Actually, this is just about Toshiba buying the Westinghouse nuclear unit. The current owner of this unit is a British company.
The rest of the old Westinghouse has been gone for many years. When you see a new "Westinghouse" consumer product, such as a lcd television, that's a separate individual or company that purchased the right to use the brand name in a certain product area, and then contracted with an asian manufacturer to produce the product.
The same point is true of "Polaroid" lcd televisions; an investor bought the right to use the brand name for electronic products at Polaroids bankruptcy auction, and then contracts with asian manufacturers to bring in product.
Somewhat off topic, but there is a famous invention where it really mattered who filed the patent first; the telephone.
As I recall, both Alexander Graham Bell and one other person (I forget the name, but he was involved with founding Western Union) filed a patent for a telephone on the same day. Bell's filing was a few hours earlier than the other.
There were legal battles for a number of years about actual ownership, and who was actually allowed to sell phones. Eventually Bell won. I think the legal battles were partly responsible for the founding of AT Bell needed capital to pay his legal bills.
I imagine it would be similar to how Russia handled the "tourist" low earth orbit flights. While there would be a limited medical test, the big requirement is to spend a few months before the flight training with the rest of the crew.
iirc, the Russian space agency rejected a "tourist" flight for one person because he wasn't serious during training.
To add a little historical perspective, local governments have frequently used eminent domain for commercial purposes.
An example from the 1950's is when the Brooklyn Dodgers wanted to move to Los Angeles. The area in Los Angeles where the Dodgers wanted to build a stadium (which is privately owned by the team; it isn't a public stadium), Chavez Ravine (sp?) had a number of private homes. A number of owners refused to sell to the team. So the Dodgers worked with the Los Angeles city goverment to take the property via eminent domain; which the team subsequently purchased. The Los Angeles city government also gave the team some short term tax help.
I'm curious... A year or so ago someone found a letter from AT&T (written years before SCO had its present ownership) that they said explicitly disclaimed the strange contract interpretation that SCO is basing its whole case on. Has that come up in court yet?
Also, iirc one of the packages that the idiots at SCO are complaining about (jfs?) was written first for OS/2. Then it was ported separately to aix & linux. That really sounds like a reach to me to call it a derivative work...
Actually, there are two numbers reported as the federal debt. One number includes just publically issued treasury bonds and the like. The publically reported budget deficit is basically just the extent that number grows in a budget year. This is also the number relevant to the official federal budget "debt ceiling".
Many government funds are not included in this number. These are basically all cases where one part of the federal government will eventually owe another part of the federal government money. These include Social Security, the various highway funds (e.g., the US gasoline tax), some pension funds (from railroad "rescues" in the 60's and 70's).
These funds are included in separate federal deficit & debt numbers that aren't heavily reported in the media. IIRC, taking the Clinton budgets as an example, 5 of his 8 budgets showed a surplus. But if you looked at the bigger number, including the Social Security, etc. "debts", then only 1 or 2 budgets showed a surplus for that year.
Among the things done in the early 1980's "rescue" of Social Security was to increase tax rates approximately 20% more than was needed to meet ongoing obligations. The goal was to build up a surplus to meet the demands of the 'baby boomer' generation when it retired. This was done because they didn't think that the working population of 2020, 2030, etc. would support the otherwise necessary large Social Security tax increases to fund Social Security payments to retiring "baby boomers".
That surplus is technically still there. You can argue about whether it is sufficient, whether it will last long enough, etc. But that surplus is why the official statements are that the present setup is fine until sometime in the 2030's or 2040's.
However, it's interesting to look at the funds behind that "surplus" account. It consists mainly of (effectively) bookkeeping entries saying that the federal general fund owes the social security fund a large amount of money. This is because ALL of the "surplus" Social Security dollars that weren't immediately used to pay ongoing obligations were transferred to the federal general fund, where they were spent for general federal purposes. The surplus Social Security monies were not saved or invested. The monies owed to the Social Security fund by the federal general fund are also not reported as a part of the normal federal deficit.
So once the Social Security fund starts depending on funds from the "surplus" account, it will in effect be presenting bills to the rest of the federal government. The federal government will then have to (a) cut spending enough to find the money, (b) raise taxes, (c) cut Social Security benefits, (d) run bigger official deficits, or (e) some combination...
There were lawmakers at the time who saw this problem coming and pleaded to keep Social Security a separate fund (one example was Patrick Moynihan from New York) but nothing ever came of that.
