Mike Raiford wrote:
> Haha. What?

Been to Europe lately? You know, Venice sinking into the water, statues 
being moved inside because acid rain is melting them, etc?

I will say that LA is the only city I've been in that was as close to 
being as polluted as Paris and Beijing were when I was there. And that's 
because LA is in a big natural bowl and had awful air pollution even 
before Christopher Columbus got to the New World. (The native americans 
called it "the valley of smoke" because all the smoke from forest fires 
would end up settling there.)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Haha. What?
> 
> Been to Europe lately? You know, Venice sinking into the water, statues 
> being moved inside because acid rain is melting them, etc?
> 

I haven't actually, but yeah, thought it might have something to do with 
acid rain, but also figured that was a worldwide thing.

> I will say that LA is the only city I've been in that was as close to 
> being as polluted as Paris and Beijing were when I was there. And that's 
> because LA is in a big natural bowl and had awful air pollution even 
> before Christopher Columbus got to the New World. (The native americans 
> called it "the valley of smoke" because all the smoke from forest fires 
> would end up settling there.)
> 

Heh, I remember the first time I landed in LA, I immediately noticed the 
yellowish smog layer over the entire valley.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Personally, I have no idea what a "PO number" is.
> 
> This is actually useful to know if you're ever going to work for 
> yourself.

I'm not. (Obviously. My skills are in technology, not business.)

> It's a good thing to know, because if there's one thing I've learned 
> working as a small consultant to big companies is this: If you don't 
> have a PO# before you go to work, it will take you six months to get 
> paid, if ever. If you *do* have a PO#, you mail the bill to the 
> accounting department, and they pay it. If you *don't*, you mail the 
> bill to the guy who hired you, who sits on it because paying you isn't 
> his job, until you send it again, and again, and finally start tacking 
> on finance charges and CC'ing the accounting department, at which point 
> the accounting department goes "Finance charges??" and things start 
> moving again.

Hahahaha... PWNED!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> We already reduce carbon emissions ourselves. We just don't want 
> outsiders telling us the only way to do it is to use less energy.

Right. Because it's *completely* possible to waste energy yet still have 
low emissions... wait, WTF?

> Hey, *our* country isn't the one where the buildings are all melting.

Now to me, this just comes across as typical arrogant American. I'm sure 
it wasn't ment to be...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Heh, I remember the first time I landed in LA, I immediately noticed the 
> yellowish smog layer over the entire valley.

To be fair, there's yellowish smog over many cities these days, usually 
as seen from the top of the bridges coming into the city. LA is the 
reason california passed stricter car pollution laws than anyone else in 
the world 20 years ago.  Japan had to tool up whole new production lines 
just for California's pollution controls.

So, yeah, we're working on it. One problem is that Kyoto doesn't put 
limits on pollution, but on energy use. If you find a way to burn coal 
completely without pollution, you're still screwed.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> We already reduce carbon emissions ourselves. We just don't want 
>> outsiders telling us the only way to do it is to use less energy.
> 
> Right. Because it's *completely* possible to waste energy yet still have 
> low emissions... wait, WTF?

Um, yes, it is. Hydroelectrics? Nuclear? Etc?

>> Hey, *our* country isn't the one where the buildings are all melting.
> 
> Now to me, this just comes across as typical arrogant American. I'm sure 
> it wasn't ment to be...

Actually, it's a personal observation. I've traveled a lot compared to 
most Europeans, and most places I've been are more polluted than most 
places I've been in the USA. London was actually pretty good, tho.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

>> Right. Because it's *completely* possible to waste energy yet still 
>> have low emissions... wait, WTF?
> 
> Um, yes, it is. Hydroelectrics? Nuclear? Etc?

You actually think hydroelectrics could produce that much energy?

Mind you, you guys have Texas and Arisona... maybe a few solar panels 
could do something interesting?

