Someone could invent this from their armchair and it is just a mathematical formula.
Yup, that's probably why it took several years to develop the standard. You can read the history here. You do realize that involves quite a lot of work to design and test these kinds of algorithms?
AAC is DRM'd so I avoid it like the plague anyway.
Huh? You can add a DRM wrapper to AAC files (which is what Apple does in their iTunes Music Store). But regular AAC files (such as the ones you are getting when ripping your CDs with iTunes) are just as 'free' or 'non-free' as regular MP3 files: you can copy and play them on as many devices and computers as you want.
YOU can also ignore the data, and realize that the only reason AAC is popular is because the ITMS doesn't offer MP3's (encrypted or un-encrypted) for sale as an option.
I'm not so sure about that. If I was given the choice between MP3 and AAC in the iTunes shop I would still buy AACs (not that I buy that much...). I ripped all my CDs as AACs. It's simply the better format. I have a handfull of MP3s on my iPod because these were some tracks I just had lying around as MP3s. Sure it is very convenient that the iPod also plays MP3s. It's important for 'backwards compatibility'. But I never would prefer MP3 over AACs. And I'm sure quite a lot of iPod users see it the same way.
You can also ignore the data points that no audio CD players play AAC, no car systems play AAC, no players besides Apple and HP play AAC, and that if the iPod didn't also play MP3's, it would be the same sort of colossal failure that Sony ATRAC-only playing players have been.
The iPod would quite likely not have been that successfull without MP3 support. Again, it is important for the iPod to support MP3, just because there are so many MP3s around, and people want to use there encoded music without having to convert it. But that doesn't mean that 'the market' only uses AAC as much as it is forced upon them. AAC is next generation MP3. I'm sure many people encode their music as AAC because of that, and are happy to have that option. I know I am.
I have to say I'm surprised that so far so few hardware players support AACs. It maybe will become more common in the next generation DVD players, since AAC will become the auso codec for both Blu-ray disc and HD DVD. It is/will also be used for different digital radio standards. We will see...
You are right except that I wonder why the non-iPod players ignore AAC. Is there a stiff licensing fee?
AAC is licensed by Vialicensing. There you can also find the licensing fees (note that there are different formats like MPEG-2 AAC and MPEG-4 AAC...). Iguess if Apple can pay them it should not be impossible for others to pay them.
And in terms of AAC being ignored: That might be true for other digital players, but that doesn't mean that AAC is not used apart from Apple. Some examples you can find in another post of mine.
2) I suppose all I was trying to say was that it would be better if Apple stopped pushing the format and had mp3 as the default in iTunes etc.
I do not really see the benefit of that. I'm not an audio encoding expert, but from all what I have heard AAC is better than MP3. It's basically next generation MP3, considering its developers includes at least part of the groups that developed MP3. So why should Apple stop using (and prefering) the better format? It's good that they include MP3 support, no question about that. But just because MP3 is the defacto standard right now, it is not wrong to look to more modern alternatives. AAC is part of MPEG-4, it is used for the new digital radio standard (Digital Radio Mondiale, with an unfortunate abbreviation...:) )which intents to bring Stereo quality to AM radio, it will be used by the next DVD standard, regardless whether it will be the Blu ray Disc or HD-DVD So it is really not some exotic standard used by Apple. Why drop it?
I guess you mean "rip their CDs". Even then, you have a choice. You are only forced to use AAC if you by from the iTunes Music Store... if you are forced to buy from there, that is.
mp3 has won. It would make far more sense for Apple to concentrate on support for that format
What do you mean, "concentrate on support of MP3"? You can use MP3, what else do you want? Will MP3s suddenly start to sound clearer if Apple stops support for AAC (which will be part of the new Quicktime7, by the way) and "concentrates" on MP3?
You mean the Apple iPod that has had DRM it from day 1?
The files from the iTunes Music Store have DRM. The iPod is able to play these files. Apart from that, the iPod lets you play any AAC or MP3 file you happen to have lying around on your hard disk.
I disagree with this. Airbus is copying a concept, which they've been copying for about two decades now, that Boeing came up with--a family of airlines, of different sizes and ranges. Airbus took it one step further, by dramatically increasing commonality of parts and flying interfaces (as much as possible.)