Another factor is that the "baby boomer" generation was followed by what's called in some reports the "baby bust" generation. I've seen some reports that claim that at least in some jobs, if the "baby boomer" generation retires in masse at age 65, for a while there will be real problems getting people with enough experience to fill vacated positions.
If you couple that, for example, with statements made by some Democratic staff members during the early 80's hearings on Social Security, that 65 was picked as the retirement age solely because that was the average life expectancy. So you could Social Security problems by just raising the retirement age... And if that encourages people to work longer and mask any employment problem, so much the better.... (at least in the thinking of some lawmakers...)
In that line, one idea I've had is that there should be some small financial incentive for users to take some security steps.
For example, if I ran an ISP, I might have a basic price that applied if the net connection was made through a separate firewall system (whether a separate system, or one of the commercial Linksys, Netgear, etc. boxes). Users that didn't run a separate firewall system would pay maybe 10% more a month.
It's definitely not perfect, but it would be an extra roadblock in front of internet criminals.
First, you need to create some political "capital" that people are willing to look at this issue. A problem so far is that in the publications, media, etc. seen by the majority of this country, they see exactly two types of stories:
1. A story with claims that this is a problem, and needs to be solved. No real details; no background info, etc. is given; the tone is similar to a church sermon.
2. A story saying that there is no problem, or no worldwide problem (e.g., something similar to the Rush Limbaugh, etc. stories)
What is needed are intelligently written articles, giving background information, and saying why the current conclusions have been reached. They should be written for people with non scientific backgrounds. There should be no preaching. The articles should intelligently cover topices like:
Temperature changes. Show that temperature changes won't affect each area on the planet equally. Show real data; show what historical data we have. Recognize that some data (like temperature history at US reporting stations) might be affected more by "urban heat island" growth rather than by any greenhouse effects.
As there are known periods in the planets past with warming, say what we think we know about what happened then.
Talk about different things that can affect temperatures. Talk about urban heat islands. Talk about energy from the sun (is it going up?). Talk about volcanism effects. Talk about greenhouse changes.
If the premise is that the main component of current changes is greenhouse gases, say what is known. If we have any information on past average atmosphere mixtures to current time, show those. If we have that info for different areas on the planet, show those.
Talk about what can be done. You can bring up the Kyoto Treaty, but talk about positive & negative parts. Could it have any practical effect whatsover? Is it just symbolic? If it had a short term economic impact, would it help long term?
And above all, try not to force a conclusion on the reader; let the readers come to their own conclusions.
Trying to teach always works better than frenzied preaching.
Actually, if you just look at the total estimated greenhouse gas production (what the Kyoto Treaty is about) per country, China is the worst polluter.
If you use per capita data, becaue of China's giant
population, China heads down the list. I think that on a per capita basis, the US is probably still highest.
Note that nothing says they can't make the per-mile tax dependant on say, the empty weight of the car (on the principle that heavier cars put more wear & tear on the road).
If that's done, then a heavier vehicle like a Hummer would still pay more taxes than a lighter car like a Prius.
Actually, if you can get a sufficient number of signatures from current employees on a petition for union membership, and get that petition filed with the National Labor Relations Board (I think that's the correct title...) before the employer knows any details, a union representation election will be forced. Any firings after that time, and before the election will be given extra scrutiny, and can result in sanctions against the employer. And if the majority of current employees vote for the union, it's in.
Of course, afterwards there's still the matter of negotiating a contract....
That was "supposed" to have changed somewhat in the early 1980's....
A bit over twenty years ago, the Social Security "fund" was close to going dry (e.g., negative). There was a lot of heated political discussion; much with the typical Democrat -> Republican bashing, but they ended up raising Social Security taxes and starting a small, very slowly phased in increase in the default retirement age.
They also realized that when the baby boom generation started retiring there would be a problem. They did not thing that young people twenty - thirty years down the line (e.g., about now) would support Social Security tax increases big enough to keep Social Security on a pay as you go basis.
So back in the early eighties, Social Security taxes were raised roughly 20% higher than was needed at the time just to keep the system on a pay as you go basis. The idea then was that that surplus would be used down the line to pay part of the baby boomer generation retirement costs.
