So, who is right? The WSJ or the article referenced? Actually both.
The article referenced talks about the trends for energy consumption. And, in that respect, the consumer electronics win hands down, since more and more people buy computers, flat-screen TVs and assorted electronic gadgets. On the other hand, the WSJ is right, since the overall energy consumption of these gadgets is still a very small fraction of the total.
One thing that I'd personally like to do soon would be to compare the electricity used by all my computers (6 and counting, including a big Sun workstation, 3 laptops, a modem/router, a wireless access point, a laser printer, etc) vs the overall electricity usage in my home. I have relatively modern equipment, and I am currently switching everything to low-power equipment.
"Linux on the Desktop", to me, is like the "Global Domination" slogan that Linus used a few years back. It's a nice slogan, but we are not there yet. Maybe never. But who cares, as long as people are having fun getting there? I have been interested in, and using Linux since, well, something like 1995. It was a perfectly acceptable desktop then, and it has only improved since.
This article is FUD, pure and simple. "Linux is Dying", "Linux is Insecure", "Linux is a Toy", "Linux is for Hobbyists" and "Linux is a Rabid Communist Terrorist Cancer that will steal your money, destroy the economy, kill your cat, burn your house down and crash your car" are all pseudo-ideas that came, were disproved and disappeared.
These days it's "OMG! Linux is Not Ready for the Desktop!!!". This, too, shall pass. Remember: even Mighty Microsoft, the saviour of the American Economy, has a finger in the Linux pie now. Soon, they will stop screaming and throwing feces at Linux and admit the inevitable: they don't stand a chance.
Of course, having a bi- or tri-standard cell phone (3G, GSM 900, GSM 1800) cell phone, and an "international" connection plan may help as well. This being said, I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
And it underlines a point that I'd like to see raised more often: a lot of people are looking for a "magic bullet", meaning some sort of drop-in replacement for oil, whether it's bio-fuels, or hydrogen or something else. They want something that would solve all of our energy problems in one fell swoop. And that's just not going to happen.
Think about the early 19th century, for instance: oil was just one energy possibility among many others. Most people used wind power to process cereals into flour, or mechanical water power. They used coal or wood to warm themselves and candles or whale oil to light themselves. They also used solar power, for instance in salt flats. Then came steam engines -- again wood or coal -- and so on and so forth.
Of course, the 21st century is a much more advanced society, but the energy possibilities are also much more numerous: from bio-fuels to nuclear, with solar (photovoltaic and thermal), wind power, bio-mass, natural gas, tide power, etc... etc... Our technology level has progressed by leaps and bounds and may well end up covering most our needs, IF we also improve efficiency and energy savings (= no more gas guzzler for you, sorry). But the key idea here is this: the 20th century, from and energy point of view, was an historical abberation: a time when we solved most of our energy needs on one solution. The 21st century may well see us come back to a more diversified picture, and something more in line with the previous centuries.
And I suppose some of them really do get reformed in prison.
People get reformed in prison? Really? Wow, that's news!
And, you mean... Sex Offenders get reformed in prison?!!? Man, what a scoop!
Here is a newsflash for you: sex offender do not reform in prison. They may get beaten up and raped by bigger inmates (who hate sex offender), they may even end up as the byatch of another prisoner, but they don't reform. The relapse rate for incarcerated sex offenders, pedophiles -- especially pedophiles -- and assorted creeps is way up there.
IMHO, the only way to "reform" sex offenders and pedophile is through special programs, and not through prison. YMMV.
Some voted him in because of non-science issues like Supreme Court nominations and anti-abortion stance. (Please don't say abortion isn an issue of science - it's an issue of metaphysics and ethics.)
No, abortion is a simple question of science and public health. Abortions are due to (a) a lack of reliable, scientific, high-school sexual education (or even a lack of education in general) including an ethical outlook on procreation and gender relationships, and: (b) a lack of available medical products, such as the pill, condoms, RU-486 (etc) to the general public. Uninformed, sexually active adults and teen-agers then become pregnant, and are unable to terminate the pregnancy before egg implantation, due to the fact that RU-486 is extremely hard to obtain in most of the States.