Well, the concept 'developing a family of aircrafts' is quite basic, it's the only way to offer products over the full range of requirements. So I think it sounds a bit too negative when you stress so much that 'Airbus is copying the concept of Boeing' - that's basically because Boeing was earlier in the game. In any case, it seems (and you say it yourself) that Airbus was more consequent in their approach, leading to a family of planes which are as similar as possible, leading to a very high benefit when operating a fleet based on these planes (eg it is relatively easy to reassign pilots from one model to another).
The 7E7 fills a gap that Airbus doesn't have in its range (yet. Though it'll be hard for Airbus to switch gears to make a 7E7 killer that quickly, so I think Boeing is making a good investment there, in that it gives them a year or two lead time.)
According to plans it seems to be two years. 7E7 is planned to enter service in 2008 according to Boeing, while Airbus launched in December the A350 project with a target date of 2010.
Range: There are very few destinations that are more than 10,000 km apart. What are we talking about? 15 flights per day worldwide? Only so many people want to fly betwen Sydney and New York.
Well, a 15,000 km range plane gives the airlines just more flexibility. That, and a higher range of a certain plane model could also indicate a lower consumption of fuel, which directly translates to lower operating costs.
From what I understand, this is quite backward from how the rest of the world does things. Land lines do have free incoming calls, but this is not the case with cellphones (mobiles)
That's because the number system in Europe works different, AFAIK. Here cell phone networks have their own "area code". So if you call a number in Germany that starts with 015, 016 or 017, you know that you are calling a cell phone, which is more expensive. So the caller pays an extra charge, while in the US, where the caller can't know whether he calls a cell phone pays the same as for land line, and the recipient pays the extra charge.
It was not created by Fraunhofer but Dolby Laboratories.
According to the Fraunhofer website: "Fraunhofer IIS has been the main developer of the most advanced audio coding schemes, like MPEG Layer-3 (MP3) and MPEG AAC (Advanced Audio Coding)."
AFAIK, the main developers of AAC are the same group that developed MP3 before. Of course it was developed in collaboration. To quote Dolby (PDF file): "Dolby Laboratories serves as a worldwide patent license administrator for AAC licenses on behalf of the technology's co-developers, which include Dolby, AT&T, Sony Corporation, and the Fraunhofer Institute of Integrated Circuits."
AAC is already an open standard - you can download the specs right now and get started making an encoder/decoder as you wish, royalty free.
Are you sure? What's then the point in handling the patent licensing by license administrator. (which by now seems to be Via Licensing, btw, not Dolby anymore)?
Fairplay is an additional encryption wrapper around AAC
That's what I meant by saying "adding DRM". But you expressed it more clearly and accurately.:)
Don't they? Just because other vendors exist doesn't mean that they aren't monopolistic. Microsoft isn't monopolostic because you have choice in which OS to buy and which browser to use and which Office Suite you can use?
I think this is not directly comparable. A frequent criticism of Microsoft is that they have too much power, and use that power to suppress competition, like forcing PC makers to bundle every PC with Windows + additional software, preventing them from preloading alternative software (like other browser) by default etc. I seriously don't think that Apple can tell the music industry where to sell their music. The day that Apple is saying "We only sell your music if we get the exclusive rights" and the music industry sees no other way than to comply you will have a point, but I don't see that coming. Most music is available from multiple legal music services (if any) and also on CD, and if some artist is not available on a certain service I'm sure it's not because Apple was against it.
What do you mean with "open up AAC"? The files from iTunes are restricted because Apple chose to (or, on behalf of the music industry, had to) add DRM to AAC. That has nothing to do with AAC itself. If you mean "open" in the sense of open standard without licensing fees, this is beyound Apple's abilities, since they don't own AAC. They just licensed it from Fraunhofer et. al.
BTW, wikipedia also has an interesting article on Agfa.
Yes, I also saw that one. I just got bored of linking.:) Wikipedia is great (I also didn't know by heart all what I wrote, I also had to look some stuff up:) )
BASF still exists (http://www.basf.com/), it stands for "Badische Anilin- & Soda-Fabrik"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASF) and it never was AGFA, which once was a subsidary of Bayer, but now seems to be mostly a Belgian company. Before WW II BAYER was part of "IG Farben" (like Bayer, Hoechst), which became infamous for producing the poison gas for the concentration camp. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben).
Propbably, and this maybe all what Andrew Morton wanted to say. But obviously the writer absolutely did not get it, since he starts with:
"Linux could be about to fork. In a worrying parallel to the issue that stopped Unix becoming a mass-market product in the 1980s - leaving the field clear for Microsoft - a recent open source conference saw a leading Linux kernel developer predict that there could soon be two versions of the Linux kernel."