A big problem though was that they did NOT change how Social Security tax income is used and spent by the federal government. The Social Security system is part of the general federal budget. ALL Social Security income goes directly into the federal budget, after making what is basically an IOU entry, saying that the federal budget "owes" that money back to Social Security. All the Social Security money though is spent; if it doesn't go out as benefits it's used for other federal programs.
Former Democratic Senator Patrick Moynihan (spelling?) gave a speech on Senate floor warning that this would eventually cause problems. He was ignored.
The same issue has come up a few times since then. There were two proposals during the Clinton administration; one was that the general fund should pay a small fixed interest rate on Social Security "surplus" monies (more bookkeeping entries; no real money), or if the general fund spent Social Security "surplus" monies, count it twice (e.g., if it spent $1 of "surplus" money, make a bookkeeping entry to eventually pay back $2). I think the interest rate proposal may have passed.
So the Social Security "surplus" has basically just helped the general budgets of all administrations since the early 1980's. Note that the money "owed" to the Social Security fund (and other funds, like all the railroad pension systems taken over by the federal government) is not reported as part of the public national debt. If it was, for example, only one or two of the Clinton administration budgets would have shown a surplus.
The big problem is going to come sometime after 2010, when the bulk of the baby boomer generation starts to retire. The Social Security fund will start asking the general fund to "repay" the surplus. Initially it will be able to do so. But eventually, there is going to be a huge pressure on deficits. (And note that when you hear Social Security people saying that the problem date is in the 2030's or 2040's, those people are assuming that the federal general fund will pay back every "surplus" dollar that it spent).
So there is going to be pressure to either...
Raise taxes (which in the early 1980's, they thought would be politically impossible). And note that the number of millionaire and above is still, in a relative sense, small. You could confiscate all of their available cash, and not make a real dent. Tax increases have to reach to at least the upper middle class to generate any significant income for the federal government.
Raise the retirement age further. (Maybe even as far as a staff member of a Democratic member of congress suggested back in the early 1980's; e.g. 65 was originally picked because that was the average lifetime. The staff member suggested raising the retirement age to whatever the current average lifetime is...)
Change the benefit structure... (e.g., means testing)
iirc from news articles of the time, when the Kyoto treaty was first proposed, China was estimated to be the second biggest greenhouse gas producer. By now, it was estimated that China is the biggest producer. Of course, when looked at on a per capita basis because of Chinas much bigger population, it's smaller on a per capita basis.
The Russian politics behind their recent approval has everything to do with the state of their economy (because of much reduced factory activity, their greenhouse gas emissions is down significantly); they can sell credits to countries over the limit. It's estimated that Russia will earn billions of dollars selling credits. Without the money, it wouldn't have passed.
The best way to get the US citizenry as a whole behind reducing greenhouse emissions is to stop "screaming" do what you're told to or your an idiot, or in the pay of special interests. Instead, treat them with more respect; write articles; do television shows, etc. aimed at people with a high school education with intelligent discussions of...
Why people think the average Earth temperature is increasing. Show evidence, and show more than just graphs of US weather bureau temperatures. This is especially important if you want to make the case that the temperature rise is caused by greenhouse gases; in local urban areas, which is where most US weather bureau stations are located, there are other warming factors like the "urban heat island effect". (It's estimated, for example, that if you stood on the Las Vegas strip on the hottest day in summer you'd feel 2-3 degrees more heat solely from human activities (roads, buildings, etc) than if Las Vegas had never happened. That's the "urban heat island effect".
Show evidence for rising levels of greenhouse gases. Use as much historical evidence as available.
Discuss why scientists think greenhouse gases are the major cause. Look (without prejudice) at other possible effects; the sun output levels, volcanism (both above and below water), etc. Give real evidence why these shouldn't be considered.
Intelligently why you think the scientists that think there is no general warming (and their are some) are wrong.
Then you can give some intelligent discussion about what could be done. Say why you think the Kyoto treaty could help (or if you think the treaty is more of a political statement that won't directly do anything or help anything, say so).
To reiterate, don't preach; have respect for your audience. Don't fall into stereotypes; try to generate intelligent discussion.
From what I've seen in my life, American politics works best when there is reasonable discussion between the two sides. But when one or the other side says, in essence, "We know we're right; your only choice is to do what you're told"; it gets very inefficient.
Actually, what happened is that your sons address got caught up in one of the laundering schemes that spammer gangs use to try to "clean" their dirty addresses (obtained from web spyders, dictonary attacks, etc.) into "supposedly" opted-in addresses.