Check the stats: most countries where sexual education are a part of a normal school curriculum (Scandinavia, Germany, etc) have a much lower rate of abortion than the USA. Therefore, basic biological science is a way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Considering that an unwanted pregnancy can seriously mess your life up -- especially for teen-agers -- I consider abortion the least bad solution anyway. Feel free to disagree with me on that (and I am sure you will).
Many of us who voted for him realized we were getting some good things (Justice nominations, etc.) and accepted that being at the cost of known bad things (leaning toward corporate interests), and never realized how bad a deal we were getting (settlement with Microsoft, ignoring global warming research, lying about and invading Iraq, caving to terrorists by trading away our liberties and refusal to torture, etc.)
Considering the fact that George W. Bush already hadstrong psychopathic tendencies long before the 2000 election, as well as a history of alcoholabuse (and, possibily, drug abuse), I consider your argument to be extremely weak. And that's putting it politely.
The fact is, when it comes to your country, you should always, always, always make an informed decision. Regardless of your religious affiliation. Voting for someone with a history of, shall we say, substance abuse, disregard for human life and violent behaviour is not exactly what I'd call an informed decision. No matter what you believe.
There's nothing anti-science about intelligent design. Intelligent design is just saying, "Hey, the universe seems pretty well ordered. What are the chances of that?" It's a metaphysical inquiry that's informed by science. There's no problem with teaching that (or don't you want students to question assumptions, such as reductionistic Darwinism (aka Epicurianism)?) You're probably upset with the teaching of a 6,000 year old earth based on the book of Genesis. I agree that that's a hard one to reconcile with carbon dating, etc., but that's truly a step beyond intelligent design.
Oh my, oh my. Where to begin?
First of all, if I remember well, I never talked about Intelligent Design in my original post. I wonder why you have to drag this question in this discussion... But I am nit-picking, I guess.
Second, if you think the Universe is pretty well ordered, I think you should read a lot more about science. Subjects like, let's see... basic biology, chaos theory,
Wait a minute. Warrior class takes control, energy is squandered trying to occupy strongly resisting regions, country is governed by feuding families that have nothing to do with the populace......hmm, it's not _exactly_ like America. But it ain't exactly different either, if'n you see what I mean:)
Well, US voters elected twice (not just once, but twice!) a man that does not care about science, and has been trying to undermine some of the most prestigious US research centers if they disagree with his policies or analysis.
And this man is backed by (a) a group of people who want an end to big governement and (b) another group of people who believe an obscure semitic carpenter - turned - Savior - turned - deity is going to come back Real Soon Now, which will bring the end of the world as we know it and the judgement of the unbelievers.
So is this so surprising?
I know this sounds very trollish/flame-baitish, and it's also a caricature, but the fact is, Big Government is that what gave an edge to the USA since around 1940, and most people who go to a hall of worship on Sunday morning turn out to be not so great scientists (I know, I know, there are exceptions, blah, blah, blah). Actually, only 17% of them even know their sacred scriptures, according to a recent survey.
So, let me ask you again: is that so surprising? I think not. Another brilliant civilization rejected science and went into a profound decline: it was the Middle-Ages Moslem civilization. Think about that for a minute.
Remember the definition of "feudal": everything belongs to the local Lord. Meaning: your house only exists because he has let you build it (he can take it or destroy it at any time), the land you work and/or live on -- if you are a peasant -- is his, the grain and animals you grow and take care of are his as well, your physical power belongs to him -- for war (cannon fodder) and peace (let's add a new wing to ye olde castle) -- and he is allowed to kick your ass pretty much anytime he wants to.
And, to top it all off, he has the right -- nay, the sacred duty -- to report you to the Holy Inquisition for heresy or just not being a good Christian, and woe to you if you actually criticize him. Situations were pretty much identical in, say, China under the Mandarins and during most of the history of the Moslem countries.
Needless to say, the Middle Ages were not exactly equalitarian: thank the enlightnment for making things change, a little. So comparing, say, feudal Europe with modern-day Canada really is comparing Apples and Oranges.
You have a point, but consider this: we know how much a car (SUV, truck, etc) consume gas -- on average -- in a given year. From this gas consumption, we can deduce what kind of pollution is going to be released. Let's say, 10 or 20 tons of CO2 par year. That's the number we will use. No ifs, no buts, no loophole. All you need is a standardized government lab (Government can be a good thing in this case) to test the consumption and pollution of every car. And cars that are not sold anymore -- but are still used -- will simply be taxed in the highest category.
