Archive for the ‘The Perfect Storm’ Category

CF Bulbs and that clamshell packaging

Tuesday, July 17th, 2007

We were in one of the gigantic Costco stores the other day and stocked up on compact fluorescent bulbs and I walked out feeling virtuous.

The CF Bulb

I was looking forward to getting home and swapping out a lot of old-style incandescent bulbs for these things and then enjoying the fact that I was getting just as much light for way less money and being good for the environment as well.

I’d opened and installed four before my wife came to me and pointed out the packaging they were in. I’m so used to buying things that come in those hard clear plastic moulded packages that you have to get strong scissors to even get into that I hadn’t noticed what the packaging was in my excitment to get into them and put the new bulbs up.` And, the truth is I hate the kind of non-recycleable 10,000 years packaging in the dump to delivery a product that will last at best a few years and at worse days or weeks.

the CF bulb

– But this was particularly outrageous as the product being delivered was and is being touted as a way to help preserve the planet. Unbelievable. My bulbs will last three to five years – maybe ten at the outside. Their packaging may still be here in the year 12,007. That’s easily twice all of human history. That’s (at 20 years per generation) 500 generations of human beings. That’s a damn long time. No one will remember my name after a few generations but the memory of my purchase will lie in a hole some where for all of that time – because why?

Well, interestingly, as I was searching for an image of a CF Bulb still in its hard plastic packaging, I chanced across a website called Landing the Deal which was discussing here why these bulbs are so hard to sell. Their theory about the hard plastic packaging was that it was to protect people from the small amount of Mercury inside which would be released if the bulb were broken.

That sound good – so long as you don’t actually try to think about it. Consider that these bulbs, after a hard and dangerous wrestle with sharp edged scissors, are going to come out of their packaging in the middle of your family (the ones who are being protected, remember) and the bulbs are going to be placed in the very areas where your family lives for a long time. And we’ll all just have to hope there are no accidents. And there the bulbs will be day after day without their protective plastic covering. Oh my gosh, am I missing something? No, but I think the people behind this theory might be.

Just for grins, never ever having done this before, I Googled “campaign against hard plastic packaging” and immediatly turned up a slew of strong hits. People are on this problem. Are they doing any good – I don’t know but they are on it. I also discovered that there’s a specific name for this kind of packaging – it’s called ‘clamshell packaging’. I like that better than Eternal amoured razor shark tooth packaging, I think, but it’s close.

Without having done the research, my two cents on why manufacturers prefer this packaging all goes back to the capitalistic corporate maximization of profit above all things motive.

If the plastic packaging is reasonably cheap to employ, then it’s a natural winner because it protects the product in transit so there are less damaged returns, it can be shaped to stack efficiently to lowe shipping costs, it can be designed so that it stands up as its own display without requiring a lot of external display apparatus, and it reduces shop lifting. All of those add to the item’s profitability. Once money changes hands and the product leaves the retail outlet, any problems with packaging trash disposal becomes someone elses.

Ugly, ugly ugly.

Links of interest: , , and

Public Floods FCC with Net Neutrality Support

Tuesday, July 17th, 2007

Over 95 Percent of Comments Filed at Agency Demand a Free and Open Internet

WASHINGTON – JULY 17 – Tens of thousands of public comments supporting Net Neutrality flooded the Federal Communications Commission before the close of the agency’s official inquiry yesterday. In a landslide, well over 95 percent of the comments called for rules that prohibit phone and cable companies from discriminating against Web sites or services.

People from different backgrounds, living in every corner of the country, demand this basic Internet freedom. Internet users from all 435 congressional districts used SavetheInternet.com’s online tools to send personal messages to the FCC.

“I am living the American dream because of Network Neutrality — my games have been used in thousands of schools all over the world,” says Karen Chun, a single mother and owner of a successful online educational games business. “Without Net Neutrality, my little Web site would have been consigned to oblivion because I wouldn’t have been able to pay the fees the ISPs want to charge.”

Net Neutrality supporters include a broad range of small business owners, students, churchgoers, bloggers, political candidates, educators and activists who say that protecting Net Neutrality is fundamental to their family life, work and interests.