There are documented cases where spammers would hire morons off the street to take lists of addresses; sign them up for different mailing lists; and then claim that the addresses are "legimately" opted-in to their con job campaigns.
Now, they have programs that can do that automatically. And they don't care what lists they sign up the addresses to. If an address stays visible long enough, it will probably start receiving Chinese spam (as an example).
The other possibility, of course, if that the "owner" of those Spanish mailing lists also doesn't care; they just are broadcasting as wide as possible, hoping to hook some suckers.
To be technical, a atatement by one presidential candidate to another candidate that the other candidate has probably won, and offering congratulations, has no legal meaning.
If the extremely improbably happened (Kerry getting a margin of >90% in all valid provisional & overseas absentee ballots), Kerry would still win Ohio and the election.
I may have some information on SAGE... if I remember acronyms correctly, that was the first system developed for NORAD (North American Air Defence Command) by SDC (System Development Corporation). I was an SDC employee in the late 70's to early 80's and I still have the book published by SDC in the early 80's with the company history.
I do remember there were displays in the SDC buildings about them building the first non-research time sharing system; the first commercial entity to run classes to teach programming, etc. If I heard correctly, those buildings in Santa Monica are long gone now, and I doubt that Burroughs/Unisys (the ultimate purchaser of SDC) would have kept those displays.
There also was an early timesharing (in the sense of multiple displays; etc.) system called "Ursa Minor" developed at UCLA for their IBM/360 system. That was well entrenched for teaching purposes at UCLA in the early 70's; I think it was developed in the late 60's.
There are some devices that would be impractical UNLESS there was some guaranteed consistency in spectrum usage between states. Examples are cell phones, 802.11 wireless access, wireless home phones, radios, televisions, etc. You don't want to replace (or if you're lucky, reconfigure) devices using rf frequencies every time you cross a state line.
And there are many situations where you have to have transmissions cross state lines. Radio/TV stations in a city near the border in one state, that serve citizens of the adjacent state, is just one simple example.
Actually, you can still control most XM radio receivers via a computer; save streams to disk to do time shifting, etc. You're just forced to use an IR interface, rather than the direct USB interface. I imagine it wouldn't be that hard to figure out the IR codes sent by the XM remote.
Of course, you'd lose the information about what channels are there, what's currently playing, etc.
It's too bad if this sticks. I did a simple forwarder/transcoder that lets you control a xmpcr from a Tivo HMO; with the audio coming out from the Tivo.
Actually, you can argue that mythtv isn't "really" totally free...
The last I heard, to get listing in North America, you were supposed to join a research project of zap2it that would send out mandantory surveys every so often... (or go back and try to fix xmltv's web page scraper to keep up with changes...)
My preference would be to pay something each month to get listings in a fixed, reliable format.
The actual statement in the article was "as low as $50". That suggests a range of products; the low end of the range wouild likely be flash memory based.
A bit more on the 16th admendment... The basic "need" for it is the desire of government for a progressive income tax; e.g. a system where there are different income tax rates; depending on the amount of income. In general, the higher the income, the higher the official tax rate. Politicians being politicians, the higher rates can be offset by loopholes....
The first progressive income tax system was created in the 1860's to (partially) fund the civil war. Relatively soon afterwards it was declared unconstitutional; that the constitution as it stood required the same taxation rules for all citizens (e.g. a flat tax rate). The government had a big need for money again in the early 1900's; so it forced through the 16th admendment.
Some people claim that the vote in the final state that ratified the admendment was rigged. In my opinion that's pointless; if they ever managed to get a court to try to overturn it, a new admendment would go through within days. Government at all levels is too dependent on it.
Note also that SCO doesn't own the trademark "Unix"; doesn't own the right to define what "Unix" is, etc. That was never sold by AT they assigned those "rights" to The Open Group (iirc). Unless they've done some very recent updates to their own products, they aren't even compliant with current Unix standards.
Between the multiple Posix standardization efforts, the C & C++ standardization efforts, etc. the entire definitions of "Unix" is effectively open anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
The rest of the old Westinghouse has been gone for many years. When you see a new "Westinghouse" consumer product, such as a lcd television, that's a separate individual or company that purchased the right to use the brand name in a certain product area, and then contracted with an asian manufacturer to produce the product.
