I think you are confusing "has been regulated" with "has been imagined to be regulated by lawyers and naive fools." To be "regulated" requires a bit more than the mere existence of regulations on paper. It requires that these things have actual force, that they actually do something, they restrain people in some way.
I guess among the naive fools you find Goering, Milosevic, Taylor, and W. Bush. Of course, the frat boy Bush hasn't really paid the price yet, while the US has lost status morally and politically because of torture being done by CIA and US military. Only a naive fool believes that torturing suspect enemies do not have a price both economically and politically, while influencing directly the security of US citizens abroad and at home.
Do you think Bliar checked with the lawyers just for fun before the Iraq invation? Do you think commanders in the field don't know that one day there will be peace and maybe it would not look so good if it appeared in the papers that his troops raped those civilian girls? Do you think armies court martial soldiers for unlawful killings just to lose some pure killing machines? My interpretation is that any military knows that keeping to international laws and standards is good for moral, gives an advantage in the propaganda war and that a displined army is infinitely stronger than a bunch of random killers.
Heck, even al-quada justify their killings with their twisted interpretation of the Quaran; notice how bin laden replaces international law with his own sets of laws taken from a religious text to justify for his supporters and backers how al-quada is conducting their jihad (holy war).
It seems to be hard for naive fools to understand that diplomacy is not weakness, that international law exists because it is a win-win for nations, and that breaking international law has consequences even though there is no world police. The bully on the block maybe thinks that he will always be the strongest, but the smart guy knows that he needs friends and allies to get by and survive.
Eh, that is a strange way to look at history. The roots of science as we know it today probably is best to place with the Greek philosophers who were usually atheists.
Specifically, Aristotle with his work on logic and work on biology, Platon with his idea of how eternal truths can be found through rational arguments, Democrit with his atoms, Archimidies with his scientific, technological and mathematical break-throughs, the pre-socrates with their thoughts about a fundamental material in the universe, Pythagoras and Euclid with their rigerous mathematical proves etc etc.
Archimedies was actually close to developing calculus before the birth of Christ without the god creature of Newton inspiring him, and A. developed static mechanics to perfection again without ever saying a prayer.
Also in social sciences the Greek were pioneers in establishing the scientific method with names like Thucydides.
Besides, it is hard to give any credit to the argument that Newton's work in physics and maths was helped by his naive interpretation of the Bible and his wasted hours looking for the Holy Graile. The fumes Newton inhaled because of alchemy probably reduced his abilities and was of course a total waste of time and effort. One of the mysteries of Newton is why such an intelligent man had such strange religious views.
And the newtonian revolution would not have been possible without giants like Gallileo and Kepler, neither who were overly religious.
Justice? Democracy was developed by the same un-Godly Greeks. They did not give women or slaves equal rights, but that cannot be claimed to be a Christian accomplishment either. If justice should be the key to modern science, maybe we should instead thank the Romans with their major achievements in law and building a law based society. The Romans did this before religion played any major party in their society. Actually, much of modern Christian thought about equality were developed by incorporating ideas of Platon (the atheist) and the Roman citizen Paul.
Its not that you are/aren't profiting, its that its so easy and free that everyone can do it. It therefore undermines their business model with the logical conclusion that with everyone downloading, no-one is paying. Now you could argue that this represents a flaw in their business model, but its still illegal.
This debate about illegal sharing of music files seem to be stuck in a loop. What suprices me is that some of the fundamental issues at hand does not seemed to be touched.
To try to make my point: Making a copy of music, CD or hardisk, is as the parent points out easy and "free". Before, it was expensive to own and operate the equipment that made music formates like LP. Today, it is dirty cheap to own a CD burner.
This scares the record companies that before had a monopoly on making music available and profitted handsomely on this. On the other hand, they are more than happy to profit handsomely on the fact that CDs are cheap to make. The record companies just don't want you to have access to the same technological advances that they profit from. There this huge effort to make it illegal to make back-up copies, copies for a friend, and to share music files on the net. To use the convinience and advantages of modern technology should be limited to corporations only according to this brilliant logic.
