You make a valid criticism, but do you have a better solution? What does it take to break down an old PC into its constituent parts (iron, aluminum, plastic, copper, etc..) so that it can be re-used? Is it possible? Is it practical?
Sure. As mentioned in a Slahsdot article yesterday, it is possible. You load it up on a boat, send it to China, they pick apart the pieces that are useful and can be used again and then they either burn what's left over or throw it in one of their rivers.
And they actually pay to pick it up in the U.S. Instead of paying a tax to recycle the computer we can get paid by the Chinese to take it off our hands. Free market at work, not even that complicated.
... California residents are flocking to Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon to buy new computers. When interviewed California politicians couldn't understand this sudden migration in purchasing patterns. "Why would consumers purchase their computer in Arizona when they get recycling included if they purchase it in California?"
BTW, includind a fee in the product price doesn't always mean a price increase: it can be a manufacturer profit decrease, a price stagnation instead of the normal manufacturing cost decrease... But this will never be too high in order not to repelling consumers.
Hahah, always funny to see how many environmental-wackos don't understand economics.
Whether the fee results in an increase in prices (which equals a reduction in sales, period) or a reduction in manufacturer profits (which means a reduction in employment as well as capacity) the net affect of any additional cost on marketing a product is a reduction in efficiency of the economy and also tends to put upward pressure on inflation.
Every cost is important. The fact that liberals don't understand this is why they are so eager to tax the rich and companies more and more every day as if it were an endless supply of money. It's not. Reagan reduced taxes and we got the longest-growing economy in our country's history. Clinton raised taxes and brought that growth to a stop and turned it around by the end of his eight years in office.
EVERY FEE AND TAX LEVIED ON PERSONS OR COMPANIES IS BAD FOR OUR ECONOMY. The only question is whether society feels the negative effect of the fee/tax is outweighed by the potential benefit.
what practical means do you offer then for controlling this form of pollution?
I have no solution because, especially in this case, I don't see it as a problem. I don't see computers as overly toxic. If you read the report yesterday published by Banel (or whatever the left-wing enivromental-wacko group was called) you'd find that THEY don't have a solution either!
Check out their report. They had like 7 recommendations... Things like consuming fewer PCs (anti-consumerism), making computers more upgradable (they already are, within reason), taxing the sales of PCs to cover supposed disposal (tax-and-spend, tolls-and-trolls), using more recyclable parts in PCs (whatever).
Read their report. They don't have one solution on what to do with the computers themselves. They want to reduce the PC count, reduce turnover (consumerism), tax and spend, typical liberal diatribe. But in terms of hard, concrete suggestions on what to do with the old PCs--NOT ONE SUGGESTION.
Basically, they're upset because everyone has signed some treaty and the "PC toxic waste" crap is their PR to try to put pressure on the US to sign it.
Also read their report and you'll find that the toxic parts of PCs are an extremely miniscule % of the PC. All the toxic elements I found in their list were "less than.1". More typical garbage, such as aluminum, glass and iron make up more than 70% of the weight of the PC.
All in all, it's a non-issue. PCs are not toxic, at least not in any substantial way. There are a million more deadly things in this world to worry about than old PCs. Let's worry about the pressing issues first and then, if we're bored and paying too little in taxes, we can come back to this BS.
This is another bogus tax being considered. We already have enough taxes. The road to failure (and communism) is paved with good intentions. We're incrementally adding more and more taxes. They're always sugar-coated but it's just another tax.
Additionally, it assumes that the computer wil someday be recycled. Perhaps when it no longer serves me I'll part it out. Or perhaps I'll upgrade it and not need to throw it out. Or perhaps it'll run on a Linux box and never have to be upgraded because it gets the job done.
How do I get a refund if I never trash/recycle my machine?
More left-wing tax-and-spend envrionmental-based psycho-babble. Taxes must be resisted in all its forms. If they want money to do this, take it out of one of the useless programs they already spend my tax dollars on.
Of course, we have never paid for the cost of this disassembly. But we should pay for that cost. It would be a boon to the whole economy.
Not to swift on economics, are we now?
Hello, requiring disassembly of everything would NOT be a boon to the economy. It would increase costs, tend to have inflationary effects, and cost jobs.
You can argue whether or not these are acceptable prices to pay to implement this environmnetal policy, but do not be mislead into thinking it would help the economy. It would increase costs and would make the world, as a whole, less productive since the businesses disassembling the stuff would be doing that instead of something PRODUCTIVE.
Take another whirl through Econ 101 and then we'll talk.
I throw my old computers into the trash... Re:
This is actually illegal, the end result being contamination of ground water.
I've never heard of any such laws. Perhaps it'd be easier for environmental groups to raise the consciousness of people regarding the computers than to get the U.S. to enact treaties, etc.
That said, it appears to me (from reading Basel's longwinded report) that the "toxic" portions of the computer are insignificant. More than 70% of the computer, by weight (according to their numbers) consists of plastics, aluminum, iron, and glass. Hardly any more toxic than anything else we throw in the trash.
They suggest a typical computer has 4.2 pounds of copper which, to me, seems awfully high.
In all, the out-of-the-ordinary chemicals listed by these people all register as "less than 0.1" (except for Terbium which interestingly registers as "less tjam 0").
The real problem is not that they're recycling parts in China. Actually, from their report, it seems to be a GOOD thing. It's a good thing that there are Chinese that are willing to do this manual labor that actually allows the recovery and recycling of some portions of old computers.
The problem is when they've extracted everything they can they either burn it or toss it into a river.
Duh.
So stop complaining. The Chinese are performing a good service. They just need some orientation regarding what to do with the unusable parts instead of burning them or throwing them in rivers. At that point it's win-win: We get rid of our old computers and the Chinese perform a service and get recycled raw materials at a bargain.
Read their report. The problem isn't nearly as nasty as one would first think based on the fear-mongering that Basel group engages in.
But one can hardly ignore that earth's environment knows no boundaries. You cannot quarantine air nor water. So if stuff is being dumped in some remote place in India/China because people out there are not saying no, well you are not just hurting them but you are hurting living conditions on earth. So you need to care even if China/India don't.
