In The Netherlands, the removal fee first applied for cars starting from january 1st 1995; with the money they have created a very efficient recycling system, about 90% of a car is being recycled. This was considered as a big success and since january 1st 1999, dutch citizens have to pay the removal fee for consumer electronics as well.
The system is a little bit different, because in this case, the producer/importer has to take care of the recycling theirselves: all used goods will be returned to them through communal services and stores. So it's not like they pay a fee and get rid of the recycling problem of their products. You're right when you say they will think twice about how recyclable their products will be. On the other hand, it enables the problems discussed here previously. Producers can say they have a brand new recycling facility in Thailand, while it's just a field of grass intended to research the biodegradability of fridges! Once again, I think it's our own responsibility to reduce the size of the impact our junk has on the environment! That can be better obtained through a government-based recycling project funded through the removal fees, like the car-system in The Netherlands.
Just let the producers pay, give the authorities responsibility.
There is a bigger issue here: it's not like you can compare ie The United States to China.
As long as there is poverty somewhere in this world, people will do anything to get their hands on a little bit of money.. Look at battery recycling for instance. We Western people think it is a fair cause when we turn them in at some 'Greenpoint'; what we don't know is that at the same instance thousands of children are peeling apart those batteries. Heavy metals and small wages don't do any good for them except for the fact that they don't starve. The only thing we're compensating for is our own feeling of guilt when we see the environment in general going backwards.
It's not the fault of the governments in those countries: if they suddenly decide to fight against child labour and poor/unhealthy work-environments, multinationals who create these circumstances will move to another country that's not acting up against their cheapest way of production. Furthermore, those countries rely on this money: a big amount of their income per capita is through labour western corporations/employees wouldn't think of doing on their own turf.
So it's not the government (10% increase in unemployment: revolt!) and it's not the inhabitants (no choice, gotta eat). It's the mere fact that Western countries (including US!) don't have to pay that much money!
I don't deny the fact that a lot of countries don't take environmental problems very seriously, but I think you could do something about these problems if you have the money!
I just wanted to mention this Sega Megadrive game for its music, made by Yuzo Koshiro. As far as I'm concerned, this guy is a legend. Couldn't find much on VGmix though..
It doesn't matter whether there are possibilities to integrate the verification process: by stating that it is not possible, Blizzard made clear they are not up for the effort it takes to do so.
If they really considered the possibility (they did, covered in FAQ), they would've come up with this solution themselves.
Additional time has to be invested in the development of a secure tool and by providing extra means to authenticate, there will always be more leaks in the authentication as well.
For Blizzard this means less money.
Although we are limited as humans in our theoretical resources, there are strong indications that the chances for carbon-hydrogen based life on mars are bigger than for an unknown form. If you look at Mars' atmosphere, you see a 50x higher concentration of carbondioxide compared to earth. If you combine the fact that life needs some kind of energy (geothermal, sunlight) for its metabolic pathways, and that those sources for energy are available at places where water and carbondioxide are present, carbon-hydrogen based life seems to be the most plausible form. Because of the low temperatures on the surface there is a bigger chance for finding some kind of subterranean thermophilic lifeform than anything on the surface. The chance is very small however; therefore, I think it's more important that the presence of water enables us to create colonies on Mars in the near future: water can be used as a source of energy and offcourse to quench our thirst..
Anti-matter serves the same purpose as matter. Since matter and anti-matter are thought to be formed through the Big Bang, the best possible application, if we're able to control it properly, would be to generate the energy that's stored in the matter/anti-matter 'cleavage'. This is only possible, however, if theoreticists are right about the reversibility of the Big Bang.
As said in the article, the first step is to reduce the number of flies drastically by using pesticides. Depending on the sort of pesticide (resistance) and the geographical situation (exchange of flies between different populations), a fraction of the flies might survive and keep the fly-population from being exterminated.
Theoretically, subsequent release of sterile flies will eventually do the job right permanently.
A bigger concern however is the use of the pesticide: in order to let this strategy succeed, they will have to use a very big amount of hardcore pesticide. The release of vast amounts of a very toxic compound will not only affect insects, but also plants and even mammals.
Ecological impact of the disabled flies won't be that big, unless the flies have a grudge for mankind because of their impotency..
