Quinta-feira, Julho 07, 2005
They will never succeed
"It is through terrorism that the people that have committed these terrible acts express their values and it is right at this moment that we demonstrate ours.
"I think we all know what they are trying to do. They are trying to use the slaughter of innocent people to cow us, to frighten us out of doing the things that we want to do, trying to stop us from going about our business as normal, as we are entitled to do and they should not and they must not succeed.
"When they try to intimidate us, we will not be intimidated. When they seek to change our country or our way of life by these methods, we will not be changed."
At around midday, Mr Blair broke off from the G8 summit to speak about the attacks.
"It is reasonably clear that there have been a series of terrorist attacks in London," he said.
"There are obviously casualties, both people who have died and people who are seriously injured, and our thoughts and prayers, of course, are with the victims and their families.
"It is my intention to leave the G8 within the next couple of hours and go down to London and get a report face-to-face with the police and the emergency services and the ministers who have been dealing with this and then to return later this evening.
"It is the will of all the leaders of the G8, however, that the meeting should continue in my absence, that we should continue to discuss the issues that we were going to discuss and reach the conclusions that we were going to reach.
"Each of the countries round that table have some experience of the effects of terrorism and all the leaders, as they will indicate a little bit later, share our complete resolution to defeat terrorism.
"It is particularly barbaric that this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa and the long term problems of climate change and the environment.
"Just as it is reasonably clear that this is a terrorist attack or a series of terrorist attacks it is also reasonably clear that it is designed and aimed to coincide with the opening of the G8.
"There will be time to talk later about this.
"It is important, however, that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire impose extremism on the world.
"Whatever they do it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilised nations throughout the world.
"There are obviously casualties, both people that have died and people seriously injured. And our thoughts and prayers of course are with the victims and their families.
"It is my intention to leave the G8 within the next couple of hours and go down to London and get a report face-to-face with the police and the emergency services and the ministers who have been dealing with this and then to return later this evening".
"It is the will of all the leaders of the G8 however that the meeting should continue in my absence, that we should continue to discuss the issues that we were going to discuss and reach the conclusions that we were going to reach.
"Whatever they do it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and other civilised nations in the world".
"I think we all know what they are trying to do. They are trying to use the slaughter of innocent people to cow us, to frighten us out of doing the things that we want to do, trying to stop us from going about our business as normal, as we are entitled to do and they should not and they must not succeed.
"When they try to intimidate us, we will not be intimidated. When they seek to change our country or our way of life by these methods, we will not be changed."
At around midday, Mr Blair broke off from the G8 summit to speak about the attacks.
"It is reasonably clear that there have been a series of terrorist attacks in London," he said.
"There are obviously casualties, both people who have died and people who are seriously injured, and our thoughts and prayers, of course, are with the victims and their families.
"It is my intention to leave the G8 within the next couple of hours and go down to London and get a report face-to-face with the police and the emergency services and the ministers who have been dealing with this and then to return later this evening.
"It is the will of all the leaders of the G8, however, that the meeting should continue in my absence, that we should continue to discuss the issues that we were going to discuss and reach the conclusions that we were going to reach.
"Each of the countries round that table have some experience of the effects of terrorism and all the leaders, as they will indicate a little bit later, share our complete resolution to defeat terrorism.
"It is particularly barbaric that this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa and the long term problems of climate change and the environment.
"Just as it is reasonably clear that this is a terrorist attack or a series of terrorist attacks it is also reasonably clear that it is designed and aimed to coincide with the opening of the G8.
"There will be time to talk later about this.
"It is important, however, that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire impose extremism on the world.
"Whatever they do it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilised nations throughout the world.
"There are obviously casualties, both people that have died and people seriously injured. And our thoughts and prayers of course are with the victims and their families.
"It is my intention to leave the G8 within the next couple of hours and go down to London and get a report face-to-face with the police and the emergency services and the ministers who have been dealing with this and then to return later this evening".
"It is the will of all the leaders of the G8 however that the meeting should continue in my absence, that we should continue to discuss the issues that we were going to discuss and reach the conclusions that we were going to reach.
"Whatever they do it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and other civilised nations in the world".
Terça-feira, Julho 05, 2005
Live 8
'To sneer at such events," cautioned The Sunday Telegraph apropos Live8, "demeans the generosity which they embody".
Oh, dear. If you can't sneer at rock stars in the Telegraph, where can you? None the less, if not exactly a full-blown sneer, I did feel a faint early Sir Cliff-like curl of the lip coming on during the opening moments of Saturday's festivities, when Sir Paul McCartney stepped onstage.
Not because Sir Paul was any better or worse than Sir Elton or Sir Bob or any other member of the aristorockracy, but because it reminded me of why I'm sceptical about the "generosity" which these events "embody".
Seven years ago, you'll recall, Sir Paul's wife died of cancer. Linda McCartney had been a resident of the United Kingdom for three decades but her Manhattan tax lawyers, Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts, devoted considerable energy in her final months to establishing her right to have her estate probated in New York state.
That way she could set up a "qualified domestic marital trust" that would... Yeah, yeah, yeah, in the immortal words of Lennon and/or McCartney. Big deal, you say. We're into world peace and saving the planet and feeding Africa. What difference does it make which jurisdiction some squaresville suit files the boring paperwork in?
Okay, I'll cut to the chase. By filing for probate in New York rather than the United Kingdom, Linda McCartney avoided the 40 per cent death duties levied by Her Majesty's Government. That way, her family gets all 100 per cent - and 100 per cent of Linda McCartney's estate isn't to be sneezed at.
For purposes of comparison, Bob Geldof's original Live Aid concert in 1985 raised £50 million. Lady McCartney's estate was estimated at around £150 million. In other words, had she paid her 40 per cent death duties, the British Treasury would have raised more money than Sir Bob did with Bananarama and all the gang at Wembley Stadium that day.
Given that she'd enjoyed all the blessings of life in these islands since 1968, Gordon Brown might have felt justified in reprising Sir Bob's heartfelt catchphrase at Wembley: "Give us yer fokkin' money!" But she didn't. She kept it for herself. And good for her. I only wish I could afford her lawyers.
