that the $18 billion loss from 1998 wasn't recovered in 1999. If the same accounting practices continued up till the Enron publicity, then it's safe to say that a similar adjustment (say $10-25 billion loss per year) can be applied for the years since 1998. Doesn't this co-incide with Bill's sudden interest in not being CEO?

Next, sales of MS-Windows, MS-Office, and Xbox have all been underwhelming recently. Likewise, MS-Outlook, MS-Exchange, MS-Passport, MS-IIS have all been rated three thumbs down in this age of increasing network security. It's hard to see which products are bringing in money for the company or which of their products even have a future. Linux is in the server room and catching up on the desktop. Macintosh OS X just did a complete end-run around NT,Win2000.

Lastly, Microsoft is a company that has grown through acquisition of products and smaller companies rather than innovation. Most MS 'innovations' or their key components have been acquired from outside by deals (Access, Frontpage, Explorer, DOS, disk compression) or via BSD-like licenses. Innovation leads to long term viability, see 3M for example. Acquisition-only leads to a typical dot-bomb stock comet, see Framfab for example.

Combine the first three above and odds are that this puts Microsoft into the red for 4 years running. At best, there are occasional visits to the break even point, but these visits wouldn't do more than barely dent the accumulated debt. The last point says stick a fork in it, it's done.

So while Microsoft may have an interest in DRM, I don't believe they have the cash to pull it off single handedly. That looks like pure myth. More likely, looks like they'll need MPAA/RIAA to help get all the friends that money can buy to avoid liquidation.

1 Given that the world economy is sluggish and the U.S. economy is in a recession, it's probably safe to say that the $18 billion loss from 1998 wasn't recovered in 1999.

2 In fact, since income from MS-Windows, MS-Office, and Xbox have all been underwhelming recently, it's hard to see which products are bringing in money for the company.

3 1998's book keeping produced a discrepancy of about $20 billion.

"[microsoft] declared a profit of $4.5 billion in 1998; when the cost of options awarded that year, plus the change in the value of outstanding options, is deducted, the firm made a loss of $18 billion, a...

The Economist. 5 Aug 1999.

Combine these three and, odds are, this puts the company into the red for 4 years running. At best there are occasional visits to the break even point, but these visits wouldn't do more than barely dent the accumulated debt.

Lastly, the company has grown through acquisition of products and smaller companies. Most 'innovations' or their key components have been acquired from outside by deals (Access, Frontpage, Explorer, DOS, disk compression) or via BSD-like licenses.

There are few, if any, markets to grow into now and acquirable competition/innovations are largely out of the picture. Given the move of focus onto engineering marketing campains and legislative campains it looks like their time may be up...

It's not a laughing matter - it's easy to make jokes when you live in North America where the population density is 32 people per square mile - in Asia it's 203 - but for Hong Kong we're talking 6,571.14 per square kilometer.... a smaller area than square miles. Also a large proportion of Hong Kong is uninhabitable mountains or isolated islands - the real habitable area's density exceeds the 20,824.38 quoted for Macau.... I mean Hong Kong people go there to escape the crowds!

Hong Kong's population grows by 1 million every ten years and everyone has to be accomodated. The large proportion of people live in high rise residential on reclaimed land, and construction is the number one source of garbage in Hong Kong. When you add up all these issues then any way to improve construction efficiency and sustainability and reduce waste is important.

Now all this might be moot - I mean Hong Kong is literally on the other side of the world.... but hang on... check out this article in the Economist. Predictions are for half a billion Americans by 2050. Where are they going to live?

The Integer project has relevance here.

Living in Hong Kong is like living in an Arcology and many of the trends visible here will need to be transferred to North America if the population does increase to 500,000,000 people.

So next time you crack a joke about living in a cubicle 24/7 at work and play - you might just be fortelling the future....

