7 Jun
2002
7 Jun
'02
1:42 p.m.
Didn't see anyone else mention this story, though it isn't exactly
front-page news...
China bans toxic American computer junk:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,725756,00.html
Maybe this will help save just a few systems...
-Toth
7 Jun
7 Jun
4:57 p.m.
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Tothwolf wrote:
Didn't see anyone else mention this story, though
it isn't exactly
front-page news...
China bans toxic American computer junk:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,725756,00.html
Maybe this will help save just a few systems...
The Alameda Countyy Computer Resource Center stopped sending scrap to
China after they found out their middlemen were simply engaging in the
dumping practices which led China to enact this ban.
I'm all for this. It will force companies and governments to seriously
look at recycling issues rather than literally dumping the problem off on
poor third world shmoes.
8 Jun
8 Jun
7:55 a.m.
At 06:57 PM 6/7/02 -0700, Sellam wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Tothwolf wrote:
From the above article:
"The US is the only industrialised country to have failed to ratify the
1989 UN Basel convention which calls for a total ban on the export of
hazardous waste."
What amazes me is that it's taken so lang for some countries (China) to put a ban
on the IMPORTATION of hazardous waste.
No surprise there. Of course we can't blame good ole W. for this one, but
we can blame his stupid dad.
Why do you call him stupid? If they're willing to not only take it but to actually
BUY it then why shouldn't we sell it to them?
Tell me, if you were presently piling all of your garbage up in your back yard and then
a trash company came along and not only offered to haul it away but also offered to pay
for it, wouldn't you sell it?
In any event, it's unfair to blame the prez for this practice. It's the fault
of the local garbage companies, recyclers, surplus companies, computer manufacturers AND
the American consumer.
Joe
9:08 a.m.
At 11:55 AM 6/8/02, you wrote:
In any event, it's unfair to blame the prez for
this practice. It's the
fault of the local garbage companies, recyclers, surplus
companies,
computer manufacturers AND the American consumer.
Joe
Of all people in the U.S., one would certainly expect the prez
to be environmentally responsible. It is one of his duties,
I believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
2:04 p.m.
Environmental? He can't even pronounce it. What's more, he's not
demonstrated himself to be responsible in any way at all. I wonder how
carefully his pals at Enron disposed of their shredded documents? I'm sure
the accountants were careful enough.
It's not a business I'd want to be in right now, recycling computer hardware,
with the pendulum swinging in the direction that the pres is resisting. Once
the extremists overcome the cabinet's barely-a-quorum of grey cells, the rush
will be on.
What troubles me is that it should actually turn out to be illegal
transporting what's classified as hazardous materials around in your privately
owned vehicle, since a spill could result in God knows what (probably nothing,
but you know how the extremists will put it) and that will mean that if you
own a recycling facility, you won't be able simply to dispose of or
appropriate whatever you want.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Murillo" <carlos_murillo(a)epm.net.co>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk
At 11:55 AM 6/8/02, you wrote:
In any event, it's unfair to blame the prez
for this practice. It's the
fault of the local garbage companies, recyclers,
surplus companies,
computer manufacturers AND the American consumer.
Joe
Of all people in the U.S., one would certainly expect the prez
to be environmentally responsible. It is one of his duties,
I believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
9:21 a.m.
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Joe wrote:
I was referring to George Herbert Walker Bush's failure to get the UN
Basel Convention (referenced above) ratified.
But at any rate, why would you object to calling either Bush stupid? I
find them to be completely devoid of any sense whatsoever, as their
actions have proven.
But I digress...
"The US is
the only industrialised country to have failed to ratify the
1989 UN Basel convention which calls for a total ban on the export of
hazardous waste."
No surprise there. Of course we can't blame
good ole W. for this one, but
we can blame his stupid dad.
Why do you call him stupid? If they're willing to not only take it
but to actually BUY it then why shouldn't we sell it to them? In any event, it's unfair to blame the prez for
this practice. It's
the fault of the local garbage companies, recyclers, surplus companies,
computer manufacturers AND the American consumer.
The President makes policy, and We The People implement it. Current
policy is to move us closer to the Apocalypse so we can fulfill some
moron's religious mythology.
But, again, I digress...
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
10:57 a.m.
That whole family's both morally and intellectually "challenged," to put it
in
Clintonese. The old man and two sons in politics, another son in severe
difficulty with the law, etc, thanks to his dealings with Silverado Savings &
Loan here in Colorado ... and the ol' man willing to start the Gulf war just
to distract the press from his son's trial. <sigh> And then there's the
swift payoff and coverup of his daughters' drinking thing ... It's a good
thing they're "just" women, and even better that he (Dubya) doesn't have
sons.
