What the treaty does is set impossible goals for rich industrial countries, while giving undeveloped countries goals that result in them accruing "emissions credit", which they can then trade to the rich countries for cash. In the end, the emissions aren't actually reduced-- it becomes just another redistributionist scheme.
Wrong. Overall emissions are significantly reduced, while cash-rich countries can seek to mitigate the short term effect of controls on their economies by rewarding, with cash, poorer countries who have performed well and exceeded their emissions targets.
Countries are motivated to decrease emissions by financial incentives - big reducers get enormous payoffs, countries who fail to meet targets will have to pay money to others.
How on earth can you say that emissions are not reduced? The only way that could be true was if the targets, globally, were set at levels well above current emissions levels (here's a hint, that aren't).
If I was buying kit for an army, I'd be putting words like robust, standardised/interchangable components, ease of manufacture at the very the top of the list of desirable features.
They are, finally. I was so impressed when I saw specs for, and demos of, the XM80 weapons system designed to replace all squad based weapon systems at present with a single modular design that will still fire after immersion in fine sand or after being underwater. It can be taken apart of re-assembled by a 6 year old, and parts are utterly intechangeable, from the SMG configuration right through to sniper rifle and area suppression MG.
Truly incredible. Shame the human resources being trained to use it aren't trained on how to end war properly;(
Say someone walked up to you and said "you can be one of the first people on Mars...but there's a 10% chance you won't make it. Want to go?"
Considering 1 in 10 people who try to peak Mount Everest die trying, and that's 1] Not as spectacular 2] Been done before. Alot. then there will be no shortage. I imagine people would be fighting over it.
even then you will have idiots claiming using seatbelts is unsafe.
Seatbelts, overall save alot of lives, however I choose not to wear one on slow or quiet roads - why is this? Well, some years ago an acquiantance of mine was an accident investigator for my Countys fire department. On the odd occasion he came to the pub, he would talk about the accidents he investigated, and why he doesn't wear a seatbelt, *ever*. The resaon being, many people are killed outright when their car crashes, but many more are only injured, or have no serious injuries but are pinned into their car by their seat belts, and are burned to death if a fire occurs. He would see at least one case a year where this happened, sometimes several. If you'd rather go "in a flash" or have a higher risk of blunt trauma injury in order to prevent the possibility of being burned to death then you should have that choice.
and probably a healthy guaranteed pension for life for those chosen to serve.
It has been my opinion for some years now that the best way to handle the issues with elected positions pandering to financial interests is to insist on the following:
1] Succesful candidates liquidate all assets and the money is awarded to the state upon their entering office. (Suitable regulations for closing loopholes shifting money around between family members/friends etc.). 2] Once in office, all figures are paid a very very healthy salary, enough to live well, put kids through whatever schooling is wanted. They must rent all property they use/live in, and are forbidden to own investments or anything other than cash in a current or standard interest bearing account. 3] Upon leaving office, they are awarded a pension for life, at the same or similar level to the salary above, and are forbidden from becoming an employee, director or stockholder of any corporation, and in addition must continue only to rent land they require, not own it.
In other words, if you take office, you give up everything you have, and in return the state ensures you have a comfortable life until your dying day. There are no opportunities to accumulate wealth or manipulate the system to your own financial gain.
I believe the Iranians announced fairly recently that they would be mass producing spare parts for combat aircraft within the country, intending to export them for profit - I do wonder if this is linked, the maintenance of these aircraft became too difficult to find parts, so they decided to sort them out themselves?
I honestly don't know if those American plans still fly in the Iranian Air Force or not...
Really? It seems like an ideal way to pose in a "safe" chat room. You just borrow/steal/abscond-with/buy the token from someone who matches the profile that you want to emulate (i.e. you steal it from your 6 year old neice, or just take it when she's not looking and replace it before she can misplace it)
And when you molest/murder the other young girl you were hoping to chat to, the authorites have somewhere to start looking - they know the online identities of the people the girl was chatting to, and start looking into them...