“In rural America, the Internet is very important in staying informed,” wrote Charles and Carol Swigart of Huntingdon, Pa. “We read several national newspapers every day to get the news our local paper does not thoroughly cover. All persons who publish on the Internet should have an equal opportunity to have their voices heard.”

Kelly Jones of Portland, Ore., told the FCC that “corporations are not, and have never been, qualified as gatekeepers to American communication and growth. If the FCC believes in true democracy, it must ensure that broadband providers do not block, interfere with or discriminate against any lawful Internet traffic based on its ownership, source or destination.”

Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) — co-sponsors of the bipartisan “Internet Freedom Preservation Act” — sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin urging the FCC to reinstate Net Neutrality rules.

“We see that thousands of people have submitted comments describing how a free and open Internet benefits consumers and telling you the discriminatory practices planned by their Internet service providers would substantially harm their online experience,” Dorgan and Snowe wrote the chairman. “We hope you take note of these thousands of public comments\nurging you to protect Internet freedom.”

In 2005, the FCC removed the rules that had guaranteed Net Neutrality since the Internet’s inception. The heads of the biggest phone and cable companies have repeatedly stated plans to discriminate against Web sites that don’t pay extra fees to get higher quality service and faster speeds.

More than 1.6 million people and 850 groups from across the political spectrum have called for the FCC and Congress to reinstate Net Neutrality.

The Commission opened its Net Neutrality inquiry in March, asking for comment on why a neutral Internet is important; how phone and cable company efforts to discriminate against content online affect everyday lives; and whether the agency should enforce rules that would prohibit such discrimination.

“Once again, the public has sent a clear mandate to Washington: Protect Net Neutrality,” said Timothy Karr\, campaign director of Free Press, the group that coordinates the SavetheInternet.com Coalition. "Internet users want competitive and affordable services. They don’t want phone and cable companies to manipulate the free flow of information and distort the Web’s level playing field. Now, the FCC must heed demands from people of every walk of life and enforce full Net Neutrality.”

– To the original at CommonDreams.org:

– I wrote earlier on this subject here: &

– And Bill Moyers did a wonderful piece here on press freedom and net neutrality:

– Thx to Michael M. for directing me to this piece.

Seeing Yellow Protests “Big Brother” Laser Printers

Monday, July 16th, 2007

– I was pretty amazed to read this though, apparently, it’s been around for awhile. Some color laser printers lay down a fine pattern of yellow dots on their printed pages which the Secret Service can use to back track to the specific printer that printed the document. It’s apparently a way to track-back to the folks who would use the printers to make counterfeit money, for example. And, in the most perfect of worlds, where the authorities aways acted only in the public good, that would be fine.

– But this is the country where J. Edgar Hoover bent the government to his will through several presidencies. It is the country where a professional agent’s career in the current administration was ruined because the administration didn’t like the fact that her husband reported the truth about the absence of WMD in Iraq. And it is the country wherein “Scooter” Libby, fully and fairly convicted of crimes connected with the agent’s unmasking – had his sentence commuted by the president. This list could go on for a long long time. But those were just the few things that came to mind this second. But, do I think all the government’s decisions are always and solely for the best good of the American public??? Naw, I don’t. So read this story and see how it makes you feel. Laser printers today, cell phones yesterday, door knobs tomorrow?

— — — — — — —

MIT Media Labs launches SeeingYellow.com to call for protest against printer manufacturers whose laser printers secretly monitor usage

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and other privacy advocates have long warned that some color laser printers produce a nearly invisible grid of yellow dots on documents that store the serial number of the printer and the date stamp of the printed page. Now Benjamin Mako Hill and other members of MIT Media Labs’ Computing Culture research group have established seeingyellow.com to spotlight this practice as an incursion on the civil liberties of the users of the laser printers. The yellow-dot “watermark” allows the US Secret Service to enlist the help of the manufacturers in tracking counterfeit currency generated on laser printers. A statement on seeing yellow.com calls this practice a “direct attack on the privacy of the owners and users of printers, and in particular, on their right to free, anonymous speech.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation previously reported on this issue and has posted a DocuColor Tracking Dot Decoding guide that explains how the Xeroc DocuColor model printers produce the yellow dot pattern. It also provides a utility for translating your particular dot pattern to determine what information it stores. The DocuColor pattern is a repeating 15 x 8 grid of yellow dots on the entire page that encodes up to fourteen 7-bit bytes of data, such as model number, serial number, and date of printing. Other manufactures such as Brother, Hewlett Packard and so on also produce similar tracking patterns.

