China again

so this is why I am opposed to the Kyoto Treaty:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118470650996069354-buQPf_FL_nKirvopk__GzCmNOq8_20070818.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
an exert:
"One tainted export from China can't be avoided in North America -- air.
An outpouring of dust layered with man-made sulfates, smog, industrial fumes, carbon grit and nitrates is crossing the Pacific Ocean on prevailing winds from booming Asian economies in plumes so vast they alter the climate. These rivers of polluted air can be wider than the Amazon and deeper than the Grand Canyon.
"There are times when it covers the entire Pacific Ocean basin like a ribbon bent back and forth," said atmospheric physicist V. Ramanathan at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif....
Asia is the world's largest source of aerosols, man-made and natural. Every spring and summer, storms whip up silt from the Gobi desert of Mongolia and the hardpan of the Taklamakan desert of western China, where, for centuries, dust has shaped a way of life. From the dunes of Dunhuang, where vendors hawk gauze face masks alongside braided leather camel whips, to the oasis of Kashgar at the feet of the Tian Shan Mountains 1,500 miles to the west, there is no escaping it."

I have nothing against reducing pollution. I think it is a very good idea, but it is useless unless we require countries like China and India to adhere to the same standards as the U.S. and Europe. Right now polluted air is crossing the Pacific Ocean causing damage to the U.S.'s west coast, but no one, not a single environmentalist, who rails against society because people drive cars or throw away a coffee cup or pop can, is up in arms about the continual pollution pouring out of China.

Whether global warming is truly a disaster looming on the hoirzon or not, plumes of pollution filled with chemical circling the globe, raining down on people, is a very real health concern and should be addressed. Quite honestly, more important to me is reducing pollution to lower cancer rates, asthma rates, etc. is an immediate compelling reason to work to reduce pollutants entering the atmosphere. Why don't we focus on that?

On a side note, do you know that those energy efficient light bulbs out right now contain mercury? That's right, next time you go buy a bulb, think what is worse: using a little more electricity or putting more mercury into our environment? Again, why does no one talk about this?

What is with religious leaders lately?

From Breitbart.com:
Chief Israeli rabbi denounces career women
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070712094626.4iqz1tr5&show_article=1
So the jist of it: This chief rabbi in israel has decided children are hurt, particularly their education, if their mothers are career women. women can work (after all, "Women in Orthodox Jewish families often work, as the men devote themselves to study") but can't have "careers."

Here's what I think - that is stupid. Somehow having a mother work full time in a job that is not rewarding and not allow her to work to achieve and advance is better than children seeing their mother work full time and achieve success? Um, no, that is retarded. My mother is a career woman. Seeing her work inspired me to work hard and strive for success. All three of us kids have had great success academically and are responsible and helpful individuals. Granted, my dad shared the parenting duties, by why shouldn't he have? Dads are parents, too.
All in all, this rabbi is stupid.

The Pope

I am just going to quote what I read in a cnn.com article.
"The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ.
"A 16-page document, prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict used to head, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a "wound" since they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.
"But the document said the 'wound is still more profound' in the Protestant denominations -- a view likely to further complicate relations with Protestants.
"'Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them,' it said."

OK, I could comment on this more, but I think it speaks for itself. I knew there was a reason I am a Lutheran. Everyone convert to protestantism right now, before the Pope becomes crazier.



(For the full article go here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html).

So today what bothers me is China. After the whole kill America's pets through food tainted with melamine thing, followed by the whole let's kill children with poisoned toothpast thing, and the let's kill South Americans with cough medicine thing, and let's not forget the whole lets give kids toys made of lead paint thing, you'd think American companies would say - "Hey, we are going to stop using Chinese products and will look to other places to supply the ingredients for our products." But, instead, none of this occurred. Companies continue to blissfully use China products saying it is not their fault if it kills people. At this point, I am going to say they have enough warning as to the poor quality of stuff coming out of China, that to use this stuff in making their products practically constitutes negligence.
The only thing that has happened is that China executed the guy in charge of regulating the safety of products for taking bribes which lead to people dying from a bad vaccine (not sure if I approve or disprove yet - my conscience hasn't decided).
I'm going to by honest here folks. We need to seriously encourage companies to stop getting anything from China. We also need to require that products, especially food products, label where all the elements/ ingredients of their products come from. If I knew an ingredient in my toothpaste came from China, you can bet I wouldn't be buying that toothpaste again.

