
Welcome to Dreambook, a nifty new free service from:
New Dream Network, Dreamhost, and Dreamservers!If you have a minute, please sign my Dreambook too!
| Name: | Test |
| Comments: | ![]() |
| Name: | Test |
| Comments: | test |
| Name: | art |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.vaxxine.com/hyoomik/lublin/art.htm |
| Comments: | http://www.vaxxine.com/hyoomik/lublin/art.htm |
| Name: | logics |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e11a.htm |
| Name: | logics |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e10a.htm |
| Name: | Windows Longhorn |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.xichang-window.com/software/SoftView.asp?SoftID=250 |
| Comments: | http://www.xichang-window.com/software/SoftView.asp?SoftID=250 |
| Name: | DNA |
| Comments: | MARGARET WARNER: It was 50 years ago today that a pair of scientists, James Watson and Francis Crick, told the world they had unlocked the secret of the structure of DNA. DNA is the basic building block of life, a chemical molecule in the nucleus of virtually every cell that transmits the genetic code of one generation to the next. Watson and Crick published their news in the most modest of ways: With a one-page paper in the British Journal Nature. The report included a small illustration of the twisted ladder-like double helix structure they'd discovered.
We get more on why that finding was so important then, and its ongoing implications, from a leading geneticist: Eric Lander. He's director of the Whitehead Institute-MIT Center for Genome Research, and one of the leaders of the Human Genome Project. Welcome Mr. Lander. Take us back to 1953 and tell us why this was such a big deal, this discovery, even at the time given where scientific understanding was. ERIC LANDER: It was remarkable. This was the important question in biology in the 20s century. How do you explain heredity? How is it that organisms, parents transmit information to their children? Well, one day April 24, nobody knew and on April 25, it all became apparent. It all fell into place. And the answer was this beautiful structure of the DNA double helix. The secret was each strand was a copy of the other strand. And the way that information was copied was the two strands of the molecule came apart and each served as a template for the other. It was the greatest a-ha moment in science and it was 50 years ago today. MARGARET WARNER: Tell us about these two guys, Crick and Watson. ERIC LANDER: Well, if you were a betting person and you were trying to bet on the great horse race of who is going to discover the secret of life, you wouldn't have bet on Crick and Watson. They were about the oddest couple you could imagine. Jim Watson was a kid, 25 years old, came over from the United States to work in England where he was... he was interested in bird watching and things like that, had done a biology degree in the states. Francis Crick was 35. He was a physicist, hadn't done a thing in biology. He had worked in the British admiralty during War World II. And the two of them hooked up at the Cambridge Medical Council and they were going to crack the secret of life, the structure of DNA, and they were doing it up against the greatest scientists in the world at the time, the chemist Linus Pauling who was in hot pursuit and other people who were thinking about this as well. But in the end, when the dust settled, they were the people who figured out the simple and really beautiful secret. MARGARET WARNER: And when they did, they knew it, didn't they? ERIC LANDER: They knew it instantly. There are some discoveries where it takes a long time before the people who make them realize how important it was. But Jim Watson figured out in the morning, before lunchtime, that the As and Ts fit together in DNA, and the Cs and Gs fit together and consumed the same amount of space in the double helix, and by lunchtime they announced to the eagle pub and announced to everybody within ear shot, we found the secret of life. They very clearly knew it that day by lunchtime. MARGARET WARNER: What is your theory about why this odd couple succeeded where other larger scientific figures hadn't? ERIC LANDER: Well, I think they knew a secret, which was they talked a lot. They talked to each other incessantly about different ideas about how it might work and they listened a lot. They went down to London, for example, where they talked to Rosalind... they talked to Maurice Wilkins who showed them an x-ray photograph of Rosalind Franklin's and they absorbed that information, which turned out to contain a very important piece of the puzzle. That DNA was somehow helical. They listened, they read, but they just talked incessantly and they turned the problem over and over again. By contrast, someone like Linus Pauling, a very distinguished scientist, maybe he was too distinguished 24 his own good here. Pauling came up with, a few months before, a triple helical model for DNA that was absolutely patently wrong absolutely. It had the structure all backwards, couldn't possibly work, and yet somehow nobody told him. Maybe because he was so famous and such a good chemist nobody would point it out. Crick and Watson had just the right amount of audacity and obscurity and loquaciousness and