On his blog Mako points out that “The Federalist Papers were one of the most important set of documents in early US political history and they have fundementally shaped the way the US and its governments grew. They were (originally) published anonymously and there’s reason to believe that they would have said what they did or even been published at all if were immediately traceable to their authors.”

Alexander Hamilton co-authored the Federalist Papers, before being blackmailed by James Reynolds for having an affair with his wife, Maria Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds was later arrested for counterfeiting.

To the original:

I Don’t Think We Are Going To Make It

Saturday, July 14th, 2007

– Just just watched a sobering video.   I have to confess, it didn’t sober me much because I already see things through the same lens the video presents.   And that is that even with all we are doing and even with all the folks who are waking up to the predicament we are in, it isn’t going to be enough and, in essence, we are going to go over the climate change civilization breakdown falls.  

– But, watch the video and make your own judgements.

— — — — — — — —

To the video by John Doerr, a very rich venture capitalist and a very smart fellow:

“International Humiliation” on Food Safety May Be in China’s Best Interest

Friday, July 13th, 2007

– the author of the following, Wang Feng, is a Beijing-based journalist.

— — — — — — —

I awoke this morning to the headline in the Chinese newspapers: “China bans diethylene glycol in toothpaste.” My first reaction: Finally, the bureaucrats have given in to international pressure. It seems China can use all the international humiliation it can get.

Diethylene glycol, a toxic industrial solvent, is often used in China to replace the similar but more expensive glycerine, a harmless food additive. Chinese-made toothpaste containing diethylene glycol has been discovered and recalled all over the world. But until this morning, Chinese officials had insisted that a small amount of diethylene glycol in toothpaste was harmless to the human body. Never mind that a Chinese shipment of it was blamed for the deaths of over 100 Panamanians after a drug maker there put it into a cough syrup, believing it was glycerine. Chinese officials maintained that it was a safe additive in toothpaste even in the very statement that later banned such a use: “There is no known case of direct human poisoning by toothpaste with diethylene glycol,” the statement said. Yeah, right. Pardon me if I would still rather do without it in mine.

I am happy with the outcome now – that is, if China can really enforce this ban effectively. Good luck with that. Our government has, under mounting U.S. pressure, vowed more than a few times to root out pirated DVDs of Hollywood blockbusters. But guess how much I paid for a copy of “Spiderman III” at my neighborhood store?

The toothpaste saga is a textbook case of a public health and food safety crisis that wouldn’t have even raised eyebrows inside China, much less been addressed and resolved on a national level, if it hadn’t escalated into an international scandal. And the toothpaste issue is a relatively minor case in a string of serious crises that have continuously tarnished the “Made in China” label. Among those are the recent American pet food scare and the Panamanian cough syrup deaths (although I’ve never quite figured out why the deaths of 17 U.S. cats got so much more worldwide news coverage than the deaths of more than 100 Panamanians.)

Even when domestic scandals do break, they aren’t usually handled in a way that instills public confidence. When a fake medicine killed dozens of patients in China a year ago, it triggered a national outcry and a subsequent government investigation. In the end, officials announced only that they had fined the factory, and suspended its license “pending further inspection and improvement.” The public was told nothing else — why the Chinese FDA had approved the drug in the first place, or why regulators hadn’t found the problem until the patients were dying in agony.

The final revelation came earlier this year when Zheng Xiaoyu, then head of the Chinese FDA, was sacked, investigated for corruption and swiftly sentenced to death. He lost his appeal six weeks later and was executed this past Monday. In the media storm surrounding Zheng’s downfall, we learned that the man had almost single-handedly approved tens of thousands of drug licenses without following due procedure, pocketing millions in bribes from pharmaceutical firms. His corrupt administration was also blamed for some of the international crises, including the Panamanian poisoning case. Zheng’s execution was no surprise to observers. Many believe he was made into a scapegoat, a convenient target for focusing public wrath.

