I found this article in a text book I own titled “TAKING SIDES: Clashing views on Controversial Environmental Issues (Tenth Edition”), which is curriculum at the University of South Florida. The article itself was written in 1999, the textbook in 2003. I added the helpful links in.

By Stephen Moore. Mr. Moore is a director at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

At a Washington reception, the conversation turned to the merits of small families. One woman volunteered that she had just read Bill McKibben’s environmental tome, Maybe One, on the benefits of single-child families.

She claimed to have found it “ethically compelling.” I chimed in: “Even one child may put too much stress on our fragile ecosystem. McKibben says ‘maybe one.’ I say, why not none?” The response was solemn nods of agreement, and even some guilt-ridden whispers between husbands and wives.

McKibben’s acclaimed book is a tribute to the theories of British economist Thomas Malthus. Exactly 200 years ago, Malthus-the original dismal scientist-wrote that “the power of population is . . . greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.” McKibben’s application of this idea was to rush out and have a vasectomy. He urges his fellow greens to do the same-to make single-child families the “cultural norm” in America.

Now, with the United Nations proclaiming that this month we will surpass the demographic milestone of 6 billion people, the environmental movement and the media can be expected to ask: Do we really need so many people? A recent AP headline lamented: “Century’s growth leaves Earth crowded-and noisy.” Seemingly, Malthus has never had so many apostles.

In a rational world, Malthusianism would not be in a state of intellectual revival, but thorough disrepute. After all, virtually every objective trend is running in precisely the opposite direction of what the widely acclaimed Malthusians of the 1960s-from Lester Brown to Paul Ehrlich to the Club of Rome-predicted. Birth rates around the world are lower today than at any time in recorded history. Global per capita food production is much higher than ever before. The “energy crisis” is now such a distant memory that oil is virtually the cheapest liquid on earth. These facts, collectively, have wrecked the credibility of the population-bomb propagandists.

Yet the population-control movement is gaining steam. It has won the hearts and wallets of some of the most influential leaders inside and outside government today. Malthusianism has evolved into a multi-billion-dollar industry and a political juggernaut.

Today, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), the State Department, and the World Bank, the federal government pumps some 350 million tax dollars a year into population-containment activities. The Clinton administration would be spending at least twice that amount if not for the efforts of two Republican congressmen, Chris Smith of New Jersey and Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, who have managed to cut off funding for the most coercive birth-reduction initiatives.

Defenders of the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) and other such agencies insist that these programs “protect women’s reproductive freedom,” “promote the health of mothers,” and “reduce infant mortality.” Opponents of international “family planning,” particularly Catholic organizations, are tarred as anti-abortion fanatics who want to deprive poor women of safe and cheap contraception. A 1998 newspaper ad by Planned Parenthood, entitled “The Right Wing Coup in Family Planning,” urged continued USAID funding by proclaiming: “The very survival of women and children is at stake in this battle.” Such rhetoric is truly Orwellian, given that the entire objective of government-sponsored birth-control programs has been to invade couples’ “reproductive rights” in order to limit family size. The crusaders have believed, from the very outset, that coercion is necessary in order to restrain fertility and avert global eco-collapse.

The consequences of this crusade are morally atrocious. Consider the one-child policy in China. Some 10 million to 20 million Chinese girls are demographically “missing” today because of “sex-selective abortion of female fetuses, female infant mortality (through infanticide or abandonment), and

selective neglect of girls ages 1 to 4,” according to a 1996 U.S. Census Bureau report. Girls account for over 90 percent of the inmates of Chinese orphanages-where children are left to die from neglect.

Last year, Congress heard testimony from Gao Xiao Duan, a former Chinese administrator of the one-couple, one-child policy. Gao testified that if a woman in rural China is discovered to be pregnant without a state-issued “birth-allowed certificate,” she typically must undergo an abortion-no matter how many months pregnant she is. Gao recalled, “Once I found a woman who was nine months’ pregnant but did not have a birth-allowed certificate.

According to the policy, she was forced to undergo an abortion surgery. In the operating room, I saw how the aborted child’s lips were sucking, how its limbs were stretching. A physician injected poison into its skull, and the child died and was thrown into the trash can.”