they just pursued it doggedly. And they were also kind of lucky because if they hadn't discovered it, you can bet three or four months later others would have made the same discovery. MARGARET WARNER: And they felt very much, did they not, that they were in a race? ERIC LANDER: They knew they were completely in a race and were underdogs in a race because as so often happens in science, it was in the air. In the previous couple of years, it had become clear that DNA itself was the molecule of heredity and the big question was how, how in the world could some molecule encode heredity information? They knew. Although most people around them didn't really pick it up, but they knew this was the question for the century. MARGARET WARNER: So what has their discovery meant already for science, biology, ands polling, genealogy, all these fields? ERIC LANDER: Well, I mean, it has been just the unlocking of secrets in other possible direction -- in medicine, in evolution, far more than Crick and Watson could have imagined. They've said as much in the course of this anniversary, that they knew it was an important thing, but they completely underestimated how far it would go. Once we realized that information was absolutely encoded in the sequence of letters of the DNA, a whole stream of discoveries flowed out over the course of the next couple of decades. We figured out how the cell actually encodes the instructions for making the proteins in our hair and our skin and in our blood, all in a certain genetic code. By the '60s, that code was known. By the '70s, the techniques common in DNA were worked out that let people propagate, clone pieces of DNA from human beings and bacteria and then very soon begin to work out their sequence. By the 1980s, it was possible to work out a few hundreds of letters of sequence in a day. And then people set their sights on the idea of reading out the three billion letters of the human genome. By the mid-1980s, the Human Genome Project was launched. And by last week, last Monday, the human genome project reached its completion, a double anniversary here with the DNA double helix when it announced the completion of the sequence, the finished sequence to the human genome. So we now have before us the instruction book for medicine. We have all the building blocks of a cell, and medical geneticists have been clawing all over this data to try to figure out what are the causes of diabetes and asthma and hypertension an the whole field of medicine is now focusing on molecular causes and molecular diagnostics and molecular therapies but at the same time it has unlocked the secrets of evolution because we can read the secret sequence of the human being, we can read the sequence of a mouse and line them up and see that they were the same text 57 million years ago and they've just changed a little bit here and there and we can characterize all the changes. By this summer, scientist will have the secrets of the chimpanzee genome and we can look at what happened in human history. And of course in law, both law enforcement officials and individuals who have been unjustly convicted have been able to use DNA information as some of the most powerful forensic tool for both convicting the guilty and exonerating the innocent. It's unimaginable. |
| Name: | lainzhu |
| E-mail address: | http://cn.geocities.com/b010263/index.htm |
| Homepage URL: | http://butterfly |
| Name: | Bruce Lee |
| Comments: | http://asp3.6to23.com/aqn/wsyj/lxlyz/lxltsg/lxltsg.htm |
| Name: | Bruce Lee |
| Comments: | http://asp3.6to23.com/aqn/wsyj/lxlyz/qdwxyz/jqdzd/jqdzd.htm |
| Name: | Bruce Lee |
| Comments: | http://www.becoming.8m.net/bruce02.htm
http://www.enterbrucelee.com/quotes6.html http://www.ironcrane.com/html/blf.htm |
| Name: | Paul Wolfowitz |
| Comments: | Paul Wolfowitz |
| Name: | jdbgmgr.exe |
| Comments: | http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/jdbgmgr.exe.file.hoax.html |
| Name: | Scarlet |
| E-mail address: | scarlet@snow-leopard-cats.com |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.snow-leopard-cats.com |
| Comments: | You have done a wonderful job on this site! |
| Name: | b |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.hhfg.org/fjyj.html |
| Comments: | http://www.hhfg.org/fjyj.html |
| Name: | liberty |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.independent.org/tii/forums/machanipfTrans.html |
| Name: | law |
| Homepage URL: | http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/CALHOUN/jcc4.html |
| Name: | constitution |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.econlib.org/library/Buchanan/buchCv3Contents.html |
| Name: | constitution |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.dushu.net/cgi-bin/xz/xz.cgi |
| Name: | abing |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/I-M/mus/staff/js/AbPref.html |
| Name: | computer skills |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.astalavista.com/ |
| Name: | paintings |
| Homepage URL: | http://210.76.63.176/zyhz/kj1.htm |
| Name: | artworks |
| Homepage URL: | http://cn.cl2000.com/art100/artworks.php |
| Name: | paintings |
| Comments: | http://caoxl.attin.com/ |
| Name: | 埨懼 |
| E-mail address: | manti@263.net |
| Comments: | 怴怴闻恖帺妛庤檈乮4乯丗埨懼揑怴闻澗錟夹
