At the core of the Bush Administration's official push for continued and escalated War on Iraq is the aim to relieve Saddam Hussein of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
If we do follow the Bush "Doctrine" of Pre-emptive Strike in order to accomplish this - we bomb Iraq, murder a couple hundred thousand innocent Iraqi citizens (half are under the age of 15), and then see if anyone alive can help us locate the WMD we sold to Iraq in the 1980's.
A look at North Korea will illustrate problems with this "Doctrine". North Korea possesses the Nuclear Bomb. By way of missiles, they are capable of reaching their neighbors. It is possible North Korea could reach the U.S. with an ICBM, however this is not likely, as the probability of "success" is low. Because of it's Nuclear Weapons, N. Korea receives Diplomatic Negotiations with the U.S. Why? If we attack North Korea, they could kill thousands or millions in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Therefore, the Bush "Doctrine" promotes the opposite of it's intent. If "Evil-Country-X" wishes to not be attacked by the U.S., "Evil-Country-X" quickly and quietly develops the Nuclear Bomb. Once developed, "Evil-Country-X" openly flaunts the Nuclear Bomb. "Evil-Country-X" then does not have to worry about U.S. attack and Regime Change.
As a world community, we have two possibilities - a world without WMD, or a World with. We could decide we don't need to murder millions, that we are civilized, intelligent, and just - or we could live in a World where we Murder those we irrationally Fear.
In order to allow for the destruction of all WMD, we need to achieve World Peace. We can achieve this by promoting Basic Human Rights for all, Fair Trade and living wages, and Education as a human right. We as well need to realize we are One Human Family - and until then people in positions of Power will believe Murder can Achieve Peace and Stability - a thought process I deem Short-Term and Folly.
Please credit the Union of Concerned Scientists and Jonathan Schell of The Nation magazine for many of the themes expressed above.
Re:USA PR ... Preventive War Sets Perilous Precede
on
Updates on War in Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Preventive War Sets Perilous Precedent by Helen Thomas
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is radically revolutionizing American foreign policy in a way that has changed our image -- the object of envy around the world -- and has transformed our close relations with other nations.
The president asserts that the United States has the right to preemptively attack any nation it deems a potential threat. The problem for Bush and our nation is that the United Nations authorizes such retaliatory acts only in self-defense.
The test case obviously is Iraq where the United States is embarking on an unprovoked war. In our own history, such a move would have been labeled an aggression. I'm thinking of the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.
No one doubts that Bush can change the Iraqi regime and oust Saddam Hussein in short order. But the repercussions will be felt for decades and could justify other so-called "preventive wars" by other nations.
Do we really want that? This is a perilous precedent for our country to set.
The new Bush policy also breaks with our proven post-World War II policy of collective security. With the help of friends and allies, we were able to keep the peace during the Cold War with a containment policy toward the now-defunct Soviet Union. Likewise, Iraq has been contained since the first Gulf War 12 years ago.
In my continuing search for the logic of the new Bush policy, I went back recently to the president's speech on June 1, 2002, at West Point. Historians years from now will dredge up that text as they, too, seek the roots of Bush's war on Iraq.
In his address, the president declared: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge."
His tough address stressed that "the only path to safety is action."
Delivered just months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with a shattered America seeking revenge, that bombshell speech was not widely recognized at the time as a major turning point in American foreign policy -- nor were its pros and cons properly debated in the Senate afterward.
The nation was still in shock and ready to embrace any new measure that was billed as a step toward enhancing our security.
It paved the way for Bush and his hawkish advisers to put Iraq high on their target list.
When I measure his Iraq policy against the standards of his West Point speech, I am still puzzled about the administration's insistence that Iraq poses an imminent and direct threat to the United States. That, after all, should be the fundamental test of soundness for any decision to attack.
He has very few believers among fellow members of the U.N. Security Council or the world at large. The "coalition of the willing," as the White House calls it, consists of 30 nations that have publicly sided with the Bush administration. Only three of those have offered combat units: The United States, Britain and Australia.
There are another 15 nations that have offered their anonymous support to the U.S.-led war, according to State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. One wonders why these nations don't want to be identified publicly.
This adds up to a small percentage of the 191 nations that belong to the United Nations.
Contrast this with the 1991 Persian Gulf War, where the U.S.-led coalition -- animated by the clear and moral goal of repelling Iraqi aggression against Kuwait -- consisted of 31 member nations contributing military support. Arab nations were publicly supportive and sent their military forces to pitch in. The world at large applauded the efforts of President George H.W. Bush.
This President Bush has apparently persuaded Americans that military action is needed. Polls earlier this week showed him with a 71 percent approval rating.
After the war there will be rewards in victory. Bush will have achieved a new imper
In 1992 a consortium of 20 British farmers requested permission to grow industrial hemp, a crop that had been banned since 1971. Home Office Minister Michael Jack saw no reason to oppose the request since industrial hemp had been grown for years on the Continent "without any problems". The farmers received licenses to cultivate 1500 acres.
In 1993 a consortium of 10 Canadian farmers requested permission to grow hemp, a crop that had been banned since 1923. The federal government informed them the law would have to be changed before commercial plots could be harvested. However, seeing that "farmers in Canada are very interested in it", Health Minister Diane Marleau issued a permit for 18 acres of experimental plots. The next year Parliament enabled commercial harvests.
In the United States, a vigorous pro-industrial hemp movement emerged at the same time. Informed and inspired by Jack Herer's 1985 best seller, The Emperor Wears No Clothes, the movement agitated for the recommercialization of industrial hemp in a country with a rich hemp history: George Washington planted hemp, Benjamin Franklin used hemp paper, Thomas Jefferson smuggled in hemp seeds from Europe.
By the early 1990s, hundreds of retail stores were selling hemp textile products. In 1994, a trade group, the Hemp Industries Association(HIA) was formed. The next year the North American Industrial Hemp Council(NAIHC) was established. Its Board included representatives from some of the country's largest textile and paper companies. In 1996 the American Farm Bureau, the nation's largest farm organization, adopted a resolution in favor of hemp research. By 2000, half the state legislatures had debated resolutions in support of hemp; a dozen enacted pro-hemp statutes. Hawaii permitted experimental plots. North Dakota legalized commercial cultivation.(The other 49 states still have laws that mirror the federal ban. The federal ban still prohibits hemp cultivation in North Dakota.)
Yet despite this upwelling of support by industry and farmers, not a single acre of industrial hemp has been harvested in the United States. Why?
The answer is that while in other countries the road to hemp legalization goes through agricultural, or health or food agencies, in the United States there is only one road to approval - through the Drug Enforcement Administration(DEA). And for the DEA, the cultivation of hemp subverts and even contradicts its mission.
It is one of the ironies of history that the industrial hemp movement reemerged just as the United States escalated its war on drugs. In 1986 the DEA was a modest agency with a modest reach. That year the White House appointed a drug czar and by Executive Order subjected all federal employees to urine testing for drugs. The DEA's budget and reach and powers dramatically expanded.
