Huh? Since when do you need a passport to go from the UK to mainland Europe????
I can't even remember when I was showing my passport the last time I came from overseas...
Okay, I SHOWED it, I walked through the line that said: "European Citizens" OPened it, showed it towards the officer and got waved through, took less than 5 seconds, while all the american and "foreign" citizens spent an hour standing in line getting everything sorted out (but next time I came into Canada *I* had to stand in line).
And this happened in London, Amsterdam and Frankfurt over the past 2 years to me, and I never showed a passport when travelleing within the EU.
Umm... Dude, I don't need a passport to drive from Germany to France, I don't even have customs. Welcome to the European Unions.... And you can do that for more than 15 years.
As for "traelling abroad" where you need a passport, that mainly involves countries like the US, who would just LOVE to have a DNA Sample stored on the passort..... You never know with foreigners, they have such strange habits and all that....;)
Are you Canadian? Then I guess you can't help us undo this bit of absurdity. For all you other Americans out there, though, I hope you know why Medicare doesn't do it, who to blame, and in less than two weeks you can help the guy who's promised to undo this ridiculous restriction to reach office.
Yes, but you can only do this if you are big enough.
If the major insurers in the US for example would get together they could do the same thing (I guess: They do this already, but you don't get any of it) and everybody (well, minus the pharma companies) would profit.
Have a look at Pfizers financial statement, they're still doing rather well.
I also find it notable that I got my Flueshot here in Toronto yesterday without a problem while in the US people are standing in line for hours on end and then still have to go home (or come up to Canada). And there I thought people only stood in line in "commie land".
You can thank the "everybody for himself" mentality that is what the Us is all about.
I read a newsarticle a couple of months ago where they pointed out that not even Medicare is "buying in bulk" but rather "individual packages" depending on how it goes.
Imagine all of Medicare got their act together and would negotiate ONE price with the supplier? Suddenly the prices would drop.
That's whats going on in Canada, and they are currently fighting over a Federal Pharmacare plan which would probably decrease the costs even further.
iChat IMO is pretty much what one wants in an IM client, and I tried both Audio & Video conferencing with them to places around the world and I have to say I am very very impressed by it.
In essence, if google really creates it's own client, it will most likely use an established protocol, and AIM would almost certainly be the logic consequence.
Now let's hope that iChat starts to support other IM Protocols soon.... They already allow for it in the addressbook.
It has nothing to do with dealing with death; it's just nice to be able to show your kids their grandparents in a video. My grandmother, for example is 92. She might not be around when my kids are born. I'd like my kids to see her. Anything wrong with that?
No, nothing wrong with it, but I think using the wedding as a "excuse" is a bit.. UMmmmmm Self fulfilling?
That said, a trip around the world does sound nice. But no way in hell am I giving money to a charity instead of having a nice wedding. Have you any idea how much money the united way squanders?
I agree with the United Way, but there are other charities that could benefit from it. Personally I think the United Way is a bit oof "Highway Robbery' as it seems they muscle you (or trying to) into giving money at work all the time time.
That luxury is priceless. Seeing dead uncle Charlie, who died of cancer, laughing, dancing, drinking and enjoying himself is more valuable than anything.
I wonder how people ever dealt with death before they invented photography and video..... Must have been really bad back then, I mean really... Just memories?
You don't seem to value many things in life. Your marriage, your friends, or your relatives, and that's fine, it's your choice, but my choice is to have something to remember people by. Pictures and video are priceless, because they trigger memories that make you feel good.
I think we all value things differently. Does one need photos or videos to remember people by?
I read a quote once that went along the lines of: "You're only truly dead when you're forgotten."
So maybe the key to be remembered and "leave something behind" is not by being recorded for the "afterlife" but rather by living a life that is a testament to ones own existance? Be it through family or work?
Just a thought.
M.
P.S.
Personally I find huge wedding parties a waste as well, for that amount of money one could either do a lot of good (e.g. donating it) or do something together that both can remember for the rest of their lives (travel around the world?).
But then I don't think that love doesn't show itself in tangible things but how we interact and live our lives.
The point isn't that we can't be more efficient. It's that we can't be sufficiently more efficient to make much of a difference compared to what we can gain by taking advantage of nuclear power.
First of all "more efficent" isn't limited to a particular device, it is a combination of things that together will yield a higher efficency overall.
Yes Dorothy, that means changing for example the way we light our apartments, get to work, buy our food, but there is so much energy wasted right now on a day to day basis that we would gain a lot more than you might imagine right now.
