Saturday, December 12, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The top 100 books in English Wikipedia
Sunday, September 20, 2009
A Better Missile Defense for a Safer Europe
THE future of missile defense in Europe is secure. This reality is contrary to what some critics have alleged about President Obama’s proposed shift in America’s missile-defense plans on the continent — and it is important to understand how and why.
First, to be clear, there is now no strategic missile defense in Europe. In December 2006, just days after becoming secretary of defense, I recommended to President George W. Bush that the United States place 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and an advanced radar in the Czech Republic. This system was designed to identify and destroy up to about five long-range missiles potentially armed with nuclear warheads fired from the Middle East — the greatest and most likely danger being from Iran. At the time, it was the best plan based on the technology and threat assessment available.
That plan would have put the radar and interceptors in Central Europe by 2015 at the earliest. Delays in the Polish and Czech ratification process extended that schedule by at least two years. Which is to say, under the previous program, there would have been no missile-defense system able to protect against Iranian missiles until at least 2017 — and likely much later.
Last week, President Obama — on my recommendation and with the advice of his national-security team and the unanimous support of our senior military leadership — decided to discard that plan in favor of a vastly more suitable approach. In the first phase, to be completed by 2011, we will deploy proven, sea-based SM-3 interceptor missiles — weapons that are growing in capability — in the areas where we see the greatest threat to Europe.
The second phase, which will become operational around 2015, will involve putting upgraded SM-3s on the ground in Southern and Central Europe. All told, every phase of this plan will include scores of SM-3 missiles, as opposed to the old plan of just 10 ground-based interceptors. This will be a far more effective defense should an enemy fire many missiles simultaneously — the kind of attack most likely to occur as Iran continues to build and deploy numerous short- and medium-range weapons. At the same time, plans to defend virtually all of Europe and enhance the missile defense of the United States will continue on about the same schedule as the earlier plan as we build this system over time, creating an increasingly greater zone of protection.
Steady technological advances in our missile defense program — from kill vehicles to the abilities to network radars and sensors — give us confidence in this plan. The SM-3 has had eight successful tests since 2007, and we will continue to develop it to give it the capacity to intercept long-range missiles like ICBMs. It is now more than able to deal with the threat from multiple short- and medium-range missiles — a very real threat to our allies and some 80,000 American troops based in Europe that was not addressed by the previous plan. Even so, our military will continue research and development on a two-stage ground-based interceptor, the kind that was planned to be put in Poland, as a back-up.
Moreover, a fixed radar site like the one previously envisioned for the Czech Republic would be far less adaptable than the airborne, space- and ground-based sensors we now plan to use. These systems provide much more accurate data, offer more early warning and tracking options, and have stronger networking capacity — a key factor in any system that relies on partner countries. This system can also better use radars that are already operating across the globe, like updated cold war-era installations, our newer arrays based on high-powered X-band radar, allied systems and possibly even Russian radars.
One criticism of this plan is that we are relying too much on new intelligence holding that Iran is focusing more on short- and medium-range weapons and not progressing on intercontinental missiles. Having spent most of my career at the C.I.A., I am all too familiar with the pitfalls of over-reliance on intelligence assessments that can become outdated. As Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a few days ago, we would be surprised if the assessments did not change because “the enemy gets a vote.”
The new approach to European missile defense actually provides us with greater flexibility to adapt as new threats develop and old ones recede. For example, the new proposal provides some antimissile capacity very soon — a hedge against Iran’s managing to field missiles much earlier than had been previously predicted. The old plan offered nothing for almost a decade.
Those who say we are scrapping missile defense in Europe are either misinformed or misrepresenting what we are doing. This shift has even been distorted as some sort of concession to Russia, which has fiercely opposed the old plan. Russia’s attitude and possible reaction played no part in my recommendation to the president on this issue. Of course, considering Russia’s past hostility toward American missile defense in Europe, if Russia’s leaders embrace this plan, then that will be an unexpected — and welcome — change of policy on their part. But in any case the facts are clear: American missile defense on the continent will continue, and not just in Central Europe, the most likely location for future SM-3 sites, but, we hope, in other NATO countries as well.
This proposal is, simply put, a better way forward — as was recognized by Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland when he called it “a chance for strengthening Europe’s security.” It is a very real manifestation of our continued commitment to our NATO allies in Europe — iron-clad proof that the United States believes that the alliance must remain firm.
