ah! wouldn't that be great!
but then i'ld also like to require a little test before i let you vote on a specific issue, for instance if you vote on speed limits, you need to prove you understand the consequences.
And the patent office does not require any proof. They accept any patent request, if not too obvious a double, and only when an infringement is made, the party accused of infringement has to proof the patent is false.
This is how a joker (aka 'lawyer') managed to get a patent on the invention "wheel".
"Because they dislike the EU..." false. The history of the European Union was not an attempt to reach democracy. You can see this very clearly if you follow several decisions. You will see that the (11-person?) European Commission has the most power, and the parliament can hardly do anything, which is not the same as what you are saying: you say the EU has no decision power, but actually the EU DOES, but there is no proper democratic control.
You may remember too that the European Union initially was not started as a democratic thing, but as an alliance between France and Germany, it had to do with the iron and coal industry or what. It was then called the European Economic Communion and the word Economic describes exactly what it was about. Back then the main lobbyists were the larger transnationals. They still are the most dexterious in getting their plans through.
If you want to read more on the european "democracy", look for 'Trans European Network', 'patents on life' or 'Paul van Buitenen'.
I hope not to disappoint you but this is not accurate, and will expecially not be after the new constitution comes in place. I don't know any detail of it yet but I do know they want to shift power to Europe with that constitution.
An example that comes very close to these patents are the "patents on life", which were decided upon in a pretty dodgy way. Acrtually the European Parliament managed to postpone the whole thing in 1995 by saying there should be a clause on ethics in it. The reaction by the European Commission was pretty heavy, and the lobby organizations in favour organized a pretend-grassroot campaign 'No Patents - No Cure', claiming handicapped people wanted the patents for the sake of medicines. So the same year the parliament accepted this proposal. After that vote it turned out that the 'No Patents - No Cure' campaign was not at all backed by patient organizations but by the farmaceutical industry. But then it was too late.
Upon pressure by the Dutch parliament the Dutch government reluctantly made a case against the EU at the European Court in Luxembourg (supported by some other countries, like France), claiming the new regulation was not decided upon in a fair way. I actually sat at the court session because I was than involved with several NGO's that did not like the idea of patents on life. But I digress.
More important is that in the end our government was forced to implement the European directory in national legislation.
Read more (sorry, Dutch) about this legislation at http://www.platformgentechnologie.nl/patents/thema _patenten/patent_geschiedenis.html
I would really like to know what's in that constitution, as I will have to vote in favour or against the constitution the 1st of June.
Whatever I do, my government (the Dutch) has already stated that whatever the outcome of the vote is allright: if the majority votes in favour then we win, but if the majority votes against, then we are stupid and they will protect us against ourselves by ignoring that.
They rather like to call it referendum (interglot says this is 'plebiscite' in english, which I doubt) and not a vote. Gauging?
Also, there are some political parties against this new constitution. Therefore the government has made available about a million euros from a mysterious 'emergency fund' to be used in case the information spread about the constitution will be misleading. They specified this on the radio too, saying that they need this money in case the opponents of the European constitution spread false information. The interviewer asked what would happen if proponents of the constitution spread false information however this was not a possibility they expected to happen.
ok let's off topic again.
Kyoto is not the final solution to climate change.
But at the moment it is the only international thing going on to try and reduce the effects of CO2 reduction.
The fact that the US is using what was it, something like 80% of the worlds resources, should make it be one of the first to act here. Even if they think Kyoto is a communist or islamic complot (or whatever Orwellian enemy will be invented next), they should at least show commitment to the future and take action to reduce energy use.
However it chooses to again play the card of refuting what's obvious. Anyway one day soon the whole economy will collapse with the current tax policy and expected oil price increase. Oh boy, we the rest of the world will have to brew our own cola, how will we miss the US.
By the way, the USA did not only not sign Kyoto, but also played mean politics to block the Carthagena Biosafety Protocol, tries to impose GMO's on countries that do not want them, is actively blocking the international court of justice by even threatening to bloody invade The Hague when a US citizen is held there.
Nature is dynamic as well as static.
Whether it should be tomorrow like it was a 1000 years ago depends on the situation back then.
Sand dunes can over time turn into lovely forests. However if everything turns in to the same type of forest it gets boring and then sand dunes are cool.