Next time you are at your grocery store have a look at where all the vegetables, meats, "frozen dinners" and their ingridients are coming from, and then think about how much energy was used just by transporting all of this around, I am not even talking about processing and such.
If we (as a society) are serious about energy conservation we could do everything (as in standard of living) as we're doing it right now but with less energy and drawing it from different sources.
The big problem with nuclear power isn't that it produces waste. Everything produces waste. Nor is it the danger of meltdown or incorrect storage of fuel. Those things are very local risks, and statistically are sufficiently infrequent that the total 'cost' including lives and property damage, is still much much smaller than coal or oil.
With one huge difference.
When one of your "statistically sufficentily infrequent" accidents occurs the impact will be not quite so small.
Yes, coal and oil burning is poisioning us and the environment, but it is a lot smaller, by making changes now we can get rid of most of it in 10 - 20 years (assuming we have enough oil left).
And more importantly: Countries like China have to make those changes now, they are only now building their infrastructure and can prevent a lot of the mistakes that we have made.
The big problem with nuclear power is human psychology. People see something that they know was once used to kill millions, and are acutely aware of the times in which there have been nuclear accidents, and then immediately in their minds assume that every nuclear plant will fail, and that it will fail catastrophically. If you were to ask people (who do not live near a plant of any sort) whether they'd rather live next to a nuclear plant or a coal plant, I have to wonder what they'd say, compared to people who actually do live near either structure. People who live near a nuclear plant are going to have evidence which to them suggests that it is perfectly safe: the fact that they haven't experienced a meltdown or other disaster. Whereas people who have not done so are going to extrapolate based on the few cases they are aware of, which are entirely of the 'bad' variety (since who would make a news report that a nuclear plant operated perfectly this week?).
BTW, this page here lists some nuclear disasters over the past 50 years and even though (excluding Chernobyl) nothing really "bad" has happened I have my doubts.
And even if there would be no "real" danger. Stress in and on itself is a problem:
Several aspects regarding nuclear power plants and works of the chemical industry were assessed by self-report inventories. The inventories included items related to attitudes and mood. Subjects (N = 228) were divided according to living distance to a nuclear power plant (up to 5 km, 5-10 km, 10-15 km), age (18-39 versus 40-59 years) and sex. Results demonstrate different risk perception referring to nuclear power plants and works of the chemical industry. Women and older persons reported more negative attitudes. In addition, the results confirm th
Conservation won't do much in the long run though. If you set as the constraint that the things we do with the power can't decrease; that is that after all conservation efforts, we should still be using our computers, transporting ourselves to work and on vacations over the same distances, and so on, then you're limited by how much you can increase the efficiency of things. There will be a lower limit to how much power you can use to still be able to do the things you want to do, and once we hit that limit we can expect no more help from conservation.
Partially true. Yes, it does take energy to do all those things, but let's face it: Conservation isn't a high priority item when it comes to designing these, otherwise: Why do so many SUVs drive around?
There is a LOT that can be conserved by moving most of the individual transit to mass transit.
Think about this, every day you climbin your 2000 pound car, drive by yourself to work and back.
Now, how many people can you fit in a bus? Say 50? Now does the bus weigh a 100,000 pounds? Or less? And what is more efficent?
The point is that a lot of the things we do each day are very ineffecient and could be improved upon, same goes for applicances, computers etc. There is more "hidden" energy than you might see at first.
Conservation takes our current effective fuel supply (that could either be how much oil and gas we can extract, or how much we can afford to burn and release) and multiplies it by a factor of two or three. Maybe for some applications as high as ten. If our fuel supply is 'small' (on whatever scale you want to consider), then the gain will be small, and as we are currently facing shortage, it stands to reason that with respect to our technological level, our reserves are quite small.
True, but you are looking only at devices etc. Look at the bigger picture.
If we would try to re-architect it more energy efficent the whole process on how we achieve what we are doing has to be changed, e.g. less individual transport, more mass transit as one example.
Or how about food production? Distribution? There are ways that would net gain a lot more.
It alone of course won't work, we do need alternative energy sources, but by putting conservation first we open the door to technologies we are currently shunning because we don't think they can give us enough energy to keep going the way it is going now.
On the other hand, exploring alternate fuels is an additive process. By taking advantage of nuclear fuels, we would add a large number to our effective fuel supply. In terms of multiplication, that could be a factor of 100 or 1000 or more.
Out of the frying pan into the fire though. Until we can figure out what to do with the nuclear waste we are just shifting the problem, and most likely aggevate it. If any of those spent fuel rods get "lost" they can contaminate entire landscapes, and there won't necessarily be any warning that this is happening.