By that logic we should intervene in every political dispute in the world since, eventually, it may lead to a regional conflict and then to a world war--and then we're involved. So we automatically have a right to intervene in anyone's affairs.
THAT'S the attitude that causes so many people in foreign countries to hate Americans. It has nothing to do with the environment, it has everything to do with sticking our nose where it doesn't belong.
That said, an environmental problem in China is going to kill off China and/or cause them to fix the problem out of necessity long before it affects anyone downwind (which is 8000 miles of Pacific Ocean).
The amount of time for toxic waste dumped in sea to spread itself uniformly in water and terra firma is not decades but years.
Can you cite references for that?
Also, I'd like some concrete data regarding what in my computer is so toxic as to need to treat it as a superfund site.
I'd be totally in agreement if China was dumping nuclear waste into the ocean. But dumping computers into rivers? I'm sorry, I don't see the threat. There are a million things in this world much more dangerous than used computers; perhaps we should address those million things first rather than harping on consumerism in the United States.
For anything longer you need to think harder.
How about getting rid of communist governments so everyone can enjoy to the benefits of capitalism? That way the number of poor people will decrease, as well people exploited into doing this kind of thing.
Heck, while we're intervening in world environment and world politcs, why don't we just topple every third-world government and replace it with something like what we have at home?
The parties that produce the waste are responsible for safely disposing of it. Having China "ban" it does not solve anything, because you're still going to use the lowest bidder as your "waste disposal" company, and it will end up in a river in some other country.
Actually, my old computers end up at the local dump in my own country, state, county, and city.
You see? By just throwing the damn thing away I'm actually saving some third world country from being exploited by the recycling process. Cool.
I think we've come full circle now that recycling is apparently now causing harm to third world countries.
We are directly responsible. We HAVE to have the next greatest and latest here in America.
You must be one of those left-leaning, enviro-wackos who thinks that the U.S. is the source of all evil because--God forbid--we consume what the rest of the world produces, thereby giving the rest of the world a job.
I'm sick of "head in the sand" babble like yours.
And I'm sick of people who want me to feel bad about being successful and buying stuff.
The real message here is: "We shouldn't be consuming as many PCs."
Next logical conclusion: "We can only save the planet if we stop consuming."
Final conclusion: If we stop consuming, the world economgy collapses and all 6 billion people are miserable rather than just 4 billion. But at least we've saved the planet.
Enviromental psycho-babble. That's out-of-fashion. It was the big thing in the late 80's and early 90s, but people just aren't buying it anymore. Apparently they're buying PCs, which I think is great!
Go get a new cause; your current one is broken and obsolete. I'm sure the "left" will be able to recycle it into something "new."
I consider things recycled when a majority of those parts which can be reused, are.
I'm surprised anything of value can be recycled from an old computer. Aluminum cans, paper, I can see that. PCBs and old chips? I wouldn't have even imagined.
I throw my old computers into the trash after I break the case and PCBs into small enough parts that they can comfortably fit into the trash bag.
What blows me away is that they can actually eek enough money out of the small quantities of precious metals to make it worthwhile to ship the thing over to China. Personally, I think they should spend more time investigating where those PCs (being "recycled" in China) really come from. I'd be surprised if they really come all the way from the United States or Europe. I suspect the PCs are more local in origin. Either China itself or perhaps SE Asia. But shipping an old busted and relatively heavy PC across the Pacific to China to extract $5 worth of "precious metals" just doesn't seem to make economic sense to me.
I think if someone can say, with authority, what the value of the "precious metals" in a typical PC are we could establish a maximum perimeter that defines where the PCs could be coming from--i.e., where shipping cost
The difference is that drugs is perceived as a problem by the U.S. and, apparently, this practice of recycling computers isn't seen as a problem by China.
Again, it comes down to China regulating this IF they see it as a problem. And, believe me, China can more effectively regulate this type of thing than we could in the U.S. They catch someone doing it they can just shoot them or stick them in a jail forever.
Another interesting thought... What's really happening here is that poor people in China are recylcing our computers. I thought recycling was a good thing?! Or must everything be recycled in the United States?
Or perhaps the problem isn't that the Chinese are recycling the stuff, but that they're throwing the stuff in their rivers. If so, complain to the Chinese and have them stop throwing it in their rivers.
You know, it's been awhile since I've seen an environmental pscyco-babble story quite so absurd. The problem isn't a problem and, if it is, the solution is in China, not in the U.S.
Why do I keep hearing about USA having not ratified this and that?
Because we read the fine print before we sign. And, yes, many countries envy our position so we need to make sure contracts (treaties) arent' screwing us over. Which, lately, most of them do.
'Not ratified' is a nice phrase that doesn't sound like "I'm a greedy, weak coward", which it really means in contexts like this, IMHO.
Ah, ok, so if you go to buy a house and read the contract and it says "The bank will charge you 200% per year and if you don't pay the loan back in a year we get to charge you another 500% and if you don't pay it we'll reposses your house and the house of your parents" and you wisely choose not to sign it it's because you're a greedy bastard?
Think Kyoto treaty for example. I'd be embarrassed to live in the States.
Oh, please. I was embarrased that Clinton was thinking of signing it. Luckily we got some sanity in the White House willing to stand up and say, "This is BS, we're not signing this."
On the other hand, I'm only waiting for people to start showing what they feel about this madness like they did in 60'ies and 70'ies. That's an era that american PEOPLE should be proud of.
Hahah, your true colors revealed. You're talking about the ultimate lowpoint in American culture.
It's not coming back. It had its time and its gone. No-one is going to get pissed off because environmental pscho-babble treaties aren't being signed.
1. We are not forcing this old hardware on anyone. If it's ending up in China or India it's because the people there think they can make some money off of it.
2. Even if they CAN make some money off of it, it's not our fault they throw the exploited "recycled" hardware in rivers. Come on. Crap in your refrigerator and it's going to have some negative affects on your food. Don't complain to someone else because you decided to crap there.
3. If the Chinese government sees this as a problem they should not let the stuff be imported. If it's being imported illegally the Chinese government should have no problem prosecuting (i.e., executing) the offending party.
