"Environmental" fees to take back the old oil. They tell me that it is the law. So, what do you think?
I change my own oil in my car, and have to pay the same fee when I dispose of it. The only thing I save is over having the shop do it is the cost of the labor; well that and having my retired mechanic father teasing me if I ever paid someone else to do it! To me, those environmental fees are the same thing as the fees I pay the city for my sewer connection or my garbage pickup.
It might be a reasonable law to require manufacturers to build their products in such a way that it would be easier to recycle them. Maybe a once a month pickup for these trash items would be fair.
Just an fyi, we're not one-sided, we're not partisan (I would point you to our press release: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/4/26/121441/8 91 [theoildrum.com]), and we encourage empirical/scientific study of these phenomena.
In other words, we're not your daddy's peak oil site. Read the site at least a bit (and know what you're talking about) before you spout off like that, eh?
I was thinking more like the person whom you are responding to, until I actually checked your site. While one can argue about how much production will come in the future, may of the other points on your site are hard to argue with at all. Particularly the point about how oil companies alone are not the cause of high gasoline prices. It is a combination of factors, and most of the levers that politicians have to ease the burden on the public are short-term levers. The long-term solutions fall into some combination of a few areas:
increase incentives to explore for more oil
increase incentives to find alternatives
increase efficiency standards of energy usage
There certainly isn't another way to do it that I can think of; regardless of whether or not you think that there is lots of oil waiting to be found or not. We still need to find it, and no matter what all of these options will take money and time. I do think it's safe to say that the easy oil has been found, and is or has been exploited.
but I still am of the opinion that offers of financial aid will produce more allies than threats ever will. (with the possible exceptions of Poland and France)
True and funny!... or sad.. take your pick... but you might want to add Spain to that list. Granted, I did spend 4 years in the USAF, but I do think there are times for military threats and acts. Darfur would be a good one, Serbia was.
Instead they waited until Bush puffed out his chest and made hollow threats, then called his bluff.
Good point. Personally, I think they've had enough for some time now; 5-10 years for at least one bomb, and I expect they have enough for 4-7 at the moment. That's what I gather from all the reports anyway. The timing of this explosion was most likely due to Bush's/our adventure in Iraq. The only miscalculation on the part of NK is that we don't have the plans to invade them. Their defences to a conventional attack are simply too good, and we'd take huge losses on any invasion. They know it, we know it, and they know we know it. That's why we moved 6 B-2's to Guam. The problem is that NK seems to be ignoring that. We moved out conventional forces, and moved closer nuclear ones. That's a clear message if I ever hear one. The problem is that, like you said, Bush then made a conventional attack threat. Well, that's just dumb and conflicting, so here we are.
If they had been so hard at work on them when Clinton was in charge, why did it take them so long to test one?
It takes a while to refine all of that uranium/plutonium. The plans themselves are on the internet, but it's difficult to build the hardware. I don't honestly believe they ever scaled back or slowed down. They have always had too much to gain by having the bomb. In that situation, there is nothing we can do to stop them short of a full scale invasion.
Also, many responders to me seem to think that I am Clinton bashing. I'm not. I simply think his strategy failed. Bush's did too. Again, I don't think any strategy would work when it's in their interest to have one. Japan could have one in 6 months, at most, if they wanted one, but they don't need one with US's offer of protection. If we, (China, or Russia more possibly), made the same offer, then they wouldn't need one. That's the only way to stop a country from wanting nukes; a guarentee of protection from someone who does. That's why so many countries are developing them.
My point is not that Clinton was a fool nor was it that Bush is a hero, but that both of them, and most of the rest of the world's leaders, missed the point.
Also, the ammount of effort in refining uranium/plutonium is huge, so that alone will keep many players off the table for some more years/decades, but not forever.
"Clinton tried that, and it didn't work."
Really? Please cite all of the nuclear testing that happened while he was in office.
That is a childish and foolish statement. The fact is that the ability to explode a nuclear bomb takes time to develop. The Clinton administration, along with those in other countries during the Bush Administration, offered incentives to NK to not perform the research. Preventing NK from having the ability to build a bomb is what the goal of both administrations. The tactics of both administrations clearly failed on that point. I firmly believe that if NK could have exploded a bomb while Clinton was in office, they would have. It's in their interest to have the bomb, so any incentives/sanctions, short of all out war, won't stop them.