The pro-choice movement is notably silent about this invasion of women’s “reproductive rights.” In 1989, Molly Yard, of the National Organization for Women, actually praised China’s program as “among the most intelligent in the world.” Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, the godfather of today’s neo-Malthusian movement, once trumpeted China’s population control as “remarkably vigorous and effective.” He has congratulated Chinese rulers for their “grand experiment in the management of population.”

Last summer, Lisa McRee of Good Morning America started an interview with Bill McKibben by asking, in all seriousness, “Is China’s one-child policy a good idea for every country?” She might as well have asked whether every country should have gulags.

Gregg Easterbrook, writing in the Nov. 23, 1998 New Republic, correctly lambasted China for its “horrifying record on forced abortion and sterilization.” But even the usually sensible Easterbrook offered up a limp apology for the one-child policy, writing that “China, which is almost out of arable land, had little choice but to attempt some degree of fertility constraint.” Hong Kong has virtually no arable land, and 75 times the population density of mainland China, but has one of the best-fed populations in the world.

These coercive practices are spreading to other countries. Brian Clowes writes in the Yale Journal of Ethics that coercion has been used to promote family planning in at least 35 developing countries. Peru has started to use sterilization as a means of family planning, and doctors have to meet sterilization quotas or risk losing their jobs. The same is true in Mexico.

In disease-ridden African countries such as Nigeria and Kenya, hospitals often lack even the most rudimentary medical care, but are stocked to the rafters with boxes of contraceptives stamped “UNFPA” and “USAID.” UNFPA boasts that, thanks to its shipments, more than 80 percent of the women in Haiti have access to contraceptives; this is apparently a higher priority than providing access to clean water, which is still unavailable to more than half of the Haitian population.

Population-control groups like Zero Population Growth and International Planned Parenthood have teamed up with pro-choice women in Congress-led by Carolyn Maloney of New York, Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, and Connie Morella of Maryland-to try to secure $60 million in U.S. funding for UNFPA over the next two years. Maloney pledges, “I’m going to do whatever it takes to restore funding for [UNFPA]” this year.

Support for this initiative is based on two misconceptions. The first is the excessively optimistic view that (in the words of a Chicago Tribune report) “one child zealotry in China is fading.” The Population Research Institute’s Steve Mosher, an authority on Chinese population activities, retorts, “This fantasy that things are getting better in China has been the constant refrain of the one-child apologists for at least the past twenty years.” In fact, after UNFPA announced in 1997 that it was going back into China, state councillor Peng Peiyun defiantly announced, “China will not slacken our family-planning policy in the next century.”

The second myth is that UNFPA has always been part of the solution, and has tried to end China’s one-child policy. We are told that it is pushing Beijing toward more “female friendly” family planning. This, too, is false.

UNFPA has actually given an award to China for its effectiveness in population-control activities-activities far from female-friendly. Worse, UNFPA’s executive director, Nafis Sadik, is, like her predecessors, a longtime apologist for the China program and even denies that it is coercive. She is on record as saying-falsely-that “the implementation of the policy is purely voluntary. There is no such thing as a license to have a birth.”

Despite UNFPA’s track record, don’t be surprised if Congress winds up re-funding it. The past 20 years may have demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy of the population controllers, but their coffers have never been more flush.

American billionaires, past and present, have devoted large parts of their fortunes to population control. The modern-day population-control movement dates to 1952, when John D. Rockefeller returned from a trip to Asia convinced that the teeming masses he saw there were the single greatest threat to the earth’s survival. He proceeded to divert hundreds of millions of dollars from his foundation to the goal of population stabilization. He was followed by David Packard (co-founder of Hewlett-Packard), who created a $9 billion foundation whose top priority was reducing world population.

Today, these foundations are joined by organizations ranging from Zero Population Growth (ZPG) to Negative Population Growth (which advocates an optimal U.S. population size of 150 million-120 million fewer than now) to Planned Parenthood to the Sierra Club. The combined budget of these groups approaches $1 billion.

These organizations tend to be extremist. Take ZPG. Its board of directors passed a resolution declaring that “parenthood is not an inherent right but a privilege” granted by the state, and that “every American family has a right to no more than two children.”

