What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
32 Comments
- latalianheat, on 11/20/2008, -2/+18Another quote taken out of context:
"If it's yellow, let it mellow.
If it's brown, flush it down."
This was originally given in response to the question:
"How do I make my bathroom stink like piss?" - autex, on 11/20/2008, -1/+9New toilet tax proposed
There have already been calls by Australian experts to reduce the amount of water wasted through toilet flushing with a proposed new toilet tax.
They'll reach anything to tax. - SwutDigg, on 11/20/2008, -0/+8A john made for playing video games? Time to buy Activision Blizzard stock (WoW maker).
- openthink, on 11/20/2008, -0/+7I thought it was world shower stall day coming up...not toilet. Must be next month.
- jpinsk, on 11/20/2008, -0/+7Chamber pots, anyone?
- downs1, on 11/20/2008, -1/+7I wonder if Mr. Sims ever heard of the "water cycle?" Even water from a sewage plant is involved in this natural cycle. There is a natural purifying action involved in this as well. Some of the fresh rain we get was once part of waste water. There is more danger from open sewage than from sewage that is flushed and treated. This is another example of the craziness of liberal environmentalism that will put us back to the era of the chamber pot and outhouse!
- techguru2006, on 11/20/2008, -0/+6You know what would be the perfect device for when you take a dump? A kindle! Could read all day with that thing.
- BeShirtHappy, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5I think reading, watching TV, talking on the phone, using the laptop, etc. while using the bathroom - must be a guy thing.
- keltin, on 11/21/2008, -0/+5I've seen some operate for a test in a business. They were crappy, to say the least. They did NOT work, and the stench...it's good it only got hot every 3-4 days instead of every day.
It's not healthy to be around them. - bsou, on 11/21/2008, -0/+4toilet expert?
- Kagnew, on 11/21/2008, -0/+4"Experts call for end of flushing toilets on World Toilet Day" "New toilet tax proposed"
And in a related story...
Angry public calls for the end of "Experts", and the flushing of "World Toilet Day". - obliviousfool, on 11/21/2008, -0/+4Just get a composting toilet!
http://www.biolet.com/ - sanman, on 11/21/2008, -1/+5The UN may declare flushing a crime against humanity
- Jashobeam5, on 11/20/2008, -2/+6More proof being an "expert" does not mean you have any common sense.
- 2Conservative, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3It is an electronic wireless book promoted through Amazon.
- 2Conservative, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3Nah, March http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=22 ...
- inactive, on 11/21/2008, -0/+3Seems like common sense that if you are in a country where you have so little fresh water you have to import it that you wouldn't necessarily want to flush away your toilet waste with valuable drinking water.
So if they've come up with a hygenic, environmentally sound, economic and practical alternative then fine. - existing, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2All-rightee then! Thanks. I was afraid it was something more primitive, but I had to ask... ;-)
- existing, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2I'm almost afraid to ask - what's a kindle?
- AmyVernon, on 11/21/2008, -1/+3They were crappy ... http://instantrimshot.com
- existing, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2Talking on the phone.....yuup......definitely a guy thing.
- existing, on 11/21/2008, -1/+3Suricou - On aquifers; isn't that what caused the giant sinkholes in Florida...aquifers being drained?
On the "straw-man attack on 'liberal environmentalism'" - I don't know about water cycles and sewage, but it's not so irrelevant when it comes to taxes, which is what caught my eye when the article mentioned a 'toity' tax. In fact, its become very interesting. The U.N., at least in 2003, was proposing an International Tax Organization (ITO) - U.N. link 1 at the bottom. Its functions would include "technical assistance, providing a forum for the development of international tax norms, maintaining surveillance of tax developments in a manner similar to IMF review of national macroeconomic policies, restraining unwise tax competition designed to attract multinationals and arbitrating international disputes on tax matters. It was also suggested by panel members that such an organization might look into securing international agreement on a formula for unitary taxation of multinationals, as well as the establishment of principals for equitable collection of taxes from emigrants. This proposal was put to the FfD Preparatory Committee, where it did not find favour as implementable in the near future." - At the time, they did not appear to have much agreement on implementation; I don't know where it stands today, but I'm not done searching yet, either.
From a second U.N. page, link 2 below,"High-Level Panel on Financing for Development - Recommendations & Technical Report United Nations, A/55/1000, 26 June 2001" (link below): "Modern globalization calls for global governance, respectful of individual sovereign states, but properly equipped to address global problems such as poverty, security, and pollution. Sovereign states must empower the multilateral system to overcome its many challenges. For official development assistance, humanitarian aid, and for global public goods, the system needs more resources than are being provided by traditional sources of funding. There is a genuine need to establish, by international consensus, stable and contractual new sources of multilateral finance."..."An ITO would also be of great importance to develop and implement innovative sources of finance if they were agreed upon by the international community."