I don't presume to know what was in her mind, but perhaps she figured that for the causes she cared about - vegetarianism, animal rights, the usual stuff - her money would do more good if it stayed in private hands rather than getting tossed down the great sucking maw of the Treasury where an extra 60 million quid makes barely a ripple.
And, while one might query whether Sir Paul (with his own fortune of £500 million) or young Stella really need an extra 15 million or so apiece, in the end Linda McCartney made a wise decision in concluding that her estate would do more good kept out of Mr Brown's hands, or even re-routed to Africa, where it might just about have defrayed the costs of the deflowering ceremony for the King of Swaziland's latest wife.
And that's why the Live8 bonanza was so misguided. Two decades ago, Sir Bob was at least demanding we give him our own fokkin' money. This time round, all he was asking was that we join him into bullying the G8 blokes to give us their taxpayers' fokkin' money.
Or as Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyd put it: "I want to do everything I can to persuade the G8 leaders to make huge commitments to the relief of poverty and increased aid to the Third World. It's crazy that America gives such a paltry percentage of its GNP to the starving nations."
No, it's not. It's no more crazy than Linda McCartney giving such a paltry percentage of her estate - ie, 0 per cent - to Gordon Brown. And, while Britain may be a Bananarama republic, it's not yet the full-blown thing.
Africa is a hard place to help. I had a letter from a reader the other day who works with a small Canadian charity in West Africa. They bought a 14-year-old SUV for 1,500 Canadian dollars to ferry food and supplies to the school they run in a rural village. Customs officials are demanding a payment of $8,000 before they'll release it.
There are thousands of incidents like that all over Africa every day of the week. Yet, throughout the weekend's events, Dave Gilmour and Co were too busy Rocking Against Bush to spare a few moments to Boogie Against Bureaucracy or Caterwaul Against Corruption or Ululate Against Usurpation. Instead, Madonna urged the people to "start a revolution". Like Africa hasn't had enough of those these past 40 years?
Let's take it as read that Sir Bob and Sir Bono are exceptionally well informed and articulate on Africa's problems. Why then didn't they get the rest of the guys round for a meeting beforehand with graphs and pie charts and bullet points in bright magic markers, so that Sir Dave and Dame Madonna would understand that Africa's problem is not a lack of "aid". The tragedy of Live8 is that its message was as cobwebbed as its repertoire.
Don't get me wrong. I love old rockers - not for the songs, which are awful, but for their business affairs, which so totally rock. In 1997, David Bowie became the first pop star to hold a bond offering himself. How about that? Fifty-five million dollars' worth of Bowie "class A royalty-backed notes" were snapped up in minutes after Moody's in New York gave them their coveted triple-A rating.
Once upon a time, rock stars weren't rated by Moody, they were moody - they self-destructed, they choked to death in their own vomit, they hoped to die before they got old. Instead, judging from Sir Pete Townshend on Saturday, they got older than anyone's ever been. Today, Paul McCartney is a businessman: he owns the publishing rights to Annie and Guys & Dolls. These faux revolutionaries are capitalists red in tooth and claw.
The system that enriched them could enrich Africa. But capitalism's the one cause the poseurs never speak up for. The rockers demand we give our fokkin' money to African dictators to manage, while they give their fokkin' money to Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts to manage. Which of those models makes more sense?
Oh, dear. If you can't sneer at rock stars in the Telegraph, where can you? None the less, if not exactly a full-blown sneer, I did feel a faint early Sir Cliff-like curl of the lip coming on during the opening moments of Saturday's festivities, when Sir Paul McCartney stepped onstage.
Not because Sir Paul was any better or worse than Sir Elton or Sir Bob or any other member of the aristorockracy, but because it reminded me of why I'm sceptical about the "generosity" which these events "embody".
Seven years ago, you'll recall, Sir Paul's wife died of cancer. Linda McCartney had been a resident of the United Kingdom for three decades but her Manhattan tax lawyers, Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts, devoted considerable energy in her final months to establishing her right to have her estate probated in New York state.
That way she could set up a "qualified domestic marital trust" that would... Yeah, yeah, yeah, in the immortal words of Lennon and/or McCartney. Big deal, you say. We're into world peace and saving the planet and feeding Africa. What difference does it make which jurisdiction some squaresville suit files the boring paperwork in?
Okay, I'll cut to the chase. By filing for probate in New York rather than the United Kingdom, Linda McCartney avoided the 40 per cent death duties levied by Her Majesty's Government. That way, her family gets all 100 per cent - and 100 per cent of Linda McCartney's estate isn't to be sneezed at.
For purposes of comparison, Bob Geldof's original Live Aid concert in 1985 raised £50 million. Lady McCartney's estate was estimated at around £150 million. In other words, had she paid her 40 per cent death duties, the British Treasury would have raised more money than Sir Bob did with Bananarama and all the gang at Wembley Stadium that day.
Given that she'd enjoyed all the blessings of life in these islands since 1968, Gordon Brown might have felt justified in reprising Sir Bob's heartfelt catchphrase at Wembley: "Give us yer fokkin' money!" But she didn't. She kept it for herself. And good for her. I only wish I could afford her lawyers.
I don't presume to know what was in her mind, but perhaps she figured that for the causes she cared about - vegetarianism, animal rights, the usual stuff - her money would do more good if it stayed in private hands rather than getting tossed down the great sucking maw of the Treasury where an extra 60 million quid makes barely a ripple.
And, while one might query whether Sir Paul (with his own fortune of £500 million) or young Stella really need an extra 15 million or so apiece, in the end Linda McCartney made a wise decision in concluding that her estate would do more good kept out of Mr Brown's hands, or even re-routed to Africa, where it might just about have defrayed the costs of the deflowering ceremony for the King of Swaziland's latest wife.
And that's why the Live8 bonanza was so misguided. Two decades ago, Sir Bob was at least demanding we give him our own fokkin' money. This time round, all he was asking was that we join him into bullying the G8 blokes to give us their taxpayers' fokkin' money.
Or as Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyd put it: "I want to do everything I can to persuade the G8 leaders to make huge commitments to the relief of poverty and increased aid to the Third World. It's crazy that America gives such a paltry percentage of its GNP to the starving nations."