On T-mobile Again

So I was doing a little investigating on the phones T-mobile used in its trials for Hotspot@home in Seattle. The conclusion: the phones used in the trials were much better than the phones now offered.
I do not think that is how it is supposed to work. Shouldn't phones get better over time? The phones used in seattle were the Nokia 6136 (a phone with much higher screen quality - both external and internal - than the Nokia 6086) and Samsung T709 (a slider phone), both much higher quality phones than are currently available.
So this again raises the question - what was T-mobile thinking?
Also, does anyone know of any rumors on when T-mobile will release more phones for their hotspot@home plan?

Stupid Product Planners

Sometimes I wonder what the IQ is of the people who are in charge of choosing a company's product line.

For example, my sister wanted to by a Ford hybrid SUV, but was unable to locate one anywhere near her home. Ford does not even sell a hybrid car and they seem to be overflowing in SUVs. Did anyone analyze the increases in the cost of gas or the wants of the America people? Seriously, who ever determines product at Ford needs to be fired. It makes sense that Ford is losing money - it is run by idiots.

Or, what really bothered me today, T-mobile. Over the last few months, the phone reception at my apt. has gotten horrible. Now I have to give T-mobile customer service props in that they have tried to help me to the fullest of their ability. One very helpful customer service rep suggested I look at the new hotspot @ home that just came out. Ah, I thought, T-mobile has had a brilliant idea. I am impressed. So I called, sorted out the details, was told the two phones that work on wifi are supposed to be great, looked on-line saw they seemed to be ok, and shipped my phone back (By the way, if you can get reception Nokia 6133 is an awesome phone, just amazing for its price). After shipping off the phone, I stopped at the T-mobile store, handily located near the UPS store. I wanted to see the phone I was about to get.

Let's pause here. Remember that punky phone you had circa 2000? The one you couldn't wait to unload once the better phones became affordable. You got it free with your plan. You sorta hated it, but accepted it because it was free. Tiny interior screen, no colored exterior screen (only a little blue screen that says the name of the caller), poor quality screen, etc. You get the drift.

That is the new t-mobile hotspot@home phone. That's right. They launch this awesome, futuristic system that allows your phone to hook onto a wi-fi network if you can't get a signal, targeted at the 18-30 crowd and they give you a phone you are embarrassed to own. (If you don't believe me, look for yourself - Nokia 6086 and Samsung t409)

So now I sit, temporarily using my old phone (it's a Razr, so not a horrible phone, just has bad reception, etc.) because I shipped my awesome, amazing screen quality, glad I had it, wish I could get reception in my apartment so I didn't have to get rid of it phone, so I could get the hotspot @ home phone and find out I was lied to. No awesome phone is waiting for me. (Now, phones exist that are awesome and can be used for T-mobile hotspot @ home, they were originally supposed to introduce the Nokia 6136 - much more in line with the modern phone - they somehow forgot this plan, however). The phones for the system are an embarrassment to T-mobile. I understand wanting to target the moneysaving younger crowd (of which I am one - living on gov't loans in law school - poorer than in college), but give at least one good phone for the plan. Here I am, willing to pay for a good phone, and have nothing to buy.

I officially give the T-mobile folks in charge of product purchasing the dunce hat. Way to ruin an awesome idea with subpar phones. Seriously, you want me to pay you $50 for a phone I wouldn't have paid for 7 years ago? Let's think about this for a minute. T-mobile purchasers, still can't figure it out? Yeah, that may be the problem.