So, transparency at last? Not according to Zheng’s lawyers. They tried hard to spare his life, citing the amount of money involved (much less in comparison to many other convicted corrupt officials sentenced only to life in prison), and his cooperation with investigators. But Zheng’s trial was also one of the most secretive and least publicized in recent years. The government never released the details of its case against him, and no one knew which companies had bribed him until his lawyers defied a government gag order and posted court documents on the Internet. They did so in a desperate protest against the shroud of secrecy under which the case was handled.

More…

UN issues desertification warning

Thursday, July 12th, 2007

Tens of millions of people could be driven from their homes by encroaching deserts, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia, a report says.

The study by the United Nations University suggests climate change is making desertification “the greatest environmental challenge of our times”.

If action is not taken, the report warns that some 50 million people could be displaced within the next 10 years.

The study was produced by more than 200 experts from 25 countries.

This report does not pull any punches, says BBC environment reporter Matt McGrath.

One third of the Earth’s population – home to about two billion people – are potential victims of its creeping effect, it says.

“Desertification has emerged as an environmental crisis of global proportions, currently affecting an estimated 100 to 200 million people, and threatening the lives and livelihoods of a much larger number,” the study said.

The overexploitation of land and unsustainable irrigation practices are making matters worse, while climate change is also a major factor degrading the soil, it says.

People displaced by desertification put new strains on natural resources and on other societies nearby and threaten international instability, the study adds.

“There is a chain reaction. It leads to social turmoil,” said Zafaar Adeel, the study’s lead author and head of the UN University’s International Network on Water, Environment and Health.

The largest area affected was probably sub-Saharan Africa, where people are moving to northern Africa or to Europe, while the second area is the former Soviet republics in central Asia, he added.

More…

To the full PDF version of the UN report:

It’s not the sun, folks

Thursday, July 12th, 2007

– One of the recent favorite hobby horses of the folks who oppose the idea that mankind’s activities are causing global climate change has been the notion that variations in the sun’s output are behind the changes we are seeing. They come up with an alternative like this periodically and run with it until the accumulated evidence undermines it too badly to continue. Then they switch to another and run off in a different direction.

– Here’s an academic paper from the Proceedings of The Royal Society which states clearly that if anything, the sun’s influence in recent years should have cooled the climate. Next hobby horse, anyone?

— — — — — — — — —

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

Abstract:

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

To the main paper:

Crime and Pusnishment in Beijing

Tuesday, July 10th, 2007

Grim and stern as an old friend would say. The People’s Daily online just carried a story announcing that Zheng Xiaoyu, former director of China’s State Food and Drug Administration (see here for story on his crimes) ), was executed this morning. I thought Zheng’s appeal of the death sentence handed down on May 29th was still pending but the story also noted that it had been rejected on June 22nd. I guess that it still seemed likely he would receive some sort of last minute reprieve, given how senior he was and the fact that his deputy was just given a suspended death sentence, which usually means effective life imprisonment. I don’t know why I was even a little surprised, though. As we observed earlier, Zheng’s timing was awful if he was hoping for a pardon. With the current international hullabaloo about safety regulation in China there was no way he was going to be let off the hook. Will his execution make a difference? Hard to say. Certainly it’s got to have some impact in the short term, but memories fade and the allure of stacks of those crisp, roseblush 100 renminbi bills is strong.

More…

Now it’s Fake Water

Tuesday, July 10th, 2007

– Before China learns that there has to be a resonable balance between profits and people, a lot of bad stuff is going to happen.

— — — — —

This morning, I heard the news that half of Beijing’s bottled water is counterfeit. I was horrified. It seems that illegal factories fill the used plastic bottles from the tap or with perfunctorily filtered water. The bottle tops and tape that they use to seal the bottle look identical to the genuine ones. The bottles aren’t sterilized and the number of mold fungi and e. coli bacteria that have been found in such water can easily make drinkers sick. An industry report quoted by Beijing Times calculates that more than 100 million bottles of such water were sold last year. The profit derived from these illegal sales exceeded 1 billion RMB, or about $12 million.