Consider some numbers. In 1985, the federal war on drugs cost about $1.5 billion. That was about one third of federal spending on the environment, one sixth of spending on energy and only 3 percent of federal spending on agriculture. Today, the drug war budget is over $20 billion, three times the environment budget, 50 percent more than the energy budget and approaching 30 percent of the entire agriculture budget. And in the post September 11th climate the drug war has become intimately intertwined with the escalating war on terrorism.
In 1979 the federal government allowed drug agents to seize the assets of suspected drug dealers or users. Since then, US law enforcement officials have seized almost $10 billion worth of cash and property. By the late 1990s some $1 billion a year worth of assets was being confiscated annually. The police came to depend on drug money to fund their operations.
The federal government pumped tens of millions of dollars into DARE, a program that sent police officers into elementary schools in virtually every school district to lecture them on the dangers of drug
Amsterdam White Bike Program & Bicycle Culture Author: Jared Benedict Updated: 06/07/2002
Amsterdam is known as the City of Bicycles and it lives up to its name. Stepping out of Central Station you are overwhelmed with a sea of bicycles. There is a three story bicycle "parking lot" crammed with rows of bikes. The city also has implemented other bicycle infrastructure. For example, most streets have a bicycle lane.
In the 1960's a group of individuals known as "Provo" proposed a "White Bicycle Plan". The plan called for the closing of all motorized traffic in the city center. The white bike plan, led by Luud Schimmelpennink, also proposed that the municipality purchase 20,000 bicycles to be owned "be everyone and no one". The Provo group donated the first 50 bikes to the cause but they were promptly confiscated by the police. There was a fair amount of excitement surrounding the initial implementation of the white bike plan, and around other "white" plans the Provo group came up with. For more information on the background of Provo, and their inititives check out the Provo page.
Although the initial white bike plan fizzled, Schimmelpennink didn't give up. Over thirty years later, he implemented an automated white bike depo program which included 19 racks around Amsterdam. Anyone could check-out a uniquely designed bicycle from a rack "depo", ride it to the rack closest to their destination and return it for someone else to check-out. According to a bulletin posted by Y-tech, the program was suppose to have 45 depos installed with 750 bicycles. Unfortunately, according to Erik Van den Muijzenberg, one of the testers for the new system, the racks were, "not strong enough and not reliable enough". In a weblog post by David O'Coimin he talked to a user of the system who was having technical difficulties.
Stephan Horlak visited and photographed the depos still in operation in late August 2001. However during my visit to Amsterdam in March 2002, I came across two depos which were in fact no longer in operation. The stall remained, but the bikes and locking devices had been removed.
According to Van den Muijzenberg, Schimmelpennink has redesigned the racks and internal electronics to make them stronger and more reliable. However, funding for the project has been a problem and it's not clear what the future of the project holds. A similar program has been designed and implemented by Adshel.
Related Links
* New Urbanism: Luud Schimmelpennink, The White Bicycle Plan - ca. 1970
* Depo (cached)
* Hip Guide to Amsterdam: The White Bicycles
* Hip Guide to Amsterdam: Bicycles
* Strange Amsterdam Bicycles
* A two-wheeled tour through Amsterdam
* Wired: Pedal Pusher
* Bicycle Use and Safety In Paris, Boston, and Amsterdam
* The autumn of the Bicycle Master Plan: after the plans, the products
* White Bike Photos
* David O'Coimin blog post about the White Bike rack issues
* Adshel Automated Bike System Summary
* CommunityBike.org Dutch Provo Page
Statistics
There are several statistics floating around. Few mention the original source how how the data was compiled.
"[Amsterdam] has 800,000 people and as many bikes." (Rick Steves' France Belgium & Netherlands 2002. pg. 374)
400,000 bicycles in Amsterdam. (source?)
More bicycles than people in Amsterdam. (source?)
Dutch tax system gives people that ride a bike to work (min. 10 km/3 days a week) a tax deduction of 300 a year. (update: Erik van den Muijzenberg reports that you get a reduction on the cost of a new bicycle which will be used for commuting.)
In Holland, bicycles are allowed to turn right through a red light, while all other traffic is fined 90 for the same action. (reference) (unverified) (update: Erik van den Muijzenberg reports that this is not true to his knowledge.)
The best and fastest way to get around in Amsterdam: a bike. There are no rules. Feel free to use the sidewalk, one way streets, etcetera. Ignore traffic signs, run red lights. No problem.
However, there is a catch: the natives get agitated when you drive slowly. A bike is a means of transport, not to enjoy the scenery. Consider the hefty chains, a necessary accessory to each bike in Amsterdam. Do not provoke the natives, unless you want your head bashed in with it.
The typical Amsterdam bike is a rusty, old vehicle, often painted in colours that could make a grown man weep. "Why?", you ask. Oh, you never heard about the junkies? The junkies need their dope, they need money to buy it, they don't have any money, so they become thieves and sell off the loot. The loot consists mainly of... Exactly. Each year thousands of bikes are stolen by the dopey-eyed losers. They are like crows. They like gleaming stuff. A brand new bike attracts them like flies.
The typical tourist bike is a smart looking brand new vehicle. So be sure you get an insurance against theft. Report your bike stolen at one of the user friendly Amsterdam police stations.
Re: 5, mark him down - an eye for an eye leaves...
on
A Hydrogen-Based Economy
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15359
Obviously Oil
By Rep. Dennis Kucinich, AlterNet March 11, 2003
Editor's Note: Although Dennis Kucinich was aggressively attacked by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen for suggesting that the preemptive strike on Iraq was based on oil, the Post refused to print the presidential candidate and Ohio Democrat's response. This was especially frustrating, since the Post editorial stance and balance of editorial page columns have been decidedly pro-war. You can tell the Post how you feel about this ommission at ombudsman@washpost.com.
Is President Bush's war in Iraq about oil? Of course it is. Sometimes, the obvious answer is the right one: Oil is a major factor in the President's march to war, just as oil is a major factor in every aspect of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf.
Ask yourself:
What commodity accounts for 83 percent of total exports from the Persian Gulf? What is the U.S. protecting with our permanent deployment of about 25,000 military personnel, 6 fighter squadrons, 6 bomber squadrons, 13 air control and reconnaissance squadrons, one aircraft carrier battle group, and one amphibious ready group based at 11 military installations in the countries of the Persian Gulf? (Note, the disproportionate troop deployments in the Middle East aren't there to protect the people, who constitute only 2 percent of the world population.)
What was Iraq's number one export when the U.S. made an alliance with Saddam Hussein, sold him biological and chemical weapons agents, and then did not object when he gassed his own people?
For what major Iraqi resource has Saddam Hussein denied contracts with the largest U.S. and U.K. multinational companies? (Note, those companies are the #2 (ExxonMobil), #4 (BP-Amoco), #8 (Shell) and #14 (ChevronTexaco) largest companies in the world, and the Bush Administration has been known to listen when large energy corporations speak.)