“Population growth is analogous to a plague of locusts,” says Ted Turner, a major source of population-movement funding. “What we have on this earth today is a plague of people. Nature did not intend for there to be as many people as there are.” Turner has also penned “The Ted Commandments,” which include “a promise to have no more than two children or no more than my nation suggests.” He recently reconsidered his manifesto, and now believes that the voluntary limit should be even lower-just one child. In Turner’s utopia, there are no brothers, sisters, aunts, or uncles.

Turner’s $1 billion donation to the U.N. is a pittance compared with the fortunes that Warren Buffett (net worth $36 billion) and Bill Gates (net worth roughly $100 billion) may bestow on the cause of population control.

Buffett has announced repeatedly that he views overpopulation as one of the greatest crises in the world today. Earlier this year, Gates and his wife contributed an estimated $7 billion to their foundation, of which the funding of population programs is one of five major initiatives.

This is a massive misallocation of funds, for the simple reason that the overpopulation crisis is a hoax. It is true that world population has tripled over the last century. But the explanation is both simple and benign: First, life expectancy-possibly the best overall numerical measure of human well-being-has almost doubled in the last 100 years, and the years we are tacking on to life are both more active and more productive. Second, people are wealthier-they can afford better health care, better diets, and a cleaner environment. As a result, infant-mortality rates have declined nearly tenfold in this century. As the late Julian Simon often explained, population growth is a sign of mankind’s greatest triumph-our gains against death.

We are told that this good news is really bad news, because human numbers are soon going to bump up against the planet’s “carrying capacity.”

Pessimists worry that man is procreating as uncontrollably as John B.

Calhoun’s famous Norwegian rats, which multiply until they die off from lack of sustenance. Bill McKibben warns that “we are adding another New York City every month, a Mexico every year, and almost another India every decade.”

But a closer look shows that these fears are unfounded. Fact: If every one of the 6 billion of us resided in Texas, there would be room enough for every family of four to have a house and one-eighth of an acre of land-the rest of the globe would be vacant. (True, if population growth continued, some of these people would eventually spill over into Oklahoma.) In short, the population bomb has been defused. The birth rate in developing countries has plummeted from just over 6 children per couple in 1950 to just over 3 today. The major explanation for smaller family sizes, even in China, has been economic growth. The Reaganites were right on the mark when, in 1984, they proclaimed this truth to a distraught U.N. delegation in Mexico City. (The policy they enunciated has been memorably expressed in the phrase “capitalism is by far the best contraceptive.”) The fertility rate in the developed world has fallen from 3.3 per couple in 1950 to 1.6 today. These low fertility rates presage declining populations.

If, for example, Japan’s birth rate is not raised at some point, in 500 years there will be only about 15 Japanese left on the planet.

Other Malthusian worries are similarly wrongheaded. Global food prices have fallen by half since 1950, even as world population has doubled. The dean of agricultural economists, D. Gale Johnson of the University of Chicago, has documented “a dramatic decline in famines” in the last 50 years. Fewer than half as many people die of famine each year now than did a century ago-despite a near-quadrupling of the population. Enough food is now grown in the world to provide every resident of the planet with almost four pounds of food a day. In each of the past three years, global food production has reached new heights.

Overeating is fast becoming the globe’s primary dietary malady. “It’s amazing to say, but our problem is becoming overnutrition,” Ho Zhiqiuan, a Chinese nutrition expert, recently told National Geographic. “Today in China obesity is becoming common.”

Millions are still hungry, and famines continue to occur-but these are the result of government policies or political malice, not inadequate global food production. As the International Red Cross has reported, “the loss of access to food resources [during famines] is generally the result of intentional acts” by governments.

Even if the apocalyptic types are correct and population grows to 12 billion in the 21st century, so what? Assuming that human progress and scientific advancement continue as they have, and assuming that the global march toward capitalism is not reversed, those 12 billion people will undoubtedly be richer, healthier, and better fed than the 6 billion of us alive today. After all, we 6 billion are much richer, healthier, and better fed than the 1 billion who lived in 1800 or the 2 billion alive in 1920.

The greatest threat to the planet is not too many people, but too much statism. The Communists, after all, were the greatest polluters in history.