By figuring out how to effectively do fusion, we add an even larger number. Other things such as solar or wind or geothermal will add smaller contributions.
Solar isn't necessarily a small contribution (if you calculate the total power reaching the Earth's surface its something on the order of 10^23 watts) but you have to consider that a large portion of that has to go to maintaining biological growths, keeping the surface temperature livable, etc, and also that our current solar technology is pretty costly to construct and pretty inefficient at extracting energy.
When do you want to pay? Now or later? Face it, we won't get around huge investements because the way we're doing it right now is not sustainable in the long run.
Alternative fuel sources need to be found and made accesible. The sooner the better and we better don't whine about the price because
what ever CO2 we emit into the athmosphere is ADDITIONAL to the ones that nature is already releasing, just to say that we are currently emitting less than nature itself doesn't mean we have to DOUBLE the overall output.
For starters. The key is CONSERVATION of energy, and that doesn't mean going back to the stone age but rather build more energy efficent appliances, computers etc.
The move to LCDs is a good (very good) first step, as it will allow to reduce the power the computers are using quite extensivly, but it continues on by choosing alternate ways of how you cool or heat your apartment / house, how you get to and from work (mass transit anyone?).
And the old "reduce, reuse, recycle" still applies too, not only for items but for energy as well (e.g. waste heat).
Look at iceland, they are going to heat / power the entire country by using thermal energy, granted not something you can do in NYC, but there are other ways to generate energy, and we better start now, because besides the global warming we also are poised to run out of things we can burn in the near future (near as in the next 25 years).
Since you are not intelligent enough to do a simple google, here you are
Here's a tip: If you want to have a discussion don't insult your opponent, makes you just look stupid.
And next time: Be more specific than (e.g. Oil-for-food scandal) instead of just making blanket statements.
Now,
I just followed some of your links, and the interesting thing is that most of those articles are from April, but nothing newer.
Here's a quote from the Economist:
In addition to allegedly buying political support through the oil contracts, Saddam's regime itself looks to have profited enormously from the scheme. The General Accounting Office (GAO), an arm of the American Congress, reported last month that prices for humanitarian imports were inflated by some 10%. This allowed the regime to sell 10% more oil to pay for the imports and to cream the extra money off for itself. In addition, the GAO said that the regime managed to sell over $5 billion-worth of oil illegally outside the programme. In all, Saddam's government may have netted almost $10 billion from its chicanery.
It seems the one who actually benefited from the scam was Saddam himself, not the leaders of Germany, Russia or France.
And speaking of "kick back" how does it work in the "rebuilding of Iraq" right now? Or are you trying to tell me now that the US is not feeding itself on the table that was prepared by themselves in Iraq?
BTW, nice that you did not reply to the rest of my posting.
The only real leverage the U.S. has in the world is its military.
Amen,
and tanks don't drive that well without oil, neither fly airplanes.
The most ironic thing is that it seems americans are always looking back at the Second World War and bask in the glory and think they could do it again.... Only problem is: They've outsourced all the production to China, so they better hope not to go to war with China.
I see you completely ignored the fact that officials from France, Germany, and Russia were taking massive bribes so that Saddam could get around the U.N. imposed sanctions. Of course they were against the U.S. actually enforcing the U.N. resolutions. It derailed their gravy train.
And you will provide us with a proof of this acccusation right now.
The U.S. tossed out of the U.N.? Fuck that. How about we toss the U.N. out of New York?
Sure sure, check with the NSA first, they wanted the UN in the states in the first place, as it allows them to eavesdrop on the UN and the member nations.
Why don't we do exactly what Europe is demanding and stop "interferring" with other countries. That means we yank our troops out of Europe. That means we dump all the subsidies and loans - which measure in tens of billions. That means Europe and the rest of the world have to actually defend their own damn country instead of using the money for failed social programs. Sounds good to me.
Sounds even better to me. Where exactly in Germany was a war in the last 50 years? Or, what other places would have been worse off without a US interference?
There is not a single country in Europe that can field an army sufficient to defend itself (the UK isn't in Europe so our British friends can hold off yelling at me). You castrated your armies because you knew the U.S. would help you if necessary. As thanks, most of Europe stuck a knife in our back.
The UK isn't in Europe? Where is it then? Up GWB's Butt? Or do you mean they are not part of the MONETARY Union?
As for "defending" against what? Invading American Tourists? Maybe we should start finger printing them, take photos and if we have any doubts about them just lock them away until we are getting bored?