Obviously, the concept of a "development branch" and a "stable branch" is completely unknown to him.
Well, if you translate Yoda English into German, keeping the word order, you get Yoda in German, but not correct German. I guess that's mostly because in Yoda English the subject in front of the verb you put, which you wouldn't do in German. That and, you don't put the verb always at the end of the sentence. Your first sentence in (correct) German:
Im Deutschen setzt man das Verb immer ans Ende des Satzes. word-by-word translation into English: In German puts one the verb always at the end of the sentence. See, it's a bit different...:)
I think in the German dubbed version of Star Wars, Yoda uses a pretty much word-by-word translation from English (which sounds about as strange to German speakers as the Yoda English sounds to English speakers)...:)
That goes against one of the principles my country believes in, that people are equal and should be treated as such.[...]A balanced method would be more favorable, cut back pollutants while keeping people in the lifestyle they are accustomed to.
Congratulations, "keeping people in the lifestyle they are accustomed to" surely is a nice newspeak way of saying "prevent them from developing". You realise that to treat everybody equal, you in principle must give any individual the same right to pollute the planet? If you are not worried about greenhous gases, you can of course be happy with the prospect of everybody coming up to US level (that is, if they need to, Western Europe shows how you can reach a high standard of living with less CO2 emission). But if you are worried, then I guess it is obvious that the largest polluters have to come down.
So a country that has a high standard of living and has developed its industry should suffer economic hardship instead? The way you put it it seems that you think that "industry" and "high standard of living" is replaced by "economic hardship". Yes, I think that it is reasonable that the developed countries make an effort to reduce their pollution, rather thane the undeveloped countries making an effort to stay where they are. AFAIK, the treaty is about reducing their emission with respect to 1990 by a couple of percent. Now, if that means "economic hardship" for a country which produces 2.5 times as many greenhouse gases as Europe...
The "treaty" does nothing more than provide economic favor to certain countries. When something is presented that is measurable, enforceable and agreeable to all parties then we'll know that the problem has been taken seriously. The treaty is surely not perfect (and I have to admit I'm far from being an expert about it). But I think it doesn't impose any unduly hardships on any country. And the day that somone will come up with a treaty where everybody will say "now that's fair and balanced" will probably never come. Except, of course, if that treaty doesn't require anybody to do anything.
The president knows that the treaty is unfairly biased in favor of other countries allowing those countries to do more environmental damage in order for them to attract jobs.
Since you suggest to write another treaty: How would you handle the problem that developing nations simply have a more enviromental friendly economy because they don't have a high standard of living and they don't have a develped industry. From these countries you surely can't expect that they reduce their greenhous gas emission just the same as countries which already have all that. Your surely don't want to say that those countries who didn't develop their industry yet have missed their chance. And also it seems to me that they way countries are treated in the Kyoto treaty is not fixed eternally. At least Wikipedia claims (and I have read it elsewhere) that China is expected to become a so called Annex I country in this decade (meaning it is treated like any other industrialized country). I admit that I don't know the details here and whether they make any sense, but I'm just not sure that countries which develop will not eventually fall in another category.
True, it will reduce our dependence on oil -- by holding a gun to our heads and saying "GET OFF THE OIL!!!" We will be forced to cut oil consumption immediately. What do you think will happen if we cut our oil use by 20%?? Businesses WILL shut down, we'll have to stop oil usage somewhere.
You realise, though, that there is some timeline involved, don't you? It doesn't have to happen immediately after the ratification of the protocol. Also, other countries have actually agreed to reduce their CO2 pollution, and partly already reduced their emission. I'm not aware of any bad consequences because of that. Apart from that, according to Wikipedia, the US emits 20.1 metric tons of CO2 per year and capita, the EU 8.5, China 2.3. Now, China is not fair to compare to, since the economy and standard of living are still quite below the so called first world, but I have a hard time understanding why the US needs to emit 2.5 as much per citizen compared to the EU. One should think that the "starting position" in the US to reduce CO2 emission should be better than in the EU.