[rant]Not only that, but according to film industry, it should be their right to waste my time with 30 secs warnings before every bloody movie I want to watch on dvd's I legally have bought. And I am not allowed to buy dvd's when visiting the US and watching it in Europe.
The thing is, fair use is still the same. The technology is new and better, but companies will have to adjust to the fact that also consumers have right to share the advantages of new technology. Technology is not only developed for companies to profit more but for our everyday life to become better, at least according to my world view.
How do the record companies adjust their business model? Well, it is hard I know. Make CD's more valuable to buy with cool designs of packaging, music notation and lyrics included, nice pictures. In general, make the product more valuable than just the bits on the CD, because reproducing the bits is cheap and easy to do in this age and day. Make downloading more convinient from their own web-pages, make downloading in different qualities at different price ranges. Make money from other merchandise connected to bands they promote. Heck, what do I know. Just don't bite the hand that feeds them, the people who are interested enough in the music they produce to actually listen to it.
In other words, you're living a true socialist dream by having someone else subsidize or pay for your medical bills. Redistribution of wealth and all that.
There are two responses to that. First, do you only think people who can afford it deserve to get proper medical treatment? It is not unreasonable, especially if you believe that people are as rich as they deserve (many USAians think so it seems, maybe God decides who has a rich daddy?). Still, I think many don't want people to die just to save a bit on the taxes. At least in Europe people in general accept to pay some extra taxes to also give health care to the poor.
Second, think a bit deeper about the math. Sure, you would save something on your taxes every year. This you could use to buy more stuff, become more happy maybe and it would improve your personal economy. But if you have a health system where the poor cannot afford proper health-care, they will at some point not be able to work. They will be a burden on the society through well-fare, or just left to die in some countries. These poor would probably have children they no longer could take care off, which is another resource lost for the GDP of the nation.
Worse, the middle class where you probably belong, cannot afford more advanced medical treatments. It is maybe no loss that middle class die younger or end up as poor because they cannot keep a proper job. But not being a socialist cry baby, in pure cash the nation loses out when an entrepneuric middle class citizen becomes sick and cannot afford to heal him or herself. Of course, most middle class can afford a private insurance (at least while they are healthy) to prepare them for worst case sickness. But isn't that just another tax?
To sum up, I think you can both make the humanistic argument and the capitalistic argument why any society needs to have affordable health service and have to accept that people who cannot pay the full price would need some subsidies from the tax money of you and me. It feels hard to seperate yourself from your tax money, but if the economy of your country sucks, you will probably not have much use for that extra cash anyway.
What does lying have to do with it?! If the review process is allowed to do its job and the competitive instinct between scientists are kept alive, lies are discovered. Of course, the conclusions drawn from findings in science is an human enterprise, but there are strict standards what are considered strong conclusions, standards developed over the last centuries of scientific discovery. The relativism from the USAian right about some of the main conclusions drawn from the different branches of science seems to have more to do with the liberal bias in the facts than the liberal bias in the scientists. (By the way, lying should not be the norm in politics either if the media does its job, but that is another sad story...)
Actually, there is nothing amusing at all about the republicans wanting states to be over-ruled by the Federal Government when it comes to being polluted. What is somewhat amusing is how naiv people in general (not necessarily the GP) are when discussion what the republican party actually stands for.
The term "states' rights" has been used as a code word by defenders of segregation, and was the official name of the "Dixiecrat" party led by segregationist presidential candidate Strom Thurmond. George Wallace, the Alabama governor, who famously declared in his inaugural address, "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!", later remarked that he should have said, "States' rights now! States' rights tomorrow! States' rights forever!" Wallace, however, claimed that segregation was but one issue symbolic of a larger struggle for states' rights; in that view, which historians dispute, his replacement of segregation with states' rights would be more of a clarification than a euphemism.[5]
On the opening day of the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan declared, "I believe in states' rights" in a speech at Neshoba County fairgrounds near Philadelphia, Mississippi. Philadelphia was the site of the murders of three civil rights workers in 1964. Andrew Young, Bob Herbert and others believed that Reagan's choice of this location to give his states' rights speech constituted a veiled appeal to southern segregationists.[6][7]. Reagan's campaign staff, however, denied any connection.[8] At the same event, Strom Thurmond (who was by then a Republican senator from South Carolina), declared: "We want that federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states." Thurmond had been an ardent segregationist, although he publicly opposed segregation after 1970.