No, it's not. It's no more crazy than Linda McCartney giving such a paltry percentage of her estate - ie, 0 per cent - to Gordon Brown. And, while Britain may be a Bananarama republic, it's not yet the full-blown thing.
Africa is a hard place to help. I had a letter from a reader the other day who works with a small Canadian charity in West Africa. They bought a 14-year-old SUV for 1,500 Canadian dollars to ferry food and supplies to the school they run in a rural village. Customs officials are demanding a payment of $8,000 before they'll release it.
There are thousands of incidents like that all over Africa every day of the week. Yet, throughout the weekend's events, Dave Gilmour and Co were too busy Rocking Against Bush to spare a few moments to Boogie Against Bureaucracy or Caterwaul Against Corruption or Ululate Against Usurpation. Instead, Madonna urged the people to "start a revolution". Like Africa hasn't had enough of those these past 40 years?
Let's take it as read that Sir Bob and Sir Bono are exceptionally well informed and articulate on Africa's problems. Why then didn't they get the rest of the guys round for a meeting beforehand with graphs and pie charts and bullet points in bright magic markers, so that Sir Dave and Dame Madonna would understand that Africa's problem is not a lack of "aid". The tragedy of Live8 is that its message was as cobwebbed as its repertoire.
Don't get me wrong. I love old rockers - not for the songs, which are awful, but for their business affairs, which so totally rock. In 1997, David Bowie became the first pop star to hold a bond offering himself. How about that? Fifty-five million dollars' worth of Bowie "class A royalty-backed notes" were snapped up in minutes after Moody's in New York gave them their coveted triple-A rating.
Once upon a time, rock stars weren't rated by Moody, they were moody - they self-destructed, they choked to death in their own vomit, they hoped to die before they got old. Instead, judging from Sir Pete Townshend on Saturday, they got older than anyone's ever been. Today, Paul McCartney is a businessman: he owns the publishing rights to Annie and Guys & Dolls. These faux revolutionaries are capitalists red in tooth and claw.
The system that enriched them could enrich Africa. But capitalism's the one cause the poseurs never speak up for. The rockers demand we give our fokkin' money to African dictators to manage, while they give their fokkin' money to Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts to manage. Which of those models makes more sense?
Sexta-feira, Julho 16, 2004
3%
Eu e a minha mulher decidimos que não iríamos gastar mais do que ganhamos. Após alguma discussão acordamos que podíamos gastar mais do que ganhamos, mas não mais do que 3%.
Ela – Ó amorzinho estas roupinhas da Berska são tão baratas…deixa lá comprar…
Eu – Nem penses nisso, este mês já gastaste mais do que os 3% do teu ordenado.
No mês seguinte não resisti e comprei a PS2 mais o Resident Evil
Ela – Ó querido já gastaste mais do que os 3%
Eu – Cala a boca senão levas um estalo na tromba (amoroso) …
Alguns meses mais tarde…
Bicho Papão – ouve lá ó palhaço, vocês não tinham dito que só podiam gastar mais 3%? Queres levar na tromba?!
Eu – vou chamar o meu pai…
Ela – Ó amorzinho estas roupinhas da Berska são tão baratas…deixa lá comprar…
Eu – Nem penses nisso, este mês já gastaste mais do que os 3% do teu ordenado.
No mês seguinte não resisti e comprei a PS2 mais o Resident Evil
Ela – Ó querido já gastaste mais do que os 3%
Eu – Cala a boca senão levas um estalo na tromba (amoroso) …
Alguns meses mais tarde…
Bicho Papão – ouve lá ó palhaço, vocês não tinham dito que só podiam gastar mais 3%? Queres levar na tromba?!
Eu – vou chamar o meu pai…
Quinta-feira, Junho 24, 2004
Pagode
Escreve o Barnabé em “Coincidências”:
José Carlos terá sido sequestrado por agentes policiais que o algemaram e o levaram para lugar incerto, onde terá sido brutalmente espancado para confessar quem teria roubado uma carteira.
Depois de ter sido entregue à família em muito mau estado, José Carlos esperou muitas horas no hospital para ser atendido.
José Carlos, 16 anos, acabou por morrer.
Relatório da autópsia: não se estabelece ligação entre o espancamento e a morte do rapaz.
Isto é tudo o que sei. Mas acho estranha a coincidência de um rapaz de 16 anos morrer depois de um espancamento e de nenhuma relação haver entre os dois factos. Mas devo ser eu, que sou desconfiado.
José Carlos terá sido sequestrado – curioso, não é afirmado que foi sequestrado, portanto terá mas poderá não ter sido… (estou confundido).
Levaram para lugar incerto – o lugar incerto foi a esquadra da polícia, tem lógica, eu também não sei a morada da esquadra, logo é incerta a sua localização.
Onde terá sido brutalmente espancado – terá sido, mas poderá não ter sido… (confundido outra vez (eu)).
Foi entregue à família em muito mau estado – parece que saiu pelo próprio pé da esquadra da polícia (o tal lugar incerto) e segundo a mãe não apresentava queixas.
Esperou muitas horas no hospital para ser atendido – experimenta ir a um hospital para veres quantas horas deves esperar, claro que tu não vais a esses hospitais privados, geridos por porcos capitalistas pois não?
José Carlos, 16 anos, acabou por morrer – a morte de qualquer pessoa é sempre uma tragédia, especialmente um jovem. Não consigo perceber, mas tu também não esclareces, qual a relação entre o anterior e a morte do jovem…
Relatório da autópsia – eu não sou médico e os meus conhecimentos de anatomia patológica são básicos, mas parece que tu és médico (de anatomia patológica) e tiveste acesso ao relatório da autópsia o qual leste e fizeste a tu boa avaliação médica…
Conclusão – tudo o que sabe não é concreto nem sequer afirma ser, portanto a coincidência é mesmo a conclusão que tirou!
Meninos aprendam com ele os ensinamentos do tio José e do tio Adolfo, dizem que alguns gajos com menos já fizeram filmes e ganharam prémios!
Mas devo ser eu, que sou desconfiado.
José Carlos terá sido sequestrado por agentes policiais que o algemaram e o levaram para lugar incerto, onde terá sido brutalmente espancado para confessar quem teria roubado uma carteira.