For what Iraqi resource did French and Russian multinational companies receive lucrative contracts from Saddam Hussein? What valuable commodity does one reprehensible, megalomaniacal tyrant (Saddam Hussein) control that another reprehensible, megalomaniacal tyrant (Kim Chong-il) does not?
How do the White House and State Department plan to pay for a post-Saddam occupation and reconstruction?
The answer to all of these questions is oil, of course. Oil obviously drives U.S. policy in the Middle East. So who can doubt that this war in Iraq concerns oil?
Meanwhile, the justifications the Administration has made for this war can be rather easily dismissed. Contrary to Administration assertions, a war against Iraq will not be in self-defense: Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the United States. It doesn't have the ability, nor has it ever had the ability, to shoot a missile or send a bomber to harm America. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
No credible link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda has been made. Iraq did not have anything to do with the anthrax-containing letters that killed several Americans.
Contrary to the Administration's portrayal of an Iraqi threat, Iraq is hardly uniquely threatening. Sixteen other countries in the world have or might have nuclear weapons, 25 countries have or might have chemical weapons, 19 other countries have or might have biological weapons, and 16 other countries have or might have missile systems. Yet the Bush Administration is not on the verge of invading them.
Contrary to their denials that this war has anything to do with oil, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle wanted to go to war in Iraq long before they became Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. In a 1998 letter they sent to then-President Clinton, they stated "it hardly needs to be added that if Saddam d
When George Bush proposed a $1.7 billion program to promote hydrogen-fueled cars in the State of the Union Address, both sides of the aisle applauded. Almost everyone supports a hydrogen economy - conservatives and liberals, tree huggers and oil drillers. Such unanimity forecloses serious discussion. That's unfortunate. An aggressive pursuit of a hydrogen economy is wrongheaded and shortsighted.
To understand why, we need to start with the basics. Hydrogen is the most abundant element on the planet. But it cannot be harvested directly. It must be extracted from another material. There is an upside to this and a downside. The upside is that a wide variety of materials contain hydrogen, which is one reason it has attracted such widespread support. Everyone has a dog in this fight.
Renewable energy is a very little dog. Environmentalists envision an energy economy where hydrogen comes from water, and the energy used to accomplish this comes from wind. Big dogs like the nuclear industry also foresee a water-based hydrogen economy, but with nuclear as the power source that electrolyzes water. Nucleonics Week boasts that nuclear power "is the only way to produce hydrogen on a large scale without contributing to greenhouse gas emissions."
For the fossil fuel industry, not surprisingly, hydrocarbons will provide most of our future hydrogen. They already have a significant head start. Almost 50 percent of the world's commercial hydrogen now comes from natural gas. Another 20 percent is derived from coal.
The automobile and oil companies are betting that petroleum will be the hydrogen source of the future. It was General Motors, after all, that coined the phrase "the hydrogen economy".
What does all this mean? A hydrogen economy will not be a renewable energy economy. For the next 20-50 years hydrogen will overwhelmingly be derived from fossil fuels or with nuclear energy.
Consider that it has taken more than 30 years for the renewable energy industry to capture 1 percent of the transportation fuel market (ethanol) and 2 percent of the electricity market (wind, solar, biomass). Renewables are poised to rapidly expand their presence. A hydrogen economy would be a potentially debilitating diversion.
As the President's 2004 budget demonstrates, any new money for hydrogen will be taken largely from budgets for energy efficiency and renewable energy. From a federal point of view, then, the more aggressively we pursue hydrogen, the less aggressively we pursue more beneficial technologies.
To be successful, a hydrogen initiative will require the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars to build an entirely new energy infrastructure (pipelines, fueling stations, automobile engines). Much of this will come from public money. Little of this expenditure will directly benefit renewables. Indeed, it is likely that renewable energy will have about the same share of the hydrogen market in 2040 as it now has of the transportation and electricity markets.
Far better to spend the billions the President wants to spend on hydrogen to increase renewable energy's share of the energy market from 1-2 percent to 25, 35, or even 50 percent in the same time frame.
Not only will a hydrogen economy do little to expand renewable energy, it will increase pollution. Making hydrogen takes energy. We are using a fuel that could be used directly to provide electricity or mechnical power or heat to instead make hydrogen, which is then used to make electricity. Back in 1993 William Hoagland, senior project coordinator at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's hydrogen program, prophetically told Time Magazine, "I can't see why anyone would invest in additional equipment to make hydrogen rather than simply putting the electricity on the grid."
We can, for example, run vehicles on natural gas or genera
yeah, i'll agree about it being the consumer's choice. i guess i think globalism/capitalism doesn't encourage consumers to be aware of the source of their purchases. past that, it think if society were more concerned about being sustainable locally we wouldn't have as many of the problems we have now.
So? That's quite common. Hell, where I work all the site services are contracted out, they do everything from running the network to installing office furniture.
sure. i didn't mean to say it was a bad thing. but, with contracting labor you can end up with sweatshop labor etc. etc.. then again, you can end up with wonderfully treated employees as well. i didn't really have much of a point to make on that one... just that ms contracts out a lot of its workforce.
well, i'm not going to remember all of this well, so if someone could help me on this.
if you read "no logo", naomi spends quite a bit of time on microsoft's hiring and employee practices.
1. microsoft outsources a lot of it's employment to "temp" firms like manpower. this allows them to "hire" full time employees, who are never really given a contract. thus they don't have to give them any benefits, nor do they have a guaranteed job (so they're easier to fire). i _think_ i remember that it was said that microsoft only has about half of the people working for them on their payroll.
(1.5). i think i remember reading that "real" employees have different colored shirts than "temp" employees.
2. they don't hire they're internal postal mail staff, pitney bowes runs it.
3. capitalism creates a market, which allows us to purchase items without having to think about the process by which these items came to the market, as we are then only concerned with value. this allows for violations of human rights, destruction of the rain forest, and hairs in our soup.
"""" It will be a long process to reunite that country, but the taliban did support a man and shelter a man who plots every day to kill people. In addition to this you could be killed if youre a woman and too much of your face is showing. I just hope we do right by them and stay there long enough for a govt to hold (be it a monarcy, a tribal republic, or whatever).. """"
whatever the fuck. teh u.s. is only giving $300 million to afghanistan. think that's enough? you're wrong. think they'll be getting money next year? probably not.
anyone who thinks georgies plan is a good one, and if you don't want to be blown the fuck up by a nuclear weapon, please go read this article:
this is a pre-emptive strike, and it's against international law.
if one wishes to rid the world of terrorism, one should focus on promoting human rights, promoting fair access to education, ending world hunger and ending the huge gap in wealth that currently exists. we need to focus on being sustaineable locally so we don't have to worry about fighting for resources a half a world away.
doesn't anyone ever think that killing people in order to tell other people not to kill is a bit odd?
I forecast the weather for a living, and have been doing so for 20 years. I'm not sure about Global Warming and know no one in my field who is. I have been invited to the White House to listen to then Vice President Gore speak masterfully on the subject and read as many learned papers as is possible.