Google removed from sites from its' index some time ago due to legal pressure from the Scientology movement using the legal system of the United States of America.
Is this really news? Almost every country in the world censors now - there are few countries left where you can say anything you want. Welcome to the future, the way it has always been.
This is a perfect example of how the free market system fails the working class.
If there is a shortage of nursing staff the solution should be to raise the incentive to be a nurse.
You're missing one key element here : by keeping costs down, the cost of the medical care is also lowered, meaning more working class people can afford it.
I'm not saying the net effect is positive, but you seem to be viewing only the negative side of the issue, without considering the positive.
In 2002 they had finished filming, and moved the release date from 2005 to 2004: http://www.pendragonpictures.com/CRMtrlr1.h tml
Now, apparently, today in 2004, they are announcing a release date of 2005.
Chrome - back then finished and ready to hit cinemas in 2003 still has not emerged yet - here in 2004.
Apparently they searched high and wide for acting talent (wantint to cast unknowns) and auditioned over a thousand people, only to decide to carry on with a lead actor from Chrome.
Is this some sort of joke? Anyone got an inside scoop?
Then, some google hacker figures out a way to suddenly spike the value of some other site somehow to include 'update windows' as the first choice. Hopefully not to goatse.
I can think of worse things than that: COMP : You need to install the latest version of Windows Update y/n? USER : Duh...uhhh....yeah. COMP : You need to restart your machine for these changes to take effect. y/n? USER : Duh...uhhh....yeah. COMP : C:\ USER : Duh...uhhh....uuuhhhh?
So, I figure I can go to a government in which 100% of American bits and bytes are in the public domain, pay the government-owned publishing house a modest fee, and return with 100,000 pages of everything I'd ever want to read
Not likely legal (depends on your jurisdiction). I live in the UK (which has fairly liberal copyright regs/enforcement by US standards) and carried out research last year into doing reproduction and distribution of old materials (like, decades old, but still not PD in the UK) in an African country which did not have particularly strong or long lasting IP laws. Turns out it is also illegal to *import* these materials into the UK - whether for personal use or not, they will be confiscated at the airport/port, or if you sneak them in, you can be prosecuted.
Nope, it's an Urban Legend..Cells can't ignite the fumes..
It is *not* an Urban Legend - almost all mobile phones have a vibrator unit - certain conditions can cause an active vibrator unit to produce a spark (wear and tear, certain manufacturers more suscpetible than others). You are not told this, and not told which models are more susceptible because: 1] People would turn off vibrate alert if they knew about it, but many people wouldn't know about it, and would choose to use their phone anyways. 2] People would assume that they could buy a "non dangerous" model - but while these are less susceptible to the issue, they are not immune (and phone manufacturers sometimes use different components in the same model of phones made in different batches).
Put simply, there is a reasonable chance that extended use of cell phones in gas stations will cause loss of life - but people think it's simply a case of not making calls, when really it requires turning the phone OFF (or at least the vibrator).
In practice there is almost always something they can charge you with. (like not having a protest permit)
Did I just read that correctly? In the United States of America you must have a permit to protest? What if you're protesting against the people who give out permits, or share vested interests?
A 90 day warranty? You're not in Europe then, consumer protection laws require a 12 month minimum warranty for electronic goods - shortly to be extended to 24 months I believe.
Lefty, commie socialists some of us may be, but there are upsides to living in the seat of Medieval Feudalism:)
Thanks for that Jimicus, while one reply does mention two links are conjecture, that Halloween memo appears to be extremely damning (though their analysis is way off mark with regards to how much it affected SCOs bottom line, they don't understand the difference between revenue and investment) assuming it is authentic, which it appears to be. That shows at least a significant link, and a convergence of interests between SCO and Microsoft.
So I'm curious. I run/jog a bit, and if I use the gym they have machines that waste electricity just to make me run on the spot.