It's not a laughing matter - it's easy to make jokes when you live in North America where the population density is 32 people per square mile - in Asia it's 203 - but for Hong Kong we're talking 6,571.14 per square kilometer.... a smaller area than square miles. Also a large proportion of Hong Kong is uninhabitable mountains or isolated islands - the real habitable area's density exceeds the 20,824.38 quoted for Macau.... I mean Hong Kong people go there to escape the crowds!

Hong Kong's population grows by 1 million every ten years and everyone has to be accomodated. The large proportion of people live in high rise residential on reclaimed land, and construction is the number one source of garbage in Hong Kong. When you add up all these issues then any way to improve construction efficiency and sustainability and reduce waste is important.

Now all this might be moot - I mean Hong Kong is literally on the other side of the world.... but hang on... check out this article in the Economist. Predictions are for half a billion Americans by 2050. Where are they going to live?

The Integer project has relevance here.

Living in Hong Kong is like living in an Arcology and many of the trends visible here will need to be transferred to North America if the population does increase to 500,000,000 people.

So next time you crack a joke about living in a cubicle 24/7 at work and play - you might just be fortelling the future....

This article from The Economist gives some opinions on why broadband is more popular in some countries than others. According to the OECD, South Korea is way in front with 9.2 connections per 100 people. Canada is second with about 4.5, and the US is third with 2.25.

... published on Thursday is this one. Not much more information, though.

The Economist has just put up an article about how Open Source's future in the world, and how bright it looks.

We need some honest network statistics. Slashdot readers are likely to have access to good data. Where can we get real Internet traffic stats?

Assuming that MS doesn't turn out to be as insolvent as Worldcom or Enron, their current strategy seems to lead them out of software development and into providing services. With software no longer their primary money maker, it'll be pushed to the side probably much the same way that stability and security have been pushed asided for new features.

This may be one of a long chain of public announcements leading to MS support of OSS while they try to figure out how to lock in OSS users.

Can someone explain where the hydrogen comes from for these fuel cells?

One possibility is from coal. No, seriously.

The Economist recently published an article on carbon sequestration which describes some methods for using coal and water to generate CO2 and hydrogen, and then separating the hydrogen out (for use in fuel cells or similar) and getting rid of the CO2 (rather than letting it escape into the atmosphere). Some of the CO2 sequestration methods are also useful for extracting more oil or gas from depleted wells, making them potentially profitable even without the environmental benefit.

Search for "integrated gasifier combined cycle" for more information--and note that it can also be used with biomass, not just coal.

We'll all be doomed if the rumors of Yahoo buying Google (last paragraph) turn out to be true!

'The problem with Lomborg's conclusion is that the scientists themselves disavow it.'

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D4 7-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000

Naughty, naughty.
See Lombords rebuttal at: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000001E 0-157B-1CD4-B4A8809EC588EEDF

Funny, how a scientific publication uses 11 pages in attacking the book but only allows a one page rebuttal.
This is what convinced me to cancel my subscription to sciam.

Also see the Economists' review: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID =965718

The arresting thing about Scientific American's coverage, however, was not this barrage of ineffective rejoinders but the editor's notion of what was going on: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist," he announced.

That is amazing. Mr Lomborg's targets are green scare-mongers and their credulous servants in the media. He uses the findings of scientists to press his case. How can using science to criticise the Kyoto agreement, to show that the world's forests are not disappearing, to demonstrate that the planet's supplies of energy and food will suffice indefinitely, and the rest, constitute an attack on science? If that is so, the scholars whose work supports those positions are presumably attacking science too, and had better stand in line for a pie in the face.

--
Karma to spare...

What!? You mean <i></i> is not an irony tag?

The Economist magazine this week has a long, multi-article survey on the economics the environment and sustainable development, together with an editorial, an uncompromising cover ('CO2AL - Environmental enemy No. 1'), and an interesting science article on how to burn coal without releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere.

One point it makes about the WWF's environmental footprint figures is that 'the biggest factor by far is the land required to absorb CO2 emissions of fossil fuels. If that problem could be managed some other way, then mankind's economic footprint would look much more sustainable'. ('Working miracles').