Economist Mikhail Bernstam has discovered that market-based economies are about two to three times more energy-efficient than Communist, socialist, Maoist, or “Third Way” economies. Capitalist South Korea has three times the population density of socialist North Korea, but South Koreans are well fed while 250,000 North Koreans have starved to death in the last decade.

Government-funded population programs are actually counterproductive, because they legitimize command-and-control decision-making. As the great development economist Alan Rufus Waters puts it, “Foreign aid used for population activities gives enormous resources and control apparatus to the local administrative elite and thus sustains the authoritarian attitudes corrosive to the development process.”

This approach usually ends up making poor people poorer, because it distracts developing nations from their most pressing task, which is market reform. When Mao’s China established central planning and communal ownership of agriculture, tens of millions of Chinese peasants starved to death. In 1980, after private ownership was established, China’s agricultural output doubled in just ten years. If Chinese leaders over the past 30 years had concentrated on rapid privatization and market reform, it’s quite possible that economic development would have decreased birth rates every bit as rapidly as the one-child policy.

The problem with trying to win this debate with logic and an arsenal of facts is that modern Malthusianism is not a scientific theory at all. It’s a religion, in which the assertion that mankind is overbreeding is accepted as an article of faith. I recently participated in a debate before an anti-population group called Carrying Capacity Network, at which one scholar informed me that man’s presence on the earth is destructive because Homo sapiens is the only species without a natural predator. It’s hard to argue with somebody who despairs because mankind is alone at the top of the food chain.

At its core, the population-control ethic is an assault on the principle that every human life has intrinsic value. Malthusian activists tend to view human beings neither as endowed with intrinsic value, nor even as resources, but primarily as consumers of resources. No wonder that at last year’s ZPG conference, the Catholic Church was routinely disparaged as “our enemy” and “the evil empire.”

The movement also poses a serious threat to freedom. Decisions on whether to have children-and how many-are among are the most private of all human choices. If governments are allowed to control human reproduction, virtually no rights of the individual will remain inviolable by the state.

The consequence, as we have seen in China, is the debasement of human dignity on a grand scale.

Another (true) scene from a party: A radiant pregnant woman is asked whether this is her first child. She says, no, in fact, it is her sixth.

Yuppies gasp, as if she has admitted that she has leprosy. To have three kids-to be above replacement level-is regarded by many as an act of eco-terrorism.

But the good news for this pregnant woman, and the millions of others who want to have lots of kids, is that the Malthusians are simply wrong. There is no moral, economic, or environmental case for small families. Period.

If some choose to subscribe to a voluntary one-child policy, so be it. But the rest of us-Americans, Chinese, and everybody else-don’t need or want Ted Turner or the United Nations to tell us how many kids to have. Congress should not be expanding “international family planning” funding, but terminating it.

Congress may want to consider a little-known footnote of history. In time, Thomas Malthus realized that his dismal population theories were wrong. He awoke to the reality that human beings are not like Norwegian rats at all.

Why? Because, he said, man is “impelled” by “reason” to solve problems, and not to “bring beings into the world for whom he cannot provide the means of support.” Amazingly, 200 years later, his disciples have yet to grasp this lesson.

Developing sustainable printing habits is not just a phase or a craze, but is an essential part of being a responsible citizen of the world. HP seeks to help those who would like to make a commitment towards becoming a more responsible printer user by posting a few tips and tricks on their website.

Before you can even start making changes, HP advises that you need to know where you are at this point as far as your current printing habits go. To help users create a benchmark, the HP Carbon Footprint Calculator for printing is available online for free. It evaluates a user’s current printing system and makes suggestions on how one can lower energy costs and consumption as well as paper usage. Among the changes that you might need to make are ensuring that you turn the power of your unit off and installing a universal printer driver.

For those who are looking to buy a new printer or replace an old one, then it is beneficial that you purchase ‘green’ products, nipping an opportunity to leave a huge carbon footprint in the bud, so to speak. At HP, making a thoughtful and environment-friendly purchase is easy. For one, you can simply look for the Eco Highlights label. The label contains information on how the HP product you are thinking of purchasing was made and transported, as well as how much energy it consumes. Another stamp you will want to look for is the ENERGY STAR Qualified mark.