However, here's what's bugging me. In talking to everyone, including James Hansen (who first popularized the thought), I have never heard anyone say anything positive about Global Warming. Even in a worst case scenario there should be positive aspects. The fact that those are never mentioned makes me worry that this is more a political agenda than scientific certainty.
99% of scientists agree that global warming is happening. read.
New England will need less fuel oil. Crops will grow longer in much of the US Midwest, Central Russia, Canada, etc. Less people will die from cold weather related trauma.
actually, the grain belt will dry out, and the better zone for growing crops, weather-wise, will be in damn canada, which of course does not have the bad-ass soil that iowa has. therefore, crops will not grow in the U.S. midwest, etc. if you take this into consideration with the fact that china and india are starting to use more of their land for parking lots, highways, and suburbs, and in turn turning farm land into asphalt - then you will realize that grain prices are going to go up, and there will be increased worldwide hunger.
as for less people dying from cold-weather trauma... that's ridiculous. how many people die of cold-weather trauma a year? the warmer it gets, the larger of an area insects and disease will be able to spread. i believe that would be a greater problem.
It would be as if we decided to eliminate the internal combustion engine without looking at the downside of living without cars, trucks and planes... or the air pollution that dried animal poop particles used to bring to our cities.
there are other means of making wheels turn. i think you should look into them. trains are also wonderful. oh, and about those animals - 10 pounds of grain fed to an animal (on average) produces one pound of food. think world hunger is unsolvable? - try to stop wasting so much grain on cows.
The atmosphere is incredibly complex. Processes that work to warm the atmosphere can later turn and cool it. Heat causes more evaporation, causes more clouds, causes more cooling (very simplified).
I just worry we're not getting the full story. That's all.
i just worry that you've gone batty from standing next to a blue screen too much.
as well, yes - your uncle does not know what he's talking about. please read "natural capitalism", which is written by some people from rocky mountain institute {www.rmi.org}.
one example: it is standard practice for contracted electricians to install the smallest guage electrical wire required. this standard (in the u.s.) is set so the building won't catch on fire - not so the power is transmitted efficiently as possible. sure, so i can't remember the figures - but a whole buncha power is lost to resistance in the too small wire. this the same concept as using larger guage speaker wire in order to get better quality sound (i think).
anyways, i would recommend anyone interested in efficiency to read "natural capitalism". it would be a good book review for this site.
actually... the desktop should be relegated nothing. why keep something on the desktop when it's constantly being covered by applications, finder windows? seems like a pretty ridiculous idea to me.
The drivesystem in a conventional car consists of an internal-combustion engine mechanically coupled to the drive wheels through the transmission, driveshaft, and so on. This is an ingenious but complex and inherently inefficient way of converting fuel into traction at the wheels. A much better way is to have the engine (or other power source) generate electricity from the fuel, which then powers motors that turn the wheels. Such a "hybrid-electric" drivesystem offers several advantages over conventional systems.
Most importantly, the engine needs to handle only the maximum continuous load, not the peak load. Unlike the mechanical torque generated by a conventional system, the hybrid's electricity can be stored temporarily in a small battery or other similar device until it's needed for extra acceleration. Result: the engine can shrink to a fraction of the current normal size, reducing weight, cost, and fuel consumption; and it can always run at or very near its "sweet spot," typically doubling drivesystem efficiency. It can even turn off automatically whenever it's not needed.
Additionally, the electric motors of a hybrid vehicle can recover part of the braking energy that would otherwise be lost as heat in the brakes. They become generators, slowing the vehicle by using its kinetic energy to make electricity that is stored until needed. Some experimental vehicles have demonstrated up to 70-percent peak energy recovery, but recovery of about 50 percent is seen by many experts as a more realistic goal.
And finally, hybrid-electric drive opens the door to other exciting new electrical power sources, such as fuel cells.
The exact workings of hybrid drivesystems vary. There are two basic configurations: parallel and series. For more details on these, see the Hybrid Vehicle Propulsion Program On-Line Resource Center (http://hevdev.nrel.gov).
Many auto manufacturers are now developing or selling hybrid-electric cars, which is a huge leap forward in its own right. However, thanks to the principle of mass decompounding, hybrid-electric drive works better and costs less if you reduce the vehicle's weight and drag first.
Don't confuse hybrid-electric vehicles with battery-electric vehicles . Hybrids generate their own electricity onboard, so they don't have to haul around hundreds of extra pounds of storage batteries, nor do they suffer from the short driving ranges and long recharging times of battery cars.
All of you spouting out facts about there being years and years of fossil fuels left are _fucking_ idiots. Burning fossil fuels is inherently _bad_ for the environment.
Now, let's all have a group question:
"How many children do I have?"
Now, another:
"Do I care about their, or their children's life."
Let's all face the fact that most of the shit you here comes from people trying to make money from you. Then realize that greed doesn't think long term.
Hence, while there may be plenty of fossil fuel left, it may not be the best thing in the world for us and our offspring (and all those stupid fuzzy things), to use it. Haven't any of you have any interest in _research_. I think so. Why take the easy destructive way out, when you could actually do _something positive_.
It's no wonder America (car culture) is the most obese nation.
I don't have a lot of money to spend on CDs, and even if I did, purchasing music which you haven't heard is a total shot in the dark.
which is exactly why one should support their local record stores, who for the most part will allow customers to listen to recordings prior to purchase. if you don't know if it's "allowed" at a place, ask. for the most part i've found all independent record stores will allow you to listen to a disc prior to purchase - especially with used cd's.
and fuck tower, sam goody, etc. all ignorant worthless employees who could give a a cow-weiner about you. rip-offs!
1) Transparent filesharing with MS. Sorry guys, but it's not there yet. Opening the "Connect to Server" dialong in Finder and using the syntax smb://2kwksation/share to attempt to access my 2k Workstation fails. It does work with 2k Server/Advanced Server w/File Services for Macintosh installed, though.
sure...
2) Flesh out the OS with control panels to do functions that are currently available only via the command prompt. Specifically, there's no reason an Apple operating system shouldn't allow some configuration of the swap file from the System Preferences. The only method I'm aware of involves a trip to the terminal, something many novice mac users are wont to try.
exactly, so those darn novice users would care about swap files for what reason? ninety-nine percent of them don't even know what it is, let alone how to configure it.
3) Multiple desktops.
to go with their multiple-button mice? remember that whole simplicity thing?
it's not a competition - it's apple doing their own thing - some of us appreciate it - some don't.
Additionally, Apple will need to motivate developers to move their biggest products into the new Mac OS. They would be wise to approach developers that don't currently develop for the Macintosh but do work with other variants of Unix or Linux. Games would be nice, and completion of OpenOffice for X would be nice, but any little bit helps.
sorry, but i believe apple is happy with m$ office being released for OSX. it gives OSX credibility as a veritable system - unlike OpenOffice.
Slashdot Mirror
Why Oppose War on Iraq?
At the core of the Bush Administration's official push for continued and escalated War on Iraq is the aim to relieve Saddam Hussein of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
If we do follow the Bush "Doctrine" of Pre-emptive Strike in order to accomplish this - we bomb Iraq, murder a couple hundred thousand innocent Iraqi citizens (half are under the age of 15), and then see if anyone alive can help us locate the WMD we sold to Iraq in the 1980's.