As a Chinese, I am used to reading about dangerous fakes. But this case really enraged me. This is water that many of us drink every day, after all. And the whole reason people pay extra for bottled water is for the quality—and safety. The Beijing Times did a story a couple of days ago that revealed the illegal business has been going on for five years. One unlicensed water bottler told the newspaper: “I filter the tap water before filling the bottle because I am a moral person and I don’t want to get people sick.”

More…

Net Neutrality is now Red Hot

Sunday, July 8th, 2007

Net Neutrality is now Red Hot

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has decided to abandon net neutrality and allow telecoms companies to charge websites for access.

The FTC said in a report that, despite popular support for net neutrality, it was minded to let the market sort out the issue.

This means that the organisation will not stand in the way of companies using differential pricing to make sure that some websites can be viewed more quickly than others. The report also counsels against net neutrality legislation.

———————–

Truth via humor

– Most of the news we get is filtered. A small list of big corporate entities own the majority of America’s major news outlets. We’re talking radio, television and newspapers here. Sadly, much of the American public is unaware that their news comes predigested for them by corporations which have vested interest in spinning the news to benefit themselves.

– And why shouldn’t they? Corporations are, after all, entities created and designed to seek profit for themselves and their stockholders above all else. So, for example, if academic papers began to appear discussing how corporate America is picking and choosing the news they deliver to you to benefit themselves, do you think that this same big media would report the story to us as news so we can be better informed citizens?

– People with lots of money and vested interests are always trying to spin the news to influence you and manipulate your perceptions.

– Look at what the paint industry did all through the 40’s and 50’s trying to convince the American public that the lead in their paints wasn’t harmful to people.

– Look at all the lies the tobacco industry broadcast for decades claiming that cigarette smoke wasn’t harmful to people.

– Look at what Exxon and other oil and coal companies are doing today trying to sow confusion and doubt in the public’s mind as to the causes of global climate change.

– Make no mistake about it. Big corporations have big vested interests and they will do whatever they need to to protect their markets and their profits.

– And the news media is extremely important in all of this because the media is the best tool to leverage to public’s perceptions and beliefs. Everyone who’s got big money on the table has realized how central controlling the news media is.

– Now, flip the situation over and look at how the Internet and all of the alternative news that gets reported there looks to the big corporate interests. Exxon would like to convince us that there is no particular relationship between the amount of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, we generate when using their products and global climate change. Do you think they appreciate the fact that alternative news sources, such as those widely available on the Internet, are diluting their efforts to shape our perceptions and opinions about this important issue? If enough people read these alternative news sources, a political ground swell might well result and laws could get passed that would badly damage Exxon’s bottom line. Wahdayaa think? That they’re happy that Americans have alternative news and are therefore better informed citizens – or are they trying to find ways to lessen the danger to their bottom line that alternative news represents?

– Well folks, that brings us to Net Neutrality and why it’s an issue you should care about very deeply. Advocates of retaining Net Neutrality warn that broadband providers will use their power over the “last mile” to block applications they do not favor, and also to discriminate between content providers (i.e. websites, services, protocols), particularly competitors.

– Now, if you go out and read widely about Net Neutrality, you are going to see a lot of opinions – pro and con. It can be a confusing issue within which you can get lost in all the terminology and arguments.

But, cling to this idea:

Once big corporate interests get the right to begin to differentially charge us according to what the content is, it will only be a matter of time before new sources which those corporate powers don’t like will find themselves being pushed further and further towards the edge of the Internet stage.

– To those who want to control the information you receive for their own benefit, there is no bigger source of uncontrolled information than the Internet. If they can begin to drive wedges into it, they certainly will. And every time they can drive those wedges a bit further, bettering their position and diminishing their opponent’s – they will.

– It is extremely fortunate for all of us that the Internet came along just about the same time in history that corporate consolidations essentially took the ‘freedom’ out of America’s Free Press.

– I know some of you will have strong doubts as to whether this issue and my concerns about it are overblown. To those of you that have such doubts, I offer you this link. Follow it and read it and if you still doubt, then so be it.

– And to those if you that do believe that Net Neutrality is a burning issue, follow

 

➡ this link ➡

to a site which has suggestions as to what you can do, right now, to speak your piece on this before freedom of information on the Internet is cut right from under our feet.

—————

– thx to Kevin at The Cryptogon for alerting me to this story about the FTC’s decision.