Depois de ter sido entregue à família em muito mau estado, José Carlos esperou muitas horas no hospital para ser atendido.
José Carlos, 16 anos, acabou por morrer.
Relatório da autópsia: não se estabelece ligação entre o espancamento e a morte do rapaz.
Isto é tudo o que sei. Mas acho estranha a coincidência de um rapaz de 16 anos morrer depois de um espancamento e de nenhuma relação haver entre os dois factos. Mas devo ser eu, que sou desconfiado.
José Carlos terá sido sequestrado – curioso, não é afirmado que foi sequestrado, portanto terá mas poderá não ter sido… (estou confundido).
Levaram para lugar incerto – o lugar incerto foi a esquadra da polícia, tem lógica, eu também não sei a morada da esquadra, logo é incerta a sua localização.
Onde terá sido brutalmente espancado – terá sido, mas poderá não ter sido… (confundido outra vez (eu)).
Foi entregue à família em muito mau estado – parece que saiu pelo próprio pé da esquadra da polícia (o tal lugar incerto) e segundo a mãe não apresentava queixas.
Esperou muitas horas no hospital para ser atendido – experimenta ir a um hospital para veres quantas horas deves esperar, claro que tu não vais a esses hospitais privados, geridos por porcos capitalistas pois não?
José Carlos, 16 anos, acabou por morrer – a morte de qualquer pessoa é sempre uma tragédia, especialmente um jovem. Não consigo perceber, mas tu também não esclareces, qual a relação entre o anterior e a morte do jovem…
Relatório da autópsia – eu não sou médico e os meus conhecimentos de anatomia patológica são básicos, mas parece que tu és médico (de anatomia patológica) e tiveste acesso ao relatório da autópsia o qual leste e fizeste a tu boa avaliação médica…
Conclusão – tudo o que sabe não é concreto nem sequer afirma ser, portanto a coincidência é mesmo a conclusão que tirou!
Meninos aprendam com ele os ensinamentos do tio José e do tio Adolfo, dizem que alguns gajos com menos já fizeram filmes e ganharam prémios!
Mas devo ser eu, que sou desconfiado.
Quarta-feira, Junho 09, 2004
Sousa Franco (1942-2004)
Faleceu Sousa Franco, o cabeça de lista do PS às eleições europeias.
Segunda-feira, Junho 07, 2004
Local Sagrado
Pelo menos nove pessoas ficaram feridas esta segunda-feira numa explosão registada na mesquita de Kufa (centro do Iraque), onde o chefe radical xiita Moqtada Sadr pronuncia habitualmente o seu sermão das sextas-feiras.
O hospital Furat Awsat disse ter recebido pelo menos nove feridos, a maioria com queimaduras.
Parte da mesquita está a arder e membros do exército de Mehdi, a milícia de Moqtada Sadr, estão a proibir o acesso a este local de culto.
Ainda bem que é um local sagrado, não queremos armas infiéis cá na nossa casa.
Se fossem os reaccionários dos americanos lá vinha a ladainha toda dos ataques aos locais de culto…
O hospital Furat Awsat disse ter recebido pelo menos nove feridos, a maioria com queimaduras.
Parte da mesquita está a arder e membros do exército de Mehdi, a milícia de Moqtada Sadr, estão a proibir o acesso a este local de culto.
Ainda bem que é um local sagrado, não queremos armas infiéis cá na nossa casa.
Se fossem os reaccionários dos americanos lá vinha a ladainha toda dos ataques aos locais de culto…
Quioto
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pollution in North America fell 10 percent over three years, but coal-burning power plants are lagging in improvements among industrial sources fouling the air, it was reported Wednesday.
The 10 percent drop occurred from 1998 to 2001, said the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, a three-nation panel established by the United States, Canada and Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
In 2001, the latest year for which figures were available, the total amount of pollution released or transferred elsewhere in North America was 3.25 million tons, the commission said in a study. Of the total, nearly 1 million tons went to recycling operations and more than 600 thousand tons was sent to treatment, energy recovery or disposal facilities.
"We're still pumping more chemicals into the air than all other methods of release combined," said William Kennedy, executive director of the Montreal-based commission.
Chemical pollutants released into the air from all industrial sources decreased 18 percent over the three years, falling to 832,000 tons in 2001. But chemical pollutants from power plants fell only 9 percent, to 376,000 tons, the study said.
All but four of the top 50 air polluters in North America were coal-burning power plants.
Chemical manufacturers, smelters and steel mills, electric utilities and waste managers were the biggest polluters. The 10 pollutants released into the environment or transferred offsite in the most quantities were copper, zinc, hydrochloric acid, methanol, nitric acid and nitrate compounds, manganese, toluene, xylenes, chromium and nickel.
Almost 13 percent of the total pollution was in the form of chemicals such as chromium and its compounds, nickel and its compounds, dichloromethane, styrene and formaldehyde that are known or suspected carcinogens, the study said.
Industrial polluters in just three states -- Texas, Ohio and Michigan -- and Canada's Ontario province accounted for 28 percent of the continent's pollutants, the study found.
The study compared only those chemicals and industries that have consistently reported their pollution each year. It covers most industry in the United States and Canada. Companies in Mexico are just starting to voluntarily report figures, the study said.
The 10 percent drop occurred from 1998 to 2001, said the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, a three-nation panel established by the United States, Canada and Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
In 2001, the latest year for which figures were available, the total amount of pollution released or transferred elsewhere in North America was 3.25 million tons, the commission said in a study. Of the total, nearly 1 million tons went to recycling operations and more than 600 thousand tons was sent to treatment, energy recovery or disposal facilities.
"We're still pumping more chemicals into the air than all other methods of release combined," said William Kennedy, executive director of the Montreal-based commission.
Chemical pollutants released into the air from all industrial sources decreased 18 percent over the three years, falling to 832,000 tons in 2001. But chemical pollutants from power plants fell only 9 percent, to 376,000 tons, the study said.
All but four of the top 50 air polluters in North America were coal-burning power plants.
Chemical manufacturers, smelters and steel mills, electric utilities and waste managers were the biggest polluters. The 10 pollutants released into the environment or transferred offsite in the most quantities were copper, zinc, hydrochloric acid, methanol, nitric acid and nitrate compounds, manganese, toluene, xylenes, chromium and nickel.