I am often characterized as “pragmatic.” I believe this is a very pragmatic proposal. I have found since taking this post that when it comes to missile defense, some hold a view bordering on theology that regards any change of plans or any cancellation of a program as abandonment or even breaking faith. I encountered this in the debate over the Defense Department’s budget for the fiscal year 2010 when I ended three programs: the airborne laser, the multiple-kill vehicle and the kinetic energy interceptor. All were plainly unworkable, prohibitively expensive and could never be practically deployed — but had nonetheless acquired a devoted following.
I have been a strong supporter of missile defense ever since President Ronald Reagan first proposed it in 1983. But I want to have real capacity as soon as possible, and to take maximum advantage of new technologies to combat future threats.
The bottom line is that there will be American missile defense in Europe to protect our troops there and our NATO allies. The new proposal provides needed capacity years earlier than the original plan, and will provide even more robust protection against longer-range threats on about the same timeline as the previous program. We are strengthening — not scrapping — missile defense in Europe.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Opportunity for Software Engineer
Academia.edu wants to make their site the Facebook of the academic world. The company is looking for a Software Engineer. If you get this job, you might get some stocks in the company as well. Give it a try!
Click the link below for a full description of the position:
VACANCY FOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Last chance to change our behaviour
"Climate change has helped put the global environmental crisis on the map; but it is time to stop considering it as a single issue"
More than half of the world's fisheries are fully exploited, putting 27 million jobs and $100bn of income at risk, UN data shows.One sixth of the world's population relies on fish as their main or sole source of animal protein.
Yet despite considerable effort by many groups, unsustainable fishing continues apace on a global scale.
The Amazon rainforest pumps 20 billion tonnes of water into the atmosphere each day, which drives global weather patterns and rainfall essential for people's survival.
Yet we continue to lose tropical forest cover and with that the services it provides, not least in the mitigation of droughts around the world.
However far removed from nature the human race may seem, we are inextricably linked to it.
The Earth's natural systems provide many essential goods and services that ensure our survival and enhance our lifestyles and well-being - such as food, medicines, building materials, climate regulation, flood defence and leisure opportunities.The ecosystems that provide these services are rapidly decaying to the point of collapse. Human-induced climate change, infrastructure development, the loss of forests and agricultural production are primary drivers of these losses.
The prevailing economic model that exacerbates these problems, rather than counteracts them, is fundamentally flawed.
"GDP is unfit to reflect many of today's challenges, such as climate change, public health, education and the environment," was the conclusion of Beyond GDP, an international conference on gross domestic product held in Brussels in November 2007.
Despite this recognition, governments have spent trillions of dollars around the world in the past year to get out of "recession" and get back to GDP growth at any cost, it seems.
Why? It seems as if the main goal is simply to maintain the current ailing market system and stimulate continued unsustainable consumption.
Slim pickings
The world's governments are meeting in Copenhagen in December to try and agree a global deal to combat climate change.
The chances of a sufficiently binding agreement that will meet the challenge of stabilising greenhouse gas emissions in a short enough timeframe to avoid "dangerous climate change" are slim.But are we seeing the whole picture?
Climate change has helped put the global environmental crisis on the map; but it is time to stop considering it as a single issue.
Maintaining the integrity and functionality of ecosystems is a real and present challenge for business, society and governments.
Without them, we have no hope of sustainably tackling climate change and we risk losing forever the natural environments that enable us to survive and sustain lives worth living.
Bridging the gap
Governments tend to be driven by nationalistic, short-term agendas - increasingly so, as natural resources become ever scarcer and they rush to "capture" as much "natural capital" as they can.
The need for systemic change and global solutions that transcend national boundaries
“ We may invent new technologies at sufficient scale to capture and store carbon dioxide and control our carbon emissions, but are we missing the wider point? ”At the same time, changing patterns of behaviour and consumption need to happen at an individual, local level.
So, what role does business have to play in tackling arguably the greatest challenge that our generation faces?
They can interact with and influence government at a national level, and can drive the international political agenda through bodies such as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
Coalitions between business, informed experts, NGOs and governments are powerful platforms from which to explore and develop alternative business models.