I don't want loopholes, but I still want people to migrate to cars that are more efficient and less polluting. That's the whole point of creating bracketed taxes: rewarding "good" behaviour and punishing idiots who drive SUVs.
A carbon tax, levied on the f*ng idiots who drive SUVs in the city. Ideally, I'd like this tax to be paid each year, and it's amount to be directly proportional to the oil consumption of the car? Own an SUV? Fine, that will be 50% of its price, every year, as long as you own it. Own an hybrid/highly efficient/electric car? Fine, that will be 5% of its price every year. Don't own a car? Using your feet/your bike/ mass transit? OK, no taxes for you.
A carbon and pollution tax, levied on the industries that pollute the atmosphere, water and soil. Same principle as above: send an (independent) team to assess the damage and tax the company accordingly. The more CO2 and pollutants are released, the higher the tax. Inefficient industries will go under and/or will be forced to streamline their productions pretty fast unless they want to pay enormous taxes. And let me tell you one thing: most big companies can afford to lose money for a couple of years in order to lower their pollution rate -- sure, it's going to be painful, but everyone will benefit in the log term. Oh, and no outsourcing polluting plants to poorer countries either: the tax should be levied globally, if necessary by using estimates. Outsourcing to, say, India, in order to pollute freely? Sorry, bub, all your plants in India are now considered as "high" or "extremely high pollution": that will US$ 45 million. On the other hand, extremely efficient and non-polluting industries will win.
Still ideally, I'd like the revenue from these taxes to be used to plant trees, create recycling and de-polluting plants, and optimize natural resource usage. Other worthy uses are scientific and technical: developing renewable resources and developing the technologies needed to clean behind us most of the pollutants we have been dumping on Earth for the past 100+ years.
The key point is this: whether you believe in Global Warming or not (I do) the fact is that the Earth is Dying(tm). If we don't force the big companies -- and the individual citizens -- to face up to this fact, all solutions we'll apply to this problem will be too little, too late. There are solutions available right now. Carbon Tax is one of them, and it's probably one of the most effective.
And... Wait for it... Creating new technologies and optimizing our resources consumption may actually increase the wealth of everyone, by creating new jobs and improving/cleaning our habitat.
Of course, I am not holding my breath: most politicians will never have the guts nor the gonads to sign a Carbon Tax into law. We'll probably come around to it once the Earth is so polluted and the climate so out of whack it will taxation or death.
I recommend reading this book for this little bit of precious advice (from memory, actual content may be different): "Vacation is not about checking your email every 5 minutes. Vacation is about not thinking about work at all. Vacation is not an inconvenience, it's something that will allow you to rest, disconnect and come back completely relaxed and un-stressed to your desk. It's not something your employer grudgingly grant you, it's something he knows you need to be more productive".
Read the book. It has a ton of wisdom and it explains much better than I could why you need to disconnect while on vacation. Very sysadmin-centric, but applicable to almost every job out there (the vacation part).
So yeah: no phone, email, pager, blackberry or anything.
The same parliament voted recently for the most restrictive copyright law in Europe, a law that could potentially kill french open source projects, and that was practically written by the French RIAA, there is a sweet smell of irony in the air...
On the other hand that was probably the plan all along: write a stupid law to placate the RIAA/MPAA of this world. A law so totally impossible to enforce, that any case brought in front of a court would be laughed out of the justice system. And then, benefit from Open Source, safe and sound in the knowledge that you [the members of Parliament] have taken your bribe, and you get to benefit from Open Source on top of it. Bastards.
And if you think I am making this up, I invite you to read the documents in the link above and discover the whole sorry mess for yourself.
[As a side note: I am French, and I despise all these wankers, so take this not as a troll, but a letting off steam.]
[Side note 2: also, I was one of the few French who actually took the time to protest the whole thing, so don't give me the "you should have done something" line Mmmmmm'kay?]
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The EU has judged Microsoft to be abusing a monopoly position in the global european market. That's a big no-no for the EU Commission, since the whole "European" idea is based on free circulation of goods, people and financial instruments. In other words, the EU is against monopolies and large companies locking customers in their line of products and services. Is that so hard to understand?