If we were to get a human-sized hamster wheel, how much energy could I *generate* on it doing a, say, 30 min hard run every morning? If everyone did this, would it have an impact on our electricity usage in the homes - and provide an incentive for overweight people to jog (not only lose weight, but save money on electricity bills). Not only this, but it's good to jog on a surface which has your footfall a little higher than the point your foot leaves the ground (as a wheel would) because it lessens impact fatigue on your ankles and particularly knees.
About half the posts modded 4/5 are talking about people "driving" these things.
We already have the technology to fully automate this mode of transport - you use the car as normal on the ground, but to fly you change to computer-controlled mode before the car leaves the ground. Navigation, maneuvring and landing are all accomplished by the computer. The manual overide will call home and involve a HUGE fine if you use without good reason (storm coming up, unknown obstruction in path etc.).
European auto manufacturers have auto car control systems running dozens of vehicles around tracks and across intersections without human drivers - if this technology was mandated in, say, 2008 we would suddenly have shorter journey times, fewer crashes, better fuel economy etc. But you would never steer your own car again except in emergency.
The technology to do this is HERE, it's just not commoditised yet - as soon as there is enough financial impetus behind it, you can bet your bottom dollar someone will do it.
The connection between themselves and Microsoft is firmly established now.
We're having a bash at SCO for putting out unsubstantiated "facts". Could you provide me with some evidence that there is a connection between Microsft and SCO, and that it has some kind of primary or contributory responsibility for SCOs conduct? Without that, we're no better than them.
Slashdot Mirror
Countries are motivated to decrease emissions by financial incentives - big reducers get enormous payoffs, countries who fail to meet targets will have to pay money to others.
How on earth can you say that emissions are not reduced? The only way that could be true was if the targets, globally, were set at levels well above current emissions levels (here's a hint, that aren't).
Truly incredible. Shame the human resources being trained to use it aren't trained on how to end war properly
1] Not as spectacular
2] Been done before. Alot.
then there will be no shortage. I imagine people would be fighting over it.
Well, some years ago an acquiantance of mine was an accident investigator for my Countys fire department. On the odd occasion he came to the pub, he would talk about the accidents he investigated, and why he doesn't wear a seatbelt, *ever*.
The resaon being, many people are killed outright when their car crashes, but many more are only injured, or have no serious injuries but are pinned into their car by their seat belts, and are burned to death if a fire occurs. He would see at least one case a year where this happened, sometimes several. If you'd rather go "in a flash" or have a higher risk of blunt trauma injury in order to prevent the possibility of being burned to death then you should have that choice.
How many votes went *against* the DMCA? Wasn't it a similar number? Apparently the voting record of the senate is... interesting.
Crikey, the mods really did have a sense of humour failure today didn't they?
1] Succesful candidates liquidate all assets and the money is awarded to the state upon their entering office. (Suitable regulations for closing loopholes shifting money around between family members/friends etc.).
2] Once in office, all figures are paid a very very healthy salary, enough to live well, put kids through whatever schooling is wanted. They must rent all property they use/live in, and are forbidden to own investments or anything other than cash in a current or standard interest bearing account.
3] Upon leaving office, they are awarded a pension for life, at the same or similar level to the salary above, and are forbidden from becoming an employee, director or stockholder of any corporation, and in addition must continue only to rent land they require, not own it.
In other words, if you take office, you give up everything you have, and in return the state ensures you have a comfortable life until your dying day.
There are no opportunities to accumulate wealth or manipulate the system to your own financial gain.
I believe the Iranians announced fairly recently that they would be mass producing spare parts for combat aircraft within the country, intending to export them for profit - I do wonder if this is linked, the maintenance of these aircraft became too difficult to find parts, so they decided to sort them out themselves?
I honestly don't know if those American plans still fly in the Iranian Air Force or not...
Google removed from sites from its' index some time ago due to legal pressure from the Scientology movement using the legal system of the United States of America.
Is this really news? Almost every country in the world censors now - there are few countries left where you can say anything you want. Welcome to the future, the way it has always been.
I'm not saying the net effect is positive, but you seem to be viewing only the negative side of the issue, without considering the positive.