These alliances could drive behavioural change both within companies and among consumers, encourage sustainable use of natural resources, allow communities to thrive and still allow the companies involved to satisfy shareholders' desire to generate profit.
The HSBC Climate Partnership - a collaboration between HSBC, Earthwatch, WWF, the Climate Group and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute - is one example of how such
Whilst there are certainly some forward thinking local and international enterprises out
Governments may then be brave enough to set policy agendas accordingly and incent
We have already embarked on a global climate change experiment that has unknown results.
We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions drastically. We may invent new technologies at sufficient scale to capture and store carbon dioxide and control our carbon emissions, but are we missing the wider point?
We need more focus on maintaining functioning ecosystems and biodiversity that will regulate our climate and provide the other essential conditions we need to maintain human life on Earth.
In a world driven by a market economy, business has vital role to play in moving to this new future and can step up and play a leadership role in creating a sustainable future.
David Hillyard is the international director of partnerships for Earthwatch Institute, an environmental charity
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
Source: BBC News
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Best Undergrad College Degrees By Salary
Click on the image below to view "Best Undergrad College Degrees By Salary - Full List"
Friday, August 28, 2009
Willard Wigan's micro sculptures
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Inside Jackson's Neverland ranch
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Why Counting Carbon is a Key to Climate Change
Behavioral economists will tell you that the simple act of placing an electricity consumption meter in plain view can substantially cut a home's energy use. The same goes for real-time miles-per-gallon meters in cars, which change the way we drive.
These findings tell us something about behavior:
When the price of costly activities isn't hidden from us, we're more likely to pursue those activities prudently.
For too long the free market's accounting system has disguised the cost of one of our most destructive activities: emitting pollution that is making the Earth warmer. It has done this by making the market price of emitting those pollutants zero: These costs have simply not figured into what we pay to power our factories, heat our homes and drive our cars.
Recently, outside of New York City's Madison Square Garden, Deutsche Bank unveiled in plain view a meter of sorts on human-caused climate change, the great challenge of our age. The bank activated a 67-by-32-foot electronic billboard -- where some 510,000 people see it daily -- monitoring the real-time, cumulative pollution humans are emitting into atmosphere.
This "Carbon Counter" is no gimmick. It's based on cutting-edge climate change science, with actual emissions being updated every tenth of a second by MIT's Global Climate Change Program and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Nor is its purpose a gimmick. The out-of-sight, out-of-mind illusion that polluting is free must end and it must end urgently, because the true cost of emitting greenhouse gases is far from zero. Peer-reviewed science from every corner of the globe brings daily proof of warming global temperatures already melting glaciers and ice sheets, raising sea levels, disrupting agricultural patterns and requiring increased emergency spending from more extreme weather such as stronger hurricanes and prolonged heat waves and drought. That's why inaction in curbing this pollution -- 800 tons of it are going into the atmosphere every second -- will be far more costly than acting now.
But that's where the good news starts: First, we have the capacity to act. Second, a bill taking action on climate and energy policy is moving through Congress. Third, we have time -- though scientists say we are moving perilously close to potentially severe climatic disruptions.
Deutsche Bank is part of a large wave of global businesses that understand both the bottom-line risks for business and the huge investing opportunity this challenge presents. A global transition to a clean energy economy is a tremendous opportunity to create millions of jobs, safeguard our health, build sustainable prosperity and energy security, and hand our children the planet they deserve.
This won't come without cost, so let's not muddle the picture with the false choices of minimizing or avoiding them: The only options now are between the price of investing in a safer future and far greater, far less productive spending on mitigation.
That's where investors and government come into play.
Investors need certainty and a level global playing field to act. They can get both from government through the clear market signal of establishing carbon-emission limits -- limits that place a price on carbon pollution. That price will bolster energy-efficiency programs, renewable-energy sources and other low-polluting technologies and products. With the price of carbon pollution factored in, clean-energy alternatives to fossil fuels will quite rightly become far more price-competitive.
And we shouldn't underestimate the challenge: The scale of investments needed to reduce CO2 emissions to the level scientists say is needed -- a level that will limit temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius -- is quite substantial. The International Energy Agency estimates that $550 billion a year needs to be invested in renewable energy, energy efficiency and other clean energy technologies alone over the next two decades to meet that goal. Current global investments on these activities are less than a third of that.