To counter-balance this monopoly position, the EU has asked Microsoft to supply its competitors -- including many European companies -- with the necessary documentation. That documentation was required to open Microsoft files (.WMV, for instance) and communicate with machines running Windows system (SMB protocol). Microsoft refused and was fined a lot of money. Microsoft said it was going to comply, then delivered the required documentation. End of story.
As far as I know, havin inter-operability between Microsoft products and competitors is a Good Thing(tm). You can thank the EU for that.
That's just plain wrong. They use some current, sure, but it's nowhere near "almost as much power in stand-by as when it's on". Get an ammeter and measure a few appliances yourself.
Well, I may have exaggerated a bit, but my advice still stands. Avoid stand-by power.
I suggest these sites for your information: One, Two, Three.
As for actually fixing global warming, it will take a miracle. Maybe two miracles. I think in the next few decades we're going to need to start an Apollo moonshot-type miracle of technology and engineering to beat back the greenhouse effect. Nanorobots. Reflective dust in the stratosphere. Giant mirrors at the Lagrange point. Bioengineered plankton to sink carbon or change the oceans' albedo. Something. That's just a guess.
Let's see... [Please note this is intended as a starting point for a conversation, not as the start of flame-war].
Nanobots? No. Even limited artificial intelligence is still 10-15 years away, and that's the best case scenario. Nano-technology is something that may be applied right now to pollution, especially nano-membranes applied to reverse osmosis, to clean dirty water. What I'd truly love would be some sort of nano-filter for cars, factories, etc. but, as I have argued before, nano-technology can be dangerous in and out of itself, since nobody knows exactly the effects of nano-particles on the human respiratory system.
Spraying dust into the upper atmosphere? Sure, if you'd like to increase the global pollution problem which gave us acid rain and global warming in the first place. Most scientists who advocate using that kind of solution are either desperate or messing up with your mind. My advice? Please forget it.
Mirrors in space? To do what? Reflect the sunlight back at the sun? Why not, but the cost would probably be prohibitive. Not to mention it would require dozens of technologies that are not exactly completely designed, all of this for unproven results...
Seriously, though, I think the biggest mistake mankind could make right now is to embark on wild flights of fancy like the ones above, when we do have the technologies right now to solve most of our global warming problems. This was pointed out by Al Gore in the movie: we have the solutions right now, we just need the courage to apply them. The issue is: we must be willing to sacrifice creature comforts to save our planets (and ourselves as well). Examples that were given in An Inconvenient Truth, and on countless web sites are the following:
Use low-power lights, or LEDs to provide light. If possible, redesign as much of your house as possible to use natural light.
Use renewable energies, such as photovoltaics, solar thermal panels, geothermal or wind power to provide energy to your home. If not, make sure your power company has an option to use renewable energies.
As much as I dislike it, nuclear power plants seem like a good short-term idea.
Lower the temperature of your house, and improve its phonic and thermal insulation. Wear a sweater indoors, add a couple of covers to your bed, and you should be OK.
Switch off all un-needed lights and appliances. Avoid "stand by" modes, as an appliance (TV, Computer, Hifi, etc) use almost as much power in stand-by as when it's on.
When not in your home, whether for a little while or for a long trip, lower the temperature. Same things for rooms such as the garage. You car will do fine even if it's a little cooler than inside the house.
Hunt down the appliances that consume too much power in your house and replace them ASAP with more efficient ones.
Hunt down all leaking faucets, especially hot water ones, and fix them. Do the same for most of the plumbing in your house and you will probably save both water and energy.
Use public transportation, walk, or bike to work.
Take the train for long trips instead of the plane.
If you have to use your car, buy an electric or an hybrid car, or some (much) smaller and much more efficient car than an SUV.
If you really have to use your car, how about switching to an hybrid bio-ethanol/unleaded gas car? These already exist in Brazil. Then, build your own recycling mini-factory that can convert wood chips and grease and you are all set. Extra points for making this a
Hmmmm... I love the smell of a flame war early in the morning...
Yeah, because see, all these rocket scientists, they are well known for bein' stoopid. Ain't that a shame to pollute them purty stars.