Almost 13 percent of the total pollution was in the form of chemicals such as chromium and its compounds, nickel and its compounds, dichloromethane, styrene and formaldehyde that are known or suspected carcinogens, the study said.
Industrial polluters in just three states -- Texas, Ohio and Michigan -- and Canada's Ontario province accounted for 28 percent of the continent's pollutants, the study found.
The study compared only those chemicals and industries that have consistently reported their pollution each year. It covers most industry in the United States and Canada. Companies in Mexico are just starting to voluntarily report figures, the study said.
Fábula
A galinha vermelha que achou alguns grãos de trigo e disse a seus vizinhos: "se plantarmos este trigo, teremos pão para comer. Alguém quer me ajudar a plantá-lo?"
"Eu não", disse a vaca.
"Nem eu", emendou o pato.
"Eu também não", falou o porco.
"Eu muito menos", completou o ganso.
"Então eu mesma planto", disse a galinha vermelha. E assim o fez. O trigo cresceu alto e amadureceu em grãos dourados. "Quem vai me ajudar a colher o trigo?", quis saber a galinha.
"Eu não", disse o pato.
"Não faz parte de minhas funções", disse o porco.
"Não depois de tantos anos de serviço", exclamou a vaca.
"Eu me arriscaria a perder o seguro-desemprego", disse o ganso.
"Então eu mesma colho", falou a galinha, e colheu o trigo ela mesma.
Finalmente, chegou a hora de preparar o pão. "Quem vai me ajudar a assar o pão?" indagou a galinha vermelha.
"Só se me pagarem hora extra", falou a vaca.
"Eu não posso por em risco meu auxílio-doença", emendou o pato.
"Eu fugi da escola e nunca aprendi a fazer pão", disse o porco.
"Caso só eu ajude, é discriminação", resmungou o ganso.
"Então eu mesma faço", exclamou a pequena galinha vermelha. Ela assou cinco pães, e pôs todos numa cesta para que os vizinhos pudessem ver. De repente, todo mundo queria pão, e exigiu um pedaço. Mas a galinha simplesmente disse "não, eu vou comer os cinco pães sozinha".
"Lucros excessivos!", gritou a vaca.
"Sanguessuga capitalista!", exclamou o pato.
"Eu exijo direitos iguais!", bradou o ganso.
O porco, esse só grunhiu.
Eles pintaram faixas e cartazes dizendo "Injustiça" e marcharam em protesto contra a galinha, gritando obscenidades.
Quando um agente do governo chegou, disse à galinhazinha vermelha:
"Você não pode ser assim egoísta"
"Mas eu ganhei esse pão com meu próprio suor", defendeu-se a galinha.
"Exatamente", disse o funcionário do governo. "Essa é a beleza da livre empresa. Qualquer um aqui na fazenda pode ganhar o quanto quiser. Mas sob nossas modernas regulamentações governamentais, os trabalhadores mais produtivos têm que dividir o produto de seu trabalho com os que não fazem nada".
E todos viveram felizes para sempre, inclusive a pequena galinha vermelha, que sorriu e cacarejou: "eu estou grata", "eu estou grata".
Mas os vizinhos sempre se perguntavam por que a galinha nunca mais fez um pão.
"Eu não", disse a vaca.
"Nem eu", emendou o pato.
"Eu também não", falou o porco.
"Eu muito menos", completou o ganso.
"Então eu mesma planto", disse a galinha vermelha. E assim o fez. O trigo cresceu alto e amadureceu em grãos dourados. "Quem vai me ajudar a colher o trigo?", quis saber a galinha.
"Eu não", disse o pato.
"Não faz parte de minhas funções", disse o porco.
"Não depois de tantos anos de serviço", exclamou a vaca.
"Eu me arriscaria a perder o seguro-desemprego", disse o ganso.
"Então eu mesma colho", falou a galinha, e colheu o trigo ela mesma.
Finalmente, chegou a hora de preparar o pão. "Quem vai me ajudar a assar o pão?" indagou a galinha vermelha.
"Só se me pagarem hora extra", falou a vaca.
"Eu não posso por em risco meu auxílio-doença", emendou o pato.
"Eu fugi da escola e nunca aprendi a fazer pão", disse o porco.
"Caso só eu ajude, é discriminação", resmungou o ganso.
"Então eu mesma faço", exclamou a pequena galinha vermelha. Ela assou cinco pães, e pôs todos numa cesta para que os vizinhos pudessem ver. De repente, todo mundo queria pão, e exigiu um pedaço. Mas a galinha simplesmente disse "não, eu vou comer os cinco pães sozinha".
"Lucros excessivos!", gritou a vaca.
"Sanguessuga capitalista!", exclamou o pato.
"Eu exijo direitos iguais!", bradou o ganso.
O porco, esse só grunhiu.
Eles pintaram faixas e cartazes dizendo "Injustiça" e marcharam em protesto contra a galinha, gritando obscenidades.
Quando um agente do governo chegou, disse à galinhazinha vermelha:
"Você não pode ser assim egoísta"
"Mas eu ganhei esse pão com meu próprio suor", defendeu-se a galinha.
"Exatamente", disse o funcionário do governo. "Essa é a beleza da livre empresa. Qualquer um aqui na fazenda pode ganhar o quanto quiser. Mas sob nossas modernas regulamentações governamentais, os trabalhadores mais produtivos têm que dividir o produto de seu trabalho com os que não fazem nada".
E todos viveram felizes para sempre, inclusive a pequena galinha vermelha, que sorriu e cacarejou: "eu estou grata", "eu estou grata".
Mas os vizinhos sempre se perguntavam por que a galinha nunca mais fez um pão.
Domingo, Junho 06, 2004
Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)
Life is just one grand sweet song, so start the music
Segunda-feira, Maio 31, 2004
Impostos
People in Britain spend over 150 days of the year toiling, just to pay their taxes. This year, Tax Freedom Day falls on 30 May. That's 3 days later than last year and 6 days later than when Gordon Brown entered 11 Downing Street.