Going beyond the printer, another way towards making an environment-friendly purchase is to check whether it comes in recyclable packaging. You can also look for information or evidence regarding environment-friendly manufacturing, processing and transportation practices.

Partially re-bloged from http://printerinkcartridgesblog.printcountry.com/?p=2957

After writing “ HP’s new ProBook Laptop with SuSE “ I decided to email HP and find out just why they chose SuSE as their optional OS choice and what I found out was that HP had a well planned out reason for choosing SuSE.

Included below is the reasoning I got from my email discussion with Shab Madina, Worldwide Product Manager, Strategic Marketing for Business Notebooks at HP

With regards to HP ProBooks with Linux, SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop (SLED) will be available for purchase on HP ProBooks on May 18.  It has better interoperability with a Windows infrastructure, which is why HP chose it. E.g. SUSE Linux supports Domain Join natively, allowing it to connect to Microsoft Networks and offers Novell Open Office , which is compatible with Microsoft Office file formats. HP sees these capabilities as being a requirement for business customers.

So it seems that HP is staying true to the ProBooks being business oriented by using SuSE as a secondary OS option. If you guys have any other questions for Mr. Madina post a comment and I will email him again with your questions.

Luis

I feel ashamed that I missed out on this news when it first hit the wire since I am a HUGE HP fan but such is life. Apparently on April 28th HP announced its new series ProBook laptops which come in 14″, 15.6″, and 17.3″ screen sizes which are supposed to be stylish, business oriented and most importantly, lowcost.

The “s-series” (I believe the “s” stands for standard) of the ProBook line has a mercury-free design and a HD LED backlit  display. HP says this series was inspired by minimalism and comes in “merlot” or glossy “noir” finishes. The keyboard also seems to be similar to the style of Apple and Sony laptops.

What I found to be pretty exciting was the fact that the s-series models offer Novell SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 preinstalled alongside Windows. This is a HUGE step forward in terms of getting Linux the recognition it really needs. I think ever since Asus launced the EeePC with Xandros installed that many other retailers recognized that there is a market for computers preinstalled with a Linux distro and have started to jump on the bandwagon. Hopefully, soon every major retailers will follow in these footsteps and have two versions of machines out on the market, one installed with Windows, and its doppleganger with Linux preinstalled.

Some cool features of these little badboys are HP QuickLook2 software which provides access to email, calendar, task and contact information easily; HP SpareKey, which allows a user to gain immediate entry into their system should they forget their password by asking them three predetermined personal ID questions; and File Sanitizer which permanently deletes files, folders, and personally identifiable info from the notebook.

In an attempt to follow in Apple’s enviro-friendly manufacturing steps, the s-series “has been engineered for reduced impact on the environment …” The ProBook line holds a silver rating on the Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool.

The ProBook 4410s and Probook 4415s feature a 14″ 16:9 HD widescreen LED backlight display, integrated optical drive with an optional Blu-ray and a choice of either  the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4330 or the Intel GMA X4500 HD graphics controller. It also comes with the standared Wi-Fi certified WLAN and an optional intergrated Bluetooth. Also included is an HDMI port so you can connect to HD displays, and include either an Intel processor (for the 4410s) or an AMD processor (for the 4415s).

The 4515s in “merlot”

The Probook 4510s and  ProBook 4515s feature a 15.6″ 16:9 HD widescreen LED backlight display. They also have optional HP Mobile Broadband connectivity with built-in Gobi tech, in addition to the standared Wi-Fi certified WLAN and optional Bluetooth. Another good feature of the 4510s and 4515s is that they come with an intergrated numeric keypad. The 4510s comes with an Intel processor and the 4515s comes with an AMD proccessor. The buyer has the choice between discrete or UMA graphics.

The 4710s

The big daddy of the line, the ProBook 4710s features a 17.3″ HD widescreen display and ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4330 graphics with up to 512mb of GDDR2 video memory. The 4710s packs an Intel Core 2 Duo, and includes standard Wi-Fi certified WLAN and optional Bluetooth, as well as an HDMI port to connect to those HD isplays. The 4710s also has an integrated numeric keypad like the 4510s and 4515s.