Let me help you understand what's at stake here. This quote is from the TFA, that you obviously haven't read:
Tools and other gear have accidentally floated away during spacewalks. But NASA has shied away from intentionally jettisoning gear off the ISS in the past because of the threat of space junk hitting the station or other spacecraft. Even tiny flecks of paint have cracked the windows of the space shuttle orbiter because they zoom around Earth at thousands of kilometres per hour.
Total cost of the ISS (so far): close to US$35 billions (source). The collective face NASA is going to make when the ISS is made unusable by some medium-sized space junk: priceless. Added points for the irony of being hit by space junk that comes from the ISS itself. So, yes, allow me to say it again: throwing junk overboard without thrusting is bad policy, and it is stupid.
If all you needed to deorbit something thrown from the ISS was a "small amount of thrust", don't you think that atmospheric drag would have already deorbitted the ISS itself?
Oh wait, are you talking about the same ISS that needs an extra orbital boost from time to time due to atmospheric drag? Hmmm... Interesting... That means the ISS is slowly being dragged toward the earth. Amazing, isn't it? Who would have thought?
In order to deorbit something, you need a very considerable amount of thrust, with an engine and propellant brought up from Earth at enormous cost. Left to its own device, a low-density object such as a bag of trash is going to slowly lose altitude due to atmospheric drag, then burn. No need for propellants. Good old air envelope does the trick.
Which, of course, is in complete contradiction with what you just wrote about the ISS, right? Oh well, what's a few inconsistencies between friends? Besides, the goal is precisely to avoid filling the Earth outer space with dangerous, slow moving bags of trash. If you had read TFA, you would know that the golf ball that was to be putted by a russian cosmonaut is no danger, precisely, because hitting that little golf ball with a gold club is enough to send into the atmosphere, where it will burn harmlessly. Which, again, completely contradicts your previous statement that it takes a lot of thrust to de-orbit trash.
On the other hand, the real heart of the matter is, of course, that even if there is never another rocket launch, the outer space around the Earth will be filled with junk until at least 2055:
The model predicts that even without future rocket or satellite launches, the amount of debris in low orbit around Earth will remain steady through 2055, after which it will increase.
That was one of the the links I posted. But, let me guess: you did not read any of these either, right?
(me)there is no reason not to incinerate their trash. Incinerate? Whaaa?? Look, this is space, ok?
Fine, that sentence should have been:... there is no reason not to incinerate their trash IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE. Happy? I may sound dumb, but I am not THAT dumb, thankyouverymuch.
As for reusing it, I'm afraid that a sizeable fraction of the trash is, er, astronaut dung. I doubt the reuse value of human waste is very high in space, until we have complete hydroponic gardens.
They could pack their trash and, with minimal thrust, send it on a quick reentry path in which it will burn in higher atmosphere a few days or weeks later.
Exactly, there is no reason not to incinerate their trash. I can't believe this is 2006, people have been going into space for more than 40 years now, and they still are throwing trash overboard even thoughthey know the danger. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
So, who is right? The WSJ or the article referenced? Actually both.
The article referenced talks about the trends for energy consumption. And, in that respect, the consumer electronics win hands down, since more and more people buy computers, flat-screen TVs and assorted electronic gadgets. On the other hand, the WSJ is right, since the overall energy consumption of these gadgets is still a very small fraction of the total.
One thing that I'd personally like to do soon would be to compare the electricity used by all my computers (6 and counting, including a big Sun workstation, 3 laptops, a modem/router, a wireless access point, a laser printer, etc) vs the overall electricity usage in my home. I have relatively modern equipment, and I am currently switching everything to low-power equipment.
Microwave the sucker and be done with it, I say.
Oh wait, that leaves a big smoking hole in the passport... Errr, never mind, carry on...
"Linux on the Desktop", to me, is like the "Global Domination" slogan that Linus used a few years back. It's a nice slogan, but we are not there yet. Maybe never. But who cares, as long as people are having fun getting there? I have been interested in, and using Linux since, well, something like 1995. It was a perfectly acceptable desktop then, and it has only improved since.
This article is FUD, pure and simple. "Linux is Dying", "Linux is Insecure", "Linux is a Toy", "Linux is for Hobbyists" and "Linux is a Rabid Communist Terrorist Cancer that will steal your money, destroy the economy, kill your cat, burn your house down and crash your car" are all pseudo-ideas that came, were disproved and disappeared.