If I didn't believe most Europeans are basically good and don't hate us, unlike their political leaders,
The leaders hate the US? Wow.... What are you smoking, injecting or drinking?
I would wish another European war on them.
How about a War in the US for a change? Maybe then you guys come to realize what war REALLY is, instead of wishing this on other people.
Those ancient hatreds are still there, just hidden.
Hatred on what? On your "Freedom" and "Democracy"?
One day they will errupt like an infected boil.
Oh, you mean like the latent fear that is festering in every americans heart, waiting to be stirred by popular leaders so that you send your sons and daughters into a foreign country to bomb the crap out of them and in return leave some of them dead behind?
Then you'll want us to drag our asses back over there to fix things again. And you know what? We'll do it. Because despite how you have treated us, we will still do the right thing.
Funny, very very funny, if you wouldn't mean it seriously. I guess you still live under the illusion that the second world war was black and white and the US were the good guys all the way?
Geez, get yourself a history book and maybe one or two books on international politics, you need a serious reality adjustment.
I'll bet you a hundred bucks if the world calls the America's bluff and moves the U.N. headquarters or throws out the U.S., the U.S. will freak. The U.S. needs the U.N. to interact with the rest of the world, a lot more than right wing nut cases think.
The reason the UN ended up in the US was so that the NSA could easier spy on it. They might very loudly claim they don't like the UN, but heck, the moment it would move out of the country they would be serverely pissed, would make it a loter harder to eavesdrop on the communication(s) of all the countries.
These U.S. bases are obviously completely worthless in the current world, since there is no military threat in Europe unless Putin continues down the road to reconstituting the U.S.S.R. Fortunately for Western Europe they have a large buffer now in Eastern Europe that wasn't a buffer during the cold war.
What's worse is that the bases the US has already abandoned during the '90s were never really cleaned up. There are tons of chemicals in the ground and the land is poisioned, and they seem to have no interest in paying for the clean up.
As for a new USSR.... I don't think Putin would ditch the EU he is more than interested in having a good relationship. Russia has to gain more from working closely with the EU than with the US (at least for now).
Militaries are a complete economic waste unless you actually need them to stop an invasion. With the exception of some hot spots in the Balkans, Europe has turned in to a pretty happy, peaceful place and they don't really need or want the absurdly overgrown military the U.S. clings to.
Ack, only in Reaganomics it makes sense to build a huge army.
To argue that violating the law and endangering the saftey of pedestrians is somehow justified because you felt unsafe biking on the road is not only absurd, it is a selfish attitude.
I am not arguing for this or excusing it. It's a consequence that starts higher up the chain. If you want to get bikes of Sidewalks (where they DON'T belong) then you have to remove whatever makes them go on there in the first place.
One possiblity would be to have an "elevated" bike path that is clearly seperated from the cars through a barrier, this way cars wouldn't get in the bike lane and the bikes would be "safe".
My opinion on this matter is that Toronto suffers from too much of an anti car attitude, and the underlying cause of this is not a true concern for environment or health but rather a thinly disguised attempt to misdirect the public attention away from a very critical problem in Toronto: for decades we have failed to make the very needed infrastructure investments to upgrade road capacity to meet projected population growth.
Here I disagree.
I have only been living here for the past 5 years, but I can tell you that in comparision to Europe the problem is not so much in "road capacity" but "people capacity".
- Sidewalks in the downtown core are clearly not wide enough.
- Mass Transit is a problem (Streetcars get stuck in car traffic).
- The way the traffic lights are set up causes more gridlock (ever heard of a green wave? Why can't they sync the traffic lights?).
- Too many one way streets. The idea seems to be that people only go "through" the city instead of INTO the city.
- Again, Mass Transit, it needs a huge investement.
The solution for Toronto's problems lies not in building more highways but to build a Mass Transit infrastructure to which the Burbs can connect to (kiss and ride, parking lots at the Subway stops, and for crying out loud integrate the different Mass transit systems in the GTA).
All of this of course costs money, lot's of it, and because of this I am VERY sorry that Toronto didn't get the Olympics, for all the crying that went on by OCAP and such: It would have helped, they would have had to improve the infrastructure and Toronto would have benefited from it for the next 20 or 30 years.
Currently we are suffering with roadways which were designed to support a 1950's sized Toronto. Our budgets have not even allowed for proper maintainance of the existing roadways. Greater capacity is needed. This is essential to the economic survival of Toronto and with more efficiant traffic flow we would also gain reduced smog emissions.
Having lived in several European Cities and visited even more I can tell you right now it is not the Road infrastructure per-se that is the problem.