It's a tribute to Brown's skill with "stealth" taxes that so few people seem to have noticed the huge rise in taxes that has overtaken them. But Tax Freedom Day is a clear measure of the total burden which he can't escape.
And don't forget that Brown has been on a borrowing binge, which future taxpayers will have to pay for. Adding that burden in would push the date out to 11 June.
In the Euro zone, Tax Freedom Day doesn't come until 28 June, a whole month after Britain's. But in America, Bush's tax-cut policy makes the US Tax Freedom Day 11 April, the earliest in 37 years.
Look at those dates again. And remember that America is forecasting 4.5% growth this year, Britain 3%, and the Euro zone just 1.7%. Says something about the tax burden and a country's economic health, don't you think?
It's a tribute to Brown's skill with "stealth" taxes that so few people seem to have noticed the huge rise in taxes that has overtaken them. But Tax Freedom Day is a clear measure of the total burden which he can't escape.
And don't forget that Brown has been on a borrowing binge, which future taxpayers will have to pay for. Adding that burden in would push the date out to 11 June.
In the Euro zone, Tax Freedom Day doesn't come until 28 June, a whole month after Britain's. But in America, Bush's tax-cut policy makes the US Tax Freedom Day 11 April, the earliest in 37 years.
Look at those dates again. And remember that America is forecasting 4.5% growth this year, Britain 3%, and the Euro zone just 1.7%. Says something about the tax burden and a country's economic health, don't you think?
Quarta-feira, Maio 12, 2004
Quioto ?
SYDNEY, Australia (Reuters) -- Australian scientists have found the Earth may be more resilient to global warming than first thought, and they say a warmer world means a wetter planet, encouraging more plants to grow and soak up greenhouse gases.
"The global water cycle has changed in response to greenhouse emissions," almost 100 Australian greenhouse scientists said in an annual statement on their research received on Wednesday.
"As the world warms it is, on average, getting wetter," said the scientists, who met recently under the banner of Australia's Cooperative Research Center for Greenhouse Accounting.
A wetter and cloudier world would see more plants and more photosynthesis to counter greenhouse gases and also mean less evaporation as less solar radiation reaches the Earth.
"Contrary to widespread expectations, potential evaporation from the soil and land-based water bodies like lakes is decreasing in most places," the scientists said.
An increase in trees and shrubs in the world's grasslands in recent decades was a major counter to greenhouse gases, they said.
"Forests, farms and grasslands across the world absorb significant volumes of greenhouse gases. They have the potential to absorb more, ameliorating climate change.
"Properly managed, they could buy time for the world's people to make the major reductions in greenhouse emissions from power generation, industry and transport that will be required to reduce the damage from climate change."
"The global water cycle has changed in response to greenhouse emissions," almost 100 Australian greenhouse scientists said in an annual statement on their research received on Wednesday.
"As the world warms it is, on average, getting wetter," said the scientists, who met recently under the banner of Australia's Cooperative Research Center for Greenhouse Accounting.
A wetter and cloudier world would see more plants and more photosynthesis to counter greenhouse gases and also mean less evaporation as less solar radiation reaches the Earth.
"Contrary to widespread expectations, potential evaporation from the soil and land-based water bodies like lakes is decreasing in most places," the scientists said.
An increase in trees and shrubs in the world's grasslands in recent decades was a major counter to greenhouse gases, they said.
"Forests, farms and grasslands across the world absorb significant volumes of greenhouse gases. They have the potential to absorb more, ameliorating climate change.
"Properly managed, they could buy time for the world's people to make the major reductions in greenhouse emissions from power generation, industry and transport that will be required to reduce the damage from climate change."
Quinta-feira, Abril 08, 2004
Sendo assim, eu vou para ali:
Segunda-feira, Abril 05, 2004
Colin Powell
QUESTION: I?d like to go back to your UN speech from last year. One of the most dramatic elements of that speech was about the mobile biological labs. And in recent weeks it has emerged that one of those intelligence sources you cited was flagged as unreliable by U.S. intelligence and another source had never been interviewed by U.S. officials and that we didn?t even know his name. It turns out that he was a relative of the INC. So, in light of that, was this really the best intelligence the U.S. could have put forward at the time?
SECRETARY POWELL: It was presented to me in the preparation of that as the best information and intelligence that we had. And I looked at the four elements that they gave me for that one and they stood behind them. Now it appears not to be the case, that it was that solid. But at the time that I was preparing that presentation it was presented to me as being solid. Now, the commission that is going to be starting its work soon, I hope will look into these matters to see whether or not the intelligence agency had a basis for the confidence that they placed in the intelligence at that time. They certainly indicated to me as I was working on that, that it was solid. I?m not the intelligence community, but I probed and I made sure, and as I said in my presentation, these are multi-sourced. And that was the most dramatic of them and I made sure it was multi-sourced. Now, if the sources fell apart then we need to find out how we?ve gotten ourselves in that position. I've had discussions with the CIA about it.
SECRETARY POWELL: It was presented to me in the preparation of that as the best information and intelligence that we had. And I looked at the four elements that they gave me for that one and they stood behind them. Now it appears not to be the case, that it was that solid. But at the time that I was preparing that presentation it was presented to me as being solid. Now, the commission that is going to be starting its work soon, I hope will look into these matters to see whether or not the intelligence agency had a basis for the confidence that they placed in the intelligence at that time. They certainly indicated to me as I was working on that, that it was solid. I?m not the intelligence community, but I probed and I made sure, and as I said in my presentation, these are multi-sourced. And that was the most dramatic of them and I made sure it was multi-sourced. Now, if the sources fell apart then we need to find out how we?ve gotten ourselves in that position. I've had discussions with the CIA about it.
Domingo, Abril 04, 2004
CBS Sixty Minutes - Leslie Stahl interviews Richard Clark
In testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission later this week, and in a new book to be published tomorrow, 'Against All Enemies', Clarke will bell the story of what happened behind the scenes at the White House before, during and after September 11th. He does so first tonight, on Sixty Minutes.
STAHL (exp): {After the President returned to the White House on 9/11, he and his top advisors including Clarke began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin laden and al Qaeda but was surprised when the talk quickly turned to another target.}
STAHL: You relayed a conversation you had with Sec'y of Defense Rumsfeld.