Do I want my old computer ending up in a river? No. But don't blame me if it does, *I* didn't throw it in a river or asked anyone to burn plastic off its wires...
There are too many other responsible parties here that are DIRECTLY responsible to come after me with some tax or $30 increase on PC sales to try to resolve the problem. You want to solve the problem? Have China ban the practice. If China doesn't see it as a problem then why the hell should we?
Come on, I'm sick of this environmental psycho-babble.
Too many US Cities suffer from massive sprawl - think LA. This makes building adequate roads very difficult, because ot the huge costs and great travel lengths.
Too many people complain about "urban sprawl" without realizing what the alternative is.
I currently live in Monterrey Mexico. It's a city of about 2.5 million people in an area about 10 miles by 10 miles (100 sq. miles). "Good" (middle class) houses are built on lots that are about 30 feet wide by about 82 feet long. A 2-car garage takes up half of the front of your house. Houses are built right up against the road so that people can get as much out of their property as possible.
In Denver, a city about the same size population-wise as Monterrey, the city has "sprawled" to cover something like 20 miles by 30 miles. It covers about 6 times as much area as Monterrey.
Visit both cities and then tell me which seems better.
There is, in fact, hard science to be learned here. Do you know what a rain shadow is? Do you know what the term "carrying capacity" means? Do you know what a microclimate is? Do you know what riparian zones are? These are not wishy-washy liberal political views, but observable, quantifiable scientific realities. Environmental science is a real discipline, with real research.
I did not say that environmental science is not a real discipline. At least it's a real area of study.
My comments apply to what I called environmental "scientists." By quoting the word "scientist" I mean those people--or even scientists--who use the title "scientist" to spew information that is not based on fact nor which has beeen proven but, by using the word "scientist," cause people to assume that they can trust the information provided.
In other words, if I am a scientist and have an unsubstantiated opinion regarding global warming, it is irrelevant that I am a scientist. If I haven't studied it then my opinion is no more important than any other educated person's opinion. That being the case, I should not flaunt "scientist" when someone quotes me.
Further, even if I were an ENVIRONMENTAL scientist and was espousing some opinion regarding global warming I would do so with the greatest of care when presenting both my opinions and my work-in-progress. We simply know too little to call anything regarding global warming a "conclusion" or a "fact"--and I would go out of my way to make that disclaimer with any announcement I made regarding my research.
The problem I have with these environmentalIST "scientists" is that lately the vast majority have a political adgenda and look for data to give them ammunition. They then hope to affect some political change based on what they KNOW (or should know) is incomplete data. That is not science, that's politics.
Thank you, Catamount, for your post. You really hit it right on the head.
We haven't seen any changes in global temperature that can be attributed to humans with certainty. Nor have we seen any changes in global temperature that are out of line with temperature changes over earth's geologic history.
And even if the temperature were to rise (or had risen), we don't know enough about how the earth works to be able to know whether that is a good or bad thing.
If the temperature rises perhaps the ice caps will melt and people in Los Angeles will have to relocate to higher lands... but perhaps the increased temperature will cause increased humidity and rain and cause the Sahara desert to bloom into a tropical forest capable of feeding the millions of starving people in that area of the world. Would that not be a good thing?
The environmental movement is based on 1) Funny science that doesn't have any convincing evidence to support their theories. 2) The assumption that even if their theories are right that the end result would be bad. 3) A socialistic adgenda.
In all, scientists should present theories, test them, and publish their results. If they want to institute policy they should get into government. Then again, communists haven't had very good luck which is probably why they try to institute their policies under the guise of science.
the well-being of humans and non-humans have value
True. The trick is assigning values to both. Regardless, I would put more value on the well-being of humans.
the richness/diversity of things contribute to the value of the well-being of all things
While I'm not against diversity by any means, I certainly don't use it as a measuring stick to determine my well-being or the well-being of a culture.
The value of any particular given diverse element is a matter of opinion. I personally am not bothered by the fact that there are far less Nazis now than there were 60 years ago. A Nazi might not agree with me.
humans have no right to reduce diversity of any species (plant or animal) directly or indirectly except for vital needs
Says who? That's hogwash.
Humans are the dominant species on this planet. That position has given us the right to do whatever we want. The environment and evolution aren't governments that are exist, in great part, to protect the weakest elements. In fact, environment and evolution prefers the strongest element. In this case the strongest element is man.
You can argue whether there is justification for humans to reduce diversity in any given situation, but to say we don't have the right to do so flies in the face of the most natural of laws: survival of the fitest!
the flourishing of human life and culture necessitates a decrease in human population which leads to smaller communities and would tend to lead to a better ecology
Where did he come up with that crap? How does he know or conclude that for human life to flourish requires a decrease in human population?
The fact that there are 6 billion people on this planet and that many are starving doesn't mean we need to reduce the population to 4 billion. It means we need to get better and more efficient at taking advantage of the resources this planet has to offer. Our planet can easily support many more than 6 billion inhabitants.
This idiot is suggesting a return to tribal culture. That is 1) Naive, it's not going to happen. 2) Probably not what 99.99999% of the world wants, which means it's not an improvement in quality of life or standard of living to that majority.
Besides, evidence exists that shows that just because there is a small tribe doesn't mean that they will have better ecology. Just check out what happened at Easter Island (Rapa Nui). A small population effectively destroyed their island.
there is already too much human interference within the non-human world
So?? I find there to be too much non-human interference in my human world. Those pesky mosquitos that bite me. Cockroaches that dirty things up. Alligators that take bites out of people that, as part of nature, have as much right to be in a swap as they do.
The difference is evolution has caused us to become the dominant species and can do something about it; and that the other species just have to live (or die) with it. Tough luck, better luck next time.
policies therefore must be changed
As if any of the previous points had actually formed any basis on which to determine that something is wrong and what should be done.
All of the previous points are matters of opinion. You can't (or shouldn't) base policy on opinions.
the ideological change is to appreciate life quality over standard of living
In other words we need to be satisifed to have a lower standard of living in order to have a higher quality of life?
This guy is a liberal looking for a way to justify redistributing wealth. Which is what environmentalists really are about. It's not a secret, ugly conspiracy. It's just a fact which is obvious to anyone who really looks at what these people espouse.