His pop showed us all what a disaster that would be.
His pop opposes the Basel convention, and he (Dubya) opposes the Kyoto treaty
... <sigh> ... Neither of them understands the view the rest of the world has
of the U.S. based on, among other things, the fact that the U.S. is the only
nation in the world that's ever used a nuclear weapon in warfare ... and of
course, "birds of a feather..." they hang with the likes of Dick Cheney, Don
Rumsfeld, and, farther down the totem pole, that crookec witch, Gale Norton,
of whom we Coloradoans know considerably more than the rest of the country.
It's like he hand-picked all the slimy crooks from throughout the country and
appointed them.
you say
"
The President makes policy, and We The People
implement it. Current
policy is to move us closer to the Apocalypse so we can fulfill some
moron's religious mythology.
"
to which I add that it's Dubya's mythology, since he's the moron. The same
mythology that believes it's right to rape the west coast electric rate-payers
and then sweep it under the rug by bankrupting thousands with his supporters,
the Enron board, then cripple US medical research by limiting the legally
useable stem-cell strains to those owned by Texan companies, and then give the
fattest defense boondoggle contracts to Texan firms, e.g. Lockheed.
If you live in Texas, perhaps you'll benefit from what this guy does, but
don't hold your breath if you don't live there.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sellam Ismail" <foo(a)siconic.com>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Joe wrote:
> >"The US is the only industrialised country to have failed to ratify the
> >1989 UN Basel convention which calls for a total ban on the export of
> >hazardous waste."
>
> >No surprise there. Of course we can't blame good ole W. for this one,
but
> > >we can blame his stupid dad.
> >
> > Why do you call him stupid? If they're willing to not only take it
> > but to actually BUY it then why shouldn't we sell it to them?
>
> I was referring to George Herbert Walker Bush's failure to get the UN
> Basel Convention (referenced above) ratified.
>
> But at any rate, why would you object to calling either Bush stupid? I
> find them to be completely devoid of any sense whatsoever, as their
> actions have proven.
>
> But I digress...
>
> > In any event, it's unfair to blame the prez for this practice. It's
> > the fault of the local garbage companies, recyclers, surplus companies,
> > computer manufacturers AND the American consumer.
>
The President makes policy, and We The People
implement it. Current
policy is to move us closer to the Apocalypse so we can fulfill some
moron's religious mythology.
>
> But, again, I digress...
>
> Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
Festival
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com
*
11:33 a.m.
... The same
mythology that believes it's right to rape the west coast electric rate-payers...
That's called supply & demand. The people in left coast refused
all attempts to build different types of power plants, but refused
to limit their growth. No surprise that they ran short on power.
I don't see why they expected the same power companies they had
been opposing all those years to give them cheap power.
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
1:44 p.m.
At 03:33 PM 6/8/02 -0500, you wrote:
That's called supply & demand.
Supply and demand only set the prices in a perfect competition scheme,
which CA wasn't. CALPEX was a seller's "market". It's always
been that way in CA; just research Hetch-Hetchy and PG&E and
you'll find a century's worth of abuse of the consumers by the
utilities.
The people in left coast refused
all attempts to build different types of power plants, but refused
to limit their growth. No surprise that they ran short on power.
I don't see why they expected the same power companies they had
been opposing all those years to give them cheap power.
Those power companies had consistently shown that they invested
their money with poor judgment and almost always resulting
in cost overruns, greater than expected environmental damage,
costly stranded assets... A lot of it was the companies'
fault, not the consumers'.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
1:59 p.m.
That's
called supply & demand.
Supply and demand only set the prices in a perfect competition scheme,
which CA wasn't. CALPEX was a seller's "market". It's always
been that way in CA; just research Hetch-Hetchy and PG&E and
you'll find a century's worth of abuse of the consumers by the
utilities. The people in
left coast refused
all attempts to build different types of power plants, but refused
to limit their growth. No surprise that they ran short on power.
I don't see why they expected the same power companies they had
been opposing all those years to give them cheap power.
Those power companies had consistently shown that they invested
their money with poor judgment and almost always resulting
in cost overruns, greater than expected environmental damage,
costly stranded assets... A lot of it was the companies'
fault, not the consumers'.
2:33 p.m.
When was the last time you heard of any of them building a power plant? Enron
certainly never built any. They only invested in "real" resources when their
execs could get a big enough bonus for doing it.