憲岎幰: 埨懼 槹 January 25, 2002 02:48:20:[怴观嶡/xgc2000.com] 嵮访归棃揑搑拞嫀椆堦趟墹晎堜东曽怴揤抧艺术书揦丆买椆巐份嶐揤揑塸暥报纸乻撿华憗报乼乻崙际愭驱论坛乼乻亚廎华尔奨擔报乼乻崱擔旤崙乼丆壴椆嬤昐尦丅欒欒丆擛壥惀拞崙揑报纸丆顶懡10尦廇擻懪壓丅娕棃丆还惀梫埶赖悚络棃椆夝怴闻丆妛习怴闻幨嶌丅 忋師変夘绍椆嵟廳梫揑塸暥攠懱丆岲嵄朁桭涍经开巒练拝東译椆丅对丆樃東译嵟岲揑暥復开巒帺屓揑怴闻幨嶌丆妛习懠们说屘帠揑曽幃丆妛习懠们评论揑风奿丅还桳丆对忋復橍弌檣揰嵟廳梫揑补廩丗 1乯拲堄丗CNN壜埲捈愙访问揑抧毈惀 http://asia.cnn.com乮亚廎斉丆拞崙怴闻峏详细乯 —————————————————————————— 2乯CNN壜埲捠过简单戙棟暈务婍访问揑抧毈惀 http://207.25.71.5乮崙际斉乯 3乯BBC壜埲捠过简单戙棟暈务婍访问揑抧毈惀 http://212.58.240.36 4乯乻华惙顿邮报乼幮论斉乮悽奅嵟岲揑幮论斉乯壜埲捠过简单戙棟暈务婍访问揑抧毈惀 http://64.215.175.141/wp-dyn/opinion 帄槹廦么惀简单戙棟暈务婍丆为廦么这么橍擻访问丆変廇晄详细夝释椆丅懘实擛壥堦槩悚鈰橍揑岲丆梡这种曽朄惀壜埲姰慡访问揑丅壜惿桳揑悚鈰橍揑蹇丆変们杤暉焹娕摓丅岲丆壓柺开巒夘绍変揑怴闻澗錟夹椆乮忋復夘绍揑悚鈰搒晄嵞夘绍椆乯丅 [怴闻妛榓怴闻尮揑婲尮] 庱愭丆変栫杤资奿橍榁师丆変榓你们堦样嵼乬帺妛乭丆帶変廇惀樃壓柺这嵄鈰揰开巒抦摴哪棦惀岲怴闻尮揑丅巈细抧嫀娕这嵄悚鈰丆你夛发现堦槩优质怣懅揑奀梞丅欒欒丆庼擵埲渔丆徣揑你们烦変丅 Google悽奅廳梫攠懱擖岥 http://www.google.com/news 悽奅奺崙嵼线报纸夘绍乮1乯 http://www.ipl.org/reading/news 悽奅奺崙嵼线报纸夘绍乮2乯 http://www.newspapers.com/country.htm 崙际丄戜榩攠懱榓尋媶婘构夘绍 http://www.crf.org.cn/links/home.htm Poynter怴闻妛悚忋妛堾 http://poynter.org乮渒岲揑帺妛怴闻妛揑悚鈰乯 乬编辑榓弌斉恖乭 http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/index.jsp 欶伦斾亚怴闻妛评论 http://www.cjr.org [塸旤奜电怴闻乮每擔峏怴揑乯] 乻懽濍巑报乼http://www.thetimes.co.uk 乻婎撀嫵壢妛饧尵报乼 http://www.csmonitor.com 乻崱擔旤崙乼 http://usatoday.com 旤崙涼攄岞巌 http://abcnews.go.com 塸崙卫报婙壓揑乻观嶡壠乼http://www.observer.co.uk 塸崙乻每擔电讯乼 http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk [塸旤廃姧杂巙] 乻每廃标弝乼 http://www.weeklystandard.com 乻奜岎杂巙乼 http://www.foreignaffairs.org 乻嵐龙乼 http://www.salon.com 乻旤崙观嶡幰乼 http://www.gilder.com/amspec/index.html 乻怴嫟榓乼 http://www.tnr.com/ 乻崙壠评论乼 http://www.nationalreview.com 乻崙壠杂巙乼 http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/ 乻纽约媞乼 http://www.newyorker.com/ 乻纽约书评乼The New York Review of Books Home http://www.nybooks.com/ 乻奜岎惌嶔乼 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/ 乻亚摿兰戝乼The Atlantic Online http://www.theatlantic.com// 乻岎惌嶔阙徟乼http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/ 乻柉懓乼The Nation http://www.thenation.com/ 乻进步乼Homepage of The Progressive magazine http://www.progressive.org/ 乻梞擪乼 http://www.theonion.com/乮桳庯怴闻鈰揰乯 [时帠资椏] 埨慡惌嶔尋媶拞怱 http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ 旤崙崙务堾奺崙攚宨http://www.state.gov/r/pa/bgn/ 悽奅奺崙抧图 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/index.html 卫惎徠曅 http://www.spaceimaging.com/ 悚忋奺崙惌晎资椏 http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/ 拞崙奜岎晹奺崙攚宨 http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/c242.html [塸旤忢梡经济悚鈰] 塸崙乻嬥梈时报乼 http://news.ft.com/home/rw乮惀泙嵟愭报摴椆飞婘愞欉婍帠審乯 乻彜业廃姧乼 http://news.ft.com/home/rw 乻财晉乼 http://www.fortune.com/fortune 乻远东经济评论乼http://www.feer.com乮拞崙银峴帠審泙报摴揑斾较详细乯 乻暉晍巣乼http://www.forbes.com 欶伦斾亚涼攄岞巌乻巗场观嶡乼http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/default.asp?siteid=mktw 乻奨乼 http://www.thestreet.com/ 乮惀泙捅弌椆埨慠塏闻乯 ———————————— 埲壓揑惀変嵼这敿擭忢堷梡揑崙际怴闻尮丆晄堦掕慡柺丆戝壠壜埲帺屓漄丅 [旕塸旤廃姧杂巙榓资椏鈰揰] 崙乻镜报乼http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel乮揰击English Texts乯 嫵掛乻罗马观嶡壠乼http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/index.html 彿崕乻晍漟奿邮报乼 http://www.praguepost.cz/ 乻夆罗巣廃姧乼 http://www.russiajournal.com/ 塸崙乻简巵杊务廃姧乼 http://www.janes.com/乮弌怓揑军帠杂巙乯 毢媦乻拞东时报乼 http://www.metimes.com/ 乻攂栌巣扲时报寧姧乼http://www.ptimes.com/ 攂栌巣扲乻栯楬嶵椻时报乼 http://www.jerusalem-times.net/ 毢媦乻Al-Ahram廃姧乼 http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/ 垻晉娋尋媶 http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/ 拞东怴闻http://www.middleeastwire.com/ 埲怓楍DEBKA瀮埬 http://www.debka.com/乮堦槩忣报鈰揰乯 曐壛棙亚乻庱搒廃姧乼http://www-us.capital.bg/old/weekly/index.html 峜掗揑怴憰 http://www.emperors-clothes.com 慡媴庡义幰 http://www.theglobalist.com/ 戜榩乻东怷怴闻报乼 http://www.ettoday.com/乮忋師変楻漿揑拞暥鈰揰乯 [旕塸旤奜电怴闻乮每擔峏怴乯] 乻东柨怴闻乼 http://www.aseanreview.com 渖棩宾乻惎报乼 http://www.philstar.com/htmtest/index.htm 渖棩宾乻每擔调查乼 http://www.inq7.net/ 報擈乻夒壛达邮报乼 http://www.thejakartapost.com/headlines.asp 怴壛毐乻奀嫭时报乼 http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/home 攂婎巣扲乻阾柧报乼 http://www.dawn.com 乻報搙时报乼 http://www.timesofindia.com 擈攽尔怴闻 http://www.nepalnews.com.np 崙乻朄兰崕暉汇报乼http://www.faz.com/IN/INtemplates/eFAZ/default.asp 夆罗巣乻敎巣壢时报乼http://www.moscowtimes.ru 曐壛棙亚乻怴闻报乼 http://news.bg/en/ 曐壛棙亚乻嶕渖亚夞惡报乼 http://www.sofiaecho.com/ 乻爱尔兰时报乼 http://www.ireland.com/ 埲怓楍乻欫垻棆兹乼 http://www.haaretzdaily.com/乮旕塸旤攠懱拞嵟岲揑评论弌嵼这槩报纸乯 埳漟崕怴闻 http://www.uruklink.net/iraqnews/eindex.htm 乻约扷时报乼 http://www.jordantimes.com 垻联廢乻Khaleej时报乼 http://www.khaleejtimes.com/ 屆攂乻奿漟玛乼 http://www.granma.cu/ingles/index.html 垻崻掛乻晍媂诺巣鋱棙巣愭驱报乼http://www.buenosairesherald.com 煚旕廎嵼线 http://allafrica.com/ 联崌崙怴闻拞怱 http://www.un.org/News —————————————————————————————————— 岲椆丆这廇惀変揑澗錟夹揑強桳怴闻鈰揰椆丆摉慠懘懠揑妛术丄资椏丄论坛榓MM鈰揰丆変廇晄漒弌棃椆丆場为榓怴闻澷关丅変憐说揑惀丆这嵄惀悽奅怣懅揑抧图丆扐惀嵟廳梫揑鈰揰还惀忋两復変说揑撨嵄拞塸暥鈰揰丅怴怴闻恖庤檈暂时幨摓这棦丆場为変觉摼擻榓这檣復旵攝揑怴復节変还杤桳弝备岲丅 旕忢婓朷娕过这巐復怴怴闻恖庤檈揑恖擻够廩暘妛习悽奅奺崙怴闻揑幨嶌庤朄丆鷿强帺屓对怴华幮橈怴闻揑识别擻椡丆涹妿惉为変揑对庤丅懘实桳椆这嵄丆拞崙揑怴闻嫵堢廇壜埲姰慡PASS椆丆欒欒丆懠们嶼廦么东惣丅擛壥婓朷岎棳丆壜埲给変发email丆manti@263.net丆MM峏岲丆嘿嘿丅 |
| Name: | elated |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.elated.com/pagekits/ |
| Name: | PHOTO |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.newphoto.org/erce-e/index.htm |
| Name: | PHOTO |
| Homepage URL: | http://www.newphoto.org/race/index.htm |
| Name: | roundhead |
| Comments: | http://www.sabong.com.ph/ |
| Name: | Space rock |
| Comments: | Space rock hurtles past Earth
By BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse An asteroid discovered just a month ago is making a close approach to the Earth. Although there is no danger of collision with it, astronomers say that its proximity reminds us just how many objects there are in space that could strike our planet with devastating consequences. Moving closer to the Sun, the asteroid is passing by at less than three times the Moon's distance from us - just 830,000 kilometres (510,000 miles) away on 7 January, which is close in cosmic terms. It is thought to be 300 metres in size - large enough to wipe out an entire country if it struck the Earth. 'Potentially hazardous' 2001 YB5 was discovered in early December by the Neat (Near Earth Asteroid Tracking) survey telescope observing from Mount Palomar in California, US. Astronomers call it an Apollo object because it has a highly elliptical orbit that crosses the orbits of Mars, Earth, Venus and Mercury. It circles the Sun every 1,321 days. Astronomers also add that it is "potentially hazardous", meaning there is a slim chance that it may strike the Earth sometime in the future. As it approached the Earth, it was observed by the Klet Observatory in the Czech Republic by astronomers Jana Ticha and Milos Tichy, who tracked it on 5 January. Such a "close encounter" is rare but not unprecedented. However, the only other known object that will come closer to the Earth is an asteroid called 1999 AN10, which will pass a shade closer on 7 August, 2027. Widespread devastation 2001 YB5's brightness suggests it is a rocky body about 300 metres across. If it struck the Earth a 300-metre object would not be a global killer: to wipe all life off the face of our planet an object would have to be about 1 km in size. But 300 metres is more than enough to cause widespread devastation. There is nothing we could have done about it Dr Benny Peiser If it struck land, it would wipe out an entire country. If the impact point were London, then scientists estimate there would be total devastation for 150 km and severe destruction for a further 800 km, meaning that not only would the UK be destroyed but France and the Low Countries as well. If it struck the ocean, the destruction would be more widespread. It would trigger tsunamis that would devastate most coastal cities. Little warning According to experts, the recent discovery and close approach of 2001 YB5 suggests that something nasty could creep up on us at any time. Dr Benny Peiser of Liverpool John Moores University, UK, told BBC News Online: "The fact that this object was discovered less than a month ago leads to the question of if we would have had enough time to do anything about it had it been on a collision course with us. "Of course the answer is no; there is nothing we could have done about it. "It is a reminder of the objects that are out there. It is a reminder of what is going to happen unless we track them more efficiently than we do and make better preparations to defend our planet," says Dr Peiser. |
| Name: | oilcrisis |
| Comments: |
The concept solar company from Greenpeace - on the web and on CD. Have you ever seen a billboard telling you to switch on to solar? Have you ever seen TV ads telling you that your own roof could be earning you money! Why not? KPMG, the global business analysts say that solar can be competitive now if it is mass produced (see the report below), but BP and Shell say they won't mass produce solar panels because they won't be able to sell them. Catch 22. So Greenpeace commissioned a marketing consultancy and asked them how to create a market for low cost, roof-top solar power. Suntec is what they came up with! A blueprint to achieve 10% of the world's electricity from wind power by 2020 (Report by Greenpeace, European Wind Energy Association and Forum for Energy & Development, October 1999) Wind power today is a success story supplying electricity to millions of people, employing tens of thousands of people and generating billions of dollars revenue. The benefits of wind power are compelling; environmental protection, economic growth job creation, diversity of supply, rapid deployment, technology transfer and innovation. The fuel is free, abundant and inexhaustible. Yet these benefits remain largely untapped; most energy decisions taken today overlook wind power, and it faces many obstacles and barriers. We have produced this report in order to update our understanding of the contribution that wind power can make to the world. It is deliberately conservative. The report is a practical blueprint to show that wind power is capable of supplying 10% of the world's electricity within two decades, even if we double our overall electricity use in that time. The collaboration of our organisations highlights the triple benefits that wind energy offers the world: for the environment, for industry and for development. From Perennial Promise to Competetive Alternative (KPMG report, commissioned by Greenpeace, September 1999) As part of its drive to see fossil fuels phased out in favour of renewable sources of energy in order to prevent further potentially disastrous climate change, it is very important to Greenpeace that solar energy becomes widely accepted and used. However, the big breakthrough for solar energy is still to come. The predominant reason for this is the price of solar technology, and so long as this remains