The same point is true of "Polaroid" lcd televisions; an investor bought the right to use the brand name for electronic products at Polaroids bankruptcy auction, and then contracts with asian manufacturers to bring in product.
As I recall, both Alexander Graham Bell and one other person (I forget the name, but he was involved with founding Western Union) filed a patent for a telephone on the same day. Bell's filing was a few hours earlier than the other.
There were legal battles for a number of years about actual ownership, and who was actually allowed to sell phones. Eventually Bell won. I think the legal battles were partly responsible for the founding of AT Bell needed capital to pay his legal bills.
iirc, the Russian space agency rejected a "tourist" flight for one person because he wasn't serious during training.
An example from the 1950's is when the Brooklyn Dodgers wanted to move to Los Angeles. The area in Los Angeles where the Dodgers wanted to build a stadium (which is privately owned by the team; it isn't a public stadium), Chavez Ravine (sp?) had a number of private homes. A number of owners refused to sell to the team. So the Dodgers worked with the Los Angeles city goverment to take the property via eminent domain; which the team subsequently purchased. The Los Angeles city government also gave the team some short term tax help.
Also, iirc one of the packages that the idiots at SCO are complaining about (jfs?) was written first for OS/2. Then it was ported separately to aix & linux. That really sounds like a reach to me to call it a derivative work...
Many government funds are not included in this number. These are basically all cases where one part of the federal government will eventually owe another part of the federal government money. These include Social Security, the various highway funds (e.g., the US gasoline tax), some pension funds (from railroad "rescues" in the 60's and 70's).
These funds are included in separate federal deficit & debt numbers that aren't heavily reported in the media. IIRC, taking the Clinton budgets as an example, 5 of his 8 budgets showed a surplus. But if you looked at the bigger number, including the Social Security, etc. "debts", then only 1 or 2 budgets showed a surplus for that year.
That surplus is technically still there. You can argue about whether it is sufficient, whether it will last long enough, etc. But that surplus is why the official statements are that the present setup is fine until sometime in the 2030's or 2040's.
However, it's interesting to look at the funds behind that "surplus" account. It consists mainly of (effectively) bookkeeping entries saying that the federal general fund owes the social security fund a large amount of money. This is because ALL of the "surplus" Social Security dollars that weren't immediately used to pay ongoing obligations were transferred to the federal general fund, where they were spent for general federal purposes. The surplus Social Security monies were not saved or invested. The monies owed to the Social Security fund by the federal general fund are also not reported as a part of the normal federal deficit.
So once the Social Security fund starts depending on funds from the "surplus" account, it will in effect be presenting bills to the rest of the federal government. The federal government will then have to (a) cut spending enough to find the money, (b) raise taxes, (c) cut Social Security benefits, (d) run bigger official deficits, or (e) some combination...
There were lawmakers at the time who saw this problem coming and pleaded to keep Social Security a separate fund (one example was Patrick Moynihan from New York) but nothing ever came of that.
Another factor is that the "baby boomer" generation was followed by what's called in some reports the "baby bust" generation. I've seen some reports that claim that at least in some jobs, if the "baby boomer" generation retires in masse at age 65, for a while there will be real problems getting people with enough experience to fill vacated positions.
If you couple that, for example, with statements made by some Democratic staff members during the early 80's hearings on Social Security, that 65 was picked as the retirement age solely because that was the average life expectancy. So you could Social Security problems by just raising the retirement age... And if that encourages people to work longer and mask any employment problem, so much the better.... (at least in the thinking of some lawmakers...)
For example, if I ran an ISP, I might have a basic price that applied if the net connection was made through a separate firewall system (whether a separate system, or one of the commercial Linksys, Netgear, etc. boxes). Users that didn't run a separate firewall system would pay maybe 10% more a month.
It's definitely not perfect, but it would be an extra roadblock in front of internet criminals.
1. A story with claims that this is a problem, and needs to be solved. No real details; no background info, etc. is given; the tone is similar to a church sermon.
2. A story saying that there is no problem, or no worldwide problem (e.g., something similar to the Rush Limbaugh, etc. stories)
What is needed are intelligently written articles, giving background information, and saying why the current conclusions have been reached. They should be written for people with non scientific backgrounds. There should be no preaching. The articles should intelligently cover topices like:
Temperature changes. Show that temperature changes won't affect each area on the planet equally. Show real data; show what historical data we have. Recognize that some data (like temperature history at US reporting stations) might be affected more by "urban heat island" growth rather than by any greenhouse effects.