If this is SCO II, I say good. Keep them comin'. For every SCO that bites the dust, linux and FOSS becomes stronger. For every long, drawn out court battle, laws are evaluated for their impact on FOSS and the business around FOSS. Afraid FOSS will lose you say? I don't worry one bit about it, governments all around the world is depending on FOSS, the internet is running on FOSS. If part of FOSS has to give in to some stupid law or interpretation of the law, the law will be changed.
Feel sorry for Red Hat et al that have to compete against players who play such low hand tactics as court battles. RH's money should better be used to improve their product, but then again, their effort will help the whole FOSS community gaining business acceptance and standing.
Why don't Poland start to think of their own interest instead of kissing the ass of either Bush or Putin? What possible benefit does the polish people get from putting these weapons on their soil?
The US Army camps were build there after WWII when Germany was definitly dependent on the US (and Russia in East Germany). How more dependent can you be than being occupied? That the camps are still there, are because it is much harder to get rid of something once it is there, something for Poland to consider. Or put another way, it is a difficult excersise to get back sovereign control of land that you give to another country.
2 great-grandparents who were murdered by Stalin's henchmen
First, Putin is definitly a person who does not believe in democracy and free press. Putin also clearly see murder as a political tool. But, Putin cannot be blamed for what Stalin did, the same way todays German politicians cannot be blamed for Hitler's actions.
Putin is drunk with power and money thanks to Russia's oil and gas reserves.
And the EU and USA is just slightly intoxicated with the power and money we got? You cannot blame Russia for grabbing the ressources and influence and power they have and use it for what it is worth.
The US has stated that they intend to put 10, yes, 10 interceptor missles in Poland. Since Russia has well over 1000 nuclear missles, this is just more of Putin's nonsense that such interceptor missles are a "threat" to Russia.
I am sure the USA will not mind if Russia puts 10, yes, 10 "interceptor" missles in Cuba, since USA has well over 1000 nuclear missles. These 10 missles will be used to protect Russia from hostile countries like Venezuela.
America decided to locate this shield in Poland and Czech.
Please Russia understand that You are Our "supervisor" no longer, we are independed countries and taking Our decisions Ourselves. lima
I don't think Poland and Czech knows the meaning of meaning of being independed nations yet. Don't blame you, you are well trained to do what you are told to do by the biggest bully around.
Conservation alone isn't a replacement for burning fossil fuels. Sure, it's a good idea for many reasons, but the fact remains that we need a source of energy that can maintain and improve our standard of living.
Conservation is another word for using our resources better, making both economically sense and possible to improve our standard of living.
Environmentalists argue that high standard of living and technological progress is mutually exclusive with good stewardship of the earth.
Bullshit.
They will never be taken seriously by enough people to make a difference until they abandon their pessimistic ludditism.
Pessimistic luddistism is people who think that taking care of the environment is mutually exclusive to good stewardship of the economy. It is of economic interest to take care of the environment, since pollution is just another word for wasted resources. It costs energy and resources to make pollution, since by definition it does not excist naturally in the environment. And it takes a toll on the local economy in an area when the pollution is just dumped in the neighbourhood. Of course, you can ship it somewhere else, but slowing down the economy there will at least not have a positive feedback.
It seems like MS has drunk too much of the FUD cool-aid. Linux is used, developed and of vital importance to some of the most powerful and resourceful corporations and nations in the world. Linux OS's play with complete open cards and anyone can download their code to "audit". Who the hell do they think they scare with their software patents?