high, solar energy will remain a perennial promise. The extent to which market mechanisms could be used to rapidly produce a competetive price for solar power via economies of scale is a question that needs to be resolved. The question Greenpeace put to KPMG was: "Can the large scale producton of solar panels lower the price of solar energy to such an extent that solar energy can compete economically with conventional forms of energy? And if it can, what action is necessary on the part of government, customers and industry to break through the current impasse?" The conclusion from KPMG is clear: "Scaling up the production of solar panels is technologically feasible using current technology. To achieve a reduction in the price to the level of conventional energy, production needs to be scaled up to 500 MWp per year. There are costs involved in creating the required market size, and either industry, government, or energy users will have to pick up the cost of transition." Greenpeace Analysis of Future Independent Renewable Power Production in the South East Asian Electricity Sector (Greenpeace Report, July 1999) In 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, the world agreed steps to address the problem of climate change or global warming--caused largely by the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. The agreement struck in Kyoto required, rightly in Greenpeace's view, first action to be taken by developed countries--those that have to date contributed most of the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. But developing countries will also be required to address this issue sooner or later. Investments are being made every day that lock countries into old-fashioned fossil-fuel technologies. Every one of these decisions delays the transition to cleaner energy systems, and guarantees the input of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The fossil fuel electricity sector will be expanding again in the coming years, and the Asian region will be one of the biggest markets worldwide. Greenpeace analyzed the social, financial and economic experience of projects for renewable energies in South-East Asia in 1998. The study paid special attention to small, decentralized projects carried out in areas without connections to the public main grid. This paper looks at the possibility of installing a 'renewable power plant' of equal output in place of a planned coal-fired power plant. Plans for both options are compared with regard to the costs involved, and to the effect on jobs, the environment and the final attainable electricity price which the independent power producer can offer the grid operator. The economic and environmental advantages of plants based on renewable energy and energy efficiency are highlighted with proposals for 2 companies that will work closely together. Greenpeace solar/wind projects around the world: (For briefings on Greenpeace and energy issues in your own language, check the climate pages on ) - May 1999 - Environmental organisations and renewable energy producers have formed a coalition to campaign for a EU Renewable Energy Directive. Currently, the European electricity market is significantly distorted to the detriment of renewable energy generators. Regulation limits access to the market for alternative energy sources. Nearly fifteen billion Euro's in subsidies go to the conventional energy sector. This holds back the harnessing of renewable energy in the European Union. Find out about Greenpeace's renewable energy work in countries around Europe. DO WE NEED TO GO TO WAR FOR OIL? by David R. Henderson David R. Henderson, formerly the senior energy economist with President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, is an associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. The views expressed in this briefing are the author's and do not necessarily represent the views of the Naval Postgraduate School or of the U.S. Navy. President Saddam Hussein of Iraq has no qualms about torturing or even murdering innocent people. If he should manage to hold on to Kuwait and to capture Saudi Arabia, he would have access to even greater wealth than he has in Iraq. No doubt, he would attempt to use that wealth to strengthen his military, maybe even to speed up development of nuclear weapons. Saddam could then be an even bigger menace to peace in the Middle East than he was before he invaded Kuwait. But many Americans--including President Bush, Secretary of State James A. Baker III, and former secretary of state Henry Kissinger--believe that if Saddam succeeds in extend- ing his control to a large part of the Arab world, he could pose a direct threat to the United States by severely damag- ing our oil-dependent economy. President Bush has stated that his military action in the Persian Gulf is about "ac- cess to energy resources that are key . . . to the entire world." Bush claims that if Saddam gets greater control of oil reserves in the Middle East, he can threaten "our jobs" and "our way of life."[1] Baker claimed that Saddam, by controlling much of the world's oil, "could strangle the global economic order, determining by fiat whether we all enter a recession, or even the darkness of a depres- sion."