I second this.
I lived in Thailand for over a year, working in a refugee camp for Karen refugees from Burma (I volunteered for Doctors Without Borders, or MSF for those who know). Most folks who lived on the border of Burma, or who supported those fighting for their rights in Burma, use Burma rather than Myanmar. The only people who use the word Myanmar are those who support the regime, and those ignorant of the country and the struggles going on there.
I am more than a little worried about what will happen to the country when the current regime falls. There are many ethnic groups fighting for independence. What will happen when the stupid idiots running the current regime fall out of power is anyone's guess. In the long run, things will likely get better, but anarchy is a likely short-term outcome. Too bad the world is not up to situations like this and Iraq. No one is ready to truly step up. The UN is a joke. Maybe one day. . . what a wonderful dream. . .
Okay. So you think the NYtimes and the AP and this thread's reference to it is totally legit. Yet you provide the quote from the original source that clearly states something completely contradictory. Thanks for pulling it up, but just because they used the same number does not mean the quote is correct. The MIT study is talking seed money/research money that would enable someone else to invest further billions to produce energy on that scale. The OT states that "It said an investment of $800 million to $1 billion could produce more than 100 gigawatts of electricity by 2050, equaling the combined output of all 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S." This is a misquote of the MIT study. The MIT study in no way said that this small an investment would produce that much electricity, merely that it would allow production on that scale to be deployed commercially (clearly at MUCH greater additional cost).
Slashdot Mirror
I second this. I lived in Thailand for over a year, working in a refugee camp for Karen refugees from Burma (I volunteered for Doctors Without Borders, or MSF for those who know). Most folks who lived on the border of Burma, or who supported those fighting for their rights in Burma, use Burma rather than Myanmar. The only people who use the word Myanmar are those who support the regime, and those ignorant of the country and the struggles going on there. I am more than a little worried about what will happen to the country when the current regime falls. There are many ethnic groups fighting for independence. What will happen when the stupid idiots running the current regime fall out of power is anyone's guess. In the long run, things will likely get better, but anarchy is a likely short-term outcome. Too bad the world is not up to situations like this and Iraq. No one is ready to truly step up. The UN is a joke. Maybe one day. . . what a wonderful dream. . .
Okay. So you think the NYtimes and the AP and this thread's reference to it is totally legit. Yet you provide the quote from the original source that clearly states something completely contradictory. Thanks for pulling it up, but just because they used the same number does not mean the quote is correct. The MIT study is talking seed money/research money that would enable someone else to invest further billions to produce energy on that scale. The OT states that "It said an investment of $800 million to $1 billion could produce more than 100 gigawatts of electricity by 2050, equaling the combined output of all 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S." This is a misquote of the MIT study. The MIT study in no way said that this small an investment would produce that much electricity, merely that it would allow production on that scale to be deployed commercially (clearly at MUCH greater additional cost).