These days it's "OMG! Linux is Not Ready for the Desktop!!!". This, too, shall pass. Remember: even Mighty Microsoft, the saviour of the American Economy, has a finger in the Linux pie now. Soon, they will stop screaming and throwing feces at Linux and admit the inevitable: they don't stand a chance.
Yeah! Go Slackware! Call me a fanboy, but this is great!
:-)
I just hope the balloon itself is not going to go slack!
Yeah, right.
South Korea uses the GSM norm for cell phones, so you only need to buy a GSM-compatible cell phone and it's highly possible you'll be able to use the same in China... Because (surprise!) China also uses the GSM norm.
Of course, having a bi- or tri-standard cell phone (3G, GSM 900, GSM 1800) cell phone, and an "international" connection plan may help as well. This being said, I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
And it underlines a point that I'd like to see raised more often: a lot of people are looking for a "magic bullet", meaning some sort of drop-in replacement for oil, whether it's bio-fuels, or hydrogen or something else. They want something that would solve all of our energy problems in one fell swoop. And that's just not going to happen.
Think about the early 19th century, for instance: oil was just one energy possibility among many others. Most people used wind power to process cereals into flour, or mechanical water power. They used coal or wood to warm themselves and candles or whale oil to light themselves. They also used solar power, for instance in salt flats. Then came steam engines -- again wood or coal -- and so on and so forth.
Of course, the 21st century is a much more advanced society, but the energy possibilities are also much more numerous: from bio-fuels to nuclear, with solar (photovoltaic and thermal), wind power, bio-mass, natural gas, tide power, etc... etc... Our technology level has progressed by leaps and bounds and may well end up covering most our needs, IF we also improve efficiency and energy savings (= no more gas guzzler for you, sorry). But the key idea here is this: the 20th century, from and energy point of view, was an historical abberation: a time when we solved most of our energy needs on one solution. The 21st century may well see us come back to a more diversified picture, and something more in line with the previous centuries.
Senator, with all due respect, you can kiss my (_|_).
And if that's obscenity for you, have your eyes, sorry, your brain checked.
People get reformed in prison? Really? Wow, that's news!
And, you mean... Sex Offenders get reformed in prison?!!? Man, what a scoop!
Here is a newsflash for you: sex offender do not reform in prison. They may get beaten up and raped by bigger inmates (who hate sex offender), they may even end up as the byatch of another prisoner, but they don't reform. The relapse rate for incarcerated sex offenders, pedophiles -- especially pedophiles -- and assorted creeps is way up there.
IMHO, the only way to "reform" sex offenders and pedophile is through special programs, and not through prison. YMMV.
No, abortion is a simple question of science and public health. Abortions are due to (a) a lack of reliable, scientific, high-school sexual education (or even a lack of education in general) including an ethical outlook on procreation and gender relationships, and: (b) a lack of available medical products, such as the pill, condoms, RU-486 (etc) to the general public. Uninformed, sexually active adults and teen-agers then become pregnant, and are unable to terminate the pregnancy before egg implantation, due to the fact that RU-486 is extremely hard to obtain in most of the States.
Check the stats: most countries where sexual education are a part of a normal school curriculum (Scandinavia, Germany, etc) have a much lower rate of abortion than the USA. Therefore, basic biological science is a way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Considering that an unwanted pregnancy can seriously mess your life up -- especially for teen-agers -- I consider abortion the least bad solution anyway. Feel free to disagree with me on that (and I am sure you will).
Considering the fact that George W. Bush already had strong psychopathic tendencies long before the 2000 election, as well as a history of alcohol abuse (and, possibily, drug abuse), I consider your argument to be extremely weak. And that's putting it politely.
The fact is, when it comes to your country, you should always, always, always make an informed decision. Regardless of your religious affiliation. Voting for someone with a history of, shall we say, substance abuse, disregard for human life and violent behaviour is not exactly what I'd call an informed decision. No matter what you believe.
Oh my, oh my. Where to begin?
Thank you for proving my point...
To which I can only reply: "The USA is responsible for 48 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China with 4-5 per cent each.".
Or, straight from the horse's mouth: U.S. spends more than 6 times the amount spent by China. Six times.
I rest my case.
Well, US voters elected twice (not just once, but twice!) a man that does not care about science, and has been trying to undermine some of the most prestigious US research centers if they disagree with his policies or analysis.
