Dikala Sang Suria bangkit,
ku masih lagi berdengkur,
bangkit ku laung bangkit,
tidak mahu ku nanti tersungkur.
Two exams in a day, ten minutes apart is not good, especially when you are a professional procrastinator.
After six months and two comments later, I’ve realized that I’ve made a mistake in this entry. It is supposed to be “Smoking brings no social benefit to anybody” (excluding the tobacco industry of course) instead of “Smokers bring no social benefit to anybody“.
I can’t really argue with Angi because her point is valid. So, a correction perhaps would suffice.
On the technical point, there were two comments, one by Jaboobie which is gone, no thanks to Haloscan.
On the side note, does anybody remember this Bull?
1999 was almost 5 years ago but it seems like it was just yesterday. How time flies. Sigh…
Categories
[321] Of oil price and ANWR
I’ve just realized one thing.
With the rising oil price, the pressure to drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) may be too great to resist. The last time the proposal to drill ANWR came up, the green won. If thing doesn’t change for the better, that victory might be short-lived.
At the same time, this could be what the green needs; something to justify the push toward renewable energy.
Drilling the ANWR might be the short run answer. It has been reported that the oil reserve under the ANWR could only supply the US merely six months worth of fuel.
Renewable energy is the long term solution. Considering solar power, it takes several more billion years for the Sun to die.
Being myopic, the oil industry lobbists would probally reignite the war for ANWR.
Let’s pray for the November election to come first (and of course, hope it’s Kerry) before the grey gets their act together and pushes for the proposal all over again.
Categories
[320] Of Micro$oft
Yesterday – actually it was the day before yesterday – the European Commission on behalf of the European Union slammed a $603 million penalty on Microsoft for unfair competition. Not so long ago, the same ruling was given out to Microsoft in the United States though with a heavier penalty – the company was supposed to be split into two different entities. Somehow, Microsoft appealed against the ruling and managed to keep itself in one piece. If my memory does not fail me, the last company that actually was split into several different entities was Standard Oil – now known as Exxon Mobil.
Apart from the half a billion Euro fine, Microsoft also has been ordered by the European Union to disclose relevant information to the public in order to promote a fair competition within a few months.
Currently, Microsoft has announced to appeal against the European ruling.
But is Microsoft really dangerous? Is it okay for the EU to punish Microsoft for being too successful? [Insert some funky music here]
It is no doubt that a monopoly would bring inefficiency into the market. In economic terms, Microsoft is charging the users a price higher than the firm’s marginal cost, gaining too much profit while producing too little. At the same time, deadweight loss to the society is unavoidable. Maybe,
Still, I believe in free market. My belief in laissez faire leads me to believe that it is wrong to punish Microsoft from being too successful.
The clash of the two concepts make me feel uncomfortable. Being both a green and a free-marketeer wannabe is hard.
However, in Microsoft case, one event made it easier for me to decide.
Weeks earlier, it was reported that Microsoft encouraged SCO to launch assault on Linux. SCO has of course denied this allegation but still, the tree doesn’t sway if the wind doesn’t blow.
Ladies and gentlemen, Micro$oft is as evil as Standard Oil and Exxon Mobil. And I support, cautiously, EU’s decision.
Categories
[319] Of NYT on recycling
New York Times editorial on reycling in New York City:
…While the city may have had the best of intentions in suspending parts of the recycling program, the experiment did not produce the savings predicted. All those items that could have been recycled were trucked to increasingly expensive landfills, part of the city’s 12,000 tons of daily residential and institutional trash. And what wasn’t factored into the cost-benefit analysis was the psychological effect on New Yorkers, who had just started internalizing the recycling routine. In 1989, fewer than 1 percent of city residents sorted their newspapers, cans and cartons. By 2002, about 20 percent had the habit. Recycling takes effort, but residents were coming around to seeing it like daily exercise: not always enjoyable, but good for them…
I agree with the points presented but I have one minor disagreement. Recycling is not just good from them but rather, it is good for us all, New Yorkers and non-New Yorkers alike.