I'm sure there's enough blame to go around, though. The excesses typical of
American consumers, to wit, the current craze for gas-guzzling SUV's, despite
the poor safety record and terrible pollution and fuel economy of the most
popular models, certainly contribute to the problem.
Hey ... all you heavy-metal computing freaks ... how about converting all your
logic to CMOS? That will save you each about $1k per month on power, won't
it?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dittman" <dittman(a)dittman.net>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk
California voters approved deregulation. What did they expect
would happen? There's not enough power generation in California,
so the prices go up.
Those same companies have built the same types of power plants
in other states without any problems. Most of the perceived
problems were the environmentalists blowing things out of
proportion and making things up. The citizens in California
refused to allow the power plants to be built, and (surprise!)
they have a power shortage, while the citizens in other states
let the power plants be built, and (no surprise) we have enough
power.
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
That's called supply & demand.
Supply and demand only set the prices in a perfect competition scheme,
which CA wasn't. CALPEX was a seller's "market". It's always
been that way in CA; just research Hetch-Hetchy and PG&E and
you'll find a century's worth of abuse of the consumers by the
utilities. The
people in left coast refused
all attempts to build different types of power plants, but refused
to limit their growth. No surprise that they ran short on power.
I don't see why they expected the same power companies they had
been opposing all those years to give them cheap power.
Those power companies had consistently shown that they invested
their money with poor judgment and almost always resulting
in cost overruns, greater than expected environmental damage,
costly stranded assets... A lot of it was the companies'
fault, not the consumers'.
5:08 p.m.
When was the last time you heard of any of them
building a power plant? Enron
certainly never built any. They only invested in "real" resources when their
execs could get a big enough bonus for doing it.
There are several recent-vintage power plants in Texas.
I'm sure there's enough blame to go around,
though. The excesses typical of
American consumers, to wit, the current craze for gas-guzzling SUV's, despite
the poor safety record and terrible pollution and fuel economy of the most
popular models, certainly contribute to the problem.
The most ironic things is most of the biggest environmentalists I've
seen either drive a big SUV or a powerly-maintained old car that has
lots of smoke coming out the tailpipe.
Another ironic thing is the reformulated gas the environmentalists
insisted would cut pollution. The gas caused engine parts to
deteriorate (they insisted there wouldn't be any harm to engines)
and increased pollution as the reformulated gas was less efficient
and caused an increase in consumption.
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
6:36 p.m.
How recent would that be? Was it pre-Enron?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dittman" <dittman(a)dittman.net>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk
of
> When was the last time you heard of any of them
building a power plant?
Enron
> certainly never built any. They only invested in
"real" resources when
their
execs could
get a big enough bonus for doing it.
There are several recent-vintage power plants in Texas.
> I'm sure there's enough blame to go around, though. The excesses typical
> American consumers, to wit, the current craze for
gas-guzzling SUV's,
despite
the poor
safety record and terrible pollution and fuel economy of the most
popular models, certainly contribute to the problem.
The most ironic things is most of the biggest environmentalists I've
seen either drive a big SUV or a powerly-maintained old car that has
lots of smoke coming out the tailpipe.
Another ironic thing is the reformulated gas the environmentalists
insisted would cut pollution. The gas caused engine parts to
deteriorate (they insisted there wouldn't be any harm to engines)
and increased pollution as the reformulated gas was less efficient
and caused an increase in consumption.
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
6:40 p.m.
How recent would that be? Was it pre-Enron?
Do you mean pre-Enron failure?
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
7:22 p.m.
No, I doubt they've built much since their failure, but from what I've
gathered, all they really ever built was debt.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dittman" <dittman(a)dittman.net>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk
How recent
would that be? Was it pre-Enron?
Do you mean pre-Enron failure?
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
7:31 p.m.
No, I doubt they've built much since their
failure, but from what I've
gathered, all they really ever built was debt.
Enron was an exercise in creative accounting.
No, I don't mean Enron themselves, but energy companies in
general when I asked about building plans pre- or post-
Enron (with the public now sceptical of all energy companies).
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
9 Jun
9 Jun
5:12 a.m.
This sort of pseudo-wealth creation is a Texas phenomenon that's been around
since the early days of the oil boom.
That's why I'd favor dragging Texas out into the Gulf and sinking it, along
with parts of Arizona and Southern CA just to make for a long swim for the
illegals from south of the border.
If Texans were to think of themselves as Americans first and Texans second, it
would change things significantly, but as you exemplified by the Bush
administrations past and present, that's not in the cards. Texans also tendt
to take the short view where environmental matters are concerned. They're not
alone in this, but, since the "broad brush" is in use, I don't think
it's
totally off-base to say that.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dittman" <dittman(a)dittman.net>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk
No, I doubt
they've built much since their failure, but from what I've
gathered, all they really ever built was debt.