And this man is backed by (a) a group of people who want an end to big governement and (b) another group of people who believe an obscure semitic carpenter - turned - Savior - turned - deity is going to come back Real Soon Now, which will bring the end of the world as we know it and the judgement of the unbelievers.
So is this so surprising?
I know this sounds very trollish/flame-baitish, and it's also a caricature, but the fact is, Big Government is that what gave an edge to the USA since around 1940, and most people who go to a hall of worship on Sunday morning turn out to be not so great scientists (I know, I know, there are exceptions, blah, blah, blah). Actually, only 17% of them even know their sacred scriptures, according to a recent survey.
So, let me ask you again: is that so surprising? I think not. Another brilliant civilization rejected science and went into a profound decline: it was the Middle-Ages Moslem civilization. Think about that for a minute.
Remember the definition of "feudal": everything belongs to the local Lord. Meaning: your house only exists because he has let you build it (he can take it or destroy it at any time), the land you work and/or live on -- if you are a peasant -- is his, the grain and animals you grow and take care of are his as well, your physical power belongs to him -- for war (cannon fodder) and peace (let's add a new wing to ye olde castle) -- and he is allowed to kick your ass pretty much anytime he wants to.
And, to top it all off, he has the right -- nay, the sacred duty -- to report you to the Holy Inquisition for heresy or just not being a good Christian, and woe to you if you actually criticize him. Situations were pretty much identical in, say, China under the Mandarins and during most of the history of the Moslem countries.
Needless to say, the Middle Ages were not exactly equalitarian: thank the enlightnment for making things change, a little. So comparing, say, feudal Europe with modern-day Canada really is comparing Apples and Oranges.
What part of "Open Document" don't you understand? ;-)
Open Document comes from Open Office, not Microfost Office. RTFA and read this page as well.
You have a point, but consider this: we know how much a car (SUV, truck, etc) consume gas -- on average -- in a given year. From this gas consumption, we can deduce what kind of pollution is going to be released. Let's say, 10 or 20 tons of CO2 par year. That's the number we will use. No ifs, no buts, no loophole. All you need is a standardized government lab (Government can be a good thing in this case) to test the consumption and pollution of every car. And cars that are not sold anymore -- but are still used -- will simply be taxed in the highest category.
I don't want loopholes, but I still want people to migrate to cars that are more efficient and less polluting. That's the whole point of creating bracketed taxes: rewarding "good" behaviour and punishing idiots who drive SUVs.
And let me tell you one thing: most big companies can afford to lose money for a couple of years in order to lower their pollution rate -- sure, it's going to be painful, but everyone will benefit in the log term. Oh, and no outsourcing polluting plants to poorer countries either: the tax should be levied globally, if necessary by using estimates. Outsourcing to, say, India, in order to pollute freely? Sorry, bub, all your plants in India are now considered as "high" or "extremely high pollution": that will US$ 45 million. On the other hand, extremely efficient and non-polluting industries will win.
Still ideally, I'd like the revenue from these taxes to be used to plant trees, create recycling and de-polluting plants, and optimize natural resource usage. Other worthy uses are scientific and technical: developing renewable resources and developing the technologies needed to clean behind us most of the pollutants we have been dumping on Earth for the past 100+ years.
The key point is this: whether you believe in Global Warming or not (I do) the fact is that the Earth is Dying(tm). If we don't force the big companies -- and the individual citizens -- to face up to this fact, all solutions we'll apply to this problem will be too little, too late. There are solutions available right now . Carbon Tax is one of them, and it's probably one of the most effective.
And... Wait for it... Creating new technologies and optimizing our resources consumption may actually increase the wealth of everyone, by creating new jobs and improving/cleaning our habitat.
Of course, I am not holding my breath: most politicians will never have the guts nor the gonads to sign a Carbon Tax into law. We'll probably come around to it once the Earth is so polluted and the climate so out of whack it will taxation or death.
I recommend reading this book for this little bit of precious advice (from memory, actual content may be different): "Vacation is not about checking your email every 5 minutes. Vacation is about not thinking about work at all. Vacation is not an inconvenience, it's something that will allow you to rest, disconnect and come back completely relaxed and un-stressed to your desk. It's not something your employer grudgingly grant you, it's something he knows you need to be more productive".