Well, you seem a bit paranoid by thinking that your identity is somehow magically transfered to a piece of paper/plastic. Here's the good news: it isn't. People can always claim to be you. It's easy if you don't have to show an ID, it's more difficult if you have to identify yourself with some document (because you have to forge that first). But if somebody causes an accident and claims he is you, it doesn't make you responsible for it. That's what courts are for, you know. Same goes with the bank account. They don't require ID to open one where you live? Fine, that should make it quite easy to open one in your name. Oh, they require one? OK, then the criminal would have to forge one commonly accepted document. Does it matter if it is a national ID card or adriving licence? I think not.
Oh, and I was especially frightened by the prospect of being noone when losing my ID. It must be rather rare that somebody loses it or it gets stolen or whatever. Otherwise I would be surrounded by rightless zombies. In fact, mine got stolen a couple of years ago. And my new one - yes, I got a new identity (well, actually it is more less the same because my name didn't change:) ) - my new one expired a couple of weeks ago. I guess I better brace myself... I just wonder: if I'm no one if I lose my ID, how can I be someone if I never get one?:)
An ID card is a single piece of identification which makes identity theft simpler, not more difficult.
This is something I also don't believe (like tigress). I think having one standard ID makes forging more difficult, since everybody (at least everybody who has to check IDs regularly) knows how they are supposed to look like. It gets more and more difficult the more different formats you have. (Of course the difficulty also depends on the complexity of the document itself). Sure it can not be 100% reliable, but without a standard I'd say identity theft is simpler.
In terms of civil liberties you are lucky and a little naive, just 60 years ago fairly near where you live, millions of people were being gassed because they could be easily identified as Jewish.
True, but AFAIK that has nothing to do with ID cards or passports, because the ID documents didn't say whether you are Jewish or not. They made stamps in the passports later on and forced Jewish people to wear yellow stars to be easily identified on the streets. Millions of people (everybody working for the state, lawyers, pupils on higher schools etc.) had to prove their "right" ethnic background by providing a report containing documents about the birth and marriage of the parents and grandparents. If Jews could have been easily identified by just looking at some document, like you say, then why did the Nazis bother with such a major bureaucratic effort?
Slashdot Mirror
No .iso's to download? Another strike. Ya, I'm a free beer kinda guy.
So I guess that this is news for you...
Someone could invent this from their armchair and it is just a mathematical formula.
Yup, that's probably why it took several years to develop the standard. You can read the history here. You do realize that involves quite a lot of work to design and test these kinds of algorithms?
AAC is DRM'd so I avoid it like the plague anyway.
Huh? You can add a DRM wrapper to AAC files (which is what Apple does in their iTunes Music Store). But regular AAC files (such as the ones you are getting when ripping your CDs with iTunes) are just as 'free' or 'non-free' as regular MP3 files: you can copy and play them on as many devices and computers as you want.
YOU can also ignore the data, and realize that the only reason AAC is popular is because the ITMS doesn't offer MP3's (encrypted or un-encrypted) for sale as an option.
I'm not so sure about that. If I was given the choice between MP3 and AAC in the iTunes shop I would still buy AACs (not that I buy that much...). I ripped all my CDs as AACs. It's simply the better format. I have a handfull of MP3s on my iPod because these were some tracks I just had lying around as MP3s. Sure it is very convenient that the iPod also plays MP3s. It's important for 'backwards compatibility'. But I never would prefer MP3 over AACs. And I'm sure quite a lot of iPod users see it the same way.
You can also ignore the data points that no audio CD players play AAC, no car systems play AAC, no players besides Apple and HP play AAC, and that if the iPod didn't also play MP3's, it would be the same sort of colossal failure that Sony ATRAC-only playing players have been.
The iPod would quite likely not have been that successfull without MP3 support. Again, it is important for the iPod to support MP3, just because there are so many MP3s around, and people want to use there encoded music without having to convert it. But that doesn't mean that 'the market' only uses AAC as much as it is forced upon them. AAC is next generation MP3. I'm sure many people encode their music as AAC because of that, and are happy to have that option. I know I am.
I have to say I'm surprised that so far so few hardware players support AACs. It maybe will become more common in the next generation DVD players, since AAC will become the auso codec for both Blu-ray disc and HD DVD. It is/will also be used for different digital radio standards. We will see...
You are right except that I wonder why the non-iPod players ignore AAC. Is there a stiff licensing fee?
AAC is licensed by Vialicensing. There you can also find the licensing fees (note that there are different formats like MPEG-2 AAC and MPEG-4 AAC...). Iguess if Apple can pay them it should not be impossible for others to pay them.