Slashdot Mirror
..going offtopic! Why mod me down then? :)
In The Netherlands, the removal fee first applied for cars starting from january 1st 1995; with the money they have created a very efficient recycling system, about 90% of a car is being recycled. This was considered as a big success and since january 1st 1999, dutch citizens have to pay the removal fee for consumer electronics as well. The system is a little bit different, because in this case, the producer/importer has to take care of the recycling theirselves: all used goods will be returned to them through communal services and stores. So it's not like they pay a fee and get rid of the recycling problem of their products. You're right when you say they will think twice about how recyclable their products will be. On the other hand, it enables the problems discussed here previously. Producers can say they have a brand new recycling facility in Thailand, while it's just a field of grass intended to research the biodegradability of fridges! Once again, I think it's our own responsibility to reduce the size of the impact our junk has on the environment! That can be better obtained through a government-based recycling project funded through the removal fees, like the car-system in The Netherlands. Just let the producers pay, give the authorities responsibility.
There is a bigger issue here: it's not like you can compare ie The United States to China. As long as there is poverty somewhere in this world, people will do anything to get their hands on a little bit of money.. Look at battery recycling for instance. We Western people think it is a fair cause when we turn them in at some 'Greenpoint'; what we don't know is that at the same instance thousands of children are peeling apart those batteries. Heavy metals and small wages don't do any good for them except for the fact that they don't starve. The only thing we're compensating for is our own feeling of guilt when we see the environment in general going backwards. It's not the fault of the governments in those countries: if they suddenly decide to fight against child labour and poor/unhealthy work-environments, multinationals who create these circumstances will move to another country that's not acting up against their cheapest way of production. Furthermore, those countries rely on this money: a big amount of their income per capita is through labour western corporations/employees wouldn't think of doing on their own turf. So it's not the government (10% increase in unemployment: revolt!) and it's not the inhabitants (no choice, gotta eat). It's the mere fact that Western countries (including US!) don't have to pay that much money! I don't deny the fact that a lot of countries don't take environmental problems very seriously, but I think you could do something about these problems if you have the money!
I just wanted to mention this Sega Megadrive game for its music, made by Yuzo Koshiro. As far as I'm concerned, this guy is a legend. Couldn't find much on VGmix though..
It doesn't matter whether there are possibilities to integrate the verification process: by stating that it is not possible, Blizzard made clear they are not up for the effort it takes to do so. If they really considered the possibility (they did, covered in FAQ), they would've come up with this solution themselves. Additional time has to be invested in the development of a secure tool and by providing extra means to authenticate, there will always be more leaks in the authentication as well. For Blizzard this means less money.
Although we are limited as humans in our theoretical resources, there are strong indications that the chances for carbon-hydrogen based life on mars are bigger than for an unknown form. If you look at Mars' atmosphere, you see a 50x higher concentration of carbondioxide compared to earth. If you combine the fact that life needs some kind of energy (geothermal, sunlight) for its metabolic pathways, and that those sources for energy are available at places where water and carbondioxide are present, carbon-hydrogen based life seems to be the most plausible form. Because of the low temperatures on the surface there is a bigger chance for finding some kind of subterranean thermophilic lifeform than anything on the surface.
The chance is very small however; therefore, I think it's more important that the presence of water enables us to create colonies on Mars in the near future: water can be used as a source of energy and offcourse to quench our thirst..
Anti-matter serves the same purpose as matter. Since matter and anti-matter are thought to be formed through the Big Bang, the best possible application, if we're able to control it properly, would be to generate the energy that's stored in the matter/anti-matter 'cleavage'. This is only possible, however, if theoreticists are right about the reversibility of the Big Bang.
Isn't this offtopic? ;)
As said in the article, the first step is to reduce the number of flies drastically by using pesticides. Depending on the sort of pesticide (resistance) and the geographical situation (exchange of flies between different populations), a fraction of the flies might survive and keep the fly-population from being exterminated. Theoretically, subsequent release of sterile flies will eventually do the job right permanently. A bigger concern however is the use of the pesticide: in order to let this strategy succeed, they will have to use a very big amount of hardcore pesticide. The release of vast amounts of a very toxic compound will not only affect insects, but also plants and even mammals. Ecological impact of the disabled flies won't be that big, unless the flies have a grudge for mankind because of their impotency..