And yes, I do realize that NK was working on some of this when he was in office, but I also believe the timing of their testing nukes now is in direct correaltion with how we are handling Iraq and the middle east, and is meant to send a message to the current administration.
Working on some of this? What does that mean? The fact is that they have been working on the development of their missile technology and their nuclear bomb technology for more than the last two administrations. None of them have had an answer to this issue. North Korea's fear of the US started when we invaded their country in 1950. The timing is more to do with the state of their technology and the state of their economy than Bush's adventurism. NK's governement is having trouble supporting their large military, and they need outside money to stay in power. Now that money could come in the form of incentives to not proliferate/give up it's nukes, or from other groups/countries who what NK's missile and nuclear technology. Either way, the people in charge will be able to stay in charge, and they'll get a lot more resources from outside with a bomb than they would without a bomb. In the meantime, the real losers in this game are the people of NK. They're the ones starving. I seriously doubt I like Bush any more than you do, but I think it's simplistic to say that this problem is caused by him. Partially, sure. Does his attitude help, certainly not, but SK, China, Russia, and even Japan have tried to offer incentives while Bush and crew are holding back. They haven't worked either.
Let me say again, we did invade NK once, and we have used nukes twice. Regardless of who's president, NK is going to be afraid of us doing it again.
Well, for a start he could have NOT tied up a large chunk of our military in a country with NO NUCLEAR THREAT AT ALL.
While that is a "would have been nice if" I honestly don't think it would have made much of a difference in this case.
Conventional arms aren't much of a threat to NK, anyway. Since the ceasefire, NK has built a underground network of defenses that would make the Vietnamese envious. The US's massive air-power advantage is simply not able to crack that nut, and a conventional ground invasion would be hampered by the terrain and those defenses. We'd take casualties that would be above the scale of Iwo Jima and Okinawa from WWII. Americans aren't willing to accept that, but I'm sure we'd accept adding another country to the MAD list; even if it's only a few cites on our side and their whole country. I'm not willing to trade 1 for their country, and I doubt I'm in a minority here.
Or he could have offered them other economic incentives to back off on the nuclear power, instead of threating them.
Clinton tried that, and it didn't work. I think the real problem is that the US doesn't have much of a lever against NK except all of our Nukes; MAD if you will. They want to have nukes, and China would be in a better position with a nuclear ally. Is it fair to say that only the US and a few others are allowed nukes? I guess the number being 7 if you include Israel in their semi-undeclared state. Granted the world would be better without nukes in the first place, but that's another "would be nice if".
For as rich of a country the US is, we give out very little monetary humanitarian aid to other countries. This is part of the reason other countries of the world don't have the same rosy outlook of the US as Bush/Rummy do...
As for the money bit, well, I don't agree that we give very little, but on the other hand, I think we could certainly give a lot more.
My grandmother has no way of knowing she's supposed to be running a firewall, or going to get a Microsoft Security update before doing anything else. WE know these things, because we hang out on Slashdot, but they're not obvious to the rest of the world
(puts on his Smokey the Bear hat) Only you can prevent forrest... er I mean viruses.
Seriously, it's really up to us in the know to help our friends and family who aren't.
You mean, like Vandenberg, and Cape Kennedy, and...
Anywhere the capability exists to put a payload into orbit is a target.
That "most important target" bit was a simple piece of scaremongering.
I agree. Afterall, the Pentagon WAS hit, and is still there. That has been and remains target #1!
besides a nuclear sub off the coast of any country could have a ton of nukes over a country in less than 10 minutes.
Imagine a company with zero engineers, and 100% managers, it cannot survive.
Now imagine a company with 100% engineers, which spend 5% of their time doing 'management' , it would still work and turn out a product, see google and apple.
A smart engineer can learn in 6months how to be a manager, a manager though would take 10 years to be as good as an engineer.
After all there are no management 5 year degrees at unis are there.
I disagree with you, partially. I am an engineer, and I have had management training. There is good management training out there, and degrees to go with it.
Anyway, my real point is that there is something to be said from proper manangment training. The problem that I've seen in the 10 years since I left college is that far too FEW managers actually have it. The thing is that a master's degree in business management would really help a lot of the folks that have been my managers.
I would say that a smart engineer could do it in 6 months, but would it would serve us all if that hotshot went to college and got an extra MS in business management.
As does alot of the world not in the united states but still grounded under it's definition of right and wrong is why can't a foreign self governing nation control its own airspace and space space. If I built a spy satellite and orbitted it over the united states I would be a terrorist and bombed in seconds. Why the difference for china?