Environmentalists and their policies make no sense from an environmental standpoint. By jumping through hoops to protect species they presume to know more than evolution and survival of the fittest. 30 years they argued that we were going to enter another ice age, now we're into global warming. It is obvious the environmentalists know zip about the environment and science. Just investigating their claims and contradictions proves that. So what's left? A political adgenda.
They are looking to transfer wealth from first world countries to third, foruth and fifth world countries. It's that simple. Rather than trying to improve conditions in developing countries they'd rather subsidize them with handouts from successful nations.
This is not that hard to stand, nor is it a conspiracy theory. It's obvious. As someone else mentioned, just look at the proposed "end solution" of these people. Right here they are saying that to have a higher quality of life we must have a lower standard of living (i.e., less money, less property, etc.). And we must do this in the name of the environment.
Please, if you have a communist political adgenda just say it. To hide it and wrap it up in an environmental babble...
It's about time we see more work like this published.
Environmentalists have been spewing whatever "facts" they want for years and, as mentioned in the intro, the media has bought it hook, line, and sinker.
There are two guilty parties here:
1. The environmental "scientists." They claim to be scientists--and many even are, by title. But I also feel a scientist has a responsibility to the truth of what he reports. When scientists start using their title as "scientist" to pass off unsubstantiated theories and hypothesis as verified results, they've lost all credibility as scientists and really ought not to be able to call themselves "scientists" anymore. They are liberal environmentalists with an adgenda and already know the results they want before they perform the "experiments."
2. The Media. We all know the media is biased. Nothing new. But when it comes to the environmentalist movement it's incredible how much latitude they are given by the media. An environmentalist can release a press report "Study shows that farting may contribute to the ozone hole." The news reports it as fact. You read the story and the report a little more closely and you find out that a study has shown that farting has increased 20% in the last decade and the ozone hole has increased 19%... so it MIGHT be possible the farting caused the ozone hold expansion. There's no distinction made by the media between cause and effect and just random correlations of data.
In all, the whole environmentalist movement is tainted by bad scientists who report what they want to beleive, not what the data proves, and by the media that blindly reports whatever these people spew without due diligence in reporting the validity of the claims.
Is it a good idea to reduce pollution? Sure, the days look nicer when there's a nice blue sky above us. Is it a good idea to conserve energy? Sure, saves on the construction of new plants and saves us money. Should our cars be more efficient? Sure, it'll let us stop at the gas station less frequently, save us money at the pump, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Do I think that the ice caps will melt and flood New York City and Los Angeles if I drive my car too much? No.
Do I think it's the end of the world if some unknown bug species in Brazil goes extinct? No, many species have come and gone over time, this is nothing new.
Do I think huge and powerful hurricanes are going to become common because of global warming? No.
Do I believe environmental models that, every time more and more factors are taken into account show less and less environmental change? No.
Do I believe environmental models that don't even take into account the affect of CLOUDS??? Come on.
Get the facts straight and then let's talk about what can or should be done. In the meantime, the environmentalists can do their part by trashing their old polluting VW Buses and getting a more efficient, cleaner car that's been produced in, say, the last 10 or 15 years!
Classic... Wait for the IPO. You now know they have at least 70 mil in the bank. Then launch the class action. Cool.:)
When I first heard about PayPal a couple of years ago I thought "This is great!". Micropayments, done deal. I was excited and about to start receiving payments via Paypal.
Then I heard the horror stories about accounts being closed down and money even being reverse charged out of bank accounts. I stopped using my Paypal account before I even started, luckily.
Sure, you can do what someone else recommended--open a bank account just to receive PayPal payments and withdrawl the funds as soon as they come in. But at that point the hassle isn't worth it.
We still need a good micropayment solution. Something that is truly innovative and breaks paradigms. I'm not sure what it is, but whoever or whatever company comes up with it will be taking it to the bank.
Also, it's the best card for travel, since Amex has offices throughout the world you can go to for help, exchange and other services. Membership does have some tangible benefits. When crossing the border, it's about as important to have as the passport, IMHO.
Your mileage may vary. I've found Visa and Mastercard much more accepted in the U.S., to say nothing of foreign countries. Sure, you'll find establishments that accept it overseas--but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any establishment that accepts AMEX and doesn't accept Visa/Mastercard.
Sure, AMEX has branches around the world that can help you in certain cases. But still, I won't leave home without my Visa/Mastercard. I've never missed not having AMEX.
As a vendor, I don't accept AMEX either. Their discount rate is about twice that of Visa/Mastercard.
The only thing AMEX has going for it is its name and "tradition" as "the" business card. That's only going to last so long. Either AMEX has to become more affordable for both merchants and customers or they will become irrelevant.
If I owned an ISP would it be ok if I stopped routing and just dropped any packets that didn't originate or have a destination on my netowork?
That would be ideal, unless you are a backbone service provider. Would eliminate lots of DoS attacks by script kiddies.
It's not the BSA's goal to drag everyone to court. They'd rather work things out and _help_ the company resolve their violations.
What planet do you live on? The BSA is a poor little organization doing a community service of resolving license violations.
Yeah, right... They'll avoid dragging you to court if you purchase the licenses from the companies and pay the pimp (BSA).
I'm a software author and I'm against software piracy. But there's something about a group of multi-billion dollar corporations that post earnings every quarters getting up and bitching that they're not making enough money.
While it is true they should earn money from every copy of their software in use, from a strictly PR standpoint they sure look like ugly fat-cat bullies trying to stick it to the little guy because they can.
As far as I'm concerned, BSA can FOAD. If they ask me to prove that I've purchased licenses for all of their software, I'll ask them to prove they've bought licenses for all of mine. If they can't show me their licenses for my software, well, we'll just call it a draw.
Arrogant...
Constitutionality needs to be tested...
on
A Look Inside the BSA
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
One does not have the authority to arbitrarily search others on the grounds that they may have committed some infraction against you; that firms have allowed the BSA to get away with such behavior is IMHO quite scandalous.