And in terms of AAC being ignored: That might be true for other digital players, but that doesn't mean that AAC is not used apart from Apple. Some examples you can find in another post of mine.
2) I suppose all I was trying to say was that it would be better if Apple stopped pushing the format and had mp3 as the default in iTunes etc.
:) )which intents to bring Stereo quality to AM radio, it will be used by the next DVD standard, regardless whether it will be the Blu ray Disc or HD-DVD
:)
I do not really see the benefit of that. I'm not an audio encoding expert, but from all what I have heard AAC is better than MP3. It's basically next generation MP3, considering its developers includes at least part of the groups that developed MP3. So why should Apple stop using (and prefering) the better format? It's good that they include MP3 support, no question about that. But just because MP3 is the defacto standard right now, it is not wrong to look to more modern alternatives. AAC is part of MPEG-4, it is used for the new digital radio standard (Digital Radio Mondiale, with an unfortunate abbreviation...
So it is really not some exotic standard used by Apple. Why drop it?
Sorry, it's been a long day already
when iTunes burns their CDs
I guess you mean "rip their CDs". Even then, you have a choice. You are only forced to use AAC if you by from the iTunes Music Store... if you are forced to buy from there, that is.
mp3 has won. It would make far more sense for Apple to concentrate on support for that format
What do you mean, "concentrate on support of MP3"? You can use MP3, what else do you want? Will MP3s suddenly start to sound clearer if Apple stops support for AAC (which will be part of the new Quicktime7, by the way) and "concentrates" on MP3?
If Apple did make it an open format[...]
It's not Apple's format, the rights for AAC(!) are owned by a group of companies and institutes. So it's not Apple's choice to open it.
You mean the Apple iPod that has had DRM it from day 1?
The files from the iTunes Music Store have DRM. The iPod is able to play these files. Apart from that, the iPod lets you play any AAC or MP3 file you happen to have lying around on your hard disk.
I disagree with this. Airbus is copying a concept, which they've been copying for about two decades now, that Boeing came up with--a family of airlines, of different sizes and ranges. Airbus took it one step further, by dramatically increasing commonality of parts and flying interfaces (as much as possible.)
Well, the concept 'developing a family of aircrafts' is quite basic, it's the only way to offer products over the full range of requirements. So I think it sounds a bit too negative when you stress so much that 'Airbus is copying the concept of Boeing' - that's basically because Boeing was earlier in the game. In any case, it seems (and you say it yourself) that Airbus was more consequent in their approach, leading to a family of planes which are as similar as possible, leading to a very high benefit when operating a fleet based on these planes (eg it is relatively easy to reassign pilots from one model to another).
The 7E7 fills a gap that Airbus doesn't have in its range (yet. Though it'll be hard for Airbus to switch gears to make a 7E7 killer that quickly, so I think Boeing is making a good investment there, in that it gives them a year or two lead time.)
According to plans it seems to be two years. 7E7 is planned to enter service in 2008 according to Boeing, while Airbus launched in December the A350 project with a target date of 2010.
Range: There are very few destinations that are more than 10,000 km apart. What are we talking about? 15 flights per day worldwide? Only so many people want to fly betwen Sydney and New York.
Well, a 15,000 km range plane gives the airlines just more flexibility. That, and a higher range of a certain plane model could also indicate a lower consumption of fuel, which directly translates to lower operating costs.
From what I understand, this is quite backward from how the rest of the world does things. Land lines do have free incoming calls, but this is not the case with cellphones (mobiles)
That's because the number system in Europe works different, AFAIK. Here cell phone networks have their own "area code". So if you call a number in Germany that starts with 015, 016 or 017, you know that you are calling a cell phone, which is more expensive. So the caller pays an extra charge, while in the US, where the caller can't know whether he calls a cell phone pays the same as for land line, and the recipient pays the extra charge.
It was not created by Fraunhofer but Dolby Laboratories.
:)
According to the Fraunhofer website: "Fraunhofer IIS has been the main developer of the most advanced audio coding schemes, like MPEG Layer-3 (MP3) and MPEG AAC (Advanced Audio Coding)."
AFAIK, the main developers of AAC are the same group that developed MP3 before. Of course it was developed in collaboration. To quote Dolby (PDF file):
"Dolby Laboratories serves as a worldwide patent license administrator for AAC licenses on behalf of the technology's co-developers, which include Dolby, AT&T, Sony Corporation, and the Fraunhofer Institute of Integrated Circuits."