Although it notes that 'any reduction in emissions has to start slowly, because the capital stock involved in the global energy system is vast and long-lived', the survey goes on by saying that 'that pragmatism must be flanked by policies that encourage a switch to low-carbon technologies when replacing existing plants... Governments everywhere (but especially in America) need to send a powerful signal that carbon is going out of fashion. The best way to do this is to levy a carbon tax. However, whether it is done through taxes, mandated restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, or through market mechanisms, is less important than that the signal is sent clearly, forcefully and unambiguously. This is where President Bush's mixed signals have done a lot of harm: America's industry, unlike Europe's, has little incentive to invest in low-carbon technology. The irony is that even some coal-fired utilities in America are now clamouring for CO2 regulation so that they can invest in new plants with confidence' (Blowing hot and cold).

('A clause in America's Clean Air Act exempts old coal plants from compying with current emission rules, so much of America's electricity is now produced by coal plants that are over 30 years old. Rather than closing the loophole, the Bush administration has announced measures that will give these dirty old clunkers a new lease on life' (Editorial)).

The survey as a whole is usefully level-headed. One thing that's well worth a look is the second table on this page: an interesting perspective on different ways the world changed over the 20th century. ('A century that changed the world', in the section Flying blind)

The Economist magazine this week has a long, multi-article survey on the economics the environment and sustainable development, together with an editorial, an uncompromising cover ('CO2AL - Environmental enemy No. 1'), and an interesting science article on how to burn coal without releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere.

One point it makes about the WWF's environmental footprint figures is that 'the biggest factor by far is the land required to absorb CO2 emissions of fossil fuels. If that problem could be managed some other way, then mankind's economic footprint would look much more sustainable'. ('Working miracles').

Although it notes that 'any reduction in emissions has to start slowly, because the capital stock involved in the global energy system is vast and long-lived', the survey goes on by saying that 'that pragmatism must be flanked by policies that encourage a switch to low-carbon technologies when replacing existing plants... Governments everywhere (but especially in America) need to send a powerful signal that carbon is going out of fashion. The best way to do this is to levy a carbon tax. However, whether it is done through taxes, mandated restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, or through market mechanisms, is less important than that the signal is sent clearly, forcefully and unambiguously. This is where President Bush's mixed signals have done a lot of harm: America's industry, unlike Europe's, has little incentive to invest in low-carbon technology. The irony is that even some coal-fired utilities in America are now clamouring for CO2 regulation so that they can invest in new plants with confidence' (Blowing hot and cold).

('A clause in America's Clean Air Act exempts old coal plants from compying with current emission rules, so much of America's electricity is now produced by coal plants that are over 30 years old. Rather than closing the loophole, the Bush administration has announced measures that will give these dirty old clunkers a new lease on life' (Editorial)).

The survey as a whole is usefully level-headed. One thing that's well worth a look is the second table on this page: an interesting perspective on different ways the world changed over the 20th century. ('A century that changed the world', in the section Flying blind)

The Economist magazine this week has a long, multi-article survey on the economics the environment and sustainable development, together with an editorial, an uncompromising cover ('CO2AL - Environmental enemy No. 1'), and an interesting science article on how to burn coal without releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere.

One point it makes about the WWF's environmental footprint figures is that 'the biggest factor by far is the land required to absorb CO2 emissions of fossil fuels. If that problem could be managed some other way, then mankind's economic footprint would look much more sustainable'. ('Working miracles').

Although it notes that 'any reduction in emissions has to start slowly, because the capital stock involved in the global energy system is vast and long-lived', the survey goes on by saying that 'that pragmatism must be flanked by policies that encourage a switch to low-carbon technologies when replacing existing plants... Governments everywhere (but especially in America) need to send a powerful signal that carbon is going out of fashion. The best way to do this is to levy a carbon tax. However, whether it is done through taxes, mandated restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, or through market mechanisms, is less important than that the signal is sent clearly, forcefully and unambiguously. This is where President Bush's mixed signals have done a lot of harm: America's industry, unlike Europe's, has little incentive to invest in low-carbon technology. The irony is that even some coal-fired utilities in America are now clamouring for CO2 regulation so that they can invest in new plants with confidence' (Blowing hot and cold).