A look at North Korea will illustrate problems with this "Doctrine". North Korea possesses the Nuclear Bomb. By way of missiles, they are capable of reaching their neighbors. It is possible North Korea could reach the U.S. with an ICBM, however this is not likely, as the probability of "success" is low. Because of it's Nuclear Weapons, N. Korea receives Diplomatic Negotiations with the U.S. Why? If we attack North Korea, they could kill thousands or millions in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Therefore, the Bush "Doctrine" promotes the opposite of it's intent. If "Evil-Country-X" wishes to not be attacked by the U.S., "Evil-Country-X" quickly and quietly develops the Nuclear Bomb. Once developed, "Evil-Country-X" openly flaunts the Nuclear Bomb. "Evil-Country-X" then does not have to worry about U.S. attack and Regime Change.
As a world community, we have two possibilities - a world without WMD, or a World with. We could decide we don't need to murder millions, that we are civilized, intelligent, and just - or we could live in a World where we Murder those we irrationally Fear.
In order to allow for the destruction of all WMD, we need to achieve World Peace. We can achieve this by promoting Basic Human Rights for all, Fair Trade and living wages, and Education as a human right. We as well need to realize we are One Human Family - and until then people in positions of Power will believe Murder can Achieve Peace and Stability - a thought process I deem Short-Term and Folly.
Please credit the Union of Concerned Scientists and Jonathan Schell of The Nation magazine for many of the themes expressed above.
Preventive War Sets Perilous Precedent
by Helen Thomas
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is radically revolutionizing American foreign policy in a way that has changed our image -- the object of envy around the world -- and has transformed our close relations with other nations.
The president asserts that the United States has the right to preemptively attack any nation it deems a potential threat. The problem for Bush and our nation is that the United Nations authorizes such retaliatory acts only in self-defense.
The test case obviously is Iraq where the United States is embarking on an unprovoked war. In our own history, such a move would have been labeled an aggression. I'm thinking of the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.
No one doubts that Bush can change the Iraqi regime and oust Saddam Hussein in short order. But the repercussions will be felt for decades and could justify other so-called "preventive wars" by other nations.
Do we really want that? This is a perilous precedent for our country to set.
The new Bush policy also breaks with our proven post-World War II policy of collective security. With the help of friends and allies, we were able to keep the peace during the Cold War with a containment policy toward the now-defunct Soviet Union. Likewise, Iraq has been contained since the first Gulf War 12 years ago.
In my continuing search for the logic of the new Bush policy, I went back recently to the president's speech on June 1, 2002, at West Point. Historians years from now will dredge up that text as they, too, seek the roots of Bush's war on Iraq.
In his address, the president declared: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge."
His tough address stressed that "the only path to safety is action."
Delivered just months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with a shattered America seeking revenge, that bombshell speech was not widely recognized at the time as a major turning point in American foreign policy -- nor were its pros and cons properly debated in the Senate afterward.
The nation was still in shock and ready to embrace any new measure that was billed as a step toward enhancing our security.
It paved the way for Bush and his hawkish advisers to put Iraq high on their target list.
When I measure his Iraq policy against the standards of his West Point speech, I am still puzzled about the administration's insistence that Iraq poses an imminent and direct threat to the United States. That, after all, should be the fundamental test of soundness for any decision to attack.
He has very few believers among fellow members of the U.N. Security Council or the world at large. The "coalition of the willing," as the White House calls it, consists of 30 nations that have publicly sided with the Bush administration. Only three of those have offered combat units: The United States, Britain and Australia.
There are another 15 nations that have offered their anonymous support to the U.S.-led war, according to State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. One wonders why these nations don't want to be identified publicly.
This adds up to a small percentage of the 191 nations that belong to the United Nations.
Contrast this with the 1991 Persian Gulf War, where the U.S.-led coalition -- animated by the clear and moral goal of repelling Iraqi aggression against Kuwait -- consisted of 31 member nations contributing military support. Arab nations were publicly supportive and sent their military forces to pitch in. The world at large applauded the efforts of President George H.W. Bush.
This President Bush has apparently persuaded Americans that military action is needed. Polls earlier this week showed him with a 71 percent approval rating.
After the war there will be rewards in victory. Bush will have achieved a new imper
Revolution, Hemp Style Now
By David Morris, AlterNet
January 20, 2003
In 1992 a consortium of 20 British farmers requested permission to grow industrial hemp, a crop that had been banned since 1971. Home Office Minister Michael Jack saw no reason to oppose the request since industrial hemp had been grown for years on the Continent "without any problems". The farmers received licenses to cultivate 1500 acres.
In 1993 a consortium of 10 Canadian farmers requested permission to grow hemp, a crop that had been banned since 1923. The federal government informed them the law would have to be changed before commercial plots could be harvested. However, seeing that "farmers in Canada are very interested in it", Health Minister Diane Marleau issued a permit for 18 acres of experimental plots. The next year Parliament enabled commercial harvests.
In the United States, a vigorous pro-industrial hemp movement emerged at the same time. Informed and inspired by Jack Herer's 1985 best seller, The Emperor Wears No Clothes, the movement agitated for the recommercialization of industrial hemp in a country with a rich hemp history: George Washington planted hemp, Benjamin Franklin used hemp paper, Thomas Jefferson smuggled in hemp seeds from Europe.
By the early 1990s, hundreds of retail stores were selling hemp textile products. In 1994, a trade group, the Hemp Industries Association(HIA) was formed. The next year the North American Industrial Hemp Council(NAIHC) was established. Its Board included representatives from some of the country's largest textile and paper companies. In 1996 the American Farm Bureau, the nation's largest farm organization, adopted a resolution in favor of hemp research. By 2000, half the state legislatures had debated resolutions in support of hemp; a dozen enacted pro-hemp statutes. Hawaii permitted experimental plots. North Dakota legalized commercial cultivation.(The other 49 states still have laws that mirror the federal ban. The federal ban still prohibits hemp cultivation in North Dakota.)
Yet despite this upwelling of support by industry and farmers, not a single acre of industrial hemp has been harvested in the United States. Why?
The answer is that while in other countries the road to hemp legalization goes through agricultural, or health or food agencies, in the United States there is only one road to approval - through the Drug Enforcement Administration(DEA). And for the DEA, the cultivation of hemp subverts and even contradicts its mission.
It is one of the ironies of history that the industrial hemp movement reemerged just as the United States escalated its war on drugs. In 1986 the DEA was a modest agency with a modest reach. That year the White House appointed a drug czar and by Executive Order subjected all federal employees to urine testing for drugs. The DEA's budget and reach and powers dramatically expanded.
Consider some numbers. In 1985, the federal war on drugs cost about $1.5 billion. That was about one third of federal spending on the environment, one sixth of spending on energy and only 3 percent of federal spending on agriculture. Today, the drug war budget is over $20 billion, three times the environment budget, 50 percent more than the energy budget and approaching 30 percent of the entire agriculture budget. And in the post September 11th climate the drug war has become intimately intertwined with the escalating war on terrorism.