What needs to happen is some company that has their licenses in order should tell the BSA to screw off. When BSA comes storming in with a court order the company should obviously comply. The BSA will find nothing. They should then sue the BSA for wrongful prosecution, sue for damages (lost productivity due to having to deal with them), treble damages, and hopefully get the process itself checked on constitutionality.
The BSA has the right to sue. But the courts shouldn't be dishing out court orders for these kind of raids unless there's evidence of violation. A tip is heresey unless the tip comes with evidence--copies of email sent within the companying that acknowledge the presence of pirated copies, etc.
Consider their acknowledged source of tips: disgruntled employees. Sure, they may have knowledge of violations. Or they might just be getting back at their ex-employer. They might not have any pirated copies, but the disgruntled employee will at least cause his ex-employer some headaches.
Is a disgruntled employee really a reliable source for determining whether there is justification to violate somebody's (or some company) right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure?
This needs to be tested constitutionally, but I think it'll require 1) A company with their licenses in order. 2) The company snubbing their noses at the BSA. 3) The company subsequently being raided. 4) The company sueing the BSA.
Lots of "ifs" considering most companies are in business to make money, not test constitutionality issues. We can dream, though.
This is a way for Google to get free ideas and, better than that, free expert-level code development for them to make money off.
I wouldn't go for $10k. Perhaps $100k, or perhaps $20k plus some percentage of future revenue attributable to my invention.
Got to hand it to them, though, it's an innovative way to receive hundreds of ideas and get a working prototype. Only one person wins but they probably retain the rights to develop their own code that accomplishes the ideas submitted by everyone else.
Basically, they want a cool idea for something innovative but their brainstorming sessions haven't come up with anything new...
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. As mentioned in a Slahsdot article yesterday, it is possible. You load it up on a boat, send it to China, they pick apart the pieces that are useful and can be used again and then they either burn what's left over or throw it in one of their rivers.
And they actually pay to pick it up in the U.S. Instead of paying a tax to recycle the computer we can get paid by the Chinese to take it off our hands. Free market at work, not even that complicated.
Tolls and trolls, tolls and trolls...
Hahah, always funny to see how many environmental-wackos don't understand economics.
Whether the fee results in an increase in prices (which equals a reduction in sales, period) or a reduction in manufacturer profits (which means a reduction in employment as well as capacity) the net affect of any additional cost on marketing a product is a reduction in efficiency of the economy and also tends to put upward pressure on inflation.
Every cost is important. The fact that liberals don't understand this is why they are so eager to tax the rich and companies more and more every day as if it were an endless supply of money. It's not. Reagan reduced taxes and we got the longest-growing economy in our country's history. Clinton raised taxes and brought that growth to a stop and turned it around by the end of his eight years in office.
EVERY FEE AND TAX LEVIED ON PERSONS OR COMPANIES IS BAD FOR OUR ECONOMY. The only question is whether society feels the negative effect of the fee/tax is outweighed by the potential benefit.
I have no solution because, especially in this case, I don't see it as a problem. I don't see computers as overly toxic. If you read the report yesterday published by Banel (or whatever the left-wing enivromental-wacko group was called) you'd find that THEY don't have a solution either!
Check out their report. They had like 7 recommendations... Things like consuming fewer PCs (anti-consumerism), making computers more upgradable (they already are, within reason), taxing the sales of PCs to cover supposed disposal (tax-and-spend, tolls-and-trolls), using more recyclable parts in PCs (whatever).
Read their report. They don't have one solution on what to do with the computers themselves. They want to reduce the PC count, reduce turnover (consumerism), tax and spend, typical liberal diatribe. But in terms of hard, concrete suggestions on what to do with the old PCs--NOT ONE SUGGESTION.
Basically, they're upset because everyone has signed some treaty and the "PC toxic waste" crap is their PR to try to put pressure on the US to sign it.
Also read their report and you'll find that the toxic parts of PCs are an extremely miniscule % of the PC. All the toxic elements I found in their list were "less than .1". More typical garbage, such as aluminum, glass and iron make up more than 70% of the weight of the PC.
All in all, it's a non-issue. PCs are not toxic, at least not in any substantial way. There are a million more deadly things in this world to worry about than old PCs. Let's worry about the pressing issues first and then, if we're bored and paying too little in taxes, we can come back to this BS.
Additionally, it assumes that the computer wil someday be recycled. Perhaps when it no longer serves me I'll part it out. Or perhaps I'll upgrade it and not need to throw it out. Or perhaps it'll run on a Linux box and never have to be upgraded because it gets the job done.
How do I get a refund if I never trash/recycle my machine?
More left-wing tax-and-spend envrionmental-based psycho-babble. Taxes must be resisted in all its forms. If they want money to do this, take it out of one of the useless programs they already spend my tax dollars on.
Not to swift on economics, are we now?
Hello, requiring disassembly of everything would NOT be a boon to the economy. It would increase costs, tend to have inflationary effects, and cost jobs.
You can argue whether or not these are acceptable prices to pay to implement this environmnetal policy, but do not be mislead into thinking it would help the economy. It would increase costs and would make the world, as a whole, less productive since the businesses disassembling the stuff would be doing that instead of something PRODUCTIVE.
Take another whirl through Econ 101 and then we'll talk.
I've never heard of any such laws. Perhaps it'd be easier for environmental groups to raise the consciousness of people regarding the computers than to get the U.S. to enact treaties, etc.
That said, it appears to me (from reading Basel's longwinded report) that the "toxic" portions of the computer are insignificant. More than 70% of the computer, by weight (according to their numbers) consists of plastics, aluminum, iron, and glass. Hardly any more toxic than anything else we throw in the trash.
They suggest a typical computer has 4.2 pounds of copper which, to me, seems awfully high.
In all, the out-of-the-ordinary chemicals listed by these people all register as "less than 0.1" (except for Terbium which interestingly registers as "less tjam 0").
The real problem is not that they're recycling parts in China. Actually, from their report, it seems to be a GOOD thing. It's a good thing that there are Chinese that are willing to do this manual labor that actually allows the recovery and recycling of some portions of old computers.
The problem is when they've extracted everything they can they either burn it or toss it into a river.
Duh.