>>> Hey, *our* country isn't the one where the buildings are all melting.
>>
>> Now to me, this just comes across as typical arrogant American. I'm 
>> sure it wasn't ment to be...
> 
> Actually, it's a personal observation. I've traveled a lot compared to 
> most Europeans, and most places I've been are more polluted than most 
> places I've been in the USA. London was actually pretty good, tho.

Isn't the USA several hundred times larger than the whole of Europe put 
together? (And a few thousand years newer too?)

I've always disliked how polluted London is. Mind you, I haven't seen 
that many other places...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Right. Because it's *completely* possible to waste energy yet still 
>>> have low emissions... wait, WTF?
>>
>> Um, yes, it is. Hydroelectrics? Nuclear? Etc?
> 
> You actually think hydroelectrics could produce that much energy?

It does appear to be a relatively small percentage, I'll grant you. 
However, that's not the point, really.

> Isn't the USA several hundred times larger than the whole of Europe put 
> together? (And a few thousand years newer too?)

GIYF. "Size of europe" first hit.  (Kind of funny, that.)
http://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htm

Not "several hundred", but a fair amount larger, depending on what you 
count as "Europe". If you count the whole continent, Europe is somewhat 
larger than the whole USA, but by less than the size of Alaska.

> I've always disliked how polluted London is. Mind you, I haven't seen 
> that many other places...

London was actually pretty clean when I was there.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Hey, *our* country isn't the one where the buildings are all melting.
> 
> Now to me, this just comes across as typical arrogant American. I'm sure
> it wasn't ment to be...

Even though the fact alone is obviously true (they aren't melting), I think
his "so why should I care" tone was actually sarcastic :)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Even though the fact alone is obviously true (they aren't melting),

I don't know what you mean, there. Certainly in some places the 
stonework is indeed melting, quite literally. Including both Venice and 
Rome.

> I think
> his "so why should I care" tone was actually sarcastic :)

Actually, I was expressing the fact that there was also the arrogance of 
people trying to tell a soverign country how it should run its affairs 
and then getting pissy when Congress voted against it. (And indeed voted 
against it in 1986, years and years before Kyoto itself was proposed.)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Actually, it's a personal observation. I've traveled a lot compared to 
> most Europeans, 

Sorry. I don't know where my head is today. I meant "I've traveled a lot 
compared to most Americans."   I have no idea how much Europeans tend to 
travel outside of Europe.  That mistake of course makes me sound much 
more arrogant.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

> To be fair, there's yellowish smog over many cities these days, usually as 
> seen from the top of the bridges coming into the city. LA is the reason 
> california passed stricter car pollution laws than anyone else in the 
> world 20 years ago.

How come people can still drive around Hummers that do 10mpg then?

> So, yeah, we're working on it. One problem is that Kyoto doesn't put 
> limits on pollution, but on energy use. If you find a way to burn coal 
> completely without pollution, you're still screwed.

Kyoto sets targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Here's a map of who's in and who's out:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> How come people can still drive around Hummers that do 10mpg then?

Either they are trucks and so exempt, or they're using a lot of gasoline 
without polluting.

The Prius, I'm told, actually puts out cleaner air from the exhaust than 
the general air in LA.  Kind of a negative polluter.

> Kyoto sets targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
> Here's a map of who's in and who's out:
>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png


Yep. And China pollutes more than the USA. :-)  And?

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

>> How come people can still drive around Hummers that do 10mpg then?
>
> Either they are trucks and so exempt

Aren't there limits for trucks too?

> The Prius, I'm told, actually puts out cleaner air from the exhaust than 
> the general air in LA.  Kind of a negative polluter.

Yeh I guess you can work that out, btw there was some big issue here when a 
Toyota advert for the Prius was banned.  It claimed something like "4x less 
pollution" but they compared it with some hideous totally non-comparable 
car.  Of course that sparked off lots of people to actually check how clean 
it was compared to other European cars.  It turns out that actually there 
are a lot of cars (in Europe at least) that get better fuel economy and give 
out less pollution.