Pricing begins at $529 for the lineup according to HP but they never gave a cap as to just how expensive the series could go. The “merlot” color is only available on 14″ and 15.6″ models. This series hits the shelves in June.

~Luis

“¿Cuál es la diferencia entre morir en tus brazos o morir en tus manos?”, dice Albert Plá en su dolorosa canción. Realmente, como reitero una y otra vez en esta internética publicación, la respuesta se me antoja prácticamente imposible. Ha venido de visita el maldito frío, que marca inexorablemente el paso incontenible del tiempo relativo de la tierra. El muy mamón me dice que hemos dado otra vuelta más alrededor del sol, que hay que tachar otro verano de la limitada lista, que inevitablemente cada vez van a quedar menos circunnavegaciones. Es mejor no pensarlo y dedicarnos a ver los domingos por la noche a Iker Jiménez, siempre nos quedará Iker Jiménez.

El lunes pasado, mientras escuchaba las diatribas conspiranoicas de Javier Bustamante y su alumnado, aparentemente obsesionados todos por la paja mental en el ojo ajeno, me preguntaba (sin recurrir a los estupefacientes, lo juro) cual sería el horizonte común hacia el que podría caminar la humanidad después de la caída de los dioses y los mitos. Ante la ausencia de un camino que diese plenitud a nuestras asquerosas vidas se me ocurría pensar en la necesidad a medio plazo de avanzar en la técnica para la construcción de una nave espacial que pudiese llevar a la ruin especie lejos del sistema solar cuando el astro rey creciese achicharrando a sus adláteres. Habría que plantearse muy seriamente esto, sobretodo después de que el insufrible Martin Heidegger afirmase que la definición lingüística no es más que una verdad derivada. La limpieza de lo superfluo en el pensamiento es harto difícil, pero también hay que decir que la cabeza humana se rige por un mecanismo parecido al de la bicicleta: si no se mueve hacia delante, aunque sea sin rumbo, el conductor pierde el equilibrio y se pega una hostia de campeonato. Existen muy pocos privilegiados que pueden aguantar el equilibrio en parado sobre dos ruedas, y los hábiles capacitados para tal gesta no pueden permanecer mucho rato en semejante posición.

En cuanto a las teorías de la conspiración, hay algunas en las cuales cada día estoy empezando a creer más. La semana pasada los esbirros de Bill Gates me jugaron una mala pasada. Su estúpido sistema Windows comenzó a fallarme hasta sabotear por completo el comportamiento racional de mi ordenador. Sí, ya sé, utilizo el sistema operativo ideado por Belcebú en persona para controlar el planeta, pero aun mi mente no ha conseguido acceder a los secretos del señor Linux. Además, Gates ha conseguido provocar en mí un sentimiento que aúna la repulsión y la fascinación. Lo imagino como un Stewie Griffin de turno descansando en su cuarto sobre un colchón forrado de billetes (no de biscolástica) mientras maquina en su mente como controlar del mundo. Es posible que, al igual que Stewie, él también sueñe con matar a su madre.

Mi ordenador personal se desgobernó justo cuando cumplía el plazo de su garantía. Esta máquina no es un clónico al uso, sino un electrodoméstico de una conocida marca que por sus iniciales me recuerda a mi insulto favorito, lo cual me confirma que estas grandes corporaciones de pacotilla han sido creadas en este planeta para jodernos la existencia. Ahora estoy seguro, gracias a mi mente que roza el trastorno borderline, de que diseñan los aparatitos para que duren lo que a ellos les sale del pijo. Por mi parte, les deseo todo el mal, quisiera que sufriesen como yo sufro, incluso, como dice mi héroe Albert Plá en su canción, aprenderé a rezar para lograrlo.