Relevant Monthy Python sketch:
Sergeant Two civilian gentlemen to see you... sir! Colonel Show them in please, sergeant. Sergeant Mr Dino Vercotti and Mr Luigi Vercotti. The Vercotti brothers enter. They wear Mafia suits and dark glasses. Dino Good morning, colonel. Colonel Good morning gentlemen. Now what can I do for you. Luigi (looking round office casually)You've... you've got a nice army base here, colonel. Colonel Yes. Luigi We wouldn't want anything to happen to it. Colonel What? Dino No, what my brother means is it would be a shame if... (he knocks something off mantel) Colonel Oh. Dino Oh sorry, colonel. Colonel Well don't worry about that. But please do sit down. Luigi No, we prefer to stand, thank you, colonel. Colonel All right. All right. But what do you want? Dino What do we want, ha ha ha. Luigi Ha ha ha, very good, colonel. Dino The colonel's a joker, Luigi. Luigi Explain it to the colonel, Dino. Dino How many tanks you got, colonel? Colonel About five hundred altogether. Luigi Five hundred! Hey! Dino You ought to be careful, colonel. Colonel We are careful, extremely careful. Dino 'Cos things break, don't they? Colonel Break? Luigi Well everything breaks, don't it colonel. (he breaks something on desk) Oh dear. Dino Oh see my brother's clumsy colonel, and when he gets unhappy he breaks things. Like say, he don't feel the army's playing fair by him, he may start breaking things, colonel. Colonel What is all this about? Luigi How many men you got here, colonel? Colonel Oh, er... seven thousand infantry, six hundred artillery, and er, two divisions of paratroops. Luigi Paratroops, Dino. Dino Be a shame if someone was to set fire to them. Colonel Set fire to them? Luigi Fires happen, colonel. Dino Things burn. Colonel Look, what is all this about? Dino My brother and I have got a little proposition for you colonel. Luigi Could save you a lot of bother. Dino I mean you're doing all right here aren't you, colonel. Luigi Well suppose some of your tanks was to get broken and troops started getting lost, er, fights started breaking out during general inspection, like. Dino It wouldn't be good for business would it, colonel? Colonel Are you threatening me? Dino Oh, no, no, no. Luigi Whatever made you think that, colonel? Dino The colonel doesn't think we're nice people, Luigi. Luigi We're your buddies, colonel. Dino We want to look after you. Colonel Look after me? Luigi We can guarantee you that not a single armoured division will get done over for fifteen bob a week. Colonel No, no, no. Luigi Twelve and six. Colonel No, no, no. Luigi Eight and six... five bob...
Mind you, find a way to quickly and efficiently separate the carbon from the oxygen, install in long range space craft and you suddenly have near limitless air for deep space voyages.
I hope I am stating the obvious, but you cannot split CO2 with less energy than you got out when burning carbon (C) for energy in the first place. In other words, if you use carbon based fuel reacting with O2 there is nothing to win in splitting CO2, also in the case of space travel since you would need to bring the O2 with you.
I agree completely, it has PR written all over it. But then again, it is PR that might as well back-fire on Dell. If Ubuntu is good enough for their boss, why can't we buy it pre-installed from Dell? It is PR to make us linux-fanbois happy, but it can just as well makes us more vocal and bothersom.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess among the naive fools you find Goering, Milosevic, Taylor, and W. Bush. Of course, the frat boy Bush hasn't really paid the price yet, while the US has lost status morally and politically because of torture being done by CIA and US military. Only a naive fool believes that torturing suspect enemies do not have a price both economically and politically, while influencing directly the security of US citizens abroad and at home.
Do you think Bliar checked with the lawyers just for fun before the Iraq invation? Do you think commanders in the field don't know that one day there will be peace and maybe it would not look so good if it appeared in the papers that his troops raped those civilian girls? Do you think armies court martial soldiers for unlawful killings just to lose some pure killing machines? My interpretation is that any military knows that keeping to international laws and standards is good for moral, gives an advantage in the propaganda war and that a displined army is infinitely stronger than a bunch of random killers.
Heck, even al-quada justify their killings with their twisted interpretation of the Quaran; notice how bin laden replaces international law with his own sets of laws taken from a religious text to justify for his supporters and backers how al-quada is conducting their jihad (holy war).