"Just because the choice is (A) or (Nothing), doesn't mean that (A) is the right choice - sometimes (Nothing) is the right choice. A Treaty which accomplishes nothing meaningful (as the Kyoto Treaty does) is not NECESSARY."
The thing is, this treaty has to be full of compromises just because it tries to get hundreds of countries active. That is not an easy thing, as there ain't no world government yet (thank G.... oops i mean who-ever you want to thank for that).
"Let me see a Treaty, binding on EVERYONE, that reduces CO2 emmissions to ZERO in some reasonable timeframe, and I'll go along with it."
You know that is not possible, as CO2 is all over the place. I agree that Kyoto is not enough but that is the most ridiculous reason you can find to be against joining it.
"Unfortunately, some things are all-or-nothing affairs - if anthropogenic CO2 emmissions are destroying our civilizations, slowing them just adds a few years to the deathmarch. Which is not worth doing, unless you plan on dying in that period...."
If you followed the recent discussion, you'ld have noticed that climate and nature scientist are cloving hairs over how-much-degrees-are-safe. Like until recently the climatologists sort of agreed that you'ld have to keep the average(!) worldwide increase to 2.0 degrees Celsius. Above that, the increase in disastrous weather change would be unacceptable.
It turns out this 2.0 degrees seems to be chosen because according to the models it is related to the concentration of CO2 of -if i remember it well - 400 parts per billion. So like stock traders, these folks are sensitive to a round looking number (400ppb) even though this figure in itself means nothing. It is just a choice they make.
Unfortunately, nature does not care about round figures. Ecological system analysts showed that the temperature increase is already tearing ecologically linked species apart. Like there is this bird whose eggs hatch on a certain period, that used to be timed with high availability of food (caterpillars).
The caterpillar peak however shifts in time due to the climate change, effecting the bird.
Therefore these ecologists advise not to aim for 2.0 degrees but for max 1.5.
How is this a response to your rant? Well you seem to say we need not do anything because we will end up burning it all anyway, if i read you right.
The people investigating this however seem to think this IS important and we HAVE a choice.
If you just meant to say you don't want to share fossile fuels, well forget all my arguments, join Bjorn Lomborg and other skepticists and vote for that great old party that doea whatever pleases the large companies....
Nature does not change a bit because of that but it may make you feel better and after all, that's wha's important.
Please state your REAL reason and not some sorry excuse.
The Environmental Systmes Analysis group of Wageningen University (Dr. Carolien Kroeze e.a.) has done research into the energy needs of India and China and how they can cope with it. They found that they can INCREASE energy production and at the same time (!) seriously DECREASE emissions if they take the right measures. These include switching from coal to gas, reduce (immense) losses in the electricity distribution network, use energy efficient equipment at the end user.
This does not have to be expensive to reduce 50% of emissions, without pain.
And contra popular belief, nuclear energy does not play a role in the scenarios.
US is behaving quite irresponsibly in the international arena, not only re: Kyoto. In stead of waiting for disasters to happen and trying to live wasfully as long as possible, with a painful end, they should rather cooperate with the rest of the world now and take less painful measures now. And also prepare for oil prices to boom, as we are approaching the max soon and after that the prices will go up drastically.
"We need to REPLACE the power sources we aim to wean ourselves from. And nuclear is the answer."
You are obviously not up to date with current research. A couple of specialists who actually KNOW what they are talking about id a research for India and China in how they can reduce emmissions for energy production. They found that through safe measures you can within the coming 10 or 20 years increase the energy production as is desired in these fast developing countries, and at the same time drastically reduce emmissions.
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/TAP/rains_asia/doc s/inco.html
Can somebody remove the INSIGHTFUL tag from the above message please? It makes me sick.
Are you sure it's the majority now? In WWI the German army was more effective allegedly because they were first to psychologically screen their soldiers. Their opponents didn't and their army about 60% of the soldiers deliberately aimed 'wrong'.
Way back when the 802.11 standard was being developed (1988), the standard commission wanted to add encryption but where not allowed to use it by the American authorities. You know, export of encryption techniques not allowed. Only when Clinton lifted this limitation it was possible to build in encryption in the standard and then there was some lag to the getting this stuff in the firmware.
PS i did not read all them replies, sorry if this has already been said.
Slashdot Mirror
ah! wouldn't that be great! but then i'ld also like to require a little test before i let you vote on a specific issue, for instance if you vote on speed limits, you need to prove you understand the consequences.