So stop complaining. The Chinese are performing a good service. They just need some orientation regarding what to do with the unusable parts instead of burning them or throwing them in rivers. At that point it's win-win: We get rid of our old computers and the Chinese perform a service and get recycled raw materials at a bargain.
Read their report. The problem isn't nearly as nasty as one would first think based on the fear-mongering that Basel group engages in.
Shame to envrionmentalist extremists.
By that logic we should intervene in every political dispute in the world since, eventually, it may lead to a regional conflict and then to a world war--and then we're involved. So we automatically have a right to intervene in anyone's affairs.
THAT'S the attitude that causes so many people in foreign countries to hate Americans. It has nothing to do with the environment, it has everything to do with sticking our nose where it doesn't belong.
That said, an environmental problem in China is going to kill off China and/or cause them to fix the problem out of necessity long before it affects anyone downwind (which is 8000 miles of Pacific Ocean).
The amount of time for toxic waste dumped in sea to spread itself uniformly in water and terra firma is not decades but years.
Can you cite references for that?
Also, I'd like some concrete data regarding what in my computer is so toxic as to need to treat it as a superfund site.
I'd be totally in agreement if China was dumping nuclear waste into the ocean. But dumping computers into rivers? I'm sorry, I don't see the threat. There are a million things in this world much more dangerous than used computers; perhaps we should address those million things first rather than harping on consumerism in the United States.
For anything longer you need to think harder.
How about getting rid of communist governments so everyone can enjoy to the benefits of capitalism? That way the number of poor people will decrease, as well people exploited into doing this kind of thing.
Heck, while we're intervening in world environment and world politcs, why don't we just topple every third-world government and replace it with something like what we have at home?
Actually, my old computers end up at the local dump in my own country, state, county, and city.
You see? By just throwing the damn thing away I'm actually saving some third world country from being exploited by the recycling process. Cool.
I think we've come full circle now that recycling is apparently now causing harm to third world countries.
You must be one of those left-leaning, enviro-wackos who thinks that the U.S. is the source of all evil because--God forbid--we consume what the rest of the world produces, thereby giving the rest of the world a job.
I'm sick of "head in the sand" babble like yours.
And I'm sick of people who want me to feel bad about being successful and buying stuff.
The real message here is: "We shouldn't be consuming as many PCs."
Next logical conclusion: "We can only save the planet if we stop consuming." Final conclusion: If we stop consuming, the world economgy collapses and all 6 billion people are miserable rather than just 4 billion. But at least we've saved the planet.
Enviromental psycho-babble. That's out-of-fashion. It was the big thing in the late 80's and early 90s, but people just aren't buying it anymore. Apparently they're buying PCs, which I think is great!
Go get a new cause; your current one is broken and obsolete. I'm sure the "left" will be able to recycle it into something "new."
I'm surprised anything of value can be recycled from an old computer. Aluminum cans, paper, I can see that. PCBs and old chips? I wouldn't have even imagined.
I throw my old computers into the trash after I break the case and PCBs into small enough parts that they can comfortably fit into the trash bag.
What blows me away is that they can actually eek enough money out of the small quantities of precious metals to make it worthwhile to ship the thing over to China. Personally, I think they should spend more time investigating where those PCs (being "recycled" in China) really come from. I'd be surprised if they really come all the way from the United States or Europe. I suspect the PCs are more local in origin. Either China itself or perhaps SE Asia. But shipping an old busted and relatively heavy PC across the Pacific to China to extract $5 worth of "precious metals" just doesn't seem to make economic sense to me.
I think if someone can say, with authority, what the value of the "precious metals" in a typical PC are we could establish a maximum perimeter that defines where the PCs could be coming from--i.e., where shipping cost
Again, it comes down to China regulating this IF they see it as a problem. And, believe me, China can more effectively regulate this type of thing than we could in the U.S. They catch someone doing it they can just shoot them or stick them in a jail forever.
Another interesting thought... What's really happening here is that poor people in China are recylcing our computers. I thought recycling was a good thing?! Or must everything be recycled in the United States?
Or perhaps the problem isn't that the Chinese are recycling the stuff, but that they're throwing the stuff in their rivers. If so, complain to the Chinese and have them stop throwing it in their rivers.
You know, it's been awhile since I've seen an environmental pscyco-babble story quite so absurd. The problem isn't a problem and, if it is, the solution is in China, not in the U.S.
Why do I keep hearing about USA having not ratified this and that?
Because we read the fine print before we sign. And, yes, many countries envy our position so we need to make sure contracts (treaties) arent' screwing us over. Which, lately, most of them do.
'Not ratified' is a nice phrase that doesn't sound like "I'm a greedy, weak coward", which it really means in contexts like this, IMHO.
Ah, ok, so if you go to buy a house and read the contract and it says "The bank will charge you 200% per year and if you don't pay the loan back in a year we get to charge you another 500% and if you don't pay it we'll reposses your house and the house of your parents" and you wisely choose not to sign it it's because you're a greedy bastard?
Think Kyoto treaty for example. I'd be embarrassed to live in the States.
Oh, please. I was embarrased that Clinton was thinking of signing it. Luckily we got some sanity in the White House willing to stand up and say, "This is BS, we're not signing this."
On the other hand, I'm only waiting for people to start showing what they feel about this madness like they did in 60'ies and 70'ies. That's an era that american PEOPLE should be proud of.
Hahah, your true colors revealed. You're talking about the ultimate lowpoint in American culture.
It's not coming back. It had its time and its gone. No-one is going to get pissed off because environmental pscho-babble treaties aren't being signed.
Go back to the commune, flower child.
1. We are not forcing this old hardware on anyone. If it's ending up in China or India it's because the people there think they can make some money off of it.
2. Even if they CAN make some money off of it, it's not our fault they throw the exploited "recycled" hardware in rivers. Come on. Crap in your refrigerator and it's going to have some negative affects on your food. Don't complain to someone else because you decided to crap there.
3. If the Chinese government sees this as a problem they should not let the stuff be imported. If it's being imported illegally the Chinese government should have no problem prosecuting (i.e., executing) the offending party.
Do I want my old computer ending up in a river? No. But don't blame me if it does, *I* didn't throw it in a river or asked anyone to burn plastic off its wires...