In 1979 the federal government allowed drug agents to seize the assets of suspected drug dealers or users. Since then, US law enforcement officials have seized almost $10 billion worth of cash and property. By the late 1990s some $1 billion a year worth of assets was being confiscated annually. The police came to depend on drug money to fund their operations.
The federal government pumped tens of millions of dollars into DARE, a program that sent police officers into elementary schools in virtually every school district to lecture them on the dangers of drug
http://www.communitybike.org/files/amsterdam/
Amsterdam White Bike Program & Bicycle Culture
Author: Jared Benedict
Updated: 06/07/2002
Amsterdam is known as the City of Bicycles and it lives up to its name. Stepping out of Central Station you are overwhelmed with a sea of bicycles. There is a three story bicycle "parking lot" crammed with rows of bikes. The city also has implemented other bicycle infrastructure. For example, most streets have a bicycle lane.
In the 1960's a group of individuals known as "Provo" proposed a "White Bicycle Plan". The plan called for the closing of all motorized traffic in the city center. The white bike plan, led by Luud Schimmelpennink, also proposed that the municipality purchase 20,000 bicycles to be owned "be everyone and no one". The Provo group donated the first 50 bikes to the cause but they were promptly confiscated by the police. There was a fair amount of excitement surrounding the initial implementation of the white bike plan, and around other "white" plans the Provo group came up with. For more information on the background of Provo, and their inititives check out the Provo page.
Although the initial white bike plan fizzled, Schimmelpennink didn't give up. Over thirty years later, he implemented an automated white bike depo program which included 19 racks around Amsterdam. Anyone could check-out a uniquely designed bicycle from a rack "depo", ride it to the rack closest to their destination and return it for someone else to check-out. According to a bulletin posted by Y-tech, the program was suppose to have 45 depos installed with 750 bicycles. Unfortunately, according to Erik Van den Muijzenberg, one of the testers for the new system, the racks were, "not strong enough and not reliable enough". In a weblog post by David O'Coimin he talked to a user of the system who was having technical difficulties.
Stephan Horlak visited and photographed the depos still in operation in late August 2001. However during my visit to Amsterdam in March 2002, I came across two depos which were in fact no longer in operation. The stall remained, but the bikes and locking devices had been removed.
According to Van den Muijzenberg, Schimmelpennink has redesigned the racks and internal electronics to make them stronger and more reliable. However, funding for the project has been a problem and it's not clear what the future of the project holds. A similar program has been designed and implemented by Adshel.
Related Links
* New Urbanism: Luud Schimmelpennink, The White Bicycle Plan - ca. 1970
* Depo (cached)
* Hip Guide to Amsterdam: The White Bicycles
* Hip Guide to Amsterdam: Bicycles
* Strange Amsterdam Bicycles
* A two-wheeled tour through Amsterdam
* Wired: Pedal Pusher
* Bicycle Use and Safety In Paris, Boston, and Amsterdam
* The autumn of the Bicycle Master Plan: after the plans, the products
* White Bike Photos
* David O'Coimin blog post about the White Bike rack issues
* Adshel Automated Bike System Summary
* CommunityBike.org Dutch Provo Page
Statistics
There are several statistics floating around. Few mention the original source how how the data was compiled.
"[Amsterdam] has 800,000 people and as many bikes." (Rick Steves' France Belgium & Netherlands 2002. pg. 374)
400,000 bicycles in Amsterdam. (source?)
More bicycles than people in Amsterdam. (source?)
Dutch tax system gives people that ride a bike to work (min. 10 km/3 days a week) a tax deduction of 300 a year. (update: Erik van den Muijzenberg reports that you get a reduction on the cost of a new bicycle which will be used for commuting.)
In Holland, bicycles are allowed to turn right through a red light, while all other traffic is fined 90 for the same action. (reference) (unverified) (update: Erik van den Muijzenberg reports that this is not true to his knowledge.)
While in Amsterdam (03/19/20
Bloody Tourists
... Exactly. Each year thousands of bikes are stolen by the dopey-eyed losers. They are like crows. They like gleaming stuff. A brand new bike attracts them like flies.
Bicycles
The best and fastest way to get around in Amsterdam: a bike. There are no rules. Feel free to use the sidewalk, one way streets, etcetera. Ignore traffic signs, run red lights. No problem.
However, there is a catch: the natives get agitated when you drive slowly. A bike is a means of transport, not to enjoy the scenery. Consider the hefty chains, a necessary accessory to each bike in Amsterdam. Do not provoke the natives, unless you want your head bashed in with it.
The typical Amsterdam bike is a rusty, old vehicle, often painted in colours that could make a grown man weep. "Why?", you ask. Oh, you never heard about the junkies? The junkies need their dope, they need money to buy it, they don't have any money, so they become thieves and sell off the loot. The loot consists mainly of
The typical tourist bike is a smart looking brand new vehicle. So be sure you get an insurance against theft. Report your bike stolen at one of the user friendly Amsterdam police stations.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15359
Obviously Oil
By Rep. Dennis Kucinich, AlterNet
March 11, 2003
Editor's Note: Although Dennis Kucinich was aggressively attacked by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen for suggesting that the preemptive strike on Iraq was based on oil, the Post refused to print the presidential candidate and Ohio Democrat's response. This was especially frustrating, since the Post editorial stance and balance of editorial page columns have been decidedly pro-war. You can tell the Post how you feel about this ommission at ombudsman@washpost.com.
Is President Bush's war in Iraq about oil? Of course it is. Sometimes, the obvious answer is the right one: Oil is a major factor in the President's march to war, just as oil is a major factor in every aspect of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf.
Ask yourself:
What commodity accounts for 83 percent of total exports from the Persian Gulf? What is the U.S. protecting with our permanent deployment of about 25,000 military personnel, 6 fighter squadrons, 6 bomber squadrons, 13 air control and reconnaissance squadrons, one aircraft carrier battle group, and one amphibious ready group based at 11 military installations in the countries of the Persian Gulf? (Note, the disproportionate troop deployments in the Middle East aren't there to protect the people, who constitute only 2 percent of the world population.)
What was Iraq's number one export when the U.S. made an alliance with Saddam Hussein, sold him biological and chemical weapons agents, and then did not object when he gassed his own people?
For what major Iraqi resource has Saddam Hussein denied contracts with the largest U.S. and U.K. multinational companies? (Note, those companies are the #2 (ExxonMobil), #4 (BP-Amoco), #8 (Shell) and #14 (ChevronTexaco) largest companies in the world, and the Bush Administration has been known to listen when large energy corporations speak.)
For what Iraqi resource did French and Russian multinational companies receive lucrative contracts from Saddam Hussein? What valuable commodity does one reprehensible, megalomaniacal tyrant (Saddam Hussein) control that another reprehensible, megalomaniacal tyrant (Kim Chong-il) does not?
How do the White House and State Department plan to pay for a post-Saddam occupation and reconstruction?