CLARKE: Well Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq and we all said, 'No no, al Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan.' Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well there are lots of good targets in lots of places but Iraq had nothing to with it.'
STAHL: You wrote you thought he was joking.
CLARKE: Initially I thought when he said there aren't enough targets in Afghanistan, I thought he was joking.
STAHL: Now what was your reaction to all this Iraq talk? What did you tell everybody?
CLARKE: What I said was, you know, invading Iraq or bombing Iraq after we're attacked by somebody else, it's akin to, what if Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor instead of going to war with Japan said, "Let's invade Mexico." It's very analagous.
STAHL: But didn't they think there was a connection?
CLARKE: I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying, We've looked at this issue for years, for years we've looked for a connection and there's just no connection.
STAHL: And you told them that?
CLARKE: Absolutely.
STAHL: You personally ...
CLARK: I told them that, George Tenet told them that ...
STAHL: Who did you tell?
CLARKE: I told that to the group, to the SState, the SDef, the AG. They all knew it.
STAHL: You talk about a conversation you personally had with the president.
CLARKE: Yes. THe president -- we were in the situation room complex -- the president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said 'Iraq did this.'
STAHL: Didn't you tell him that you'd looked and there'd been no connection?
CLARKE: I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.' He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report.
STAHL: In other words, you did go back and look.
CLARKE: We went back again and we looked.
STAHL: You did. And was it a serious look? Did you really ... ?
CLARKE: It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and down to FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report and we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer.'
STAHL: Come on!
CLARKE: Do it again.
STAHL: Wrong answer?
CLARKE: Do it again.
STAHL: Did the President see it?
CLARKE: I have no idea to this day if the President saw it because after we did it again it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, Leslie, I don't think the people around the President show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he wouldn't like the answer [to].
Continua...
STAHL (exp): {After the President returned to the White House on 9/11, he and his top advisors including Clarke began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin laden and al Qaeda but was surprised when the talk quickly turned to another target.}
STAHL: You relayed a conversation you had with Sec'y of Defense Rumsfeld.
CLARKE: Well Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq and we all said, 'No no, al Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan.' Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well there are lots of good targets in lots of places but Iraq had nothing to with it.'
STAHL: You wrote you thought he was joking.
CLARKE: Initially I thought when he said there aren't enough targets in Afghanistan, I thought he was joking.
STAHL: Now what was your reaction to all this Iraq talk? What did you tell everybody?
CLARKE: What I said was, you know, invading Iraq or bombing Iraq after we're attacked by somebody else, it's akin to, what if Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor instead of going to war with Japan said, "Let's invade Mexico." It's very analagous.
STAHL: But didn't they think there was a connection?
CLARKE: I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying, We've looked at this issue for years, for years we've looked for a connection and there's just no connection.
STAHL: And you told them that?
CLARKE: Absolutely.
STAHL: You personally ...
CLARK: I told them that, George Tenet told them that ...
STAHL: Who did you tell?
CLARKE: I told that to the group, to the SState, the SDef, the AG. They all knew it.
STAHL: You talk about a conversation you personally had with the president.
CLARKE: Yes. THe president -- we were in the situation room complex -- the president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said 'Iraq did this.'
STAHL: Didn't you tell him that you'd looked and there'd been no connection?
CLARKE: I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.' He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report.
STAHL: In other words, you did go back and look.
CLARKE: We went back again and we looked.
STAHL: You did. And was it a serious look? Did you really ... ?
CLARKE: It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and down to FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report and we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer.'
STAHL: Come on!
CLARKE: Do it again.
STAHL: Wrong answer?
CLARKE: Do it again.
STAHL: Did the President see it?
CLARKE: I have no idea to this day if the President saw it because after we did it again it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, Leslie, I don't think the people around the President show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he wouldn't like the answer [to].
Continua...
Sábado, Abril 03, 2004
EUA, 11 de Setembro, Iraque...
Sibel Edmonds, uma ex-tradutora do FBI, nova testemunha do inquérito norte-americano ao 11 de Setembro, disse que a conselheira nacional de segurança dos EUA, Condoleezza Rice, mentiu ao afirmar que a Administração Bush desconhecia a hipótese de a al-Qaeda atacar os EUA com aviões.
http://www.correiomanha.pt/noticia.asp?id=98615&idselect=91&idCanal=91&p=94
Powell Admits Iraq Evidence Was False
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that evidence he submitted to the United Nations to justify war on Iraq may have been wrong.
In February last year he told the UN Security Council that a pair of mobile trailers spotted in Iraq were designed for making biological weapons.
On Friday he conceded that information did not now appear to be "solid".
The claim failed to persuade the Security Council to back the war, but helped sway US public opinion.
Mr Powell said he hoped the commission appointed to investigate pre-war intelligence on Iraq would examine whether the intelligence community was justified in backing the claim.
http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2004/030404iraqevidence.htm
http://www.correiomanha.pt/noticia.asp?id=98615&idselect=91&idCanal=91&p=94
Powell Admits Iraq Evidence Was False
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that evidence he submitted to the United Nations to justify war on Iraq may have been wrong.
In February last year he told the UN Security Council that a pair of mobile trailers spotted in Iraq were designed for making biological weapons.
On Friday he conceded that information did not now appear to be "solid".
The claim failed to persuade the Security Council to back the war, but helped sway US public opinion.
Mr Powell said he hoped the commission appointed to investigate pre-war intelligence on Iraq would examine whether the intelligence community was justified in backing the claim.
http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2004/030404iraqevidence.htm
Sexta-feira, Abril 02, 2004
Le Pen condenado a pagar 10.000 € por incitar ódio racial
O líder da ultradireita francês, Jean-Marie Le Pen [nota: que não se considera nem de direita nem de esquerda, mas sim anti-sistema], foi condenado por um delito de discriminação e incitamento ao ódio racial pelo Tribunal Correctivo de Paris, que lhe impôs uma multa de 10.000 euros.
Le Pen deverá também publicar a sentença no diário Le Monde, onde tinha declarado: «Quando tivermos em França não cinco mas 25 milhões de muçulmanos, serão eles quem mandam (...) e os franceses terão de passear nas ruas baixando os olhos para lhes ceder passagem».