AAC is already an open standard - you can download the specs right now and get started making an encoder/decoder as you wish, royalty free.
Are you sure? What's then the point in handling the patent licensing by license administrator. (which by now seems to be Via Licensing, btw, not Dolby anymore)?
Fairplay is an additional encryption wrapper around AAC
That's what I meant by saying "adding DRM". But you expressed it more clearly and accurately.
Don't they? Just because other vendors exist doesn't mean that they aren't monopolistic. Microsoft isn't monopolostic because you have choice in which OS to buy and which browser to use and which Office Suite you can use?
I think this is not directly comparable. A frequent criticism of Microsoft is that they have too much power, and use that power to suppress competition, like forcing PC makers to bundle every PC with Windows + additional software, preventing them from preloading alternative software (like other browser) by default etc. I seriously don't think that Apple can tell the music industry where to sell their music. The day that Apple is saying "We only sell your music if we get the exclusive rights" and the music industry sees no other way than to comply you will have a point, but I don't see that coming. Most music is available from multiple legal music services (if any) and also on CD, and if some artist is not available on a certain service I'm sure it's not because Apple was against it.
Apple can open up AAC
What do you mean with "open up AAC"? The files from iTunes are restricted because Apple chose to (or, on behalf of the music industry, had to) add DRM to AAC. That has nothing to do with AAC itself. If you mean "open" in the sense of open standard without licensing fees, this is beyound Apple's abilities, since they don't own AAC. They just licensed it from Fraunhofer et. al.
BTW, wikipedia also has an interesting article on Agfa.
:) Wikipedia is great (I also didn't know by heart all what I wrote, I also had to look some stuff up :) )
Yes, I also saw that one. I just got bored of linking.
BASF still exists (http://www.basf.com/), it stands for "Badische Anilin- & Soda-Fabrik"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASF) and it never was AGFA, which once was a subsidary of Bayer, but now seems to be mostly a Belgian company. Before WW II BAYER was part of "IG Farben" (like Bayer, Hoechst), which became infamous for producing the poison gas for the concentration camp.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben).
All this is saying is that 2.7 is about to open.
"Fork" is not a dirty word.
Propbably, and this maybe all what Andrew Morton wanted to say. But obviously the writer absolutely did not get it, since he starts with:
"Linux could be about to fork. In a worrying parallel to the issue that stopped Unix becoming a mass-market product in the 1980s - leaving the field clear for Microsoft - a recent open source conference saw a leading Linux kernel developer predict that there could soon be two versions of the Linux kernel."
Obviously, the concept of a "development branch" and a "stable branch" is completely unknown to him.
You will find out very soon the dangers of tying your identity to a bunch of numbers.
So everybody living in a country with national ID cards should have found out by now, right?
Well, if you translate Yoda English into German, keeping the word order, you get Yoda in German, but not correct German. I guess that's mostly because in Yoda English the subject in front of the verb you put, which you wouldn't do in German. That and, you don't put the verb always at the end of the sentence. Your first sentence in (correct) German:
:)
... :)
Im Deutschen setzt man das Verb immer ans Ende des Satzes.
word-by-word translation into English:
In German puts one the verb always at the end of the sentence.
See, it's a bit different...
I think in the German dubbed version of Star Wars, Yoda uses a pretty much word-by-word translation from English (which sounds about as strange to German speakers as the Yoda English sounds to English speakers)
That goes against one of the principles my country believes in, that people are equal and should be treated as such.[...]A balanced method would be more favorable, cut back pollutants while keeping people in the lifestyle they are accustomed to.
Congratulations, "keeping people in the lifestyle they are accustomed to" surely is a nice newspeak way of saying "prevent them from developing". You realise that to treat everybody equal, you in principle must give any individual the same right to pollute the planet? If you are not worried about greenhous gases, you can of course be happy with the prospect of everybody coming up to US level (that is, if they need to, Western Europe shows how you can reach a high standard of living with less CO2 emission). But if you are worried, then I guess it is obvious that the largest polluters have to come down.
So a country that has a high standard of living and has developed its industry should suffer economic hardship instead?
The way you put it it seems that you think that "industry" and "high standard of living" is replaced by "economic hardship". Yes, I think that it is reasonable that the developed countries make an effort to reduce their pollution, rather thane the undeveloped countries making an effort to stay where they are. AFAIK, the treaty is about reducing their emission with respect to 1990 by a couple of percent. Now, if that means "economic hardship" for a country which produces 2.5 times as many greenhouse gases as Europe...