The main problem is that Toronto (and Ontario) never had a clear vision of what they wanted. On one hand they fiddled a bit with Road ways (think Gardiner) on the other hand they nibbled a bit at Mass Transit (Spadina Streetcars). But there is no overall concept.
The reality is: By designating right of way to Mass transit in the city, adding feeder transit from the Burbs you could reduce the overall traffic and gridlock, but the reality is that the infrastrucutre isn't there.
It's nice to talk about putting the Gardiner underground, but until they start building mass transit they will only worsen what is already there. In NO city has building more roads removed congestion, the system is too complex to combat it that way, unless you want to undertunnel all of Toronto and make it one huge parking garage other ways have to be found.
The failure by city council to effectively plan our roadways is compounded by foolish political decisions such as the Sheppard line. (I could talk about this boondoggle alone for a whole day). Politics is not a new problem. Politics also killed
Re:Novell buying SuSE could be the best thing for
on
SUSE 9.2 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Up until Version 7 they had ISO images available. They changed their policy because they wanted / needed the revenue, and in essence there is nothing wrong with it, now is there?
I bought 9.1 and I might download the 9.2 iso and upgrade, we'll see when the time comes.
I was simply making a legal point based on the observation of your original assertion that you boldly ride in the center of the street, and all other traffic be dammed. I do not see the need to debate whether a safe allowance should be 2 meters or 1 meter, I will leave the measurement of car doors to your own judgement.
Let me put it this way, a metre cuts it too close, especially with someone stepping out, also, it prevents cars from coming to close, nothing's worse when you run out of road because you're wedged in between parked cars and a moving truck.
Personally I feel that much of this problem could be reduced if the police would more vigorously enforce existing no-parking restrictions on primary commuting arteries like Yonge Street and Avenue Road etc. (Such parking while convenient for merchants is frustrating and dangerous for both motorist and cyclist alike)
I agree, instead of just ticketing though they should impound the truck, maybe then they learn, but of course that is wishful thinking.
Worse are the cars though who turn where they aren't supposed to (e.g. into Shuter southbound or into the Eaton Centre Parking Garage north bound).
The original intent in my first post was to illustrate the my concern that many cylists consistantly fail to adhere to the rules of the road. As a pedestrian, I am continually endangered by cyclists who choose to ride on the sidewalk, ride through crosswalks etc. I am tired of this. If a car was driving down the sidewalk you can bet that 50 people would be on their cell phones calling the police to report a dangerous driver. Bikers always get away with this with impunity.
I agree, though the reason a lot of bikers I guess do this because they don't want to meddle with cars, close calls etc. It sucks, because they feel threatened they move to the sidewalks which makes the Pedestrian the weakest link.
A solution would be to lobby for more bike paths, and maybe make sure that they are actually "rideable", it is amazing that they, at times, repave the road and do the sidewalks, but the stretch where the bikepath runs is not touched.
And of course towing and ticketing people who think parking in a bike lane is "ok" would go a long way as well.
As for "rules of the road" let's face it, many pedestrians aren't much better, Jaywalking etc. (and yes, I do that too).
I think moving away from a car centric approach within downtown Toronto would go a very very long way of making the city more liveable both for bike riders and pedestrians.
Your original point that cars must share the roads in safety with cylists is true and without debate. However sidewalks are the domain of pedestrians. Until cylists begin to respect this fact I fail to see why they should be indignant at recieving similar treatment by motorists.
I think it comes really down to the way the roads are... If someone on the bike feels reasonably safe they will stay on the road, if not they try to find "safer ground" and thus endangering someone else.
It has to start with the cars, the rest from there will follow.
Where we disagree is that you keep trying to claim that it's not really the same amount of effort when someone goes slow on a high-drag bike versus going fast on a low-drag bike.
Actually,
this is exactly what I try to say, that it IS the same effort, I just don't believe that the benefit you are getting from riding the slower bike is great enough to justify it.
I know there is the old "no pain, no gain" mentality, but at the end of the day anybody who trains "professionally" will tell you that you should train smart, not hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? Since when do you need a passport to go from the UK to mainland Europe????
I can't even remember when I was showing my passport the last time I came from overseas...
Okay, I SHOWED it, I walked through the line that said: "European Citizens" OPened it, showed it towards the officer and got waved through, took less than 5 seconds, while all the american and "foreign" citizens spent an hour standing in line getting everything sorted out (but next time I came into Canada *I* had to stand in line).
And this happened in London, Amsterdam and Frankfurt over the past 2 years to me, and I never showed a passport when travelleing within the EU.