It seems to be hard for naive fools to understand that diplomacy is not weakness, that international law exists because it is a win-win for nations, and that breaking international law has consequences even though there is no world police. The bully on the block maybe thinks that he will always be the strongest, but the smart guy knows that he needs friends and allies to get by and survive.
Your statement about Newton shows that you don't understand Newton or science. No need to attack me for pointing this simple fact out.
It is clear that your understanding of science is seriously lacking.
Specifically, Aristotle with his work on logic and work on biology, Platon with his idea of how eternal truths can be found through rational arguments, Democrit with his atoms, Archimidies with his scientific, technological and mathematical break-throughs, the pre-socrates with their thoughts about a fundamental material in the universe, Pythagoras and Euclid with their rigerous mathematical proves etc etc.
Archimedies was actually close to developing calculus before the birth of Christ without the god creature of Newton inspiring him, and A. developed static mechanics to perfection again without ever saying a prayer.
Also in social sciences the Greek were pioneers in establishing the scientific method with names like Thucydides.
Besides, it is hard to give any credit to the argument that Newton's work in physics and maths was helped by his naive interpretation of the Bible and his wasted hours looking for the Holy Graile. The fumes Newton inhaled because of alchemy probably reduced his abilities and was of course a total waste of time and effort. One of the mysteries of Newton is why such an intelligent man had such strange religious views.
And the newtonian revolution would not have been possible without giants like Gallileo and Kepler, neither who were overly religious.
Justice? Democracy was developed by the same un-Godly Greeks. They did not give women or slaves equal rights, but that cannot be claimed to be a Christian accomplishment either. If justice should be the key to modern science, maybe we should instead thank the Romans with their major achievements in law and building a law based society. The Romans did this before religion played any major party in their society. Actually, much of modern Christian thought about equality were developed by incorporating ideas of Platon (the atheist) and the Roman citizen Paul.
What the hell did they teach you in school?
This debate about illegal sharing of music files seem to be stuck in a loop. What suprices me is that some of the fundamental issues at hand does not seemed to be touched.
To try to make my point: Making a copy of music, CD or hardisk, is as the parent points out easy and "free". Before, it was expensive to own and operate the equipment that made music formates like LP. Today, it is dirty cheap to own a CD burner.
This scares the record companies that before had a monopoly on making music available and profitted handsomely on this. On the other hand, they are more than happy to profit handsomely on the fact that CDs are cheap to make. The record companies just don't want you to have access to the same technological advances that they profit from. There this huge effort to make it illegal to make back-up copies, copies for a friend, and to share music files on the net. To use the convinience and advantages of modern technology should be limited to corporations only according to this brilliant logic.
[rant]Not only that, but according to film industry, it should be their right to waste my time with 30 secs warnings before every bloody movie I want to watch on dvd's I legally have bought. And I am not allowed to buy dvd's when visiting the US and watching it in Europe.
The thing is, fair use is still the same. The technology is new and better, but companies will have to adjust to the fact that also consumers have right to share the advantages of new technology. Technology is not only developed for companies to profit more but for our everyday life to become better, at least according to my world view.
How do the record companies adjust their business model? Well, it is hard I know. Make CD's more valuable to buy with cool designs of packaging, music notation and lyrics included, nice pictures. In general, make the product more valuable than just the bits on the CD, because reproducing the bits is cheap and easy to do in this age and day. Make downloading more convinient from their own web-pages, make downloading in different qualities at different price ranges. Make money from other merchandise connected to bands they promote. Heck, what do I know. Just don't bite the hand that feeds them, the people who are interested enough in the music they produce to actually listen to it.
There are two responses to that. First, do you only think people who can afford it deserve to get proper medical treatment? It is not unreasonable, especially if you believe that people are as rich as they deserve (many USAians think so it seems, maybe God decides who has a rich daddy?). Still, I think many don't want people to die just to save a bit on the taxes. At least in Europe people in general accept to pay some extra taxes to also give health care to the poor.
Second, think a bit deeper about the math. Sure, you would save something on your taxes every year. This you could use to buy more stuff, become more happy maybe and it would improve your personal economy. But if you have a health system where the poor cannot afford proper health-care, they will at some point not be able to work. They will be a burden on the society through well-fare, or just left to die in some countries. These poor would probably have children they no longer could take care off, which is another resource lost for the GDP of the nation.