There are too many other responsible parties here that are DIRECTLY responsible to come after me with some tax or $30 increase on PC sales to try to resolve the problem. You want to solve the problem? Have China ban the practice. If China doesn't see it as a problem then why the hell should we?
Come on, I'm sick of this environmental psycho-babble.
Too many people complain about "urban sprawl" without realizing what the alternative is.
I currently live in Monterrey Mexico. It's a city of about 2.5 million people in an area about 10 miles by 10 miles (100 sq. miles). "Good" (middle class) houses are built on lots that are about 30 feet wide by about 82 feet long. A 2-car garage takes up half of the front of your house. Houses are built right up against the road so that people can get as much out of their property as possible.
In Denver, a city about the same size population-wise as Monterrey, the city has "sprawled" to cover something like 20 miles by 30 miles. It covers about 6 times as much area as Monterrey.
Visit both cities and then tell me which seems better.
I'll take urban sprawl any day.
I did not say that environmental science is not a real discipline. At least it's a real area of study.
My comments apply to what I called environmental "scientists." By quoting the word "scientist" I mean those people--or even scientists--who use the title "scientist" to spew information that is not based on fact nor which has beeen proven but, by using the word "scientist," cause people to assume that they can trust the information provided.
In other words, if I am a scientist and have an unsubstantiated opinion regarding global warming, it is irrelevant that I am a scientist. If I haven't studied it then my opinion is no more important than any other educated person's opinion. That being the case, I should not flaunt "scientist" when someone quotes me.
Further, even if I were an ENVIRONMENTAL scientist and was espousing some opinion regarding global warming I would do so with the greatest of care when presenting both my opinions and my work-in-progress. We simply know too little to call anything regarding global warming a "conclusion" or a "fact"--and I would go out of my way to make that disclaimer with any announcement I made regarding my research.
The problem I have with these environmentalIST "scientists" is that lately the vast majority have a political adgenda and look for data to give them ammunition. They then hope to affect some political change based on what they KNOW (or should know) is incomplete data. That is not science, that's politics.
We haven't seen any changes in global temperature that can be attributed to humans with certainty. Nor have we seen any changes in global temperature that are out of line with temperature changes over earth's geologic history.
And even if the temperature were to rise (or had risen), we don't know enough about how the earth works to be able to know whether that is a good or bad thing.
If the temperature rises perhaps the ice caps will melt and people in Los Angeles will have to relocate to higher lands... but perhaps the increased temperature will cause increased humidity and rain and cause the Sahara desert to bloom into a tropical forest capable of feeding the millions of starving people in that area of the world. Would that not be a good thing?
The environmental movement is based on 1) Funny science that doesn't have any convincing evidence to support their theories. 2) The assumption that even if their theories are right that the end result would be bad. 3) A socialistic adgenda.
In all, scientists should present theories, test them, and publish their results. If they want to institute policy they should get into government. Then again, communists haven't had very good luck which is probably why they try to institute their policies under the guise of science.
True. The trick is assigning values to both. Regardless, I would put more value on the well-being of humans.
the richness/diversity of things contribute to the value of the well-being of all things
While I'm not against diversity by any means, I certainly don't use it as a measuring stick to determine my well-being or the well-being of a culture.
The value of any particular given diverse element is a matter of opinion. I personally am not bothered by the fact that there are far less Nazis now than there were 60 years ago. A Nazi might not agree with me.
humans have no right to reduce diversity of any species (plant or animal) directly or indirectly except for vital needs
Says who? That's hogwash.
Humans are the dominant species on this planet. That position has given us the right to do whatever we want. The environment and evolution aren't governments that are exist, in great part, to protect the weakest elements. In fact, environment and evolution prefers the strongest element. In this case the strongest element is man.
You can argue whether there is justification for humans to reduce diversity in any given situation, but to say we don't have the right to do so flies in the face of the most natural of laws: survival of the fitest!
the flourishing of human life and culture necessitates a decrease in human population which leads to smaller communities and would tend to lead to a better ecology
Where did he come up with that crap? How does he know or conclude that for human life to flourish requires a decrease in human population?
The fact that there are 6 billion people on this planet and that many are starving doesn't mean we need to reduce the population to 4 billion. It means we need to get better and more efficient at taking advantage of the resources this planet has to offer. Our planet can easily support many more than 6 billion inhabitants.
This idiot is suggesting a return to tribal culture. That is 1) Naive, it's not going to happen. 2) Probably not what 99.99999% of the world wants, which means it's not an improvement in quality of life or standard of living to that majority.
Besides, evidence exists that shows that just because there is a small tribe doesn't mean that they will have better ecology. Just check out what happened at Easter Island (Rapa Nui). A small population effectively destroyed their island.
there is already too much human interference within the non-human world
So?? I find there to be too much non-human interference in my human world. Those pesky mosquitos that bite me. Cockroaches that dirty things up. Alligators that take bites out of people that, as part of nature, have as much right to be in a swap as they do.
The difference is evolution has caused us to become the dominant species and can do something about it; and that the other species just have to live (or die) with it. Tough luck, better luck next time.
policies therefore must be changed As if any of the previous points had actually formed any basis on which to determine that something is wrong and what should be done.
All of the previous points are matters of opinion. You can't (or shouldn't) base policy on opinions.
the ideological change is to appreciate life quality over standard of living
In other words we need to be satisifed to have a lower standard of living in order to have a higher quality of life?
This guy is a liberal looking for a way to justify redistributing wealth. Which is what environmentalists really are about. It's not a secret, ugly conspiracy. It's just a fact which is obvious to anyone who really looks at what these people espouse.
Environmentalists and their policies make no sense from an environmental standpoint. By jumping through hoops to protect species they presume to know more than evolution and survival of the fittest. 30 years they argued that we were going to enter another ice age, now we're into global warming. It is obvious the environmentalists know zip about the environment and science. Just investigating their claims and contradictions proves that. So what's left? A political adgenda.
They are looking to transfer wealth from first world countries to third, foruth and fifth world countries. It's that simple. Rather than trying to improve conditions in developing countries they'd rather subsidize them with handouts from successful nations.