Enron was an exercise in creative accounting.
No, I don't mean Enron themselves, but energy companies in
general when I asked about building plans pre- or post-
Enron (with the public now sceptical of all energy companies).
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
8 Jun
8 Jun
2:16 p.m.
It's just another set of abusive practices, typical of what happens when a
closed set of interests controls the market in a commodity the public really
believes they need.
more below ...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Murillo" <carlos_murillo(a)epm.net.co>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk
At 03:33 PM 6/8/02 -0500, you wrote:
You wouldn't say that if it had been YOUR money, either wasted on the excesses
of the "free-market-captialism" practiced by the power-middle-men, who really
produced nothing other than waste and really did nothing but steal, first from
their victims, and later from their own help.
That's called supply & demand.
Supply and demand only set the prices in a perfect competition scheme,
which CA wasn't. CALPEX was a seller's "market". It's always
been that way in CA; just research Hetch-Hetchy and PG&E and
you'll find a century's worth of abuse of the consumers by the
utilities.
If it's the LEFT
coast, you must be in the South. If you were from the North,
the West coast would be the Right coast, and the East coast would be the Wrong
coast, Right? You're right about the stupid consumption habits. It's the
result of lower rates per kwh for more kwh's. If 10x the amount of power cost
10^10 as much people would behave differently. I'd get behind a rate schedule
that reflected n^(n^2) rates so the megacorp that uses 1000 times as much
power as the little homeowner would have to pay 10^1000 as much for every kwh
he uses. I'd also get behind that for gasoline rationing.
The people in left coast refused
all attempts to build different types of power plants, but refused
to limit their growth. No surprise that they ran short on power.
I don't see why they expected the same power companies they had
been opposing all those years to give them cheap power.
Those power companies had consistently shown that they invested
their money with poor judgment and almost always resulting
in cost overruns, greater than expected environmental damage,
costly stranded assets... A lot of it was the companies'
fault, not the consumers'.
That's because they're charged with managing an asset that belongs to them
but
selling a commodity that doesn't belong to them at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
5:15 p.m.
That's called supply & demand.
If it's the LEFT coast, you must be in the South.
If you were from the North,
the West coast would be the Right coast, and the East coast would be the Wrong
coast, Right? You're right about the stupid consumption habits. It's the
result of lower rates per kwh for more kwh's. If 10x the amount of power cost
10^10 as much people would behave differently. I'd get behind a rate schedule
that reflected n^(n^2) rates so the megacorp that uses 1000 times as much
power as the little homeowner would have to pay 10^1000 as much for every kwh
he uses. I'd also get behind that for gasoline rationing.
Most of the people I know call California the left coast, both in
the north and south (except for the liberals).
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
6:44 p.m.
Well, you may be onto something there. I've never been considered either a
liberal or a Democrat, and since the 1960 election, I've never voted for a
Democrat except for Al Gore. That was not a vote FOR the Democrat, BTW.
more below ...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dittman" <dittman(a)dittman.net>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk
I don't support Califorism either. In fact, the only bumper sticker I've
ever
carried around on my car said, "Don't Californicate Colorado." The
West-coast notion that you can legislate good sense is hopefully dead there,
though it lives on here. I'm hoping something miraculous happens here pretty
soon. Unfortunately we get 2 Californians in for every one that leaves to go
back there. Back in the '50's it was the Texans. I don't know which is
worse.
> > >That's called supply & demand.
> >
> You wouldn't say that if it had been YOUR money, either wasted on the
excesses
> of the "free-market-captialism"
practiced by the power-middle-men, who
really
> produced nothing other than waste and really did
nothing but steal, first
from
their victims,
and later from their own help.
I haven't been running around for years voting against power
plants. I also refuse to live in California, which is over-
populated anyway. The constant water shortage is a good example.
> If it's the LEFT coast, you must be in the South. If you were from the
North,
> the West coast would be the Right coast, and the
East coast would be the
Wrong
> coast, Right? You're right about the stupid
consumption habits. It's the
> result of lower rates per kwh for more kwh's. If 10x the amount of power
cost
> 10^10 as much people would behave differently.
I'd get behind a rate
schedule
> that reflected n^(n^2) rates so the megacorp that
uses 1000 times as much
> power as the little homeowner would have to pay 10^1000 as much for every
kwh
he uses.