As there are known periods in the planets past with warming, say what we think we know about what happened then.
Talk about different things that can affect temperatures. Talk about urban heat islands. Talk about energy from the sun (is it going up?). Talk about volcanism effects. Talk about greenhouse changes.
If the premise is that the main component of current changes is greenhouse gases, say what is known. If we have any information on past average atmosphere mixtures to current time, show those. If we have that info for different areas on the planet, show those.
Talk about what can be done. You can bring up the Kyoto Treaty, but talk about positive & negative parts. Could it have any practical effect whatsover? Is it just symbolic? If it had a short term economic impact, would it help long term?
And above all, try not to force a conclusion on the reader; let the readers come to their own conclusions.
Trying to teach always works better than frenzied preaching.
If you use per capita data, becaue of China's giant population, China heads down the list. I think that on a per capita basis, the US is probably still highest.
If that's done, then a heavier vehicle like a Hummer would still pay more taxes than a lighter car like a Prius.
Of course, afterwards there's still the matter of negotiating a contract....
A bit over twenty years ago, the Social Security "fund" was close to going dry (e.g., negative). There was a lot of heated political discussion; much with the typical Democrat -> Republican bashing, but they ended up raising Social Security taxes and starting a small, very slowly phased in increase in the default retirement age.
They also realized that when the baby boom generation started retiring there would be a problem. They did not thing that young people twenty - thirty years down the line (e.g., about now) would support Social Security tax increases big enough to keep Social Security on a pay as you go basis.
So back in the early eighties, Social Security taxes were raised roughly 20% higher than was needed at the time just to keep the system on a pay as you go basis. The idea then was that that surplus would be used down the line to pay part of the baby boomer generation retirement costs.
A big problem though was that they did NOT change how Social Security tax income is used and spent by the federal government. The Social Security system is part of the general federal budget. ALL Social Security income goes directly into the federal budget, after making what is basically an IOU entry, saying that the federal budget "owes" that money back to Social Security. All the Social Security money though is spent; if it doesn't go out as benefits it's used for other federal programs.
Former Democratic Senator Patrick Moynihan (spelling?) gave a speech on Senate floor warning that this would eventually cause problems. He was ignored.
The same issue has come up a few times since then. There were two proposals during the Clinton administration; one was that the general fund should pay a small fixed interest rate on Social Security "surplus" monies (more bookkeeping entries; no real money), or if the general fund spent Social Security "surplus" monies, count it twice (e.g., if it spent $1 of "surplus" money, make a bookkeeping entry to eventually pay back $2). I think the interest rate proposal may have passed.
So the Social Security "surplus" has basically just helped the general budgets of all administrations since the early 1980's. Note that the money "owed" to the Social Security fund (and other funds, like all the railroad pension systems taken over by the federal government) is not reported as part of the public national debt. If it was, for example, only one or two of the Clinton administration budgets would have shown a surplus.
The big problem is going to come sometime after 2010, when the bulk of the baby boomer generation starts to retire. The Social Security fund will start asking the general fund to "repay" the surplus. Initially it will be able to do so. But eventually, there is going to be a huge pressure on deficits. (And note that when you hear Social Security people saying that the problem date is in the 2030's or 2040's, those people are assuming that the federal general fund will pay back every "surplus" dollar that it spent).
So there is going to be pressure to either...
Raise taxes (which in the early 1980's, they thought would be politically impossible). And note that the number of millionaire and above is still, in a relative sense, small. You could confiscate all of their available cash, and not make a real dent. Tax increases have to reach to at least the upper middle class to generate any significant income for the federal government.
Raise the retirement age further. (Maybe even as far as a staff member of a Democratic member of congress suggested back in the early 1980's; e.g. 65 was originally picked because that was the average lifetime. The staff member suggested raising the retirement age to whatever the current average lifetime is...)
Change the benefit structure... (e.g., means testing)
Or some combination...
iirc from news articles of the time, when the Kyoto treaty was first proposed, China was estimated to be the second biggest greenhouse gas producer. By now, it was estimated that China is the biggest producer. Of course, when looked at on a per capita basis because of Chinas much bigger population, it's smaller on a per capita basis.
The Russian politics behind their recent approval has everything to do with the state of their economy (because of much reduced factory activity, their greenhouse gas emissions is down significantly); they can sell credits to countries over the limit. It's estimated that Russia will earn billions of dollars selling credits. Without the money, it wouldn't have passed.
