YEAH!!! NO MORE CLASS, at least for another 3 weeks. However, next semester econometrics is going to be a killer.
p/s – there’s an interesting internship offer somewhere at the United Nations. I’m very much interested but I need to find a mininum of USD 2400 for accomodation in New York. Don’t think my parents would give me that money easily. Don’t think the Big Brother would give me the extra gold coins too either.
It’s really tough to find the internship that I want. =(
A quote from New York Times, via AAIO:
The city’s [New York’s] crime index, a figure adjusted for population, is on par with much smaller cities, like Ann Arbor, Mich., and ranks 194th out of 200 cities with more than 100,000 residents, making it one of the safest.
I think there’s something wrong with the statistics. But if the stats is okay, it sure does make Ann Arbor sounds safer…
Testing ssh/sftp.With A2 covered in snow, West Quad will liberate South Quad from its ugly residents. And to AAPD, you are on my list.
p/s – a joke that I would like to share. It’s an environmentalist joke taken from alt.politics.greens
This is true :
Women use all this toxic crap called make-up, soaps, perfume, etc. etc. all this stuff to make their ugly faces even uglier.
Some “beauty stuff” is really highly toxic! Poisonous! Deadly!
They shower 5 times a day and pollute the environment with all this stuff every day.
They eat lots of diet stuff and other chemicals to become thin (means more ugly) or need medicine against headaches and other crap and piss and shit a lot of highly toxic chemicals because of this.
They probably are full of radioactive isotopes, this radioactive crap is used for this beauty stuff.
They also live longer and have more time for pollution.
Their highly toxic corpses will pollute the ground after their death, even bacteria and worms won’t eat them.
Men don’t use all this “beauty crap” and real men only shower once a week. Men don’t eat all this toxic diet and beauty and anti-headache crap.
And man die sooner, have less time to pollute the world.
The maggots and the worms have no problems with eating male corpses.
So we should treat women like nuclear waste and move their highly toxic bodies beneath the earth, deep beneath the sea or send them to Outer Space.
Less women means less pollution.This is true! Ask scientists.
Women should either stop to use this toxic crap to become less dangerous or must face the consequences (life in anti-radiation security chambers or life in space).
ABN
Saddam has been captured alive, but still no WMD. I don’t like Saddam Hussein but the capturing of Saddam is secondary to finding the WMD. With no WMD, the war is still a lie.
Half way across the globe, Keiko, the famous killer whale has passed away due to pneumonia. I wish there will be no more Keiko in the future. All lives deserve a life out of cage, or aquarium.
On more deserving news, the recent European Constitution Summit in Brussels and the Kyoto Protocol related meeting in Milan failed to reach any accord.
And God damn it. The expected is now inevitable – it’s snowing. I find the urge to hibernate increased ten folds. Sigh…
And ehem.
After doing tons of reading on the Kyoto Protocol, I’ve come to a conclusion that the Protocol is too costly for implementation.Why?
The Kyoto Protocol, if ratified, essentially demands the reduction of six greenhouses gases to the 1990 level by the year 2008. Those gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydroflourocarbon, perflourocarbon, and sulphur hexafluoride.
All those six gases, with carbon dioxide in particular are closely related to growth and energy. The connection to energy is a simple one to make since carbon dioxide is the product of burning any carbon based material, including fossil fuel. Growth on the other hand needs energy. Due to this fact, the bigger the economy, the larger greenhouse gases emission will be.
Currently, according to David G. Victor in his book The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming, most countries greenhouse gases emission exceeds the 1990 targeted level. In order to achieve the Kyoto set goal, many countries will have to reduce their growth by a substantial amount and upgrade numerous machines to be environmental friendly. The cost of doing so is high and this is the main reason why the United States, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases withdrew from the Protocol. Recently, Russia has hinted that it will also withdraw from the Protocol.
Of course, the negotiators at the Earth Summit + 5 were aware of that and thus carbon or emission trading was introduced so the cost of emission reduction could be pulled down to a more tolerable level. This method allows the idea of aggregate instead of individual emission reduction. As a result, this allows the participants of the Protocol to continue to develop its economy.
Nevertheless, there are voices of discontent from the backroom. Emission trading is done by giving out emission permits to the parties of the Protocol. Later, unused permits by some countries could be sold to others who need to emit more greenhouse gases than the allocation. The problem is, permit allocation was not given out according to the size of the economy but rather, the allocation problem was solved by the wits of the diplomats. Therefore, some countries received more permits then it should have and more received too little.
If the Kyoto Protocol were to be ratified, Russia and Kazakhstan will gain profit by simply selling these permits. This is true due to the fall of the Soviet Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States (former USSR states) economy has no way of using all of its allocation, thus creating a surplus of profitable permits. Other countries like the US, hypothetically speaking, will have to buy from Russia so as to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol. Like what Victor said in his book, no country will sign a deal that merely enriches somebody else without doing something concrete in dealing with global warming.
One way or another, with or without permits, there are losers – somebody has to cover up the cost. Yet, if the Kyoto Protocol isn’t ratified in time, the cost of damage due to global warming and the subsequent climate change will be higher than the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol itself.
Given the options, isn’t it’s only logical to accept the least costly path?
For the sake of compromise, perhaps the Kyoto’s target could be lowered but sooner or later, the emission reduction must be done to avoid probably the costliest damage in modern Human history.
p/s – The __earthinc has been nominated for flyingchair.net‘s best Malaysian weblog.
Alright. Time to get aggressive. People of the world, vote for me at flyingchair.net. I know I wouldn’t win but, hey, a bit of publicity wouldn’t hurt!
If you love my site, vote me!
If you hate it, vote me!
If you are indifferent, vote me!
Vote me! :)