> Yep. And China pollutes more than the USA. :-)

Only just, and their population is considerably larger than yours (plus they 
make everything for the rest of the world) so it's hardly reason to not take 
any action in your own country.  It's not just me, but everyone here has the 
impression that the USA is doing very little to cut down on pollution, maybe 
it's just the impression that Bush gives when he talks about such things, or 
that they always choose to interview certain people on the TV here, I don't 
know.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>> How come people can still drive around Hummers that do 10mpg then?
>>
>> Either they are trucks and so exempt
> 
> Aren't there limits for trucks too?

I imagine so, but it's not "average over fleet" as far as I know, which 
is what was hurting the auto manufacturers. If they wanted to build 15% 
large cars, they had to build 15% of their cars using less gas than was 
physically possible.  With trucks, all the trucks can be right at the 
limit. Apparently, many in Congress own trucking companies.

> turns out that actually there are a lot of cars (in Europe at least) 
> that get better fuel economy and give out less pollution.

I wouldn't be surprised. I was kind of disappointed that the Prius will 
actually sacrifice mileage in order to reduce pollution.

>> Yep. And China pollutes more than the USA. :-)
> 
> Only just, and their population is considerably larger than yours (plus 
> they make everything for the rest of the world) so it's hardly reason to 
> not take any action in your own country. 

Well, we *do* take action in our own country, just not due to Europe's 
direction. :-)  And the pollution from China is getting worse as they 
move into 1st world status. (As in, they're not quite there yet, so they 
don't have the luxury of wasting money on stuff like pollution controls 
yet, but they're starting to use energy like a first world country does.)

> It's not just me, but everyone 
> here has the impression that the USA is doing very little to cut down on 
> pollution, maybe it's just the impression that Bush gives when he talks 
> about such things, or that they always choose to interview certain 
> people on the TV here, I don't know.

Certainly all the interviewers have agendas.  Part of the problem is 
that the USA already paid a whole lot of attention to pollution stuff 
like 30 years ago. We put scrubbers on all the smoke stacks, treat the 
coal before burning it, and so on. We use a lot of energy, but the 
country is spread out, large and a fairly big population.

We could probably do better by reducing the amount of energy we use, but 
that's not something Kyoto is going to be able to cause to happen, methinks.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Certainly all the interviewers have agendas.  Part of the problem is 
> that the USA already paid a whole lot of attention to pollution stuff 
> like 30 years ago. We put scrubbers on all the smoke stacks, treat the 
> coal before burning it, and so on. We use a lot of energy, but the 
> country is spread out, large and a fairly big population.
> 
> We could probably do better by reducing the amount of energy we use, but 
> that's not something Kyoto is going to be able to cause to happen, 
> methinks.
> 

On the other hand, what we "do" do is spottier than hell some times, 
like the fact that we allow sales of vehicles that would "never" pass 
either safety or smog checks in Arizona, but a few hundred miles away 
(or where I live, more like less than fifty), on the other side of the 
California border, you would have the vehicle declared either illegal to 
drive, failing to meet standards, and/or unsafe. Why? Solely because 
Pheonix isn't LA, and therefor no one gives a shit if 500,000 thousand 
cars produce "breathable" smog, while the same per capita population in 
LA would be more like 5 million cars, and you would need a damn knife to 
cut through the shit if the same poorly maintained and non-California 
Smog Requirement approved cars where there.

Now, some people don't think this is a problem, but.. if 100,000 people 
from surrounding states, where the laws are looser, all decide to take a 
trip to the LA area for vacation as the same time, well, WTF good does 
having the laws do in the first place?

Its a bit like the description Penn & Teller had about some aspects of 
the Endangered Species Act. Some bird on one side of a mountain is 
"endangered", because there where 10,000 of them, but now are only 5,000 
of them, but on the other side of the mountain there are 10,000,000 of 
the damn things, because they "prefer" to live there in the first place. 
We do the same thing with "pollution". Protect the places no sane person 
would want to live "because of it", from too much of it, but don't do 
anything at all about all the people pumping out 5-20 times as much from 
their own vehicles in some area that is "not" as polluted. Or.. At least 
not until it becomes so bad that people start dying from it.