Umm... Dude, I don't need a passport to drive from Germany to France, I don't even have customs. Welcome to the European Unions.... And you can do that for more than 15 years.
;)
As for "traelling abroad" where you need a passport, that mainly involves countries like the US, who would just LOVE to have a DNA Sample stored on the passort..... You never know with foreigners, they have such strange habits and all that....
Ah well,
just be happy that you live in a free country where you can buy anything as long as you have the money....
Actually I am German living in Canada right now
Michael
Yes, but you can only do this if you are big enough.
If the major insurers in the US for example would get together they could do the same thing (I guess: They do this already, but you don't get any of it) and everybody (well, minus the pharma companies) would profit.
Have a look at Pfizers financial statement, they're still doing rather well.
I also find it notable that I got my Flueshot here in Toronto yesterday without a problem while in the US people are standing in line for hours on end and then still have to go home (or come up to Canada). And there I thought people only stood in line in "commie land".
You can thank the "everybody for himself" mentality that is what the Us is all about.
I read a newsarticle a couple of months ago where they pointed out that not even Medicare is "buying in bulk" but rather "individual packages" depending on how it goes.
Imagine all of Medicare got their act together and would negotiate ONE price with the supplier? Suddenly the prices would drop.
That's whats going on in Canada, and they are currently fighting over a Federal Pharmacare plan which would probably decrease the costs even further.
nice, so they think because they got ripped off (or claimed to have been ripped off) they can now just take GAIM and sell it as their own?
Wow, great logic.
iChat IMO is pretty much what one wants in an IM client, and I tried both Audio & Video conferencing with them to places around the world and I have to say I am very very impressed by it.
In essence, if google really creates it's own client, it will most likely use an established protocol, and AIM would almost certainly be the logic consequence.
Now let's hope that iChat starts to support other IM Protocols soon.... They already allow for it in the addressbook.
No, nothing wrong with it, but I think using the wedding as a "excuse" is a bit.. UMmmmmm Self fulfilling?
I agree with the United Way, but there are other charities that could benefit from it. Personally I think the United Way is a bit oof "Highway Robbery' as it seems they muscle you (or trying to) into giving money at work all the time time.
I wonder how people ever dealt with death before they invented photography and video..... Must have been really bad back then, I mean really... Just memories?
I think we all value things differently. Does one need photos or videos to remember people by?
I read a quote once that went along the lines of: "You're only truly dead when you're forgotten."
So maybe the key to be remembered and "leave something behind" is not by being recorded for the "afterlife" but rather by living a life that is a testament to ones own existance? Be it through family or work?
Just a thought.
M.
P.S.
Personally I find huge wedding parties a waste as well, for that amount of money one could either do a lot of good (e.g. donating it) or do something together that both can remember for the rest of their lives (travel around the world?).
But then I don't think that love doesn't show itself in tangible things but how we interact and live our lives.
First of all "more efficent" isn't limited to a particular device, it is a combination of things that together will yield a higher efficency overall.
Yes Dorothy, that means changing for example the way we light our apartments, get to work, buy our food, but there is so much energy wasted right now on a day to day basis that we would gain a lot more than you might imagine right now.
Next time you are at your grocery store have a look at where all the vegetables, meats, "frozen dinners" and their ingridients are coming from, and then think about how much energy was used just by transporting all of this around, I am not even talking about processing and such.
If we (as a society) are serious about energy conservation we could do everything (as in standard of living) as we're doing it right now but with less energy and drawing it from different sources.
With one huge difference.
When one of your "statistically sufficentily infrequent" accidents occurs the impact will be not quite so small.
Yes, coal and oil burning is poisioning us and the environment, but it is a lot smaller, by making changes now we can get rid of most of it in 10 - 20 years (assuming we have enough oil left).
And more importantly: Countries like China have to make those changes now, they are only now building their infrastructure and can prevent a lot of the mistakes that we have made.
BTW, this page here lists some nuclear disasters over the past 50 years and even though (excluding Chernobyl) nothing really "bad" has happened I have my doubts.
And even if there would be no "real" danger. Stress in and on itself is a problem:
Here I disgaree.
We need to find LOCAL solutions, not a "one size fits all" approach, because it won't.
Partially true. Yes, it does take energy to do all those things, but let's face it: Conservation isn't a high priority item when it comes to designing these, otherwise: Why do so many SUVs drive around?
There is a LOT that can be conserved by moving most of the individual transit to mass transit.
Think about this, every day you climbin your 2000 pound car, drive by yourself to work and back.
Now, how many people can you fit in a bus? Say 50? Now does the bus weigh a 100,000 pounds? Or less? And what is more efficent?