Read the book. It has a ton of wisdom and it explains much better than I could why you need to disconnect while on vacation. Very sysadmin-centric, but applicable to almost every job out there (the vacation part).
So yeah: no phone, email, pager, blackberry or anything.
The same parliament voted recently for the most restrictive copyright law in Europe, a law that could potentially kill french open source projects, and that was practically written by the French RIAA, there is a sweet smell of irony in the air...
On the other hand that was probably the plan all along: write a stupid law to placate the RIAA/MPAA of this world. A law so totally impossible to enforce, that any case brought in front of a court would be laughed out of the justice system. And then, benefit from Open Source, safe and sound in the knowledge that you [the members of Parliament] have taken your bribe, and you get to benefit from Open Source on top of it. Bastards.
And if you think I am making this up, I invite you to read the documents in the link above and discover the whole sorry mess for yourself.
[As a side note: I am French, and I despise all these wankers, so take this not as a troll, but a letting off steam.]
[Side note 2: also, I was one of the few French who actually took the time to protest the whole thing, so don't give me the "you should have done something" line Mmmmmm'kay?]
*sigh*
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The EU has judged Microsoft to be abusing a monopoly position in the global european market. That's a big no-no for the EU Commission, since the whole "European" idea is based on free circulation of goods, people and financial instruments. In other words, the EU is against monopolies and large companies locking customers in their line of products and services. Is that so hard to understand?
To counter-balance this monopoly position, the EU has asked Microsoft to supply its competitors -- including many European companies -- with the necessary documentation. That documentation was required to open Microsoft files (.WMV, for instance) and communicate with machines running Windows system (SMB protocol). Microsoft refused and was fined a lot of money. Microsoft said it was going to comply, then delivered the required documentation. End of story.
As far as I know, havin inter-operability between Microsoft products and competitors is a Good Thing(tm). You can thank the EU for that.
Well, I may have exaggerated a bit, but my advice still stands. Avoid stand-by power.
I suggest these sites for your information: One, Two, Three.
Let's see... [Please note this is intended as a starting point for a conversation, not as the start of flame-war].
Seriously, though, I think the biggest mistake mankind could make right now is to embark on wild flights of fancy like the ones above, when we do have the technologies right now to solve most of our global warming problems. This was pointed out by Al Gore in the movie: we have the solutions right now, we just need the courage to apply them. The issue is: we must be willing to sacrifice creature comforts to save our planets (and ourselves as well). Examples that were given in An Inconvenient Truth, and on countless web sites are the following:
Let me help you understand what's at stake here. This quote is from the TFA, that you obviously haven't read:
Total cost of the ISS (so far): close to US$35 billions (source). The collective face NASA is going to make when the ISS is made unusable by some medium-sized space junk: priceless. Added points for the irony of being hit by space junk that comes from the ISS itself. So, yes, allow me to say it again: throwing junk overboard without thrusting is bad policy, and it is stupid.
Oh wait, are you talking about the same ISS that needs an extra orbital boost from time to time due to atmospheric drag? Hmmm... Interesting... That means the ISS is slowly being dragged toward the earth. Amazing, isn't it? Who would have thought?
Which, of course, is in complete contradiction with what you just wrote about the ISS, right? Oh well, what's a few inconsistencies between friends? Besides, the goal is precisely to avoid filling the Earth outer space with dangerous, slow moving bags of trash. If you had read TFA, you would know that the golf ball that was to be putted by a russian cosmonaut is no danger, precisely, because hitting that little golf ball with a gold club is enough to send into the atmosphere, where it will burn harmlessly. Which, again, completely contradicts your previous statement that it takes a lot of thrust to de-orbit trash.
On the other hand, the real heart of the matter is, of course, that even if there is never another rocket launch, the outer space around the Earth will be filled with junk until at least 2055:
That was one of the the links I posted. But, let me guess: you did not read any of these either, right?
Fine, that sentence should have been: ... there is no reason not to incinerate their trash IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE . Happy? I may sound dumb, but I am not THAT dumb, thankyouverymuch.
Still, there i
Exactly, there is no reason not to incinerate their trash. I can't believe this is 2006, people have been going into space for more than 40 years now, and they still are throwing trash overboard even though they know the danger. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Please do.