We even get that logic here, where I live, where the "increase" of a 
certain type of boat, which remains running all the time when on shore, 
manages to kill a few people each year, including kids, so where are 
"now" strict rules saying you "can't" run them. Rules that where not in 
place *until* people started to die from it, and which are still not, 
apparently, sufficient to stop something that wasn't happening "at all" 
5 years ago. If we hadn't had a few weeks where 1-2 people died a week, 
a few years back, the ordinances would "still" not be on the beaches, or 
patrols going on to keep them turned off.

In most of the US, people don't "see" an obvious problem, the "Fed" 
isn't doing a damn thing, other than, often, undermining protections, or 
refusing to implement ones that are what experts consider "strict 
enough", and thus, most places, no one is passing local laws to deal 
with it either. End result -> other than in major cities, you could 
probably burn tires 24/7, and as long as some bird or lizard wasn't 
"endangered" in the area by it, or the wind shifted enough to annoy the 
nearest neighbor, the state wouldn't give a damn.

Or, at least that is the "common" perception that people have, when they 
see the government constantly arguing for why it "shouldn't" introduce 
stricter policies, and make "everyone" follow them, then a week later 
hear about some morons, like the ones in Florida, who successfully 
convinced the local government that swamp land produced "pollutants", so 
it would be better as a parking lot.


-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

> I wouldn't be surprised. I was kind of disappointed that the Prius will 
> actually sacrifice mileage in order to reduce pollution.

Yeh I was surprised, because the pollution levels are quite low for a car 
that size (what I saw was that only a couple of cars beat it, which were 
smaller).  But then the gas mileage is really not that good compared to what 
a lot of cars here can do.  Maybe they could work with VW or BMW to use one 
of their really efficient diesel engines, that is where the European 
manufacturers have made great strides in the last decade.

> We could probably do better by reducing the amount of energy we use, but 
> that's not something Kyoto is going to be able to cause to happen, 
> methinks.

Well it seems to have helped a lot of other countries reduce their pollution 
quite significantly, whether they would have done it without Kyoto I don't 
know.  The fact is that Kyoto won't let you get away with not reducing 
pollution levels very easily.

If LA has such a bad smog situation then why not ban all cars that produce 
over a certain amount of pollution to improve the air quality?  You 
pioneered with the emission controls 30 years ago, but you seem to have been 
overtaken by most other developed countries now (eg here you can't enter 
most cities without the correct colour sticker on your car, which depends on 
how much pollution it makes).  If the pollution situation gets bad in a 
city, then they can simply ban everyone with bigger cars from entering to 
keep within the air quality limits.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> The fact is that Kyoto won't let you get away with 
> not reducing pollution levels very easily.

I suppose. I don't really know enough about it to pursue that too much 
farther.

> If LA has such a bad smog situation then why not ban all cars that 
> produce over a certain amount of pollution to improve the air quality?  

Because we're a federated democracy. California isn't allowed to pass 
laws like that.  When the founders founded the country, they wrote into 
the constitution rules preventing states from interfering in the laws of 
other states.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren New [mailto:dne### [at] sanrrcom]
> Because we're a federated democracy. California isn't allowed to pass
> laws like that.  When the founders founded the country, they wrote
into
> the constitution rules preventing states from interfering in the laws
> of
> other states.

Of course, there's nothing to keep CALIFORNIA from passing a law like
that :)


...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com





> 
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Of course, there's nothing to keep CALIFORNIA from passing a law like
> that :)

California did that a long time ago. Indeed, they bought so many 
low-pollution cars that Japan just gave up on making a different set for 
California, so it kind of seeped out into the rest of the country anyway.