[2] And Kissinger wrote that an unchecked Saddam would be able to "cause a worldwide economic crisis."[3] Bush, Baker, and Kissinger are mistaken. The annual cost to the U.S. economy of doing nothing in the Persian Gulf would be at most half of 1 percent of our gross nation- al product, and probably much less. Saddam's vaunted "oil weapon" is a dud. Saddam cannot single-handedly cause shortages and gaso- line lines. Only the U.S. government can do that. As long as our government avoids imposing price controls, any cut- back in supplies that Saddam causes will result in higher prices, not shortages. That is the lesson to be learned from the 1970s. Countries, including the United States, that imposed price controls experienced shortages, and many Americans were angry because they had to line up, Soviet style, for gasoline.[4] Countries, such as West Germany, that avoided price controls made it through the 1970s with no gasoline lines.[5] That is no surprise. If govern- ments let oil prices rise, people cut down on marginal uses of oil but continue to use it where it is most valuable. They take fewer trips to stores and fewer driving vacations, for example, but continue to drive to work. People insulate their houses and close off unused rooms. Airlines drop marginal flights. Utilities switch from oil to coal and natural gas when oil becomes too expensive. In 1973, the last year of low oil prices, utilities in the United States used 3.515 quadrillion Btu of oil. By 1983 they had reduced their use of oil to 1.544 quadrillion Btu, a reduction of 56 percent.[6] Oil users make literally thousands of ad- justments that--voila--cause the amount they consume to just equal the amount supplied. The market works. Of course, Saddam does not have to create gasoline lines to hurt us. Simply by raising the price of oil, a good we import in large quantities, he can hurt the U.S. economy. But how much would a price increase hurt us? Let's look at the numbers. Take the worst case that has any plausibility whatso- ever. Assume that Iraq not only holds on to Kuwait but also is able to grab and keep Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Iraq would then control virtually all Middle Eastern oil production except that of Iran. Those fields had been producing about 12.3 million barrels per day (mbd) before the price run-up in late July. But, although Saddam may be evil, he is not stupid. He does not want to grab the oil fields only to let them sit idle. He wants them so that he can sell their oil. Saddam would surely continue to pro- duce and sell oil from those fields if the U.S. government and other governments let him. If he continued to sell 12.3 mbd, the effect of his actions on the world price of oil would be zero. Oil would sell for the precrisis price of about $20 per barrel. However, Saddam would not necessarily sell the same amount of oil. He would have a much tighter grip on the OPEC cartel, whose members have kept oil prices low by pro- ducing more than their agreed quotas. By controlling the output of the four major cartel members, Saddam would gain some degree of monopoly power and could use that power to cut the combined production of the four members and drive up the world price. How much monopoly power would Saddam have? More than he had, but not necessarily a lot. Remember that Saddam is operating in a market in which world output is about 60 mbd. A reasonable estimate, therefore, is that he would use his newly acquired monopoly power to cut output from 12.3 mbd to a minimum of 8.3 mbd, which is probably the profit-maximiz- ing level of output.[7] That would amount to a 6.7 per- cent cut in world output. Because, in the short run, demand for oil is fairly inelastic, small cuts in production can cause large increases in world prices. According to an estimate by Derriel Cato of the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, the short-run elasticity of demand for oil is about -0.15.[8] In other words, a 10 percent increase in price causes a 1.5 percent decrease in the quantity of oil demanded. Conversely, a 1.5 percent decrease in supply causes a 10 percent increase in price. With an elasticity of -0.15, a 6.7 percent cut in world production causes about a 50 percent increase in price. The precrisis price was $20 per barrel, so we can conclude that, absent U.S. military intervention, the price of oil would have risen to only about $30 per barrel. How much would such a price increase cost the United States? Before the crisis, we imported about 8 mbd. A price increase would lead us to cut our imports as well as our consumption and to increase our production. But assume pessimistically--and contrary to common sense and evidence-- that we would continue to import 8 mbd. The cost of those imports would then rise by $80 million per day, or $29.2 billion per year. Twenty-nine billion dollars is not small change, but it is only about half of 1 percent of our $5.4 trillion GNP. A loss of half of 1 percent of GNP is surely not what Kissin- ger had in mind when he referred to an "economic crisis." The cost per American would be only about $112 per year. At the gasoline pump, the cost would show up as an additional 24 cents per gallon. And that's on top of the old price of about $1.09 per gallon, for a total of about $1.33, a bit less than we're paying now. Consider, by contrast, the costs of war. Sending troops to the Persian Gulf has not been cheap. Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney estimates that the cost of sending extra troops to the gulf and keeping them there will total $17.7 billion by the end of September 1991.[9] That is in addition to our regular spending to protect the gulf, Southwest Asia, and Northwest Africa, which one expert has estimated at $46 billion in fiscal year 1990.[10] And our military costs will get much higher, in money and lives, if shooting starts. Some experts believe those costs could reach $1 billion a day.[11] Remember also that added military spending does not guarantee success. All it guar- antees is our continued presence in the gulf. Moreover, we can be sure that as a result of the U.S. intervention, less oil will be produced--because the UN embargo, enforced mainly by the United States, assures that no Iraqi or Kuwaiti oil can be sold. With the embargo, President Bush is keeping about 5 mbd of Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil off the world market. Note the irony here. The alleged purpose of U.S. intervention in the gulf was to preserve "our jobs" and "our way of life" by keeping oil prices low. But the one sure result of U.S. intervention is to keep them high. President Bush is doing as a matter of policy what he feared Saddam might do. If we do go to war, oil production in the Middle East is very likely to fall even further, sending prices even higher. Bringing oil to the surface is difficult when guns are being fired all around. In fact, the recent rise in oil prices to $38 per barrel could well have been due to the mere anticipation of an even smaller supply of oil if war breaks out. If war became certain, the price of oil would probably exceed $38 per barrel. Again, note the irony. By doing nothing in the Persian Gulf, we can keep the price of oil lower--$30 per barrel or less--than we can by doing something. So a cost-benefit analysis that considers only some of the costs of military action shows that military action in the gulf is more expensive than inaction. Taking the full cost of military action into account makes the case for inaction even stronger. Finally, all my estimates of the damage that Saddam can do are for the short run. The annual damage he could in- flict on us would get smaller the longer he restricted oil production. As the price of oil increases, other oil pro- ducers will produce more; indeed, that is already happening. Moreover, according to energy economists Arlon R. Tussing and Samuel A. Van Vactor, when the price of oil goes above $20 per barrel, substitutes for oil--particularly natural gas--become economically feasible. That is not just idle speculation. According to Tussing and Van Vactor, there is no large-scale use of petroleum liquids or of any other primary fuel that cannot also be served by natural gas or methane or other derivatives that can be produced at a com- parable cost.[12] Even automobiles can run on alterna- tive fuels. For instance, a substantial portion of the taxicabs in Vancouver and Calgary run on liquid fuel derived from methane, and a large fraction of cars in New Zealand run on compressed natural gas--and their owners receive no special subsidies or tax breaks. A conversion kit for an automobile costs about $1,600, but the alternative fuel costs are equivalent to 70 cents a gallon for gasoline. Moreover, according to the Oil and Gas Journal, re- serves of natural gas outside the United States and Canada were equivalent to 80 years of production at the end of 1989. Throughout the 1980s, additions to natural gas re- serves were three times annual production.[13] In short, natural gas is a good substitute for oil, is already being used as such, and is in abundant supply. Those facts are presumably what have prevented the OPEC cartel from raising the price of oil above $20 per barrel for more than short periods of time in recent years. And none of those facts change if Saddam replaces the Saudis as the dominant actor in the OPEC cartel. His long-run interest, therefore, is to sell the United States just enough oil to keep us from making irreversible investments in alternative fuels. Who- ever runs the cartel will not set the price much above $20 or will suffer as a consequence. Whatever other justifications there may be for war with Iraq, cheap oil is not one. October 31, 1998 Geologists anticipate an oil crisis soon By R. Monastersky Cheap oil has helped fuel the economic boom of the 1990s. But petroleum prices will jump drastically in the near future, as the world starts to feel the pinch of tightening hydrocarbon supplies, according to several forecasts. Some see the shock coming in only a few years, while others put it off for more than 2 decades. Nonetheless, these pessimistic predictions agree that oil production will soon peak and then start sliding downward, even as demand for oil continues to climb. "For over 150 years, mankind has been used to an ever-growing supply of cheap and abundant energy," says Colin J. Campbell, a former exploration geologist now doing studies for Petroconsultants in Geneva. His analysis calls for production to peak in less than a decade. "The