At 06:57 PM 6/7/02 -0700, Sellam 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. 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

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

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 " " 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" &lt;foo(a)siconic.com&gt; To: &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 12:21 PM Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk 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. > > > But, again, I digress... > > Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival -- http://www.vintage.org *

At 03:33 PM 6/8/02 -0500, you wrote: 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. 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

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" &lt;dittman(a)dittman.net&gt; To: &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 4:59 PM Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk

How recent would that be? Was it pre-Enron? Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Dittman" &lt;dittman(a)dittman.net&gt; To: &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:08 PM Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk Enron their of despite

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" &lt;dittman(a)dittman.net&gt; To: &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 9:40 PM Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk

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" &lt;dittman(a)dittman.net&gt; To: &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 10:31 PM Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk

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" &lt;carlos_murillo(a)epm.net.co&gt; To: &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 4:44 PM Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk 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. 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. 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.

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" &lt;dittman(a)dittman.net&gt; To: &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:15 PM Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk excesses really from 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. North, Wrong cost schedule kwh

At 05:01 PM 6/8/02 -0500, you wrote: treaty 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. Pretty bad for the credibility of "the week", I'm afraid. carlos. -------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org

On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Lawrence LeMay wrote: 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 *

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" &lt;rdd(a)rddavis.org&gt; To: &lt;cctalk(a)classiccmp.org&gt; Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:49 PM Subject: Re: China bans toxic American computer junk 06:56:57PM -0700: animals: such

At 10:49 PM 6/8/02 -0400, you wrote: 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

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: 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

Quothe Carlos Murillo, from writings of Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 10:30:20AM -0400: 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.

On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Joe wrote: 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. 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 *

Joe wrote: 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

Joe wrote: 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