But California isn't allowed to set up customs between states, nor bar 
residents of other states from entering, and I suspect saying "you're 
allowed in but your car is banned" would count as a customs.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:39:15 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> But California isn't allowed to set up customs between states, nor bar
> residents of other states from entering, and I suspect saying "you're
> allowed in but your car is banned" would count as a customs.

Doesn't CA still have import restrictions from other states on certain 
foods, though?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Doesn't CA still have import restrictions from other states on certain 
> foods, though?

It's certainly more legal to limit business dealings across state lines than 
it is to say "you're not allowed to walk across the border carrying that."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:37:40 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Doesn't CA still have import restrictions from other states on certain
>> foods, though?
> 
> It's certainly more legal to limit business dealings across state lines
> than it is to say "you're not allowed to walk across the border carrying
> that."

My understanding (having never driven into CA myself) was that there were 
certain plants/fruits/whatever that weren't allowed in the state even by 
tourists.  I always thought it was a little weird myself.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> My understanding (having never driven into CA myself) was that there were 
> certain plants/fruits/whatever that weren't allowed in the state even by 
> tourists.  I always thought it was a little weird myself.

I believe they check at the airports if you're coming in internationally. 
There may indeed be laws against importing fruits known to often carry 
parasites. (The ban isn't on oranges (say), but on oranges carrying the 
larvae of bugs that'll eat all the orange trees in CA. But since you can't 
see them from the outside, they ban the oranges.)

But there's nothing stopping you from driving between states. They may 
certainly ask you not to bring food stuff, but I don't think they're allowed 
to inspect for it. But I'm not a lawyer.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:02:09 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> My understanding (having never driven into CA myself) was that there
>> were certain plants/fruits/whatever that weren't allowed in the state
>> even by tourists.  I always thought it was a little weird myself.
> 
> I believe they check at the airports if you're coming in
> internationally. There may indeed be laws against importing fruits known
> to often carry parasites. (The ban isn't on oranges (say), but on
> oranges carrying the larvae of bugs that'll eat all the orange trees in
> CA. But since you can't see them from the outside, they ban the
> oranges.)
> 
> But there's nothing stopping you from driving between states. They may
> certainly ask you not to bring food stuff, but I don't think they're
> allowed to inspect for it. But I'm not a lawyer.

Now I'm curious, will have to check and see.  I'd heard that even 
domestic fruits weren't allowed in, and that seemed weird to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren New [mailto:dne### [at] sanrrcom]
> But there's nothing stopping you from driving between states. They may
> certainly ask you not to bring food stuff, but I don't think they're
> allowed
> to inspect for it. But I'm not a lawyer.

You bet they inspect cars for it.  At least, they ask if you're carrying 
any fruits or vegetables.

When you say "no," they just wave you through.  But if you say "yes," then 
they make you throw it away before they let you through.

Washington also bans fruits and vegetables from California, but they don't 
have border inspections (so it's kind of an honor system).

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> You bet they inspect cars for it.  At least, they ask if you're carrying 
> any fruits or vegetables.

I've never been stopped.  Not even at checkpoints, let alone at all border 
crossing. In international airplanes, yes.  Never in the local airport.

> Washington also bans fruits and vegetables from California, but they don't 
> have border inspections (so it's kind of an honor system).

That wouldn't surprise me.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

FWIW: If you use Windows: http://www.acronis.com/

Good luck.

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren New [mailto:dne### [at] sanrrcom]
> I've never been stopped.  Not even at checkpoints, let alone at all
> border
> crossing. In international airplanes, yes.  Never in the local airport.

We drove down to Vegas three months ago.  We weren't stopped at the Oregon 
border, or leaving California for Nevada, but we were stopped coming from 
Nevada to California.

Maybe it's a random thing?

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Maybe it's a random thing?

Maybe. Stopped for a vegetable check? Or stopped for a Mexican check?

I guess someone decided that isn't a "customs" check.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message