('A clause in America's Clean Air Act exempts old coal plants from compying with current emission rules, so much of America's electricity is now produced by coal plants that are over 30 years old. Rather than closing the loophole, the Bush administration has announced measures that will give these dirty old clunkers a new lease on life' (Editorial)).

The survey as a whole is usefully level-headed. One thing that's well worth a look is the second table on this page: an interesting perspective on different ways the world changed over the 20th century. ('A century that changed the world', in the section Flying blind)

The Economist magazine this week has a long, multi-article survey on the economics the environment and sustainable development, together with an editorial, an uncompromising cover ('CO2AL - Environmental enemy No. 1'), and an interesting science article on how to burn coal without releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere.

One point it makes about the WWF's environmental footprint figures is that 'the biggest factor by far is the land required to absorb CO2 emissions of fossil fuels. If that problem could be managed some other way, then mankind's economic footprint would look much more sustainable'. ('Working miracles').

Although it notes that 'any reduction in emissions has to start slowly, because the capital stock involved in the global energy system is vast and long-lived', the survey goes on by saying that 'that pragmatism must be flanked by policies that encourage a switch to low-carbon technologies when replacing existing plants... Governments everywhere (but especially in America) need to send a powerful signal that carbon is going out of fashion. The best way to do this is to levy a carbon tax. However, whether it is done through taxes, mandated restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, or through market mechanisms, is less important than that the signal is sent clearly, forcefully and unambiguously. This is where President Bush's mixed signals have done a lot of harm: America's industry, unlike Europe's, has little incentive to invest in low-carbon technology. The irony is that even some coal-fired utilities in America are now clamouring for CO2 regulation so that they can invest in new plants with confidence' (Blowing hot and cold).

('A clause in America's Clean Air Act exempts old coal plants from compying with current emission rules, so much of America's electricity is now produced by coal plants that are over 30 years old. Rather than closing the loophole, the Bush administration has announced measures that will give these dirty old clunkers a new lease on life' (Editorial)).

The survey as a whole is usefully level-headed. One thing that's well worth a look is the second table on this page: an interesting perspective on different ways the world changed over the 20th century. ('A century that changed the world', in the section Flying blind)

The Economist magazine this week has a long, multi-article survey on the economics the environment and sustainable development, together with an editorial, an uncompromising cover ('CO2AL - Environmental enemy No. 1'), and an interesting science article on how to burn coal without releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere.

One point it makes about the WWF's environmental footprint figures is that 'the biggest factor by far is the land required to absorb CO2 emissions of fossil fuels. If that problem could be managed some other way, then mankind's economic footprint would look much more sustainable'. ('Working miracles').

Although it notes that 'any reduction in emissions has to start slowly, because the capital stock involved in the global energy system is vast and long-lived', the survey goes on by saying that 'that pragmatism must be flanked by policies that encourage a switch to low-carbon technologies when replacing existing plants... Governments everywhere (but especially in America) need to send a powerful signal that carbon is going out of fashion. The best way to do this is to levy a carbon tax. However, whether it is done through taxes, mandated restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, or through market mechanisms, is less important than that the signal is sent clearly, forcefully and unambiguously. This is where President Bush's mixed signals have done a lot of harm: America's industry, unlike Europe's, has little incentive to invest in low-carbon technology. The irony is that even some coal-fired utilities in America are now clamouring for CO2 regulation so that they can invest in new plants with confidence' (Blowing hot and cold).

('A clause in America's Clean Air Act exempts old coal plants from compying with current emission rules, so much of America's electricity is now produced by coal plants that are over 30 years old. Rather than closing the loophole, the Bush administration has announced measures that will give these dirty old clunkers a new lease on life' (Editorial)).