This is not that hard to stand, nor is it a conspiracy theory. It's obvious. As someone else mentioned, just look at the proposed "end solution" of these people. Right here they are saying that to have a higher quality of life we must have a lower standard of living (i.e., less money, less property, etc.). And we must do this in the name of the environment.
Please, if you have a communist political adgenda just say it. To hide it and wrap it up in an environmental babble...
Environmentalists have been spewing whatever "facts" they want for years and, as mentioned in the intro, the media has bought it hook, line, and sinker.
There are two guilty parties here:
1. The environmental "scientists." They claim to be scientists--and many even are, by title. But I also feel a scientist has a responsibility to the truth of what he reports. When scientists start using their title as "scientist" to pass off unsubstantiated theories and hypothesis as verified results, they've lost all credibility as scientists and really ought not to be able to call themselves "scientists" anymore. They are liberal environmentalists with an adgenda and already know the results they want before they perform the "experiments."
2. The Media. We all know the media is biased. Nothing new. But when it comes to the environmentalist movement it's incredible how much latitude they are given by the media. An environmentalist can release a press report "Study shows that farting may contribute to the ozone hole." The news reports it as fact. You read the story and the report a little more closely and you find out that a study has shown that farting has increased 20% in the last decade and the ozone hole has increased 19%... so it MIGHT be possible the farting caused the ozone hold expansion. There's no distinction made by the media between cause and effect and just random correlations of data.
In all, the whole environmentalist movement is tainted by bad scientists who report what they want to beleive, not what the data proves, and by the media that blindly reports whatever these people spew without due diligence in reporting the validity of the claims.
Is it a good idea to reduce pollution? Sure, the days look nicer when there's a nice blue sky above us. Is it a good idea to conserve energy? Sure, saves on the construction of new plants and saves us money. Should our cars be more efficient? Sure, it'll let us stop at the gas station less frequently, save us money at the pump, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Do I think that the ice caps will melt and flood New York City and Los Angeles if I drive my car too much? No.
Do I think it's the end of the world if some unknown bug species in Brazil goes extinct? No, many species have come and gone over time, this is nothing new.
Do I think huge and powerful hurricanes are going to become common because of global warming? No.
Do I believe environmental models that, every time more and more factors are taken into account show less and less environmental change? No.
Do I believe environmental models that don't even take into account the affect of CLOUDS??? Come on.
Get the facts straight and then let's talk about what can or should be done. In the meantime, the environmentalists can do their part by trashing their old polluting VW Buses and getting a more efficient, cleaner car that's been produced in, say, the last 10 or 15 years!
When I first heard about PayPal a couple of years ago I thought "This is great!". Micropayments, done deal. I was excited and about to start receiving payments via Paypal.
Then I heard the horror stories about accounts being closed down and money even being reverse charged out of bank accounts. I stopped using my Paypal account before I even started, luckily.
Sure, you can do what someone else recommended--open a bank account just to receive PayPal payments and withdrawl the funds as soon as they come in. But at that point the hassle isn't worth it.
We still need a good micropayment solution. Something that is truly innovative and breaks paradigms. I'm not sure what it is, but whoever or whatever company comes up with it will be taking it to the bank.
Your mileage may vary. I've found Visa and Mastercard much more accepted in the U.S., to say nothing of foreign countries. Sure, you'll find establishments that accept it overseas--but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any establishment that accepts AMEX and doesn't accept Visa/Mastercard.
Sure, AMEX has branches around the world that can help you in certain cases. But still, I won't leave home without my Visa/Mastercard. I've never missed not having AMEX.
As a vendor, I don't accept AMEX either. Their discount rate is about twice that of Visa/Mastercard.
The only thing AMEX has going for it is its name and "tradition" as "the" business card. That's only going to last so long. Either AMEX has to become more affordable for both merchants and customers or they will become irrelevant.
What planet do you live on? The BSA is a poor little organization doing a community service of resolving license violations.
Yeah, right... They'll avoid dragging you to court if you purchase the licenses from the companies and pay the pimp (BSA).
I'm a software author and I'm against software piracy. But there's something about a group of multi-billion dollar corporations that post earnings every quarters getting up and bitching that they're not making enough money.
While it is true they should earn money from every copy of their software in use, from a strictly PR standpoint they sure look like ugly fat-cat bullies trying to stick it to the little guy because they can.
As far as I'm concerned, BSA can FOAD. If they ask me to prove that I've purchased licenses for all of their software, I'll ask them to prove they've bought licenses for all of mine. If they can't show me their licenses for my software, well, we'll just call it a draw.
Arrogant...
What needs to happen is some company that has their licenses in order should tell the BSA to screw off. When BSA comes storming in with a court order the company should obviously comply. The BSA will find nothing. They should then sue the BSA for wrongful prosecution, sue for damages (lost productivity due to having to deal with them), treble damages, and hopefully get the process itself checked on constitutionality.
The BSA has the right to sue. But the courts shouldn't be dishing out court orders for these kind of raids unless there's evidence of violation. A tip is heresey unless the tip comes with evidence--copies of email sent within the companying that acknowledge the presence of pirated copies, etc.
Consider their acknowledged source of tips: disgruntled employees. Sure, they may have knowledge of violations. Or they might just be getting back at their ex-employer. They might not have any pirated copies, but the disgruntled employee will at least cause his ex-employer some headaches.
Is a disgruntled employee really a reliable source for determining whether there is justification to violate somebody's (or some company) right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure?
This needs to be tested constitutionally, but I think it'll require 1) A company with their licenses in order. 2) The company snubbing their noses at the BSA. 3) The company subsequently being raided. 4) The company sueing the BSA.
Lots of "ifs" considering most companies are in business to make money, not test constitutionality issues. We can dream, though.
I wouldn't go for $10k. Perhaps $100k, or perhaps $20k plus some percentage of future revenue attributable to my invention.
Got to hand it to them, though, it's an innovative way to receive hundreds of ideas and get a working prototype. Only one person wins but they probably retain the rights to develop their own code that accomplishes the ideas submitted by everyone else.
Basically, they want a cool idea for something innovative but their brainstorming sessions haven't come up with anything new...