Which is more likely

This one is for the deniers out there.

Source

Is Christian Science an oxymoron

I know it's not, but sometimes I wonder.

Source

Disposable World part 3 (Lumix looser)

Disposable world strikes again.

I was loving the Panasonic Lumix we got to replace second dead Casio. And for the first 6 months it was lovely. Then it started to having trouble turning on.

Then it died.

Sure we used it in the water - but only as advised. We took care of it and looked after it. And it was less than a year old. We sent it in for warranty repair.

Panasonic representatives wrote back claiming its out of warranty because we didn't "clean the exterior of the camera and the waterproof seals as described in the user manual". They concluded there was "neglect / misuse of the camera this resulting in it not being covered under warranty".

So much for a tough camera you can supposedly throw across a river. (How ironic it is, that I first saw that particular ad in a paid focus group, two days after we had actually bought the camera!)

To fix it, they want $200.

Of course, why would we pay that when we can get a newer waterproof Pentax camera, delivered, for around $135?

Why pay more to fix something you already have, when you can buy a newer one for less? Especially as the so called 'tough' camera lasted the same as our previous two Casio cameras. As my wife said "As far as I'm concerned, the cheaper the better, because no matter how much we pay, our cameras seem to last for one year"

To add insult to injury even when repaired, Panasonic say that any "repaired waterproof / underwater cameras will not be covered for any form of liquid damage after the repair is completed."

So, let this be a warning to the many family and friend's I've recommended the Lumix camera to... you might be hiking with it in the mountains, but if you don't clean the seals before you skip it across the water, don't expect the warranty to be upheld.

Disposable world part 2 (this time it's the TV)

Our 5 year old - and very expensive Philips TV died the other day.  Once again it is not worth repairing.  Bloody disposable world

This time, my complaint is related to why is it so hard to recycle electronic waste - or ewaste - in Australia?

Lane Cove Council collects ewaste only once or twice a year - which is no where near enough -  and they have not even announced a date for this year.

There are lots of private companies (see Recycling Near You) but many of them charge or have limitations. I've now requested quotes from http://www.ewaste.com.au/ and http://planetgreenrecycling.net.au/

Many other part of the world have mandatory recycling or manufacturer take-back program but here - a National Electronic Waste recycling scheme was announced a year ago but nothing has happened.  The Reborn initiative even helped force the nation's environment ministers to endorse a new National Waste Policy. Likewise Product Stewardship Australia was supposed to be a "national solution for managing post-consumer TVs." But all they have is press releases - no real action.

Companies need to be pressured by the market or legislated by government to fully internalise the otherwise externalised environmental cost of picking up and recycling equipment that breaks or is superceded. Ironically enought, this is what Philips agreed to do in the UK after a large campaign to shame the company into taking back and recycling its products .

Consumer lead initiatives like Take Back My TV  and A Greener Apple are a great start - as is  but again they focus on the US and allow Australian companies to ignore the problem... and, as C|NET notes this problem is not going away:

According to the United Nations (UN), electronic and electrical waste is among the fastest-growing types of trash in the world. StEP, which is a special initiative set up by the UN to look at the e-waste problem, estimates that e-waste will soon reach 40 million tonnes a year or enough to fill a line of dump trucks stretching half way round the world.

Of course, having a recycling scheme in place will only means something if its done responsibility. Not illegally shipped off to China, Ghana or Nigeria where the poorest people get horribly ill from processing our ewaste.

As the 60 Minutes wrote in the US:

Scientists have studied the area and discovered that Guiyu has the highest levels of cancer-causing dioxins in the world. They found pregnancies are six times more likely to end in miscarriage, and that seven out of ten kids have too much lead in their blood.