The survey as a whole is usefully level-headed. One thing that's well worth a look is the second table on this page: an interesting perspective on different ways the world changed over the 20th century. ('A century that changed the world', in the section Flying blind)

The Economist magazine this week has a long, multi-article survey on the economics the environment and sustainable development, together with an editorial, an uncompromising cover ('CO2AL - Environmental enemy No. 1'), and an interesting science article on how to burn coal without releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere.

One point it makes about the WWF's environmental footprint figures is that 'the biggest factor by far is the land required to absorb CO2 emissions of fossil fuels. If that problem could be managed some other way, then mankind's economic footprint would look much more sustainable'. ('Working miracles').

Although it notes that 'any reduction in emissions has to start slowly, because the capital stock involved in the global energy system is vast and long-lived', the survey goes on by saying that 'that pragmatism must be flanked by policies that encourage a switch to low-carbon technologies when replacing existing plants... Governments everywhere (but especially in America) need to send a powerful signal that carbon is going out of fashion. The best way to do this is to levy a carbon tax. However, whether it is done through taxes, mandated restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, or through market mechanisms, is less important than that the signal is sent clearly, forcefully and unambiguously. This is where President Bush's mixed signals have done a lot of harm: America's industry, unlike Europe's, has little incentive to invest in low-carbon technology. The irony is that even some coal-fired utilities in America are now clamouring for CO2 regulation so that they can invest in new plants with confidence' (Blowing hot and cold).

('A clause in America's Clean Air Act exempts old coal plants from compying with current emission rules, so much of America's electricity is now produced by coal plants that are over 30 years old. Rather than closing the loophole, the Bush administration has announced measures that will give these dirty old clunkers a new lease on life' (Editorial)).

The survey as a whole is usefully level-headed. One thing that's well worth a look is the second table on this page: an interesting perspective on different ways the world changed over the 20th century. ('A century that changed the world', in the section Flying blind)

The Economist magazine this week has a long, multi-article survey on the economics the environment and sustainable development, together with an editorial, an uncompromising cover ('CO2AL - Environmental enemy No. 1'), and an interesting science article on how to burn coal without releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere.

One point it makes about the WWF's environmental footprint figures is that 'the biggest factor by far is the land required to absorb CO2 emissions of fossil fuels. If that problem could be managed some other way, then mankind's economic footprint would look much more sustainable'. ('Working miracles').

Although it notes that 'any reduction in emissions has to start slowly, because the capital stock involved in the global energy system is vast and long-lived', the survey goes on by saying that 'that pragmatism must be flanked by policies that encourage a switch to low-carbon technologies when replacing existing plants... Governments everywhere (but especially in America) need to send a powerful signal that carbon is going out of fashion. The best way to do this is to levy a carbon tax. However, whether it is done through taxes, mandated restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, or through market mechanisms, is less important than that the signal is sent clearly, forcefully and unambiguously. This is where President Bush's mixed signals have done a lot of harm: America's industry, unlike Europe's, has little incentive to invest in low-carbon technology. The irony is that even some coal-fired utilities in America are now clamouring for CO2 regulation so that they can invest in new plants with confidence' (Blowing hot and cold).

('A clause in America's Clean Air Act exempts old coal plants from compying with current emission rules, so much of America's electricity is now produced by coal plants that are over 30 years old. Rather than closing the loophole, the Bush administration has announced measures that will give these dirty old clunkers a new lease on life' (Editorial)).

The survey as a whole is usefully level-headed. One thing that's well worth a look is the second table on this page: an interesting perspective on different ways the world changed over the 20th century. ('A century that changed the world', in the section Flying blind)

The Economist magazine this week has a long, multi-article survey on the economics the environment and sustainable development, together with an editorial, an uncompromising cover ('CO2AL - Environmental enemy No. 1'), and an interesting science article on how to burn coal without releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere.

One point it makes about the WWF's environmental footprint figures is that 'the biggest factor by far is the land required to absorb CO2 emissions of fossil fuels. If that problem could be managed some other way, then mankind's economic footprint would look much more sustainable'. ('Working miracles').