Pero no detesto toda la técnica, como buen egoísta. Tengo que dar las gracias, una vez más, a Emule, a sus creadores, que son como los dioses del olimpo. Me rindo a sus pies. Practicaré el sexo con ellos si es menester para agradecerles todo lo que me hacen disfrutar. Ayer me bajé su último disco y de regalo el maravilloso directo que grabó en 2006 “Vida y milagros”. Hace algunos años tuve el placer de descubrir a Albert Plá, como el que descubre un vaso de agua en medio del océano de asfalto. Lo vi por primera vez cuando representaba su disco “Veintegenarios en Alburquerque”. Salía él sólo al escenario con una guitarra y un casette. Luego lo he seguido en sus apariciones por los madriles con diferentes maravillas, como “Canciones de amor y de droga”. Gracias a él he conocido a personajes habitantes de la cueva como Fonollosa o Pepe Sales. Son mis compañeros de cárcel. Ellos y algunos otros.

Se me hace difícil identificar la tecnología con lo cuantitativo, la opulencia con la democracia. Os animo a que continuéis basando vuestras vidas en las puras relaciones de clientelaje. Al menos tenéis un faro que os guía a través de la niebla. Aunque, con todo lo que llueve, deberíais daros cuenta de que puede que no sea más que un espejismo, y que atravesáis un desierto en vez de un mar de agua dulce. Toda está tecné convertida en politiqué mediante burdas manos de pintura gotelé no os hace caeros de vuestros burros. Pobres mortales, rindiendo a la usura vasallaje. Por mi parte: ¿qué otra cosa podría hacer yo más que tomar el sol?

gachas@excite.com

If you’re an Obama blogger, today must of been a good day. Sarah Palin has a tanning bed. Sarah Palin Lies A lot (not just a little bit, pretty much every stump speech). John McCain claimed to have invented the Blackberry (an invention in many ways more radical in usage to the average yuppie political consultant than the internet). New ads and a flourid debate about Wall Street and as always reform, reform, reform (of course everyone talking about regulations, not about bail-outs. I hate to be the one to point it out, but the regulations ship has sailed, bail-outs are what needs to be considered). The Powell endorsement still floats free, a delicate thing, waiting to be snatched. One poll showed Obama +4, another two at McCain +1! It turns out that “lipstick” was no big deal! Sarah Palin isn’t qualified to run a fortune 500 business!

Good heavens, its enough to make a liberal critic faint from typing fatigue, and I’ll admit, I indulged a few of these guilty pleasures to appease my cynical sense of humor, but, as we blog from our political bubble, have any of you taken the time to answer yourself a key question…

Do you think the average American gives a shit?

Take a second to ponder:

Sarah Palin has a tanning bed – Joe Biden almost assuredly has hair plugs. I’m 99% certain.

Sarah Palin lies a lot – So do many politicians, so the stigma of “liar” really isn’t important unless you contextualize it. We all know any politician will say damn near anything to get into office, the important distinction is whether or not that lying crosses a line where we can’t believe that they won’t lie to get away with anything while in office.

John McCain claims to have invented the Blackberry – Actually, the man has a decent record of voting for tech bills, and even though Blackberries are made in Canada, this is hardly a substantive issue. What sank Al Gore was the fact that he claimed to have invented the internet at the same time the Republicans were painting him an arrogant putz, so you can’t scream “liar!” and “arrogant putz!” The American attention span isn’t that long, pick one.

Ads – OK, so TV ads are largely there to influence people who get their news from the TV. You’re an internet blogger. So while it’s acceptable to show an ad and admire it, claiming it’s the death knell of the opposition and eating up page explaining why that’s so is ridiculous, because the people it’s meant to touch isn’s listening to you.

Wall Street- As I said, regulations are great, but it’s kind of a long-term argument for right now. In the short-term, what are we going to do about the failing investment banks who have already acted poorly according to any sensical regulations?

Powell - Great, he’s America’s most respected black man, and one of America’s most respected brain’s on foreign affairs and national security, so he’s important to both parties. However, when his endorsement falls, if it actually does, I can guarantee that the media narrative will be about how it is inevitable he picked one or another because of his overwhelming commitment to his race or hawkish national security stances. When it boils down, endorsements rarely make a big part of the race and are still second to the actual issues.

Polls – If you don’t understand the difference between likely voter models, registered voter models, part id models, demographic models, composite polls, rolling polls, voter samples sizes and who is using what of those examples, you really don’t deserve to be citing polls. At any point, not just today.