Worse, the middle class where you probably belong, cannot afford more advanced medical treatments. It is maybe no loss that middle class die younger or end up as poor because they cannot keep a proper job. But not being a socialist cry baby, in pure cash the nation loses out when an entrepneuric middle class citizen becomes sick and cannot afford to heal him or herself. Of course, most middle class can afford a private insurance (at least while they are healthy) to prepare them for worst case sickness. But isn't that just another tax?
To sum up, I think you can both make the humanistic argument and the capitalistic argument why any society needs to have affordable health service and have to accept that people who cannot pay the full price would need some subsidies from the tax money of you and me. It feels hard to seperate yourself from your tax money, but if the economy of your country sucks, you will probably not have much use for that extra cash anyway.
What does lying have to do with it?! If the review process is allowed to do its job and the competitive instinct between scientists are kept alive, lies are discovered. Of course, the conclusions drawn from findings in science is an human enterprise, but there are strict standards what are considered strong conclusions, standards developed over the last centuries of scientific discovery. The relativism from the USAian right about some of the main conclusions drawn from the different branches of science seems to have more to do with the liberal bias in the facts than the liberal bias in the scientists. (By the way, lying should not be the norm in politics either if the media does its job, but that is another sad story...)
And W. should do the introduction...
Wikipedia explains: States' rights as "code word"
The term "states' rights" has been used as a code word by defenders of segregation, and was the official name of the "Dixiecrat" party led by segregationist presidential candidate Strom Thurmond. George Wallace, the Alabama governor, who famously declared in his inaugural address, "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!", later remarked that he should have said, "States' rights now! States' rights tomorrow! States' rights forever!" Wallace, however, claimed that segregation was but one issue symbolic of a larger struggle for states' rights; in that view, which historians dispute, his replacement of segregation with states' rights would be more of a clarification than a euphemism.[5]
On the opening day of the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan declared, "I believe in states' rights" in a speech at Neshoba County fairgrounds near Philadelphia, Mississippi. Philadelphia was the site of the murders of three civil rights workers in 1964. Andrew Young, Bob Herbert and others believed that Reagan's choice of this location to give his states' rights speech constituted a veiled appeal to southern segregationists.[6][7]. Reagan's campaign staff, however, denied any connection.[8] At the same event, Strom Thurmond (who was by then a Republican senator from South Carolina), declared: "We want that federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states." Thurmond had been an ardent segregationist, although he publicly opposed segregation after 1970.
Feel sorry for Red Hat et al that have to compete against players who play such low hand tactics as court battles. RH's money should better be used to improve their product, but then again, their effort will help the whole FOSS community gaining business acceptance and standing.
Not being an eco-nazi like you who clearly thinks that Al Gore should live in a mut-hut, it is still comferting to know that most of the energy Al Gore uses is green/carbon neutral energy.
Al Gore lives as he preaches.
The probation office, as the president noted, recommended less time -- 15 to 21 months. But Mr. Bush, while claiming to "respect the jury's verdict," failed to explain why he moved from "excessive" to zero.
Aren't you forgetting that you guys lost in Iraq?
The US Army camps were build there after WWII when Germany was definitly dependent on the US (and Russia in East Germany). How more dependent can you be than being occupied? That the camps are still there, are because it is much harder to get rid of something once it is there, something for Poland to consider. Or put another way, it is a difficult excersise to get back sovereign control of land that you give to another country.
And the EU and USA is just slightly intoxicated with the power and money we got? You cannot blame Russia for grabbing the ressources and influence and power they have and use it for what it is worth.
I am sure the USA will not mind if Russia puts 10, yes, 10 "interceptor" missles in Cuba, since USA has well over 1000 nuclear missles. These 10 missles will be used to protect Russia from hostile countries like Venezuela.
I don't think Poland and Czech knows the meaning of meaning of being independed nations yet. Don't blame you, you are well trained to do what you are told to do by the biggest bully around.
Conservation is another word for using our resources better, making both economically sense and possible to improve our standard of living.