I'd also get behind that for gasoline rationing.
Most of the people I know call California the left coast, both in
the north and south (except for the liberals).
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
1:01 p.m.
His pop opposes the Basel convention, and he (Dubya) opposes the Kyoto treaty
"As Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist points out,
under the most rigorous adherence to Kyoto, atmospheric temperature will
increase by 3.5 degrees Farenheit by 2100. Without Kyoto, we'll get the same
temperature increase by 2094.
Kyoto saves us 6 whole years, and at a staggering cost of $350 Billion
to $900 Billion per year. That's insanity. For a one time cost of just $200
Billion, developed nations could provide clean drinking water and sanitation
for every human on earth, saving two million lives per year."
- as quoted from "The Week"
1:49 p.m.
At 05:01 PM 6/8/02 -0500, you wrote:
>
> His pop opposes the Basel convention, and he (Dubya) opposes the Kyoto
treaty
"As Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist points out,
under the most rigorous adherence to Kyoto, atmospheric temperature will
increase by 3.5 degrees Farenheit by 2100. Without Kyoto, we'll get the same
temperature increase by 2094.
This guy Lomborg (a statistician by training, not a world climate
scientist) has largely been proved illiterate in the field of
climate change physics and facetious too. Scientists (even those
who do oppose the conclusions of the majority regarding climate change)
do not take him seriously.
Kyoto saves us 6 whole years, and at a staggering cost
of $350 Billion
to $900 Billion per year. That's insanity. For a one time cost of just $200
Billion, developed nations could provide clean drinking water and sanitation
for every human on earth, saving two million lives per year."
- as quoted from "The Week"
Pretty bad for the credibility of "the week", I'm afraid.
carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
2:22 p.m.
see below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Murillo" <carlos_murillo(a)epm.net.co>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk
What folks want to ignore is that most environmental processes take place at a
rate proportional to the amount present. If you think back to your first year
of calculus, that means it's an exponential. What that suggests is that while
we have a 3.5 degree increase over the next century, we're probably looking at
40 degrees or so over the next, and even with moderation protocols in place,
it will take a couple of additional centuries, by which time all the guys
deciding not to do it right now will, of course, be dead, to get the process
reversed if it's even possible. If they can't, then perhaps we'll have an
environment like Venus' before the next millenium. Not even the cockroaches
will survive that.
I thihk there's a
little more involved than that ...
At 05:01 PM 6/8/02 -0500, you wrote:
same
>
> His pop opposes the Basel convention, and he (Dubya) opposes the Kyoto
treaty
>
>"As Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist points out,
>under the most rigorous adherence to Kyoto, atmospheric temperature will
>increase by 3.5 degrees Farenheit by 2100. Without Kyoto, we'll get the
temperature
increase by 2094.
This guy Lomborg (a statistician by training, not a world climate
scientist) has largely been proved illiterate in the field of
climate change physics and facetious too. Scientists (even those
who do oppose the conclusions of the majority regarding climate change)
do not take him seriously.
>Kyoto saves us 6 whole years, and at a staggering cost of $350 Billion
>to $900 Billion per year. That's insanity. For a one time cost of just $200
>Billion, developed nations could provide clean drinking water and
sanitation
for every human
on earth, saving two million lives per year."
- as quoted from "The Week"
Pretty bad for the credibility of "the week", I'm afraid.
carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
4:56 p.m.
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Lawrence LeMay wrote:
"As Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical
Environmentalist points out,
under the most rigorous adherence to Kyoto, atmospheric temperature will
increase by 3.5 degrees Farenheit by 2100. Without Kyoto, we'll get the same
temperature increase by 2094.
Kyoto saves us 6 whole years, and at a staggering cost of $350 Billion
to $900 Billion per year. That's insanity. For a one time cost of just $200
Billion, developed nations could provide clean drinking water and sanitation
for every human on earth, saving two million lives per year."
So I guess the solution is simple: let several billion people die off so
Earth can be brought back to equilibrium.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
5:49 p.m.
Quothe Sellam Ismail, from writings of Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 06:56:57PM -0700:
So I guess the solution is simple: let several billion
people die off so
Earth can be brought back to equilibrium.
Sort of... only the solution can be less painful:
All people need to do is stop having so many babies. This is why I
support the "W.C. Fields Memorial Child Tax Bill," a progressively
incrementing tax on children. One child, a somewhat low tax, such as
an education tax. Two children, a higher tax is applied. Three
children, a much higher tax is applied, etc. No more tax deductions
for dependent children; instead, allow childless people to have
generous deductions for pets, computer collections (if all of the
computers are named), plants, etc. It might not hurt to outlaw the
discouragement of birth control and outlaw any religious dogma which
encourages people to have children. Give tax breaks to childless
people and don't tax them for any costs associated with children
(e.g. education, health care, etc.) Etc.... In other words, reduce
the population fairly quickly through a decline in the birth rate.