See also

• Greenpeace operation webpage and on YouTube 
• BBC expose 
• PBS program 
• Sydney Morning Herald article 

or watch

Climate change sceptics

From Nov 2009

Is the Copenhagen treaty about creating a world government?
Alan Jones talks to Lord Monckton, British climate change sceptic, who says the Copenhagen treaty is about creating a world government

http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998

 This really gets my goat. Lord Monckton is not a scientist (see his profile on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley) and has often been accused deliberately manipulated and cherry picked data to further his argument (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/). Further, the one paper he ‘published’ on the topic was never peer reviewed (see Wikipedia article above) and is riddled with errors (see http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html)

Global Warming is real, there is incredibly strong consensus amongst the genuine scientific community (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change ). Like the theory of evolution, the fact that a few people (I’ll avoid calling them either crackpots or scientist) argue against it does not mean its not the theory that best fits the observations. Indeed Wikipedia – the online encyclopaedia maintained by the entire world – notes (emphasis added):

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

 In relation to the one world government claim, you can read the proposed text of the treaty at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf . The reference to government that Monckton discusses seems to be on page 18, where one of the two options for clause 38 state that The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism. Clearly they are referring to the how the new arrangement will be governed, not trying to sneak in a New Word Government though the semantically correct use of this word.

However. if the Copenhagen treaty actually managed to get the world together to fight climate change through a democratic and representational world government – that can finally resolve the constipation of the UN security council and the inability to enforce human rights might actually be able to stop some of the evil that still goes on in the world today – then I say DO IT.

As for the accusation that this treaty will cede sovereignty, as with all treaties, the document has to be signed by the executive and then ratified by the legislature. This is the case in the US, the UK and Australia. Thus, if this treaty actually did transfer powers to the UN that should legitimately be kept within the nation, I suspect that our elected representatives might take objection. That said, depending on how you use the word ‘cede’ it is arguable that many UN treaties, such as the universal declaration on human rights take certain powers away from – or more accurately impose certain requirements on - national, state and local governments. What’s more I personally think this can be a good thing, as my experience suggests that the claim of sovereignty is often used to prevent interference when the government of country is abusing its citizens – take the ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the former Yugoslavia as an example.

You might also be interested in some of Monckton’s other views as cited by Wikipedia:

• On AIDS: "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."
• On the EU he would “leave the European Union, close down 90 per cent of government services and shift power away from the atheistic, humanistic government and into the hands of families and individuals.”

In conclusion, I must dismiss this as the sort of pompous right wing pseudo claptrap that tends to buzz around right-wing websites and talkback shows, and would suggest you do the same. That is, of course, unless you also a believe in the other extreme right wing notions that creation of a world government as a precursor to end of days the rise of the anti-Christ, as in the biblical book of the Rapture. If you believe that, I can point you to some websites and videos that ‘prove’ President Obama is a Muslim and that gun control is a step on the slippery slope to loosing the freedoms that America so cherishes.

As an aside, in relation to those so called “freedoms”, my personal favourite is the one that allows corporations to act as social psychopaths – as described in the documentary “the Corporation” available for free viewing online (see http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=46).

Disposable world

I'm sick of living in a disposable world. A world where it is more expensive to repair equipment that malfunctions than it is to throw it away and buy a newer version.

Most recently it was the Brother DCP-115 multi-function printer. The black ink stopped working - probably due to a blockage in the ink tube or print head. It would cost a minimum of $50 to even have it looked at - and probably over $100 to get it fixed. Instead, its cheaper and easier to have a new one delivered to our house. So we have a new DCP-145 for $107 including delivery. I expect this one will go in a couple of years too!

Before that it was the camera. We had a Casio that got sat on and cracked so we go a new Casio. Around a year later (Just about when the Warranty had expired, of course), it started to have problems taking photos. Some images did not come out. Probably a loose connection with the CCD I thought. But again - it wasn't worth fixing. For $325 we have a new, waterproof and shock proof Panasonic Lumix camera.

The same thing has happened in past with Apple Powerbooks and IBM & Compaq Laptops 

Some people don't have a problem with this. I do.

Consumer growth may demand we buy and chuck - but why can't we build things to last? When are we going to take into account the true cost of these products - things that are externalised like pollution and the destruction of cultures where our crap is sent to be broken down and 'recycled'.

For my part, I think I'll  start writing to companies (Casio, Apple, Lenovo, HP) to see what they say.  Maybe I should donate 10% of the cost to the "The Story of Stuff" (which is a wonderfully clear analysis of this problem)

A good start would be for these organisations to have eWaste recycling programs in Australia, like they have to have in Europe and, increasingly, in the US.. We should have legislation that demands tech companies own their crap and take back products that fail - maybe this will encourage them to build them better in the first place, or at least take into account some of the otherwise externalized costs.