The point is that a lot of the things we do each day are very ineffecient and could be improved upon, same goes for applicances, computers etc. There is more "hidden" energy than you might see at first.
True, but you are looking only at devices etc. Look at the bigger picture.
If we would try to re-architect it more energy efficent the whole process on how we achieve what we are doing has to be changed, e.g. less individual transport, more mass transit as one example.
Or how about food production? Distribution? There are ways that would net gain a lot more.
It alone of course won't work, we do need alternative energy sources, but by putting conservation first we open the door to technologies we are currently shunning because we don't think they can give us enough energy to keep going the way it is going now.
Out of the frying pan into the fire though. Until we can figure out what to do with the nuclear waste we are just shifting the problem, and most likely aggevate it. If any of those spent fuel rods get "lost" they can contaminate entire landscapes, and there won't necessarily be any warning that this is happening.
When do you want to pay? Now or later? Face it, we won't get around huge investements because the way we're doing it right now is not sustainable in the long run.
Alternative fuel sources need to be found and made accesible. The sooner the better and we better don't whine about the price because
Ummmm,
what ever CO2 we emit into the athmosphere is ADDITIONAL to the ones that nature is already releasing, just to say that we are currently emitting less than nature itself doesn't mean we have to DOUBLE the overall output.
I am not sure that nuclear is the only option.
For starters. The key is CONSERVATION of energy, and that doesn't mean going back to the stone age but rather build more energy efficent appliances, computers etc.
The move to LCDs is a good (very good) first step, as it will allow to reduce the power the computers are using quite extensivly, but it continues on by choosing alternate ways of how you cool or heat your apartment / house, how you get to and from work (mass transit anyone?).
And the old "reduce, reuse, recycle" still applies too, not only for items but for energy as well (e.g. waste heat).
Look at iceland, they are going to heat / power the entire country by using thermal energy, granted not something you can do in NYC, but there are other ways to generate energy, and we better start now, because besides the global warming we also are poised to run out of things we can burn in the near future (near as in the next 25 years).
Here's a tip: If you want to have a discussion don't insult your opponent, makes you just look stupid.
And next time: Be more specific than (e.g. Oil-for-food scandal) instead of just making blanket statements.
Now,
I just followed some of your links, and the interesting thing is that most of those articles are from April, but nothing newer.
Here's a quote from the Economist:
It seems the one who actually benefited from the scam was Saddam himself, not the leaders of Germany, Russia or France.
And speaking of "kick back" how does it work in the "rebuilding of Iraq" right now? Or are you trying to tell me now that the US is not feeding itself on the table that was prepared by themselves in Iraq?
BTW, nice that you did not reply to the rest of my posting.
Amen,
and tanks don't drive that well without oil, neither fly airplanes.
The most ironic thing is that it seems americans are always looking back at the Second World War and bask in the glory and think they could do it again.... Only problem is: They've outsourced all the production to China, so they better hope not to go to war with China.
And you will provide us with a proof of this acccusation right now.
Sure sure, check with the NSA first, they wanted the UN in the states in the first place, as it allows them to eavesdrop on the UN and the member nations.
Sounds even better to me. Where exactly in Germany was a war in the last 50 years? Or, what other places would have been worse off without a US interference?
The UK isn't in Europe? Where is it then? Up GWB's Butt? Or do you mean they are not part of the MONETARY Union?
As for "defending" against what? Invading American Tourists? Maybe we should start finger printing them, take photos and if we have any doubts about them just lock them away until we are getting bored?
The leaders hate the US? Wow.... What are you smoking, injecting or drinking?
How about a War in the US for a change? Maybe then you guys come to realize what war REALLY is, instead of wishing this on other people.
Hatred on what? On your "Freedom" and "Democracy"?
Oh, you mean like the latent fear that is festering in every americans heart, waiting to be stirred by popular leaders so that you send your sons and daughters into a foreign country to bomb the crap out of them and in return leave some of them dead behind?
Funny, very very funny, if you wouldn't mean it seriously. I guess you still live under the illusion that the second world war was black and white and the US were the good guys all the way?
Geez, get yourself a history book and maybe one or two books on international politics, you need a serious reality adjustment.
The reason the UN ended up in the US was so that the NSA could easier spy on it. They might very loudly claim they don't like the UN, but heck, the moment it would move out of the country they would be serverely pissed, would make it a loter harder to eavesdrop on the communication(s) of all the countries.
What's worse is that the bases the US has already abandoned during the '90s were never really cleaned up. There are tons of chemicals in the ground and the land is poisioned, and they seem to have no interest in paying for the clean up.