There is no difference for China. They have spy satellites that take pictures of places in the US that the US government doesn't want them to. The Russians do too. In fact, with Sputnik, the Russians had a spy satellite up before the US. Everybody spys on everybody else, and noone likes when they either get caught or have their methods thwarted. It's part of the game that all governments play. It's not a big deal.
There is one problem with your logic. You can't control the "space" above your country. All things in orbit do not stay over one spot unless they are in geosyncronous orbit, which is not useful for many applications. Weather, some communication, GPS, and many research related (think Hubble and Casandra telescopes) sattelies can't do the job they need to do from that height. Geosyncronous orbit is roughly 26000 miles from the surface; google has the exact number. Also, the ISS is only like 300-500 miles up, and far from geosyncronous orbit. Even then, just getting up there usually takes several orbits around the earth.
No, China is not a terrorist, and it's silly to devolve the argument to that. It's just as silly for you to do it as it is for our President and his supporters. I doubt you're want to sink to their level. The fact is that MANY countries have spy sattelites up and over the US, and the rest of the world. I'm not sure I can name a country that has had a satellite up that the US has ever bombed. Sure Germany and Japan have satellites now, but not when we last bombed them.
Besides, all this means is that the US will have to try to make a better lock pick, and then Chinese (or someone else for that matter) will build a better lock to defeat it. The game goes ever on....
Is this really that useful for the public in general, or is this more of a tool for the authorities to use to better locate and document crime scenes, if the picture was taken at one?
I just heard the other day about some kind of 'mark' that digital cameras put on all images, that notate what type camera you have...and some of the programs put registration information on the images (name, etc).
I'm not sure I want all that meta data on pictures I take...just a simple picture thank you.
(I forgot the name of that tag..starts with an "E" I think.
I think that the uses for this, like so many other similiar things, are limited for the average Joe./.ers don't qualify as us geeks like are toys, but I can hear in the back my mind the voices of my non-geek friends going so what. I think professional photographers would love this, insurance adjusters, hikers, boy/girl scouts, and people like that would too. It's probably more of a niche market kind of thing, but I think it will sell beyond the Orwellian type users.
You're dead on. I work with a bunch of 20's 30's folks in a software firm, and only a few folks have Xbox/PS2. Several of us are talking about getting Wii's, including me who hasn't owned one since the origional NES came out way back when. I think Wii is going to turn out to be a surprise for everyone.
I am definitely waiting for 1080p as my next TV replacement, but anything above $2,000 is just not gonna do it for me, so I'll wait a little longer and stick to 720p, which is also very nice.
Westinghouse 42 inch LCD is below $2000 in the US. I saw one at a major US retailer for $1599 and free shipping.
No, I don't work for them, but I do enjoy that TV. I bought it from another company for $1800 earlier this year.
I've a Westinghouse LCD at 1080p. I use it in NYC with the local cable company's HD (mostly 1080i, a few channels 720p) and a progressive scan DVD player. It all looks great to me.
I wish I'd had the water cooler pick up the heat from those too.
They do have watercooling for that system. I use a reservator 1 and have an attachment for my videocard. It cools my vc with a second water block. newegg's got the extra part
I was in the US Air Force, and I can tell you that they have tested some of them on service personel. This is much the same thing as when Police spray eachother in the face with pepper spray to test it out; and to get a feel for it.
Some of the sonic weapons were deployed here in NYC during the Republican National Convention a few years ago. I saw them with my own eyes in use by the NYPD near Madison Square Garden. I believe that this system, in particular, is used on several cruise ships, and I think I remember reading about it online somewhere when they were talking about some attacks off the coast of Somalia earlier this year.
I don't get Microsoft's plan here. They seem to be looking the wrong way. Why make all these add-ons when the core product could be improved? XP is slow, has pleanty of bugs, and isn't as secure as it should be. An operating system, first and formost, should not be that way. Why doesn't MS simply put their effort into fixing it? After that, they can spend a few years making addons like a built-in DVD burner software. I really don't get it. If they made XP faster, cleaner, and more secure/stable, then I'd buy that. I don't need the gobbeldgook of all the little features that I could easily DL off the Net. Hell, why not even market a stripped down version for power users; give us here something to chomp on? I'd bet, if they made the striped down version correctly, that many of us here would buy it. I'd also bet that if they striped off a lot of the extra crap that comes with XP that the damn thing would be a hell of a lot more stable.