The answer to all of these questions is oil, of course. Oil obviously drives U.S. policy in the Middle East. So who can doubt that this war in Iraq concerns oil?
Meanwhile, the justifications the Administration has made for this war can be rather easily dismissed. Contrary to Administration assertions, a war against Iraq will not be in self-defense: Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the United States. It doesn't have the ability, nor has it ever had the ability, to shoot a missile or send a bomber to harm America. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
No credible link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda has been made. Iraq did not have anything to do with the anthrax-containing letters that killed several Americans.
Contrary to the Administration's portrayal of an Iraqi threat, Iraq is hardly uniquely threatening. Sixteen other countries in the world have or might have nuclear weapons, 25 countries have or might have chemical weapons, 19 other countries have or might have biological weapons, and 16 other countries have or might have missile systems. Yet the Bush Administration is not on the verge of invading them.
Contrary to their denials that this war has anything to do with oil, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle wanted to go to war in Iraq long before they became Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. In a 1998 letter they sent to then-President Clinton, they stated "it hardly needs to be added that if Saddam d
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15239
A Hydrogen Economy Is a Bad Idea
By David Morris, AlterNet
February 24, 2003
When George Bush proposed a $1.7 billion program to promote hydrogen-fueled cars in the State of the Union Address, both sides of the aisle applauded. Almost everyone supports a hydrogen economy - conservatives and liberals, tree huggers and oil drillers. Such unanimity forecloses serious discussion. That's unfortunate. An aggressive pursuit of a hydrogen economy is wrongheaded and shortsighted.
To understand why, we need to start with the basics. Hydrogen is the most abundant element on the planet. But it cannot be harvested directly. It must be extracted from another material. There is an upside to this and a downside. The upside is that a wide variety of materials contain hydrogen, which is one reason it has attracted such widespread support. Everyone has a dog in this fight.
Renewable energy is a very little dog. Environmentalists envision an energy economy where hydrogen comes from water, and the energy used to accomplish this comes from wind. Big dogs like the nuclear industry also foresee a water-based hydrogen economy, but with nuclear as the power source that electrolyzes water. Nucleonics Week boasts that nuclear power "is the only way to produce hydrogen on a large scale without contributing to greenhouse gas emissions."
For the fossil fuel industry, not surprisingly, hydrocarbons will provide most of our future hydrogen. They already have a significant head start. Almost 50 percent of the world's commercial hydrogen now comes from natural gas. Another 20 percent is derived from coal.
The automobile and oil companies are betting that petroleum will be the hydrogen source of the future. It was General Motors, after all, that coined the phrase "the hydrogen economy".
What does all this mean? A hydrogen economy will not be a renewable energy economy. For the next 20-50 years hydrogen will overwhelmingly be derived from fossil fuels or with nuclear energy.
Consider that it has taken more than 30 years for the renewable energy industry to capture 1 percent of the transportation fuel market (ethanol) and 2 percent of the electricity market (wind, solar, biomass). Renewables are poised to rapidly expand their presence. A hydrogen economy would be a potentially debilitating diversion.
As the President's 2004 budget demonstrates, any new money for hydrogen will be taken largely from budgets for energy efficiency and renewable energy. From a federal point of view, then, the more aggressively we pursue hydrogen, the less aggressively we pursue more beneficial technologies.
To be successful, a hydrogen initiative will require the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars to build an entirely new energy infrastructure (pipelines, fueling stations, automobile engines). Much of this will come from public money. Little of this expenditure will directly benefit renewables. Indeed, it is likely that renewable energy will have about the same share of the hydrogen market in 2040 as it now has of the transportation and electricity markets.
Far better to spend the billions the President wants to spend on hydrogen to increase renewable energy's share of the energy market from 1-2 percent to 25, 35, or even 50 percent in the same time frame.
Not only will a hydrogen economy do little to expand renewable energy, it will increase pollution. Making hydrogen takes energy. We are using a fuel that could be used directly to provide electricity or mechnical power or heat to instead make hydrogen, which is then used to make electricity. Back in 1993 William Hoagland, senior project coordinator at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's hydrogen program, prophetically told Time Magazine, "I can't see why anyone would invest in additional equipment to make hydrogen rather than simply putting the electricity on the grid."
We can, for example, run vehicles on natural gas or genera
yeah, i'll agree about it being the consumer's choice. i guess i think globalism/capitalism doesn't encourage consumers to be aware of the source of their purchases. past that, it think if society were more concerned about being sustainable locally we wouldn't have as many of the problems we have now.
So? That's quite common. Hell, where I work all the site services are contracted out, they do everything from running the network to installing office furniture.
sure. i didn't mean to say it was a bad thing. but, with contracting labor you can end up with sweatshop labor etc. etc.. then again, you can end up with wonderfully treated employees as well. i didn't really have much of a point to make on that one... just that ms contracts out a lot of its workforce.
well, i'm not going to remember all of this well, so if someone could help me on this.
if you read "no logo", naomi spends quite a bit of time on microsoft's hiring and employee practices.
1. microsoft outsources a lot of it's employment to "temp" firms like manpower. this allows them to "hire" full time employees, who are never really given a contract. thus they don't have to give them any benefits, nor do they have a guaranteed job (so they're easier to fire). i _think_ i remember that it was said that microsoft only has about half of the people working for them on their payroll.
(1.5). i think i remember reading that "real" employees have different colored shirts than "temp" employees.
2. they don't hire they're internal postal mail staff, pitney bowes runs it.
3. capitalism creates a market, which allows us to purchase items without having to think about the process by which these items came to the market, as we are then only concerned with value. this allows for violations of human rights, destruction of the rain forest, and hairs in our soup.
"""" It will be a long process to reunite that country, but the taliban did support a man and shelter a man who plots every day to kill people. In addition to this you could be killed if youre a woman and too much of your face is showing. I just hope we do right by them and stay there long enough for a govt to hold (be it a monarcy, a tribal republic, or whatever).. """"
= sc hell
whatever the fuck. teh u.s. is only giving $300 million to afghanistan. think that's enough? you're wrong. think they'll be getting money next year? probably not.
anyone who thinks georgies plan is a good one, and if you don't want to be blown the fuck up by a nuclear weapon, please go read this article:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030303&s
it's 7 "pages" long and worth the read.
this is a pre-emptive strike, and it's against international law.
if one wishes to rid the world of terrorism, one should focus on promoting human rights, promoting fair access to education, ending world hunger and ending the huge gap in wealth that currently exists. we need to focus on being sustaineable locally so we don't have to worry about fighting for resources a half a world away.
doesn't anyone ever think that killing people in order to tell other people not to kill is a bit odd?
well, as for being silly - it seems like it turned into a pretty good marketing tool.
isn't his what the kyoto protocal is?
and read "natural capitalism"
and for those who don't think kyoto will work, check out the similar protocal they've used w/ sulfur... it works.
99% of scientists agree that global warming is happening. read.