Esta frase, juntamente com a restante entrevista publicada pelo vespertino francês a 19 de Abril de 2003, serviu de base a uma acusação da Procuradoria, que tinha solicitado dois meses de prisão isentos de cumprimento, 80.000 euros de multa e um ano de inelegibilidade para cargos públicos.
Além disso, Le Pen é condenado a pagar 5.000 euros à Liga de Direitos Humanos e à Liga contra o Racismo devido a danos morais, em vez dos 100.000 euros que lhe pediam as associações.
Durante a audiência, Le Pen assegurou que as suas declarações não continham incitações à discriminação ou ao ódio racial e alegou o direito à liberdade de expressão, mas os juizes consideraram que as «suas declarações fazem pensar que os franceses estão ameaçados, em particular na sua integridade física, dado que número de muçulmanos em território francês vai duplicar, e vão provocar para com este grupo de pessoas reacções de discriminação e ódio».
«Não há «dúvida» de que «ao opor-se a muçulmanos perante os franceses, para sublinhar os riscos de segurança dos segundos, Le Pen exorta ao ódio para com a população de religião muçulmana». Os juizes classificam ainda as palavras do secretário da Frente Nacional de «ultrajantes»
Le Pen deverá também publicar a sentença no diário Le Monde, onde tinha declarado: «Quando tivermos em França não cinco mas 25 milhões de muçulmanos, serão eles quem mandam (...) e os franceses terão de passear nas ruas baixando os olhos para lhes ceder passagem».
Esta frase, juntamente com a restante entrevista publicada pelo vespertino francês a 19 de Abril de 2003, serviu de base a uma acusação da Procuradoria, que tinha solicitado dois meses de prisão isentos de cumprimento, 80.000 euros de multa e um ano de inelegibilidade para cargos públicos.
Além disso, Le Pen é condenado a pagar 5.000 euros à Liga de Direitos Humanos e à Liga contra o Racismo devido a danos morais, em vez dos 100.000 euros que lhe pediam as associações.
Durante a audiência, Le Pen assegurou que as suas declarações não continham incitações à discriminação ou ao ódio racial e alegou o direito à liberdade de expressão, mas os juizes consideraram que as «suas declarações fazem pensar que os franceses estão ameaçados, em particular na sua integridade física, dado que número de muçulmanos em território francês vai duplicar, e vão provocar para com este grupo de pessoas reacções de discriminação e ódio».
«Não há «dúvida» de que «ao opor-se a muçulmanos perante os franceses, para sublinhar os riscos de segurança dos segundos, Le Pen exorta ao ódio para com a população de religião muçulmana». Os juizes classificam ainda as palavras do secretário da Frente Nacional de «ultrajantes»
Tech News: ainda este ano, ainda este ano, ainda este ano...
Email com 1GB de capacidade ainda este ano
«O motor de busca Google lançou, a título experimental, um serviço de correio electrónico gratuito chamado Gmail, com capacidade para armazenar um gigabyte de informação, segundo anunciou esta quinta-feira a empresa. Neste momento o Gmail está apenas a ser testado em cerca de mil pessoas, mas estará disponível para todo o público ainda nesta Primavera.»
http://diariodigital.sapo.pt/news.asp?section_id=18&id_news=122158
Novo sistema operativo da Microsoft (Windows Longhorn) ainda este ano
«A Microsoft vai lançar ainda este ano uma versão preliminar do seu novo sistema operativo, o «Longhorn», anunciou na quarta-feira o presidente da gigante de informática, Bill Gates, numa conferência organizada pela gabinete de investigação Gartner.»
http://diariodigital.sapo.pt/news.asp?section_id=44&id_news=122182
EDP e ONI anunciam lançamento de PowerLine ainda este ano
«A Digital Powerline permite utilizar a rede eléctrica para transmitir conteúdos multimédia (dados, voz e vídeo) em banda larga, garantindo o acesso à Internet e a comunicação nas redes locais (LAN ou Local Area Network). As soluções DPL funcionam em redes de distribuição de baixa tensão (230V) e sistemas interiores e exteriores de média voltagem (20kV). Os sistemas exteriores suportam taxas de transmissão entre 1Mbps e 3Mbps, ao passo que, numa casa, a velocidade de acesso atinge já os 10Mbps.»
http://www.bit.pt/revista/especiais/bit21-1.htm
«O motor de busca Google lançou, a título experimental, um serviço de correio electrónico gratuito chamado Gmail, com capacidade para armazenar um gigabyte de informação, segundo anunciou esta quinta-feira a empresa. Neste momento o Gmail está apenas a ser testado em cerca de mil pessoas, mas estará disponível para todo o público ainda nesta Primavera.»
http://diariodigital.sapo.pt/news.asp?section_id=18&id_news=122158
Novo sistema operativo da Microsoft (Windows Longhorn) ainda este ano
«A Microsoft vai lançar ainda este ano uma versão preliminar do seu novo sistema operativo, o «Longhorn», anunciou na quarta-feira o presidente da gigante de informática, Bill Gates, numa conferência organizada pela gabinete de investigação Gartner.»
http://diariodigital.sapo.pt/news.asp?section_id=44&id_news=122182
EDP e ONI anunciam lançamento de PowerLine ainda este ano
«A Digital Powerline permite utilizar a rede eléctrica para transmitir conteúdos multimédia (dados, voz e vídeo) em banda larga, garantindo o acesso à Internet e a comunicação nas redes locais (LAN ou Local Area Network). As soluções DPL funcionam em redes de distribuição de baixa tensão (230V) e sistemas interiores e exteriores de média voltagem (20kV). Os sistemas exteriores suportam taxas de transmissão entre 1Mbps e 3Mbps, ao passo que, numa casa, a velocidade de acesso atinge já os 10Mbps.»
http://www.bit.pt/revista/especiais/bit21-1.htm
Quinta-feira, Abril 01, 2004
O bom terrorismo...
Waleed Walwel carrega o corpo do filho.
Khalid tinha seis anos e foi morto com um tiro na nuca,
por soldados israelitas, perto de sua casa.
Khalid tinha seis anos e foi morto com um tiro na nuca,
por soldados israelitas, perto de sua casa.