I also don't understand why they keep legacy support in the main application. Why not make it bootable to the last stable version of the old OS as part of the whole OS? Like if you want to run this old APP from 1995, then you must reboot into the old os. More realistically, they could make a virtual machine option available. Think about it, anyone who's going to run anything arcane, is likely to have some techie's around to make sure it works. I know a lot of folks who work in hospitals that still run software on 98 machines. They have pleanty of techie's around keeping those old machines working.
MS is like a little kid running through a toy store that wants every little thing, but will only spend 2 minutes with it. We'd all be better off if they took some Riddelin and stuck with the point for while.
anyway, that's my 2 cents and my rant for the day!
The problem will go away immediately if ISPs turn off flat pricing and users start to pay for bandwidth used. Even better - if they start charging a differential/tiered pricing depending on the type of traffic. There is no rocket science here. The gear currently on the market is supposed to be able to do it (does it do it is a different matter).
ConEdison, the power company for NYC does that with our power. The first like 250 KWH or so is like 22 cents per KWH, and the next tier is like 24. I don't know if there's a third, but I've personally never used more than like 600 KWH in a month, but the point is there. I don't really see a problem with it. Hell, I've read that several state governments are talking about doing that with highway tolls; pay extra for driving on certain highways during peak times. Orwellian to be sure, but none the less out there.
the ice melts into the ocean in most places aside from a few mountain glaciers. It won't help. Oddly enough, at the moment, the net change in ice in Antartica is positive. It's melting there on that northern peninsula, but adding on the rest of the contenant. The artic, however, seems to be melting; again though, not on the big island of Greenland. The sea ice is diminishing, though. Maybe we just need to chop up greenland's ice and ship it to the places where they need it.
What I don't understand is how you can be such a huge, rich country, claim to be the greatest country on Earth, and yet you can't do what the Dutch have done with a quarter of their country [minbuza.nl] to one city on your coast? Heck, even the Italians managed to do it for over a millenia - Venice was founded some time between 400 and 800 AD.
Why can't America do it right in one city?
simple answer... we have the technology... even if we had to ask the Dutch to show us what to do, but we choose not to spend the money on it. right or wrong is not my point, but the cities defenses were designed for a category 3 storm.. at best.. I've heard a "2.5" really. Obviously, anyone over at the National Weather Service will tell you that New Orleans has a good chance of being hit or side-swiped by even a level 5 storm at least once every couple of decades. My guess is that someone figured it'd be easier to simply rebuild then to build the defenses to take a bigger hit. Much the same could be said for my city, NYC. The powers that be allowed the infrastructure to degrade to the point that during my childhood of the 80s it was AWFUL. The bridges, tunnels, and all the rest where down right dangerous by the end of the 80s. Now the city is spending a HUGE sum of money upgrading and reparing these structures; a sum that is far greater than maintaining them properly would have been.
We can do things right here, but often the will weakens with time. After all, those bridges I speak of did hold up quite well considering, and none have fallen. Fortunately, most, if not all, are now getting the attention they need.
Hmm -- sounds like the urban equivalent of a forest fire in some ways -- the fire comes through and clears out all the old stuff and clears the way for new growth. It'd be very very cool to see New Orleans come back as a much less corrupt and much more modern city that business flocks to, thereby improving the job situation for all residents and improving the tax base allowing for restoration of the historic parts of the city, etc... of course, that's unlikely to happen as the powers that be seem to have survived the flood.
this kind of thing has happened before... London(middle ages... i forget when the big fire happened)... and the great fire that cured the plague(city was rebuilt with stone... much less hospitible to rats and their fleas)
San Fran and their fire, Chicago.. and their fire.. jees I'm on a fire rant here, but what I'm saying is that I agree with you and it seems to me that there is a lot of historical evidence to support that... no doubt a lot more than i can think of when i should be working instead of typing this comment!
Slashdot Mirror
It might be a reasonable law to require manufacturers to build their products in such a way that it would be easier to recycle them. Maybe a once a month pickup for these trash items would be fair.