New England will need less fuel oil. Crops will grow longer in much of the US Midwest, Central Russia, Canada, etc. Less people will die from cold weather related trauma.
actually, the grain belt will dry out, and the better zone for growing crops, weather-wise, will be in damn canada, which of course does not have the bad-ass soil that iowa has. therefore, crops will not grow in the U.S. midwest, etc. if you take this into consideration with the fact that china and india are starting to use more of their land for parking lots, highways, and suburbs, and in turn turning farm land into asphalt - then you will realize that grain prices are going to go up, and there will be increased worldwide hunger.
as for less people dying from cold-weather trauma... that's ridiculous. how many people die of cold-weather trauma a year? the warmer it gets, the larger of an area insects and disease will be able to spread. i believe that would be a greater problem.
It would be as if we decided to eliminate the internal combustion engine without looking at the downside of living without cars, trucks and planes... or the air pollution that dried animal poop particles used to bring to our cities.
there are other means of making wheels turn. i think you should look into them. trains are also wonderful. oh, and about those animals - 10 pounds of grain fed to an animal (on average) produces one pound of food. think world hunger is unsolvable? - try to stop wasting so much grain on cows.
The atmosphere is incredibly complex. Processes that work to warm the atmosphere can later turn and cool it. Heat causes more evaporation, causes more clouds, causes more cooling (very simplified).
I just worry we're not getting the full story. That's all.
i just worry that you've gone batty from standing next to a blue screen too much.
as well, yes - your uncle does not know what he's talking about. please read "natural capitalism", which is written by some people from rocky mountain institute {www.rmi.org}.
one example: it is standard practice for contracted electricians to install the smallest guage electrical wire required. this standard (in the u.s.) is set so the building won't catch on fire - not so the power is transmitted efficiently as possible. sure, so i can't remember the figures - but a whole buncha power is lost to resistance in the too small wire. this the same concept as using larger guage speaker wire in order to get better quality sound (i think).
anyways, i would recommend anyone interested in efficiency to read "natural capitalism". it would be a good book review for this site.
actually... the desktop should be relegated nothing. why keep something on the desktop when it's constantly being covered by applications, finder windows? seems like a pretty ridiculous idea to me.
world medical fund
click (free) to give food
mercy corps
second harvest
The drivesystem in a conventional car consists of an internal-combustion engine mechanically coupled to the drive wheels through the transmission, driveshaft, and so on. This is an ingenious but complex and inherently inefficient way of converting fuel into traction at the wheels. A much better way is to have the engine (or other power source) generate electricity from the fuel, which then powers motors that turn the wheels. Such a "hybrid-electric" drivesystem offers several advantages over conventional systems.
Most importantly, the engine needs to handle only the maximum continuous load, not the peak load. Unlike the mechanical torque generated by a conventional system, the hybrid's electricity can be stored temporarily in a small battery or other similar device until it's needed for extra acceleration. Result: the engine can shrink to a fraction of the current normal size, reducing weight, cost, and fuel consumption; and it can always run at or very near its "sweet spot," typically doubling drivesystem efficiency. It can even turn off automatically whenever it's not needed.
Additionally, the electric motors of a hybrid vehicle can recover part of the braking energy that would otherwise be lost as heat in the brakes. They become generators, slowing the vehicle by using its kinetic energy to make electricity that is stored until needed. Some experimental vehicles have demonstrated up to 70-percent peak energy recovery, but recovery of about 50 percent is seen by many experts as a more realistic goal.
And finally, hybrid-electric drive opens the door to other exciting new electrical power sources, such as fuel cells.
The exact workings of hybrid drivesystems vary. There are two basic configurations: parallel and series. For more details on these, see the Hybrid Vehicle Propulsion Program On-Line Resource Center (http://hevdev.nrel.gov).
Many auto manufacturers are now developing or selling hybrid-electric cars, which is a huge leap forward in its own right. However, thanks to the principle of mass decompounding, hybrid-electric drive works better and costs less if you reduce the vehicle's weight and drag first.
Don't confuse hybrid-electric vehicles with battery-electric vehicles . Hybrids generate their own electricity onboard, so they don't have to haul around hundreds of extra pounds of storage batteries, nor do they suffer from the short driving ranges and long recharging times of battery cars.
credit www.rmi.org for this text.
and here's link concerning the powertrain:
here
fuel cells!
check out natural capitalism
turn off that tv, save some power, and read.
All of you spouting out facts about there being years and years of fossil fuels left are _fucking_ idiots. Burning fossil fuels is inherently _bad_ for the environment.
Now, let's all have a group question:
"How many children do I have?"
Now, another:
"Do I care about their, or their children's life."
Let's all face the fact that most of the shit you here comes from people trying to make money from you. Then realize that greed doesn't think long term.
Hence, while there may be plenty of fossil fuel left, it may not be the best thing in the world for us and our offspring (and all those stupid fuzzy things), to use it. Haven't any of you have any interest in _research_. I think so. Why take the easy destructive way out, when you could actually do _something positive_.
It's no wonder America (car culture) is the most obese nation.
try this
and if anyone wants 14" monitors or 3/486's contact me. free except for shipping.
which is exactly why one should support their local record stores, who for the most part will allow customers to listen to recordings prior to purchase. if you don't know if it's "allowed" at a place, ask. for the most part i've found all independent record stores will allow you to listen to a disc prior to purchase - especially with used cd's.
and fuck tower, sam goody, etc. all ignorant worthless employees who could give a a cow-weiner about you. rip-offs!
ummmm.... apple?
fuck dell. fuck compaq. fuck all of them.
they have no huevos. they should get sued just like m$.
punish the servant and the master.
let's go over why the iPod kicks all the competition's ass.
* fast as hell
* small as hell
* super easy to use
* super easy to use as an external drive to transfer files
let's go over why the competition sucks.
* the opposite of above
and...
* you need a fanny pack to carry them around.
hope this helps!
1) Transparent filesharing with MS. Sorry guys, but it's not there yet. Opening the "Connect to Server" dialong in Finder and using the syntax smb://2kwksation/share to attempt to access my 2k Workstation fails. It does work with 2k Server/Advanced Server w/File Services for Macintosh installed, though.
sure...
2) Flesh out the OS with control panels to do functions that are currently available only via the command prompt. Specifically, there's no reason an Apple operating system shouldn't allow some configuration of the swap file from the System Preferences. The only method I'm aware of involves a trip to the terminal, something many novice mac users are wont to try.
exactly, so those darn novice users would care about swap files for what reason? ninety-nine percent of them don't even know what it is, let alone how to configure it.
3) Multiple desktops.
to go with their multiple-button mice? remember that whole simplicity thing?
it's not a competition - it's apple doing their own thing - some of us appreciate it - some don't.
Additionally, Apple will need to motivate developers to move their biggest products into the new Mac OS. They would be wise to approach developers that don't currently develop for the Macintosh but do work with other variants of Unix or Linux. Games would be nice, and completion of OpenOffice for X would be nice, but any little bit helps.
sorry, but i believe apple is happy with m$ office being released for OSX. it gives OSX credibility as a veritable system - unlike OpenOffice.