Simple, humane and effective, what?
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
6:47 p.m.
I think Johnathan Swift was right on target with his "Modest Proposal."
If we'd provide welfare mom's with support for one child and subtract support
for 1.5 children for each additional child born thereafter, we'd get the
effect that's required.
What's more, if we'd let the illegal immigrants we deport each year get off
the plane before it lands instead of after, they'd probably not be as anxious
to come back.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. D. Davis" <rdd(a)rddavis.org>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk
animals:
Quothe Sellam Ismail, from writings of Sat, Jun 08,
2002 at
06:56:57PM -0700:
So I guess the
solution is simple: let several billion people die off so
Earth can be brought back to equilibrium.
Sort of... only the solution can be less painful:
All people need to do is stop having so many babies. This is why I
support the "W.C. Fields Memorial Child Tax Bill," a progressively
incrementing tax on children. One child, a somewhat low tax, such as
an education tax. Two children, a higher tax is applied. Three
children, a much higher tax is applied, etc. No more tax deductions
for dependent children; instead, allow childless people to have
generous deductions for pets, computer collections (if all of the
computers are named), plants, etc. It might not hurt to outlaw the
discouragement of birth control and outlaw any religious dogma which
encourages people to have children. Give tax breaks to childless
people and don't tax them for any costs associated with children
(e.g. education, health care, etc.) Etc.... In other words, reduce
the population fairly quickly through a decline in the birth rate.
Simple, humane and effective, what?
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief
that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify
such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify
much human cruelty.
5:30 a.m.
At 10:49 PM 6/8/02 -0400, you wrote:
Sort of... only the solution can be less painful:
All people need to do is stop having so many babies. This is why I
support the "W.C. Fields Memorial Child Tax Bill," a progressively
incrementing tax on children. One child, a somewhat low tax, such as
an education tax. Two children, a higher tax is applied. Three
children, a much higher tax is applied, etc. No more tax deductions
for dependent children; instead, allow childless people to have
generous deductions for pets, computer collections (if all of the
computers are named), plants, etc. It might not hurt to outlaw the
discouragement of birth control and outlaw any religious dogma which
encourages people to have children. Give tax breaks to childless
people and don't tax them for any costs associated with children
(e.g. education, health care, etc.) Etc.... In other words, reduce
the population fairly quickly through a decline in the birth rate.
Simple, humane and effective, what?
But dead wrong. Such an incentive would be positively correlated with
an increase in poverty, which is in turn positively correlated with
an increase in babies.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
5:56 a.m.
There must be a better way to effect a 99.999% reduction in world population.
Things were so much better when nobody lived within a lifetime's walk from
anyone else ... <sigh> ... but for the good old days ...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Murillo" <carlos_murillo(a)epm.net.co>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk
At 10:49 PM 6/8/02 -0400, you wrote:
Sort of... only the solution can be less painful:
All people need to do is stop having so many babies. This is why I
support the "W.C. Fields Memorial Child Tax Bill," a progressively
incrementing tax on children. One child, a somewhat low tax, such as
an education tax. Two children, a higher tax is applied. Three
children, a much higher tax is applied, etc. No more tax deductions
for dependent children; instead, allow childless people to have
generous deductions for pets, computer collections (if all of the
computers are named), plants, etc. It might not hurt to outlaw the
discouragement of birth control and outlaw any religious dogma which
encourages people to have children. Give tax breaks to childless
people and don't tax them for any costs associated with children
(e.g. education, health care, etc.) Etc.... In other words, reduce
the population fairly quickly through a decline in the birth rate.
Simple, humane and effective, what?
But dead wrong. Such an incentive would be positively correlated with
an increase in poverty, which is in turn positively correlated with
an increase in babies.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
6:07 a.m.
None of this works (for the US) as long as don't revamp the welfare system.
I endorse mandatory non-permanent sterilization for anyone on welfare. And
if you have a kid while you're on welfare, you automatically lose all
benefits.
If may be your right to breed, but not while I'm supporting your lazy butt
with my tax dollars.