And the patent office does not require any proof. They accept any patent request, if not too obvious a double, and only when an infringement is made, the party accused of infringement has to proof the patent is false.
This is how a joker (aka 'lawyer') managed to get a patent on the invention "wheel".
This is how farmacautical companies try to patent ancient medicines made from the neem tree. Greenpeace blocked another attempt to steal a crop.
"Because they dislike the EU..."
false.
The history of the European Union was not an attempt to reach democracy. You can see this very clearly if you follow several decisions. You will see that the (11-person?) European Commission has the most power, and the parliament can hardly do anything, which is not the same as what you are saying: you say the EU has no decision power, but actually the EU DOES, but there is no proper democratic control.
You may remember too that the European Union initially was not started as a democratic thing, but as an alliance between France and Germany, it had to do with the iron and coal industry or what. It was then called the European Economic Communion and the word Economic describes exactly what it was about. Back then the main lobbyists were the larger transnationals. They still are the most dexterious in getting their plans through.
If you want to read more on the european "democracy", look for 'Trans European Network', 'patents on life' or 'Paul van Buitenen'.
I hope not to disappoint you but this is not accurate, and will expecially not be after the new constitution comes in place. I don't know any detail of it yet but I do know they want to shift power to Europe with that constitution.
a _patenten/patent_geschiedenis.html
An example that comes very close to these patents are the "patents on life", which were decided upon in a pretty dodgy way.
Acrtually the European Parliament managed to postpone the whole thing in 1995 by saying there should be a clause on ethics in it. The reaction by the European Commission was pretty heavy, and the lobby organizations in favour organized a pretend-grassroot campaign 'No Patents - No Cure', claiming handicapped people wanted the patents for the sake of medicines. So the same year the parliament accepted this proposal. After that vote it turned out that the 'No Patents - No Cure' campaign was not at all backed by patient organizations but by the farmaceutical industry. But then it was too late.
Upon pressure by the Dutch parliament the Dutch government reluctantly made a case against the EU at the European Court in Luxembourg (supported by some other countries, like France), claiming the new regulation was not decided upon in a fair way. I actually sat at the court session because I was than involved with several NGO's that did not like the idea of patents on life. But I digress.
More important is that in the end our government was forced to implement the European directory in national legislation.
Read more (sorry, Dutch) about this legislation at http://www.platformgentechnologie.nl/patents/them
I would really like to know what's in that constitution, as I will have to vote in favour or against the constitution the 1st of June.
Whatever I do, my government (the Dutch) has already stated that whatever the outcome of the vote is allright: if the majority votes in favour then we win, but if the majority votes against, then we are stupid and they will protect us against ourselves by ignoring that.
They rather like to call it referendum (interglot says this is 'plebiscite' in english, which I doubt) and not a vote. Gauging?
Also, there are some political parties against this new constitution. Therefore the government has made available about a million euros from a mysterious 'emergency fund' to be used in case the information spread about the constitution will be misleading.
They specified this on the radio too, saying that they need this money in case the opponents of the European constitution spread false information. The interviewer asked what would happen if proponents of the constitution spread false information however this was not a possibility they expected to happen.
ok let's off topic again. Kyoto is not the final solution to climate change. But at the moment it is the only international thing going on to try and reduce the effects of CO2 reduction. The fact that the US is using what was it, something like 80% of the worlds resources, should make it be one of the first to act here. Even if they think Kyoto is a communist or islamic complot (or whatever Orwellian enemy will be invented next), they should at least show commitment to the future and take action to reduce energy use. However it chooses to again play the card of refuting what's obvious. Anyway one day soon the whole economy will collapse with the current tax policy and expected oil price increase. Oh boy, we the rest of the world will have to brew our own cola, how will we miss the US. By the way, the USA did not only not sign Kyoto, but also played mean politics to block the Carthagena Biosafety Protocol, tries to impose GMO's on countries that do not want them, is actively blocking the international court of justice by even threatening to bloody invade The Hague when a US citizen is held there.
not cool to anonymously accuse somebody else of your own weakness.
Nature is dynamic as well as static. Whether it should be tomorrow like it was a 1000 years ago depends on the situation back then. Sand dunes can over time turn into lovely forests. However if everything turns in to the same type of forest it gets boring and then sand dunes are cool.