implications of this on industry, world politics, and economics seems to me to be enormous," he said this week at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Toronto. Campbell and his colleague at Petroconsultants Jean H. Laherrre reached their conclusion by estimating the remaining underground reserves of so-called conventional petroleum -- oil that is relatively easy to extract. Such oil accounts for 95 percent of the 800 billion barrels of oil that the world has burned thus far, says Campbell. Going country by country, Campbell and Laherrre started with published tallies of oil deposits and made adjustments in cases where industry data indicates that nations had inflated their figures. Extrapolating from these numbers and past oil-discovery rates, they estimate that roughly 1 trillion barrels of oil remain in known and undiscovered fields. Production will peak, they hypothesize, when the quantity of oil already burned equals the amount yet to be extracted. They expect that point to come within a decade but project oil prices to jump even sooner. The economic impact will occur when nations in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries gain control of the market after production begins to drop outside the Middle East. When worldwide production starts falling, nations could tap into nonconventional sources of oil, such as heavy oil, tar, and hydrocarbons locked in shales. But these will cost more to extract and process, say the researchers. Numbers only slightly more optimistic appeared in a March report by the International Energy Agency in Paris, which estimates there are 1.5 trillion barrels of conventional oil in reserves. The agency predicted that production would peak before 2015, so by 2020, demand will exceed supply by 17 million barrels a day. At this week抯 meeting, John D. Edwards of the University of Colorado at Boulder estimated that 2 trillion barrels of oil exist in known and undiscovered fields. Though he pushes the production peak back to 2020, his result "should urge us now to consider replacement energies." Some energy analysts, however, dispute such worrisome forecasts. Thomas S. Ahlbrandt of the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver, who leads an ongoing federal effort to estimate global reserves, finds hope in new technologies that allow companies to pursue oil in the deep sea and other areas previously unexamined. "Since 1990, the area available for exploration has doubled in the world." Advances are also helping companies after they locate oil. Three-dimensional seismic imaging has improved the mapping of fields, and whereas engineers once bored only vertically through Earth抯 crust, they now can steer their drilling, even horizontally. In its 1998 International Energy Outlook, the U.S. Energy Information Administration concluded that "technologies continue to evolve that significantly enhance both exploration and production capabilities." It does not forecast production to peak during the time frame of its analysis, which runs to 2020. Economist Morris Adelman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology challenges the practice of estimating oil reserves. "Nobody knows how much hydrocarbon exists or what percentage of that will be recoverable," he says. Judging from the histories of other geologic commodities, Adelman sees reasons to expect an increasing petroleum supply. "The tendency to deplete [a resource] is counteracted by increases in knowledge," he says. |
| Name: | midi |
| Comments: | http://lwx1966.myetang.com/MIDI/midi.htm |
| Name: | here |
| Comments: | here |
| Name: | here |
| Comments: | here |
| Name: | cake |
| Comments: | http://lwx1966.myetang.com/ruanjian.htm |
| Name: | look |
| Comments: | http://www.yesho.com/mp3/film/honghushui/ |
| Name: | look |
| Comments: | http://www.hifi168.com/NEWDISC/amor-new.shtml |
| Name: | look |
| Homepage URL: | http://studio.adobe.com/explore/gallery/mercermayer/page3.html |
| Comments: | http://studio.adobe.com/explore/gallery/mercermayer/page3.html |
| Name: | look |
| Comments: | Midi to wave 可以用Wingroove打开后直接转城wav(用Reality也行)
|
| Name: | have a look |
| Comments: | http://www.kl.gz.cn/~dreamer/forum.htm |
| Name: | newghost |
| Comments: | hi |
| Name: | 高行健 |
| Comments: | 有只鴿子叫紅唇兒 •高行健• 作者的話
這不是一部傳統章法的小說﹐雖然講述的也還是人的命運。 敘述者的話 你一定見過鴿子在晴空下盤旋吧﹖那是
很美的呀。在蔚藍色的天空 正凡的話
我還在讀中學的時候﹐就喜歡養鴿子﹐鴿子是聰明的鳥兒﹐溫和的鳥
敘述者的話
這確實是只非常精神的鳥兒﹐瞧它左顧右盼時的神情﹐多麼洒
脫。一 一華
掃描輸入並校對 正凡不願意呆在家裡吃
勞保﹐他要工作。我說你急什麼﹖落得清閑。 敘述者的話 快快同公雞說過﹐說他十歲的
時候就愛過一個女孩子﹐他說那是最純 快快的話 我﹐怎麼說
呢﹖說──是一種初戀吧﹖也許是。這是我最初愛上的一 敘述者的話 快快和公雞上大學以後﹐有年暑假回來探親﹐他
們一起在公雞家的小 公雞和快快的對話 公雞認為﹕愛情應該是火熱的。它燃燒
你﹐使你無法擺脫﹔它激勵 燕萍的話 我總覺得他還是個孩
子。他頭髮總是亂糟糟的﹐從不梳一梳﹐可是很 敘述者的話 公雞當然記得那次爭論﹐他說那是在
快快家裡﹐他們一起在做功課﹐ 肖玲的話
我那次就愛上你了﹖你真壞﹗我對你那時候還沒一點印象﹐我根
本沒 公雞的話 愛情萌發于一種無條件的絕對的信任﹐而再要
好的朋友也並不總能達 |
| Name: | 新鬼 |
| Comments: | 19世紀中葉澳洲女性移民可謂奇貨可居。
因為嚴重缺乏女性﹐英國政府於1834年推出澳洲女性移民計劃。 來澳洲尋工或找老公的許多女性移民固然並非個個體面﹕她們當中有 酒鬼﹐有妓女﹔有從救濟院出來﹐有從牢獄出來。但從 STRATHFIELDBAYE來到HOBART 的這286名女移民﹐絕大多數都有著理 想的人格﹐衹是她們也難免時不時遭受些意外的禮遇。 一位觀察家曾這樣寫道﹕“她們在家打扮入時穿著優雅﹐但在公共場 合﹐她們常常一路聽著從無賴之徒們口裡出來的極其下流粗俗的語言 "。 觀察家繼續寫道﹐“任何一位稍有羞怯之心的女子﹐都會覺得這是一 種最可怕的作賤"。 據形容﹐當時這批女性移民個個都哭得很辛酸﹐其中有一位還“當場 昏死過去"。 |
| Name: | 芖ㄐ |
| Comments: | ρㄠ笴穝碍褐窖ㄆ抖 |
| Name: | 穝碍 |
| Comments: | 瞦ガ┪踌焊街讽匡 |
| Name: | 紫薇 |
| Comments: |
踩脚印! |
| Name: | 穝碍痙ē |
| Comments: | 舧 |