- increase incentives to explore for more oil
- increase incentives to find alternatives
- increase efficiency standards of energy usage
There certainly isn't another way to do it that I can think of; regardless of whether or not you think that there is lots of oil waiting to be found or not. We still need to find it, and no matter what all of these options will take money and time. I do think it's safe to say that the easy oil has been found, and is or has been exploited.Good point. Personally, I think they've had enough for some time now; 5-10 years for at least one bomb, and I expect they have enough for 4-7 at the moment. That's what I gather from all the reports anyway. The timing of this explosion was most likely due to Bush's/our adventure in Iraq. The only miscalculation on the part of NK is that we don't have the plans to invade them. Their defences to a conventional attack are simply too good, and we'd take huge losses on any invasion. They know it, we know it, and they know we know it. That's why we moved 6 B-2's to Guam. The problem is that NK seems to be ignoring that. We moved out conventional forces, and moved closer nuclear ones. That's a clear message if I ever hear one.
The problem is that, like you said, Bush then made a conventional attack threat. Well, that's just dumb and conflicting, so here we are.
Also, many responders to me seem to think that I am Clinton bashing. I'm not. I simply think his strategy failed. Bush's did too. Again, I don't think any strategy would work when it's in their interest to have one. Japan could have one in 6 months, at most, if they wanted one, but they don't need one with US's offer of protection. If we, (China, or Russia more possibly), made the same offer, then they wouldn't need one. That's the only way to stop a country from wanting nukes; a guarentee of protection from someone who does. That's why so many countries are developing them.
My point is not that Clinton was a fool nor was it that Bush is a hero, but that both of them, and most of the rest of the world's leaders, missed the point.
Also, the ammount of effort in refining uranium/plutonium is huge, so that alone will keep many players off the table for some more years/decades, but not forever.
That is a childish and foolish statement. The fact is that the ability to explode a nuclear bomb takes time to develop. The Clinton administration, along with those in other countries during the Bush Administration, offered incentives to NK to not perform the research. Preventing NK from having the ability to build a bomb is what the goal of both administrations. The tactics of both administrations clearly failed on that point. I firmly believe that if NK could have exploded a bomb while Clinton was in office, they would have. It's in their interest to have the bomb, so any incentives/sanctions, short of all out war, won't stop them.
Working on some of this? What does that mean? The fact is that they have been working on the development of their missile technology and their nuclear bomb technology for more than the last two administrations. None of them have had an answer to this issue. North Korea's fear of the US started when we invaded their country in 1950.
The timing is more to do with the state of their technology and the state of their economy than Bush's adventurism. NK's governement is having trouble supporting their large military, and they need outside money to stay in power. Now that money could come in the form of incentives to not proliferate/give up it's nukes, or from other groups/countries who what NK's missile and nuclear technology. Either way, the people in charge will be able to stay in charge, and they'll get a lot more resources from outside with a bomb than they would without a bomb. In the meantime, the real losers in this game are the people of NK. They're the ones starving. I seriously doubt I like Bush any more than you do, but I think it's simplistic to say that this problem is caused by him. Partially, sure. Does his attitude help, certainly not, but SK, China, Russia, and even Japan have tried to offer incentives while Bush and crew are holding back. They haven't worked either.
Let me say again, we did invade NK once, and we have used nukes twice. Regardless of who's president, NK is going to be afraid of us doing it again.
Conventional arms aren't much of a threat to NK, anyway. Since the ceasefire, NK has built a underground network of defenses that would make the Vietnamese envious. The US's massive air-power advantage is simply not able to crack that nut, and a conventional ground invasion would be hampered by the terrain and those defenses. We'd take casualties that would be above the scale of Iwo Jima and Okinawa from WWII. Americans aren't willing to accept that, but I'm sure we'd accept adding another country to the MAD list; even if it's only a few cites on our side and their whole country. I'm not willing to trade 1 for their country, and I doubt I'm in a minority here. Clinton tried that, and it didn't work.
I think the real problem is that the US doesn't have much of a lever against NK except all of our Nukes; MAD if you will. They want to have nukes, and China would be in a better position with a nuclear ally. Is it fair to say that only the US and a few others are allowed nukes? I guess the number being 7 if you include Israel in their semi-undeclared state. Granted the world would be better without nukes in the first place, but that's another "would be nice if". As for the money bit, well, I don't agree that we give very little, but on the other hand, I think we could certainly give a lot more.
Seriously, it's really up to us in the know to help our friends and family who aren't.
besides a nuclear sub off the coast of any country could have a ton of nukes over a country in less than 10 minutes.
I disagree with you, partially. I am an engineer, and I have had management training. There is good management training out
there, and degrees to go with it.
Anyway, my real point is that there is something to be said from proper manangment training. The problem that I've seen in the 10 years since I left college is that far too FEW managers actually have it. The thing is that a master's degree in business management would really help a lot of the folks that have been my managers.