Legislation with strong incentives and clear market signals for renewable energy, energy efficiency and other low-carbon technologies will help catalyze needed clean-tech investments. In America that legislation now takes the form of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, sponsored by Congressmen Henry Waxman (D.-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D.-Mass.).
Comprehensive legislation will boost America's economy, health and competitive future. Equally important, it will greatly bolster our country's ability to credibly lead the world on climate change. A major international conference to write new rules on emissions will take place in Copenhagen in December: Other major carbon emitters, especially emerging-market giants like India and China, will be unlikely to act unless the richest nation and largest greenhouse-gas emitter shows its own strong commitment.
What gets measured gets prudently regulated. Starting last week a huge display at Penn Center reminds us that we have gone too long without accounting for a major cost of building our prosperity. An honest accounting -- honest with ourselves, our children, and our planet's fragile environment -- is an essential cornerstone of our future prosperity. The prospect of building tomorrow's strong economy while simultaneously slaying its greatest threat should fill us with excitement.
Kevin Parker is head of Deutsche Asset Management and a member of Deutsche Bank group's General Executive Committee. Mindy Lubber is president of the Ceres coalition of investors, environmentalists and public-interest groups and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk.
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/gwmCarbonEmissions/idUS229866026320090630
Monday, June 22, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Susan Boyle sings "Memories" at BGT semi-final
Friday, March 20, 2009
My Sister's Story (Video)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Monday, March 16, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
UCLA and UC-Berkeley professors launch climate change blog
Ann Carlson, faculty director of the Emmett Center on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA and Dan Farber, director of Berkeley's environmental law program created www.legalplanet.wordpress.com to write about climate change, energy, environmental law and policy.
Check out latest blogs on removing the gray wolf from a list of endangered species ("Nobody's Perfect"), salmon crisis in California ("California's Salmon Crisis") or the attitude toward global warning issues ("Global warming still a partisan issue").
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Iraq 'shoe-thrower' sentenced
An Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at George Bush, then US president, has been given a three-year jail sentence after pleading not guilty to assaulting a foreign head of state. The sentencing of Muntadher al-Zaidi, 30, by the Central Criminal Court in Baghdad on Thursday, was announced by Al-Baghdadiya television, his employer. The journalist, who became a hero to many Iraqis after the December 14 incident, arrived at the court under a heavy police escort. Packed courtroom There was standing room only at the courtroom on the edge of Baghdad's Green Zone as some 200 family members, reporters and lawyers crowded in. Al-Rubaie later cleared the court before returning his verdict. Asked if he was innocent, al-Zaidi responded: "Yes, my reaction was natural, just like any Iraqi (would have done)." Bush was speaking on December 14 at a joint news conference in Baghdad with Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, when al-Zaidi hurled his shoes at him. The shoes narrowly missed Bush, who later brushed the incident aside. As well as throwing the shoe, al-Zaidi shouted "It is the farewell kiss, you dog", before security forces wrestled him to the ground. He later said he had been beaten and tortured in custody. Shoe-hurling is considered an especially grave insult in the Arab and Muslim world and al-Zaidi had risked up to 15 years in jail on the charge of aggression against a foreign head of state. 'Prisoner of war' After the verdict on Thursday, al-Zaidi's 25-strong defence team emerged from the courtroom to scenes of chaos. Several family members screamed: "It's an American court ... sons of dogs." One of his brothers, Uday, said the decision was political. "This is a political court. Muntadhar is being treated like a prisoner of war. He is not a normal prisoner ... This decision has been taken by the prime minister's office." Al-Zaidi shouted "Iraq, long live Iraq" after the verdict was read out, Yahia Attabi, a defence lawyer, said. "We expected the decision because under the Iraqi criminal code he was charged with assaulting a foreign leader on an official visit." Appeal planned Attabi said al-Zaidi will appeal the decision. The family said they would not only appeal but also press ahead with plans to bring torture charges against Bush, al-Maliki and his bodyguards at a human rights court abroad. Ehiya al-Sadi, the chief defence lawyer, had argued that his client's motives were "honourable". "He was only expressing his feelings. What he could see was the blood of Iraqis at his feet when he watched the US president speaking about his achievements in Iraq." Al-Sadi also argued that although Iraqi law considered it an attack on a visiting head of state, "[al-Zaidi's] throwing of the shoe did not cause any injury or damage ... His goal was to insult Bush for the pain Iraqis have suffered". Al-Zaidi's account The trial opened on February 19 but was adjourned to determine the nature of Bush's December visit. Al-Zaidi told the court last month that he had been outraged and was unable to control his emotions when Bush started speaking to the media. "I had the feeling that the blood of innocent people was dropping on my feet during the time that he was smiling and coming to say bye-bye to Iraq with a dinner. "So I took the first shoe and threw it but it did not hit him. Then spontaneously I took the second shoe but it did not hit him either. I was not trying to kill the commander of the occupation forces of Iraq." Source: Al Jazeera |
Extreme Fishing: Not for Amateurs (Video)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Population growth, climate change sparking water crisis: UN
Compiled by 24 UN agencies, the 348-page document gave a grim assessment of the state of the planet's freshwater, especially in developing countries, and described the outlook for coming generations as deeply worrying.