In 2002 they had finished filming, and moved the release date from 2005 to 2004:h tml
http://www.pendragonpictures.com/CRMtrlr1.
Now, apparently, today in 2004, they are announcing a release date of 2005.
Chrome - back then finished and ready to hit cinemas in 2003 still has not emerged yet - here in 2004.
Apparently they searched high and wide for acting talent (wantint to cast unknowns) and auditioned over a thousand people, only to decide to carry on with a lead actor from Chrome.
Is this some sort of joke? Anyone got an inside scoop?
COMP : You need to install the latest version of Windows Update y/n?
USER : Duh...uhhh....yeah.
COMP : You need to restart your machine for these changes to take effect. y/n?
USER : Duh...uhhh....yeah.
COMP : C:\
USER : Duh...uhhh....uuuhhhh?
I live in the UK (which has fairly liberal copyright regs/enforcement by US standards) and carried out research last year into doing reproduction and distribution of old materials (like, decades old, but still not PD in the UK) in an African country which did not have particularly strong or long lasting IP laws.
Turns out it is also illegal to *import* these materials into the UK - whether for personal use or not, they will be confiscated at the airport/port, or if you sneak them in, you can be prosecuted.
And besides, will this spur on new "anti-storecard" activity, with friends swapping crowns and fillings before they go shopping?
You are not told this, and not told which models are more susceptible because:
1] People would turn off vibrate alert if they knew about it, but many people wouldn't know about it, and would choose to use their phone anyways.
2] People would assume that they could buy a "non dangerous" model - but while these are less susceptible to the issue, they are not immune (and phone manufacturers sometimes use different components in the same model of phones made in different batches).
Put simply, there is a reasonable chance that extended use of cell phones in gas stations will cause loss of life - but people think it's simply a case of not making calls, when really it requires turning the phone OFF (or at least the vibrator).
(For those who find a chord struck but can't remember why... think Star Control 2)
What if you're protesting against the people who give out permits, or share vested interests?
A 90 day warranty? You're not in Europe then, consumer protection laws require a 12 month minimum warranty for electronic goods - shortly to be extended to 24 months I believe.
:)
Lefty, commie socialists some of us may be, but there are upsides to living in the seat of Medieval Feudalism
Thanks for that Jimicus, while one reply does mention two links are conjecture, that Halloween memo appears to be extremely damning (though their analysis is way off mark with regards to how much it affected SCOs bottom line, they don't understand the difference between revenue and investment) assuming it is authentic, which it appears to be. That shows at least a significant link, and a convergence of interests between SCO and Microsoft.
So I'm curious. I run/jog a bit, and if I use the gym they have machines that waste electricity just to make me run on the spot.
If we were to get a human-sized hamster wheel, how much energy could I *generate* on it doing a, say, 30 min hard run every morning?
If everyone did this, would it have an impact on our electricity usage in the homes - and provide an incentive for overweight people to jog (not only lose weight, but save money on electricity bills). Not only this, but it's good to jog on a surface which has your footfall a little higher than the point your foot leaves the ground (as a wheel would) because it lessens impact fatigue on your ankles and particularly knees.
About half the posts modded 4/5 are talking about people "driving" these things.
We already have the technology to fully automate this mode of transport - you use the car as normal on the ground, but to fly you change to computer-controlled mode before the car leaves the ground. Navigation, maneuvring and landing are all accomplished by the computer. The manual overide will call home and involve a HUGE fine if you use without good reason (storm coming up, unknown obstruction in path etc.).
European auto manufacturers have auto car control systems running dozens of vehicles around tracks and across intersections without human drivers - if this technology was mandated in, say, 2008 we would suddenly have shorter journey times, fewer crashes, better fuel economy etc. But you would never steer your own car again except in emergency.
The technology to do this is HERE, it's just not commoditised yet - as soon as there is enough financial impetus behind it, you can bet your bottom dollar someone will do it.
Without that, we're no better than them.