I would say that a smart engineer could do it in 6 months, but would it would serve us all if that hotshot went to college and got an extra MS in business management.
My 2 cents...
There is one problem with your logic. You can't control the "space" above your country. All things in orbit do not stay over one spot unless they are in geosyncronous orbit, which is not useful for many applications. Weather, some communication, GPS, and many research related (think Hubble and Casandra telescopes) sattelies can't do the job they need to do from that height. Geosyncronous orbit is roughly 26000 miles from the surface; google has the exact number. Also, the ISS is only like 300-500 miles up, and far from geosyncronous orbit. Even then, just getting up there usually takes several orbits around the earth.
No, China is not a terrorist, and it's silly to devolve the argument to that. It's just as silly for you to do it as it is for our President and his supporters. I doubt you're want to sink to their level. The fact is that MANY countries have spy sattelites up and over the US, and the rest of the world. I'm not sure I can name a country that has had a satellite up that the US has ever bombed. Sure Germany and Japan have satellites now, but not when we last bombed them.
Besides, all this means is that the US will have to try to make a better lock pick, and then Chinese (or someone else for that matter) will build a better lock to defeat it. The game goes ever on....
You're dead on. I work with a bunch of 20's 30's folks in a software firm, and only a few folks have Xbox/PS2. Several of us are talking about getting Wii's, including me who hasn't owned one since the origional NES came out way back when. I think Wii is going to turn out to be a surprise for everyone.
at least, I hope so!
No, I don't work for them, but I do enjoy that TV. I bought it from another company for $1800 earlier this year.
I've a Westinghouse LCD at 1080p. I use it in NYC with the local cable company's HD (mostly 1080i, a few channels 720p) and a progressive scan DVD player. It all looks great to me.
I was in the US Air Force, and I can tell you that they have tested some of them on service personel. This is much the same thing as when Police spray eachother in the face with pepper spray to test it out; and to get a feel for it.
Some of the sonic weapons were deployed here in NYC during the Republican National Convention a few years ago. I saw them with my own eyes in use by the NYPD near Madison Square Garden. I believe that this system, in particular, is used on several cruise ships, and I think I remember reading about it online somewhere when they were talking about some attacks off the coast of Somalia earlier this year.
Damn, and I thought my parents were good for reading to me a lot! You take the cake... Keep it up!
Oh sure, take all the fun away by being reasonable and informed about the subject; and then posting. What are you doing here?
I don't get Microsoft's plan here. They seem to be looking the wrong way. Why make all these add-ons when the core product could be improved? XP is slow, has pleanty of bugs, and isn't as secure as it should be. An operating system, first and formost, should not be that way. Why doesn't MS simply put their effort into fixing it? After that, they can spend a few years making addons like a built-in DVD burner software. I really don't get it. If they made XP faster, cleaner, and more secure/stable, then I'd buy that. I don't need the gobbeldgook of all the little features that I could easily DL off the Net. Hell, why not even market a stripped down version for power users; give us here something to chomp on? I'd bet, if they made the striped down version correctly, that many of us here would buy it. I'd also bet that if they striped off a lot of the extra crap that comes with XP that the damn thing would be a hell of a lot more stable.
I also don't understand why they keep legacy support in the main application. Why not make it bootable to the last stable version of the old OS as part of the whole OS? Like if you want to run this old APP from 1995, then you must reboot into the old os. More realistically, they could make a virtual machine option available. Think about it, anyone who's going to run anything arcane, is likely to have some techie's around to make sure it works. I know a lot of folks who work in hospitals that still run software on 98 machines. They have pleanty of techie's around keeping those old machines working.
MS is like a little kid running through a toy store that wants every little thing, but will only spend 2 minutes with it. We'd all be better off if they took some Riddelin and stuck with the point for while.
anyway, that's my 2 cents and my rant for the day!
the ice melts into the ocean in most places aside from a few mountain glaciers. It won't help. Oddly enough, at the moment, the net change in ice in Antartica is positive. It's melting there on that northern peninsula, but adding on the rest of the contenant. The artic, however, seems to be melting; again though, not on the big island of Greenland. The sea ice is diminishing, though. Maybe we just need to chop up greenland's ice and ship it to the places where they need it.
We can do things right here, but often the will weakens with time. After all, those bridges I speak of did hold up quite well considering, and none have fallen. Fortunately, most, if not all, are now getting the attention they need.