Bullshit.
Pessimistic luddistism is people who think that taking care of the environment is mutually exclusive to good stewardship of the economy. It is of economic interest to take care of the environment, since pollution is just another word for wasted resources. It costs energy and resources to make pollution, since by definition it does not excist naturally in the environment. And it takes a toll on the local economy in an area when the pollution is just dumped in the neighbourhood. Of course, you can ship it somewhere else, but slowing down the economy there will at least not have a positive feedback.
It seems like MS has drunk too much of the FUD cool-aid. Linux is used, developed and of vital importance to some of the most powerful and resourceful corporations and nations in the world. Linux OS's play with complete open cards and anyone can download their code to "audit". Who the hell do they think they scare with their software patents?
Relevant Monthy Python sketch:
Sergeant Two civilian gentlemen to see you ... sir! ... you've got a nice army base here, colonel. ... seven thousand infantry, six hundred artillery, and er, two divisions of paratroops. ... five bob...
Colonel Show them in please, sergeant.
Sergeant Mr Dino Vercotti and Mr Luigi Vercotti.
The Vercotti brothers enter. They wear Mafia suits and dark glasses.
Dino Good morning, colonel.
Colonel Good morning gentlemen. Now what can I do for you.
Luigi (looking round office casually)You've
Colonel Yes.
Luigi We wouldn't want anything to happen to it.
Colonel What?
Dino No, what my brother means is it would be a shame if... (he knocks something off mantel)
Colonel Oh.
Dino Oh sorry, colonel.
Colonel Well don't worry about that. But please do sit down.
Luigi No, we prefer to stand, thank you, colonel.
Colonel All right. All right. But what do you want?
Dino What do we want, ha ha ha.
Luigi Ha ha ha, very good, colonel.
Dino The colonel's a joker, Luigi.
Luigi Explain it to the colonel, Dino.
Dino How many tanks you got, colonel?
Colonel About five hundred altogether.
Luigi Five hundred! Hey!
Dino You ought to be careful, colonel.
Colonel We are careful, extremely careful.
Dino 'Cos things break, don't they?
Colonel Break?
Luigi Well everything breaks, don't it colonel. (he breaks something on desk) Oh dear.
Dino Oh see my brother's clumsy colonel, and when he gets unhappy he breaks things. Like say, he don't feel the army's playing fair by him, he may start breaking things, colonel.
Colonel What is all this about?
Luigi How many men you got here, colonel?
Colonel Oh, er
Luigi Paratroops, Dino.
Dino Be a shame if someone was to set fire to them.
Colonel Set fire to them?
Luigi Fires happen, colonel.
Dino Things burn.
Colonel Look, what is all this about?
Dino My brother and I have got a little proposition for you colonel.
Luigi Could save you a lot of bother.
Dino I mean you're doing all right here aren't you, colonel.
Luigi Well suppose some of your tanks was to get broken and troops started getting lost, er, fights started breaking out during general inspection, like.
Dino It wouldn't be good for business would it, colonel?
Colonel Are you threatening me?
Dino Oh, no, no, no.
Luigi Whatever made you think that, colonel?
Dino The colonel doesn't think we're nice people, Luigi.
Luigi We're your buddies, colonel.
Dino We want to look after you.
Colonel Look after me?
Luigi We can guarantee you that not a single armoured division will get done over for fifteen bob a week.
Colonel No, no, no.
Luigi Twelve and six.
Colonel No, no, no.
Luigi Eight and six
Statoil is already storing CO2 1000 meters below ground at Sleipner in the North Sea.
I hope I am stating the obvious, but you cannot split CO2 with less energy than you got out when burning carbon (C) for energy in the first place. In other words, if you use carbon based fuel reacting with O2 there is nothing to win in splitting CO2, also in the case of space travel since you would need to bring the O2 with you.
I agree completely, it has PR written all over it. But then again, it is PR that might as well back-fire on Dell. If Ubuntu is good enough for their boss, why can't we buy it pre-installed from Dell? It is PR to make us linux-fanbois happy, but it can just as well makes us more vocal and bothersom.