Although it notes that 'any reduction in emissions has to start slowly, because the capital stock involved in the global energy system is vast and long-lived', the survey goes on by saying that 'that pragmatism must be flanked by policies that encourage a switch to low-carbon technologies when replacing existing plants... Governments everywhere (but especially in America) need to send a powerful signal that carbon is going out of fashion. The best way to do this is to levy a carbon tax. However, whether it is done through taxes, mandated restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, or through market mechanisms, is less important than that the signal is sent clearly, forcefully and unambiguously. This is where President Bush's mixed signals have done a lot of harm: America's industry, unlike Europe's, has little incentive to invest in low-carbon technology. The irony is that even some coal-fired utilities in America are now clamouring for CO2 regulation so that they can invest in new plants with confidence' (Blowing hot and cold).

('A clause in America's Clean Air Act exempts old coal plants from compying with current emission rules, so much of America's electricity is now produced by coal plants that are over 30 years old. Rather than closing the loophole, the Bush administration has announced measures that will give these dirty old clunkers a new lease on life' (Editorial)).

The survey as a whole is usefully level-headed. One thing that's well worth a look is the second table on this page: an interesting perspective on different ways the world changed over the 20th century. ('A century that changed the world', in the section Flying blind)

The Economist magazine this week has a long, multi-article survey on the economics the environment and sustainable development, together with an editorial, an uncompromising cover ('CO2AL - Environmental enemy No. 1'), and an interesting science article on how to burn coal without releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere.

One point it makes about the WWF's environmental footprint figures is that 'the biggest factor by far is the land required to absorb CO2 emissions of fossil fuels. If that problem could be managed some other way, then mankind's economic footprint would look much more sustainable'. ('Working miracles').

Although it notes that 'any reduction in emissions has to start slowly, because the capital stock involved in the global energy system is vast and long-lived', the survey goes on by saying that 'that pragmatism must be flanked by policies that encourage a switch to low-carbon technologies when replacing existing plants... Governments everywhere (but especially in America) need to send a powerful signal that carbon is going out of fashion. The best way to do this is to levy a carbon tax. However, whether it is done through taxes, mandated restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, or through market mechanisms, is less important than that the signal is sent clearly, forcefully and unambiguously. This is where President Bush's mixed signals have done a lot of harm: America's industry, unlike Europe's, has little incentive to invest in low-carbon technology. The irony is that even some coal-fired utilities in America are now clamouring for CO2 regulation so that they can invest in new plants with confidence' (Blowing hot and cold).

('A clause in America's Clean Air Act exempts old coal plants from compying with current emission rules, so much of America's electricity is now produced by coal plants that are over 30 years old. Rather than closing the loophole, the Bush administration has announced measures that will give these dirty old clunkers a new lease on life' (Editorial)).

The survey as a whole is usefully level-headed. One thing that's well worth a look is the second table on this page: an interesting perspective on different ways the world changed over the 20th century. ('A century that changed the world', in the section Flying blind)

Periods go inside quotes.

As usual with this sort of thing, it depends on which side of the Atlantic you're on. In English English, the full stop goes outside in certain situations.

PER CAPITA (that is per human being)

I particularly liked how you pointed out the definition or per capita ;-)

Is it genetic or cultural?
Definitely cultural.

:-(

If a large amount of Microsoft's money comes from OEMs and that depends on sales of new PCs and sales of new PCs have been pretty low, then Microsoft's revenues are probably low, too, and ups and downs will lag a quarter or two after the PC sales.

If, aside from not giving out dividends, Microsoft seems like it might be cooking the books slightly since 1999 to hide losses, then it may acutally be running in the red.

1999 was economically a good year compared to more recent ones. If Microsoft has needed any such accounting "errors" prior to the economic resession, then the recession has been a real slam-dunk and a proper audit would show them uncomfortably far from being a profitable corporation.