The best way to get the US citizenry as a whole behind reducing greenhouse emissions is to stop "screaming" do what you're told to or your an idiot, or in the pay of special interests. Instead, treat them with more respect; write articles; do television shows, etc. aimed at people with a high school education with intelligent discussions of...
Why people think the average Earth temperature is increasing. Show evidence, and show more than just graphs of US weather bureau temperatures. This is especially important if you want to make the case that the temperature rise is caused by greenhouse gases; in local urban areas, which is where most US weather bureau stations are located, there are other warming factors like the "urban heat island effect". (It's estimated, for example, that if you stood on the Las Vegas strip on the hottest day in summer you'd feel 2-3 degrees more heat solely from human activities (roads, buildings, etc) than if Las Vegas had never happened. That's the "urban heat island effect".
Show evidence for rising levels of greenhouse gases. Use as much historical evidence as available.
Discuss why scientists think greenhouse gases are the major cause. Look (without prejudice) at other possible effects; the sun output levels, volcanism (both above and below water), etc. Give real evidence why these shouldn't be considered.
Intelligently why you think the scientists that think there is no general warming (and their are some) are wrong.
Then you can give some intelligent discussion about what could be done. Say why you think the Kyoto treaty could help (or if you think the treaty is more of a political statement that won't directly do anything or help anything, say so).
To reiterate, don't preach; have respect for your audience. Don't fall into stereotypes; try to generate intelligent discussion.
From what I've seen in my life, American politics works best when there is reasonable discussion between the two sides. But when one or the other side says, in essence, "We know we're right; your only choice is to do what you're told"; it gets very inefficient.
There are documented cases where spammers would hire morons off the street to take lists of addresses; sign them up for different mailing lists; and then claim that the addresses are "legimately" opted-in to their con job campaigns.
Now, they have programs that can do that automatically. And they don't care what lists they sign up the addresses to. If an address stays visible long enough, it will probably start receiving Chinese spam (as an example).
The other possibility, of course, if that the "owner" of those Spanish mailing lists also doesn't care; they just are broadcasting as wide as possible, hoping to hook some suckers.
If the extremely improbably happened (Kerry getting a margin of >90% in all valid provisional & overseas absentee ballots), Kerry would still win Ohio and the election.
I do remember there were displays in the SDC buildings about them building the first non-research time sharing system; the first commercial entity to run classes to teach programming, etc. If I heard correctly, those buildings in Santa Monica are long gone now, and I doubt that Burroughs/Unisys (the ultimate purchaser of SDC) would have kept those displays.
There also was an early timesharing (in the sense of multiple displays; etc.) system called "Ursa Minor" developed at UCLA for their IBM/360 system. That was well entrenched for teaching purposes at UCLA in the early 70's; I think it was developed in the late 60's.
And there are many situations where you have to have transmissions cross state lines. Radio/TV stations in a city near the border in one state, that serve citizens of the adjacent state, is just one simple example.
Of course, you'd lose the information about what channels are there, what's currently playing, etc.
It's too bad if this sticks. I did a simple forwarder/transcoder that lets you control a xmpcr from a Tivo HMO; with the audio coming out from the Tivo.
The last I heard, to get listing in North America, you were supposed to join a research project of zap2it that would send out mandantory surveys every so often... (or go back and try to fix xmltv's web page scraper to keep up with changes...)
My preference would be to pay something each month to get listings in a fixed, reliable format.
I played with ifile at one time...
The actual statement in the article was "as low as $50". That suggests a range of products; the low end of the range wouild likely be flash memory based.
There's definitely one state (Oregon) that doesn't have a sales tax. And I think there's at least one other (New Hampshire?).
The first progressive income tax system was created in the 1860's to (partially) fund the civil war. Relatively soon afterwards it was declared unconstitutional; that the constitution as it stood required the same taxation rules for all citizens (e.g. a flat tax rate). The government had a big need for money again in the early 1900's; so it forced through the 16th admendment.
Some people claim that the vote in the final state that ratified the admendment was rigged. In my opinion that's pointless; if they ever managed to get a court to try to overturn it, a new admendment would go through within days. Government at all levels is too dependent on it.
Between the multiple Posix standardization efforts, the C & C++ standardization efforts, etc. the entire definitions of "Unix" is effectively open anyway.