--John
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]On
Behalf Of Carlos Murillo
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 10:30
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk
At 10:49 PM 6/8/02 -0400, you wrote:
Sort of... only the solution can be less painful:
All people need to do is stop having so many babies. This is why I
support the "W.C. Fields Memorial Child Tax Bill," a progressively
incrementing tax on children. One child, a somewhat low tax, such as
an education tax. Two children, a higher tax is applied. Three
children, a much higher tax is applied, etc. No more tax deductions
for dependent children; instead, allow childless people to have
generous deductions for pets, computer collections (if all of the
computers are named), plants, etc. It might not hurt to outlaw the
discouragement of birth control and outlaw any religious dogma which
encourages people to have children. Give tax breaks to childless
people and don't tax them for any costs associated with children
(e.g. education, health care, etc.) Etc.... In other words, reduce
the population fairly quickly through a decline in the birth rate.
Simple, humane and effective, what?
But dead wrong. Such an incentive would be positively correlated with
an increase in poverty, which is in turn positively correlated with
an increase in babies.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
9:54 a.m.
"J.C. Wren" wrote:
None of this works (for the US) as long as don't revamp the welfare system.
I endorse mandatory non-permanent sterilization for anyone on welfare. And
if you have a kid while you're on welfare, you automatically lose all
benefits.
If may be your right to breed, but not while I'm supporting your lazy butt
with my tax dollars.
But remember BOTH parties need to be sterile.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
6:57 a.m.
Quothe Carlos Murillo, from writings of Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 10:30:20AM -0400:
But dead wrong. Such an incentive would be positively
correlated with
an increase in poverty, which is in turn positively correlated with
an increase in babies.
Au contraire. The problem is that the U.S., like many other nations,
has a self-destructive economic mindset which believes that constant
growth, not stability, is what's important, and, necessary. The
problem with this is that we live in a nation, and a world, with a
finite amount of resources. Take land for example, and notice how
open land, woodlands and farms are disappearing as the population
continues to grow.
Our politicians tend to think in the following circular, and
destructive, manner: we need to give the economy a boost, that
requires more jobs to be created, that means that we need businesses
to expand and the creation of new businesses, more land is needed for
more buildings... now, we've created more jobs. Uh-oh, now we need
more people - maybe we need to import some cheap labor and we need
more people to have more babies, now we need more houses for these
people to live in, and we need more highways (gobble, gobble, there
goes more land lost to "development") Now, we've got more people than
jobs again, so we need to create more jobs... The vicious cycle
continues...
Now, toss the environment into the aforementioned mess, and see how
more and more people having more and more babies causes more and more
harm to Nature. Society turns to pollution control, more efficient
cars, houses and appliances, etc. as a solution; however, that only
necessitates more manufacturing, more traffic, more pollution, the
need for more people, more land, etc. Of course, the aforementioned
also results in more profits for some greedy people, and the typically
corrupt politicians get to say that they're doing something about the
problem while helping special interests, and hence, that route is
taken. Most politicians don't like simple solutions which don't
please special interest groups and businesses, so, the simple and
effective solutions, like stopping the overpopulation problem, are
ignored. Let's not also forget that there's that societal nuisance
called religious dogma which also deserves some of the credit for the
overpopulation problem, which some people deny the existence of
because they're brainwashed by such dogma and a desire for economic
growth rather than stability - e.g., greed.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
8 Jun
8 Jun
1:08 p.m.
At 11:21 AM 6/8/02 -0700, you wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Joe wrote:
I was referring to George Herbert Walker Bush's failure to get the UN
Basel Convention (referenced above) ratified.
I missed something. Exactly why is it HWB's or any other American president's
job to get a UN treaty ratified????? The UN is made up of some 200+ nations and it's
blatantly unfair to blame any ONE country or person for the UN's failure to pass a
treaty. Besides, no country needs a UN treaty to pass laws to prevent the importation of
hazardius waste into it's borders. The failure to pass such laws isn't the fault
of HWB, American or the UN! So let's quite passing the buck.
"The
US is the only industrialised country to have failed to ratify the
1989 UN Basel convention which calls for a total ban on the export of
hazardous waste."
No surprise there. Of course we can't blame
good ole W. for this one, but
we can blame his stupid dad.
Why do you call him stupid? If they're willing to not only take it
but to actually BUY it then why shouldn't we sell it to them?
But at any rate, why would you object to calling either Bush stupid?
Oh I don't think they're stupid. They may be greedy, self serving and lots of
other things but not stupid.
I
find them to be completely devoid of any sense
whatsoever, as their
actions have proven.
But I digress...
