Lo and behold!
My place is somewhere in the red circle. Almost the whole Ann Arbor, at Google Maps, if you are interested.
Categories
[509] Of Google Maps
Category: Science & technology
I’ve been on World of Warcraft for more than 24 hours combined now since Thursday after the exam. Had some fun all day long until, earlier today, my friend successfully demonstrated the worst kind of lag I’ve had ever seen. My computer froze and all my senses could absord was the sound of the game; the frame rate was practically 0.
Frustrated, I logoff from Warcraft a few hours later and went to newegg.com, Price Watch and amazon.com to do price comparison for two components: memory and video card. (Google is a darling too, I say. Go Gooooooooooooooooooogle.)
The choice for memory is never a problem. I’ve always trusted Crucial Technology and so, I went straight for it. I saw other like Kingston and Corsair but I rather not face any difficulty with compatibility – inside my computer, I already have a Crucial’s 256MB DDR.
The main issue is the video card. I must admit, I’ve been lagging with news and improvement in graphics – too many economics make me forget other stuff. The last time I read about video cards in the news was when ATi Radeon 9700 was the king. Right now, I’m not sure who’s the king but I didn’t know that there is a GeForce 6 out there. It seems right now, Radeon XT is the best right now but, I don’t really know and all I want to do is play World of Warcraft.
I considered ATi Radeon 9700, which cost roughly $150. However, I was in the idea that that was an overkill. All I want to do with a new graphic card is to play World of Warcraft, not Half-Life 2 or Doom 3. Besides, my motherboard only support AGP 4x. Still, I might upgrade my mobo in the near future so…
So, I considered a GeForce…
Brb! (or maybe not) Gotta log into Warcraft now! The urge is too great to resist!
There seems to be a strong relationship between the level of economic development and environmental protection. I’ve always suspected this and a post in a forum reminded me of it. The poster presented the idea and asked why that seems to be so. I offered her a short answer. A few hours later, I sat down somewhere and gave it a further consideration quietly.
I think the relationship between the two aspects is actually the opportunity cost – the cost of investing in one variable is the forgone benefit of other variable. In our context, if a country is poor and lack capital, the society there will be more concerned with wealth buildup instead of safeguarding the Earth. The cost of protecting the environment in term of development is too great; that country cannot afford to protect the environment at the expense of development.
The enforcement of environmental laws needs resource for implementation. If a country has no sufficient resource or wealth, then environmental laws enforcement greatly forgoes the benefit of accumulating capital. That is, the resource will be better put in use in improving the economy. Therefore, better attention will be given to economic issues instead of environmental ones, given that a country or a person is poor. Now, if that is so, the only way to instill the care for the environment is to reduce the forgone benefit of economic growth while engaging in environmental protection.
The reduction of forgone benefit cost is possible if wealth increases. This grows from the idea of diminishing returns – the more one has of a good, the less one wants more of it. In other words, another additional some sort of unit of wealth will have less benefit to the society of great wealth than to some improvised populace. Hence, as wealth increases, the cost of forgone benefit decreases.
Furthermore, environmental protection will only come when the cost of forgoing economic pursue is lower (or possibly lower or equal to) than the cost of forgoing environmental protection. Hence, if one cares for the environment, accumulation of wealth should be paramount because the accumulation of wealth reduces the cost of forgoing development.
One possible supporting proof is the possible correlation between wealth of countries with the strength of environmental laws and its enforcement; developed nations do seem to have stricter environmental requirements relative to poor countries. It would be interesting to see if there is an actual data set on this.
So, let’s all get rich in the name of the environment!
I’m not quite certain on this however. Some variable must have been left unconsidered and thus, I dare not assert this model as perfect.
p/s – there seems to be a character encoding problem with this new template.
pp/s – godddamn! This entry took some serious proofread. When I first read the completed version, I was lost in my own words!
ppp/s – the Malay version of Windows XP will be shipped soon! But, given that the OS uses confusing Malay terms and it’s sort of XP lite, I’ll stick with the English version, thank you. (Via)
p4/s – this is, um, retarded.
p5/s – updated the about section.
And here we are.
John Boone in the much-acclaimed sci-fi Red Mars said the exact phrase. Those words were expressed after months of journeying ended with him and the others that he led landed on the red rusty planets.