Water is part of the complex web of factors that determine prosperity and stability, it said.
Lack of access to water helps drive poverty and deprivation and breeds the potential for unrest and conflict, it warned.
"Water is linked to the crises of climate change, energy and food supplies and prices, and troubled financial markets," the third World Water Development Report said.
"Unless their links with water are addressed and water crises around the world are resolved, these other crises may intensify and local water crises may worsen, converging into a global water crisis and leading to political insecurity at various levels."
The report pointed to a double squeeze on fresh water.
On one side was human impact. There were six billion humans in 2000, a tally that has already risen to 6.5 billion and could scale nine billion by 2050.
Population growth, especially in cities in poor countries, is driving explosive demand for water, prompting rivers in thirsty countries to be tapped for nearly every drop and driving governments to pump out so-called fossil water, the report said.
These are aquifers that are hundreds of thousands of years old and whose extraction is not being replenished by rainfall. Mining them for water today means depriving future generations of liquid treasure.
Fuelling this is misuse or abuse of water, through pollution, unbridled irrigation, pipe leakage and growing of water-craving crops in deserts.
Applying pressure from the other side is climate change, said the report.
Shifts to weather systems, unleashed by man-made global warming, will alter rainfall patterns and reduce snow melt, scientists say.
The water report was first issued in 2003 and is updated every three years. The latest issue, entitled "Water in a Changing World," is published ahead of the fifth World Water Forum, taking place in Istanbul from March 16 to 22.
The mammoth document made these points:
-- DEMOGRAPHIC GROWTH is boosting water stress in developing countries, where hydrological resources are often meagre. The global population is growing by 80 million people a year, 90 percent of it in poorer countries. Demand for water is growing by 64 billion cubic metres (2.2 trillion cubic feet) per year, roughly equivalent to Egypt's annual water demand today.
-- In the past 50 years, EXTRACTION from rivers, lakes and aquifers has tripled to help meet population growth and demands for water-intensive food such as rice, cotton, dairy and meat products. Agriculture accounts for 70 percent of the withdrawals, a figure that reaches more than 90 percent in some developing countries.
-- ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION from water pollution and excessive extraction now costs many billions of dollars. Damage in the Middle East and North Africa, the world's most water-stressed region, amounts to some nine billion dollars a year, or between 2.1-7.4 percent of GDP.
-- The outlook is mixed for key UN MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS, which in 2000 set the deadline of 2015 for halving the number of people without access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. The target on drinking water is on track but the tally of people without improved sanitation will have decreased only slightly by 2015, from 2.5 billion to 2.4 billion.
-- Water stress, amplified by climate change, will pose a mounting SECURITY CHALLENGE. The struggle for water could threaten fragile states and drive regional rivalry.
"Conflicts about water can occur at all scales," the report warned, adding: "Hydrologic shocks that may occur through climate change increase the risk of major national and international security threats, especially in unstable areas."
-- Between 92.4 billion and 148 billion dollars are needed annually in INVESTMENT to build and maintain water supply systems, sanitation and irrigation. China and developed countries in Asia alone face financial needs of 38.2-51.4 billion dollars each year.
-- CONSERVATION and reuse of water, including recycled sewage, are the watchwords of the future. The report also stressed sustainable water management, with realistic PRICING to curb waste. It gave the example of India where free or almost-free water had led to huge waste in irrigation, causing soils to be waterlogged and salt-ridden.
Source: Google News