As for a new USSR.... I don't think Putin would ditch the EU he is more than interested in having a good relationship. Russia has to gain more from working closely with the EU than with the US (at least for now).
Ack, only in Reaganomics it makes sense to build a huge army.
I look at my "training bike rides" as this: trianing, I go riding for a specific purpose, the commuting is just an "add on".
M.
I am not arguing for this or excusing it. It's a consequence that starts higher up the chain. If you want to get bikes of Sidewalks (where they DON'T belong) then you have to remove whatever makes them go on there in the first place.
One possiblity would be to have an "elevated" bike path that is clearly seperated from the cars through a barrier, this way cars wouldn't get in the bike lane and the bikes would be "safe".
Here I disagree.
I have only been living here for the past 5 years, but I can tell you that in comparision to Europe the problem is not so much in "road capacity" but "people capacity".
- Sidewalks in the downtown core are clearly not wide enough.
- Mass Transit is a problem (Streetcars get stuck in car traffic).
- The way the traffic lights are set up causes more gridlock (ever heard of a green wave? Why can't they sync the traffic lights?).
- Too many one way streets. The idea seems to be that people only go "through" the city instead of INTO the city.
- Again, Mass Transit, it needs a huge investement.
The solution for Toronto's problems lies not in building more highways but to build a Mass Transit infrastructure to which the Burbs can connect to (kiss and ride, parking lots at the Subway stops, and for crying out loud integrate the different Mass transit systems in the GTA).
All of this of course costs money, lot's of it, and because of this I am VERY sorry that Toronto didn't get the Olympics, for all the crying that went on by OCAP and such: It would have helped, they would have had to improve the infrastructure and Toronto would have benefited from it for the next 20 or 30 years.
Having lived in several European Cities and visited even more I can tell you right now it is not the Road infrastructure per-se that is the problem.
The main problem is that Toronto (and Ontario) never had a clear vision of what they wanted. On one hand they fiddled a bit with Road ways (think Gardiner) on the other hand they nibbled a bit at Mass Transit (Spadina Streetcars). But there is no overall concept.
The reality is: By designating right of way to Mass transit in the city, adding feeder transit from the Burbs you could reduce the overall traffic and gridlock, but the reality is that the infrastrucutre isn't there.
It's nice to talk about putting the Gardiner underground, but until they start building mass transit they will only worsen what is already there. In NO city has building more roads removed congestion, the system is too complex to combat it that way, unless you want to undertunnel all of Toronto and make it one huge parking garage other ways have to be found.
Up until Version 7 they had ISO images available. They changed their policy because they wanted / needed the revenue, and in essence there is nothing wrong with it, now is there?
I bought 9.1 and I might download the 9.2 iso and upgrade, we'll see when the time comes.
Let me put it this way, a metre cuts it too close, especially with someone stepping out, also, it prevents cars from coming to close, nothing's worse when you run out of road because you're wedged in between parked cars and a moving truck.
I agree, instead of just ticketing though they should impound the truck, maybe then they learn, but of course that is wishful thinking.
Worse are the cars though who turn where they aren't supposed to (e.g. into Shuter southbound or into the Eaton Centre Parking Garage north bound).
I agree, though the reason a lot of bikers I guess do this because they don't want to meddle with cars, close calls etc. It sucks, because they feel threatened they move to the sidewalks which makes the Pedestrian the weakest link.
A solution would be to lobby for more bike paths, and maybe make sure that they are actually "rideable", it is amazing that they, at times, repave the road and do the sidewalks, but the stretch where the bikepath runs is not touched.
And of course towing and ticketing people who think parking in a bike lane is "ok" would go a long way as well.
As for "rules of the road" let's face it, many pedestrians aren't much better, Jaywalking etc. (and yes, I do that too).
I think moving away from a car centric approach within downtown Toronto would go a very very long way of making the city more liveable both for bike riders and pedestrians.
I think it comes really down to the way the roads are... If someone on the bike feels reasonably safe they will stay on the road, if not they try to find "safer ground" and thus endangering someone else.
It has to start with the cars, the rest from there will follow.
What a bold statement to make in North America.
Ah well, to each their own, I train for most of my stuff on time, when it comes to my bike rides I go by distance :)
M.
Actually,
this is exactly what I try to say, that it IS the same effort, I just don't believe that the benefit you are getting from riding the slower bike is great enough to justify it.
I know there is the old "no pain, no gain" mentality, but at the end of the day anybody who trains "professionally" will tell you that you should train smart, not hard.