The "treaty" does nothing more than provide economic favor to certain countries. When something is presented that is measurable, enforceable and agreeable to all parties then we'll know that the problem has been taken seriously.
The treaty is surely not perfect (and I have to admit I'm far from being an expert about it). But I think it doesn't impose any unduly hardships on any country. And the day that somone will come up with a treaty where everybody will say "now that's fair and balanced" will probably never come. Except, of course, if that treaty doesn't require anybody to do anything.
The president knows that the treaty is unfairly biased in favor of other countries allowing those countries to do more environmental damage in order for them to attract jobs.
Since you suggest to write another treaty: How would you handle the problem that developing nations simply have a more enviromental friendly economy because they don't have a high standard of living and they don't have a develped industry. From these countries you surely can't expect that they reduce their greenhous gas emission just the same as countries which already have all that. Your surely don't want to say that those countries who didn't develop their industry yet have missed their chance. And also it seems to me that they way countries are treated in the Kyoto treaty is not fixed eternally. At least Wikipedia claims (and I have read it elsewhere) that China is expected to become a so called Annex I country in this decade (meaning it is treated like any other industrialized country). I admit that I don't know the details here and whether they make any sense, but I'm just not sure that countries which develop will not eventually fall in another category.
True, it will reduce our dependence on oil -- by holding a gun to our heads and saying "GET OFF THE OIL!!!" We will be forced to cut oil consumption immediately. What do you think will happen if we cut our oil use by 20%?? Businesses WILL shut down, we'll have to stop oil usage somewhere.
You realise, though, that there is some timeline involved, don't you? It doesn't have to happen immediately after the ratification of the protocol. Also, other countries have actually agreed to reduce their CO2 pollution, and partly already reduced their emission. I'm not aware of any bad consequences because of that.
Apart from that, according to Wikipedia, the US emits 20.1 metric tons of CO2 per year and capita, the EU 8.5, China 2.3. Now, China is not fair to compare to, since the economy and standard of living are still quite below the so called first world, but I have a hard time understanding why the US needs to emit 2.5 as much per citizen compared to the EU. One should think that the "starting position" in the US to reduce CO2 emission should be better than in the EU.
Well, you seem a bit paranoid by thinking that your identity is somehow magically transfered to a piece of paper/plastic. Here's the good news: it isn't. People can always claim to be you. It's easy if you don't have to show an ID, it's more difficult if you have to identify yourself with some document (because you have to forge that first). But if somebody causes an accident and claims he is you, it doesn't make you responsible for it. That's what courts are for, you know. Same goes with the bank account. They don't require ID to open one where you live? Fine, that should make it quite easy to open one in your name. Oh, they require one? OK, then the criminal would have to forge one commonly accepted document. Does it matter if it is a national ID card or adriving licence? I think not.
:) ) - my new one expired a couple of weeks ago. I guess I better brace myself... I just wonder: if I'm no one if I lose my ID, how can I be someone if I never get one? :)
Oh, and I was especially frightened by the prospect of being noone when losing my ID. It must be rather rare that somebody loses it or it gets stolen or whatever. Otherwise I would be surrounded by rightless zombies. In fact, mine got stolen a couple of years ago. And my new one - yes, I got a new identity (well, actually it is more less the same because my name didn't change
An ID card is a single piece of identification which makes identity theft simpler, not more difficult.
This is something I also don't believe (like tigress). I think having one standard ID makes forging more difficult, since everybody (at least everybody who has to check IDs regularly) knows how they are supposed to look like. It gets more and more difficult the more different formats you have. (Of course the difficulty also depends on the complexity of the document itself). Sure it can not be 100% reliable, but without a standard I'd say identity theft is simpler.
In terms of civil liberties you are lucky and a little naive, just 60 years ago fairly near where you live, millions of people were being gassed because they could be easily identified as Jewish.
True, but AFAIK that has nothing to do with ID cards or passports, because the ID documents didn't say whether you are Jewish or not. They made stamps in the passports later on and forced Jewish people to wear yellow stars to be easily identified on the streets. Millions of people (everybody working for the state, lawyers, pupils on higher schools etc.) had to prove their "right" ethnic background by providing a report containing documents about the birth and marriage of the parents and grandparents. If Jews could have been easily identified by just looking at some document, like you say, then why did the Nazis bother with such a major bureaucratic effort?