Not exactly. We don't live in a dictatorship. If the American public really wanted
meaningfull recycling policies then it could be pushed through the states, Congress and/or
the courts. The real problem is that US consumers are brainwashed by Madison Avenue
advertisments that tell us that we MUST have the lastest, greatest, biggest, fastest,
flashiest (your choice here: computer, car, house, pool, vacation, etc etc etc) and the
hell with conservation, the enviroment or even simple economics. In the end, the fault
isn't the prez's policy but the realities of American culture.
Current
In any event, it's unfair to blame the
prez for this practice. It's
the fault of the local garbage companies, recyclers, surplus companies,
computer manufacturers AND the American consumer.
The President makes policy, and We The People implement it. policy is to move us closer to the Apocalypse so we can
fulfill some
moron's religious mythology.
I can agree with that.
Joe
4:52 p.m.
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Joe wrote:
I missed something. Exactly why is it HWB's or
any other American
president's job to get a UN treaty ratified????? The UN is made up of
some 200+ nations and it's blatantly unfair to blame any ONE country or
person for the UN's failure to pass a treaty. Besides, no country needs a
UN treaty to pass laws to prevent the importation of hazardius waste
into it's borders. The failure to pass such laws isn't the fault of HWB,
American or the UN! So let's quite passing the buck.
I will say this and no more: It is in large part because of our current
president's actions, and the legacy that his predecessors left behind,
that "they" hate us.
Oh I don't think they're stupid. They may
be greedy, self serving and
lots of other things but not stupid.
One definition of stupid: "Yes, global warming is real, and yes, global
warming is a problem, but we think we should just adapt to it instead of
doing anything about it."
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
9 Jun
9 Jun
4:21 p.m.
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Sellam Ismail wrote:
But at any rate, why would you object to calling
either Bush stupid? I
find them to be completely devoid of any sense whatsoever, as their
actions have proven.
But I digress...
The President makes policy, and We The People
implement it. Current
policy is to move us closer to the Apocalypse so we can fulfill some
moron's religious mythology.
Are you sure Raymond Moyer didn't dictate all that?
Sellam, with all due respect, I resent your recent attempts to turn
this list into your political pressure-relief valve. There are more
appropriate forums for grinding your political axe.
Doc
4:15 a.m.
Joe wrote:
What amazes me is that it's taken so lang for
some countries (China) to put a ban on the IMPORTATION of hazardous waste.
Since when do Communist countries care about hazardous waste? If they
think that importing the stuff will benifit the country, then they'll
gladly sacrifice the people who actually handle it, or live in it. If
they've truly banned it, then there motives are more than likely
political, or maybe the situation has just gotten THAT bad in some
locals where they can't ignore it.
Chad Fernandez
Michigan, USA
3:51 p.m.
At 09:15 AM 6/9/02 -0400, Chad wrote:
Joe wrote:
Well said but EXACTLY the same could be said about counties like the US that are
controlled by big business (through their pet politians). In both cases it's the
people that suffer in the end.
Joe
What amazes me is that it's taken so lang
for some countries (China) to put a ban on the IMPORTATION of hazardous waste.
Since when do Communist countries care about hazardous waste? If they
think that importing the stuff will benifit the country, then they'll
gladly sacrifice the people who actually handle it, or live in it. If
they've truly banned it, then there motives are more than likely
political, or maybe the situation has just gotten THAT bad in some
locals where they can't ignore it.
5:07 p.m.
Joe wrote:
Well said but EXACTLY the same could be said about
counties like the US that are controlled by big business (through their pet politians).
In both cases it's the people that suffer in the end.
Joe
I don't think it is exactly the same thing. Big business can't push
things to the extent that a communist government can.
Chad Fernandez
Michigan, USA
7:12 p.m.
At 10:07 PM 6/9/02 -0400, Chad wrote:
Joe wrote:
Sure they can! Especially with the backing of the government. I can name cases where we
allow things that even the communist don't allow. Anonymously reporting people for
child abuse (imagined or real), tax fraud and other "crimes" is just one such
case.
This is wondering a bit too far OT so let's drop it ok?
Joe
Well said but EXACTLY the same could be said
about counties like the US that are controlled by big business (through their pet
politians). In both cases it's the people that suffer in the end.
Joe
I don't think it is exactly the same thing. Big business can't push
things to the extent that a communist government can.
8080
days inactive
8082
days old
39 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
carlos_murillo＠epm.net.co -
dittman＠dittman.net -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
fernande＠internet1.net -
foo＠siconic.com -
jcwren＠jcwren.com -
lemay＠cs.umn.edu -
rdd＠rddavis.org -
rigdonj＠cfl.rr.com -
tothwolf＠concentric.net