"Just because the choice is (A) or (Nothing), doesn't mean that (A) is the right choice - sometimes (Nothing) is the right choice. A Treaty which accomplishes nothing meaningful (as the Kyoto Treaty does) is not NECESSARY." The thing is, this treaty has to be full of compromises just because it tries to get hundreds of countries active. That is not an easy thing, as there ain't no world government yet (thank G.... oops i mean who-ever you want to thank for that). "Let me see a Treaty, binding on EVERYONE, that reduces CO2 emmissions to ZERO in some reasonable timeframe, and I'll go along with it." You know that is not possible, as CO2 is all over the place. I agree that Kyoto is not enough but that is the most ridiculous reason you can find to be against joining it. "Unfortunately, some things are all-or-nothing affairs - if anthropogenic CO2 emmissions are destroying our civilizations, slowing them just adds a few years to the deathmarch. Which is not worth doing, unless you plan on dying in that period...." If you followed the recent discussion, you'ld have noticed that climate and nature scientist are cloving hairs over how-much-degrees-are-safe. Like until recently the climatologists sort of agreed that you'ld have to keep the average(!) worldwide increase to 2.0 degrees Celsius. Above that, the increase in disastrous weather change would be unacceptable. It turns out this 2.0 degrees seems to be chosen because according to the models it is related to the concentration of CO2 of -if i remember it well - 400 parts per billion. So like stock traders, these folks are sensitive to a round looking number (400ppb) even though this figure in itself means nothing. It is just a choice they make. Unfortunately, nature does not care about round figures. Ecological system analysts showed that the temperature increase is already tearing ecologically linked species apart. Like there is this bird whose eggs hatch on a certain period, that used to be timed with high availability of food (caterpillars). The caterpillar peak however shifts in time due to the climate change, effecting the bird. Therefore these ecologists advise not to aim for 2.0 degrees but for max 1.5. How is this a response to your rant? Well you seem to say we need not do anything because we will end up burning it all anyway, if i read you right. The people investigating this however seem to think this IS important and we HAVE a choice. If you just meant to say you don't want to share fossile fuels, well forget all my arguments, join Bjorn Lomborg and other skepticists and vote for that great old party that doea whatever pleases the large companies.... Nature does not change a bit because of that but it may make you feel better and after all, that's wha's important.
Please state your REAL reason and not some sorry excuse. The Environmental Systmes Analysis group of Wageningen University (Dr. Carolien Kroeze e.a.) has done research into the energy needs of India and China and how they can cope with it. They found that they can INCREASE energy production and at the same time (!) seriously DECREASE emissions if they take the right measures. These include switching from coal to gas, reduce (immense) losses in the electricity distribution network, use energy efficient equipment at the end user. This does not have to be expensive to reduce 50% of emissions, without pain. And contra popular belief, nuclear energy does not play a role in the scenarios. US is behaving quite irresponsibly in the international arena, not only re: Kyoto. In stead of waiting for disasters to happen and trying to live wasfully as long as possible, with a painful end, they should rather cooperate with the rest of the world now and take less painful measures now. And also prepare for oil prices to boom, as we are approaching the max soon and after that the prices will go up drastically.
"We need to REPLACE the power sources we aim to wean ourselves from. And nuclear is the answer." You are obviously not up to date with current research. A couple of specialists who actually KNOW what they are talking about id a research for India and China in how they can reduce emmissions for energy production. They found that through safe measures you can within the coming 10 or 20 years increase the energy production as is desired in these fast developing countries, and at the same time drastically reduce emmissions. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/TAP/rains_asia/doc s/inco.html
Can somebody remove the INSIGHTFUL tag from the above message please? It makes me sick.
Are you sure it's the majority now? In WWI the German army was more effective allegedly because they were first to psychologically screen their soldiers. Their opponents didn't and their army about 60% of the soldiers deliberately aimed 'wrong'.
Yes smartie. People do because they are angry because of the action doen in the name of a certain large country.
Way back when the 802.11 standard was being developed (1988), the standard commission wanted to add encryption but where not allowed to use it by the American authorities. You know, export of encryption techniques not allowed. Only when Clinton lifted this limitation it was possible to build in encryption in the standard and then there was some lag to the getting this stuff in the firmware. PS i did not read all them replies, sorry if this has already been said.