If there were people on the probe Huygens, “and here we are” would be a befitting thing to say.
In science, uncertainty is part of the game. This uncertainty is described as error and in statistics, this error is not a synonym for the word mistake but rather, it is a term explaining the precision or accuracy of some measurement.
In matters concerning climate change or global warming, there exists error. In fact, every empirical measure contains error and this is true in proofs that support climate change. The US administration and needless to say, the oil industry however have consistently accused that the science behind climate change as flawed due to the existence of this error. If such reasoning, which claim measurement related to science of climate change is flawed because it has error, is to be accepted, then all sciences should be thrown out of the windows. After all, science contains this kind of statistical error since part of the root of science is empirical measurement.
With such reasoning, even well-known economic theory of purchasing power parity should entirely be discarded into the dustbin.
Regardless of that, it has been more than two weeks since the 10th annual UN conference on climate change in Buenos Aires started. The conference is mostly about how the world should go around after the initial Kyoto round lapses in 2012. So far, the talk has been disastrous and the conference is supposed to end today.
One of the talk’s objectives is to schedule future seminars that discuss possible ways to act after 2012. The US, who signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 but later defaulted on its promise to ratify the international environmental treaty, seems to have successfully prevent any further development that leads to the next stage in fighting climate change. Their reason – it’s premature to talk something that is too far into the future.
I cannot understand the current US administration. Perhaps, its change of heart on the Protocol is comprehensible from economic point of view but its refusal to even discuss on the means that may improve Kyoto is beyond the grasp of the sane mind. It seems that instead of simply disagreeing with the greens, the US current administration is trying to derail the whole concerted effort against climate change.
Amid the talk, it is heartening to hear the states of New England are committing voluntary emission cap in spite of the Bush administration’s policy. From what I read, the state of Washington and Oregon and possibly, the politically green California may join in the voluntary effort to cap carbon emission.
As in right now, the European Union, the main proponent of Kyoto, is trying its best to force an agreement with the US in order to not let this 2-week-long talk passes worthlessly. Apart from the frustrating US stance, Italy has mentioned that it will pull out of the mandatory cap imposed by the Kyoto Protocol after 2012 is done.
China on the other hand has been advised by the International Atomic Energy Agency to increase its energy usage efficiency.
Another nation that came under the spotlight is Saudi Arabia. A Saudi representative uttered the most pathetic comment at the conference – Saudi Arabia wants to be compensated from future drop of crude oil sale that is due to the implementation of Kyoto Protocol. What the Saudi Arabia needs to realize is that every Annex I countries that has ratified Kyoto is sacrificing their economy for humankind’s future. In fact, under the current system, Saudi Arabia doesn’t even have to cut its economic growth. The Saudis are simply being selfish and ridiculous.
And I hope crude oil runs out fast so that Saudi Arabia can be taught a lesson that is as ancient as time – don’t keep all your eggs in one basket; diversify for goodness’ sake.
p/s – this conflicting signal is giving me an headache. Now I want to keep USD in hand for the time being.
“The upgrades reflected the continued strengthening of Malaysia’s external financial position and the resultant, lessened vulnerability to shocks,” Moody’s said in a statement. Malaysia’s “large surplus, together with a higher level of foreign direct and portfolio investment, is bringing about a strong rise in the country’s international reserves.”
There is no need to change Malaysia’s ringgit peg in the next few months, Moody’s analyst Hess said.
“I don’t think there is near term pressure,” Hess said. “Eventually Malaysia will change the peg, but I don’t think it’s going to happen very soon” because “inflation remains low and the downward movement of the dollar means that on the external front the ringgit peg is not a problem.”
pp/s – Ajax will be up against Auxerre! The next stage of the UEFA Cup will be held on February the 26th.
ppp/s – this one Republican doesn’t even know his country’s history. All he knows is that, all Frenchmen are smelly. Make you sure read everything, including the comments.
p^4/s – two hours after this entry was published, a deal between the EU and the US was struck.
The compromise struck Friday calls for a single meeting, in May 2005, as the United States had wanted.
But, in keeping with European wishes, the meeting will last several days, and the future of climate change negotiations will be up for discussion.
Ah well. At least something.
p^5/s – added RealClimate under Frequent. Found it through WorldChanging. It’s rather enlightening. Removed explodingdog.