Lipstick – Most of us with half a brain knew it wasn’t an issue until McCain tried to play victim. He’s stopped trying to play victim, so move on. Keep it up and all of a sudden it looks like the only critique Obama has is over lipstick.

Palin isn’t qualified to run a business – OK, but she has more administration experience than McCain, Obama and Biden, and yeah, probably would be able to do just as well as Fiorina did and nearly run Hewlett Packard into the ground. No one is really prepared, but some have more preparation than others. Some have a better temperment. Some have better judgement. Some a better moral compass. However, Carly Fiorina is hardly a qualified critic.

What you’d be better served in doing is learning how the subprime mortgage crisis works so you can best critique McCain (regulation is a new thing to him by the way), Cross comparing instance of Bush-Cheney lies and explaining why campaign accountability translates in White House accountability. You could disect the wide range of foreign policy opinions and explain why using both hard power and soft power abroad is the most effective. Not saying you have to do in-depth policy positions, just a short blurb on how when we put a bomb in Khaddafi’s living room and gave him diplomatic room to play nice, he played nice and how the same might work with President Bashir of the Sudan.

It was the McCain camp which said that this election, “won’t be about the issues.” It was someone over at Fox News who said the news media will only ever cover, “polls, scandals, gaffes and attacks.” Both will be true only if the nebulous and new 5th estate of bloggers, internet satirists and the rest of them, keep their eyes on the prize and not get distracted by the fluff, because when you get down to it, the fluff can be worth a blip on the radar screen, but not the cause for a campaign.

-Marc-

A Microsoft do Reino Unido apresentou numa conferência de inclusão digital em Londres um computador pessoal para utilizadores idosos. O destaque do PC é um interface mais simples e vários programas úteis, como uma aplicação de gestão para receitas.

O projeto está sendo desenvolvido em parceria com as associações de solidariedade Age Concern e Help the Aged, e de acordo com a BBC foi apenas um exemplo dos vários apresentados pela subsidiária britânica da Microsoft durante o evento.

Apesar de não revelar grandes detalhes sobre o PC para idosos, um responsável da Microsoft citado pela BBC adiantou que este estaria disponível dentro de cerca de um ano.

Esta não é contudo uma novidade para a multinacional, que tem vindo a desenvolver nos EUA iniciativas semelhantes em conjunto com a fabricante de hardware HP.

A apresentação deste tipo de soluções demonstra algum investimento por parte da empresa em tentar dividir o fosso digital que cada vez mais se nota, sobretudo entre os utilizadores de tecnologias mais novos e os mais velhos, que não nasceram na era dos gadgets que rodeiam os jovens de hoje em dia.

Um outro projeto apresentado em Londres foi um PC financiado com publicidade que vem pré-instalado com um currículo de literacia digital onde os utilizadores podem aprender a trabalhar com um computador ou a navegar na Internet de forma segura.

Para Stephen Uden responsável pela área de habilidades e temas econômicos da multinacional, o problema da inclusão digital não passa apenas pela disponibilização de PCs, uma vez que considera que “não é assim tão simples de utilizar ou barato para toda a gente”.

Stephen Uden defende que no futuro não vão ser apenas os que não têm a acesso a um computador que serão excluídos digitalmente, mas também quem não souber utilizar telefones celulares (conhecidos em portugal como telemóveis), televisão digital ou consoles de jogos.

_______________________________________
Dercy Gonçalves jogando CS……
Silvio Santos jogando GTA…..
Cid Moreira jogando Need for Speed Carbon…

Não tem preço, pra todas as outras existem Blog do Dissidente, aceito desde bares e butiquins até dissidências árabes.

C’est devenu une habitude voire un sport international : les films et séries, quelles que soient leurs origines sont désormais truffés de produits placés dans un but publicitaire. Le matériel informatique (Apple est assez fort dans ce domaine) et les outils de communication (Mobiles, Smartphones, MID,…) passent fréquemment entre les mains de nos héros préférés.

Hewlet Packard, 1ère marque mondiale de PC, vient de créer un mini événement en inventant un nouveau genre de placement : Dans la bande-annonce du film Jumper, le héro s’affale dans son canapé et regarde… une pub HP !

Regardez la bande-annonce, c’est étonnant.