A Washington Times article (link 3 at bottom), again from 2003, highlights U.N. intentions with the ITO, how "an international bureaucracy with power over tax policy would be an assault on American sovereignty"...how it would "mean higher taxes and bigger government. Indeed, U.N. officials have been quite open about their intentions. The chairman of the U.N. panel that first endorsed creation of an ITO said it would "take a lead role in restraining tax competition."..."According to this mentality, it's unfair for America to have lower taxes than places such as France and Germany, especially if it means jobs and investment flee Europe's welfare states and come to America."..."For all intents and purposes, the U.N. wants to create an "OPEC for politicians." Governments would conspire to keep taxes high, and countries with free-market tax systems -- such as the United States, Switzerland, Ireland and Hong Kong -- would be targeted for persecution."
And here's the real kicker; the U.N. wants the power to levy its own taxes. "The original report looked at two options -- a tax on currency transactions and a tax on energy consumption. Both proposals would hit America hardest. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. In the past, the U.N. has endorsed new taxes on the Internet, including a tax on e-mail. Again, the U.S. economy would pay the lion's share if this reckless idea took effect."..."But the prize for the worst U.N. idea probably belongs to the proposal to give governments permanent taxing rights over emigrants. You see, the U.N. thinks it's unfair when talented people leave high-tax socialist nations and move to places such as America. But since even the U.N. realizes it would be unacceptable to prohibit emigration, the bureaucrats are instead proposing to let governments tax income earned in other nations."..."This scheme is a direct attack on American interests because of our high immigration -- particularly the well-educated portion of the immigrant population. For instance, if a doctor from the Caribbean moves to America, his home government would get to tax income he earns here. If a Chinese entrepreneur moves to Silicon Valley, the Chinese government would get to tax his U.S. income."..."Foreign-born workers in the United States, including both citizens and resident aliens, earn nearly $600 billion each year. Imagine the damage if foreign governments could tax that income. Even if they imposed only a 15 percent tax, foreign governments could drain nearly $100 billion from our economy." - And those figures were as of 2003. I wonder what they would be as of today. Not to mention the state of our economy today; we can't take any more hits.
And, finally, the socialist connection. From "U.N. plans global socialist rule" by Henry Lamb, which also discusses U.N. taxing (Link 4 below): "For years, individuals and organizations in the United States have warned that the United Nations is ultimately working to implement some form of world government. These warnings have largely gone unheeded, and were often ridiculed by the so-called, "well informed", on both sides of the political spectrum. ... Even a cursory reading of Our Global Nieghborhood, published by the Commission on Global Governance, or the UNDP's latest plan, can produce no other conclusion: the United Nations is, indeed, working diligently to install global, socialist, rule. ...Proponents of this scheme realize that the American people would overwhelmingly reject this proposal if given an opportunity to vote on the decision to subject the United States to U.N. global rule. That's why the mechanism for global governance is being constructed in small steps taken by a multitude of different U.N. agencies and organizations, all coordinated, all working toward the same goal." - Insidious.
http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/ffdconf/article89.htm
http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/themes/Systemic-Issues-s ...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/dec/21/20 ...
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/02 ... - existing, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2Thank you, ma'am!
- existing, on 11/21/2008, -1/+3I'm still scratching my head on how a "loo" separates and flushes with no water.. ?..
We're going to wind up being taxed every time we sneeze. - inactive, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2Forgot to add this FTA;
'On average, a person will use 22 litres of drinkable water every day flushing a toilet.' - 2Conservative, on 11/20/2008, -2/+4Excellent response!
- PhilliesBlunt, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OVmwnGJmxw
- AmyVernon, on 11/21/2008, -1/+2Hi existing, welcome to the internetz.
- Suricou, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1"Suricou - On aquifers; isn't that what caused the giant sinkholes in Florida...aquifers being drained?"
The taxes are well beyond the scope of my knowledge, but this is correct. Take water out from under the ground and you weaken it's ability to support the surface. Do it enough, and the surface may just collapse.
There is a similar, more urban problem where aquifer use causes the land to drop by a short distance. Just a few inches. Enough to crack buildings and snap foundations.
Aquifiers are underground regions of water-saturated rock. It's not a river, or pocket of water - it's most like wet sand. This is why it takes a very long time (decades to centuries) for water to replenish after draining. And, as wet sand takes up more volume than dry sand, why removing the water causes sinkholes. - inactive, on 11/21/2008, -1/+1How we long for the good old days of cramped urban tenements, with rampant poverty and disease. The good old days when only the elite had rights, and the masses knew their place. The days before all the evil advances in sanitation, transportation, and electrification. How we miss the days of cholera, plague, and a 30 year average life span. But their is hope, CHANGE is coming, the massiah and his minions are hard at work, paving the way for a return to the past.
- Suricou, on 11/21/2008, -3/+3And completly naive. Downs1 thinks he can out-science the experts, so I'll point to just a few flaws in his argument.
1. The water cycle is *slow* in some areas. Demand for fresh water can easily outstrip rainful. Espicially during summer. This isn't a desert concern - it's a problem throughout much of the US and Europe. Why do you think hosepipe use is sometimes restricted?
2. Making water safe for drinking is expensive - and that drinking water is also used for flushing. The more you use, the more you pay. If a water meter is not used, then the more you use the more *everyone* pays.
3. Likewise for sewage. The more you make, the more it costs to treat. That's money from taxation. You can try all you want to reduce the cost, but at the end of the day a small treatment facility is going to cost less to run than a big facility.
4. As for cost, so for energy. Treating sewage and purifying water takes a lot of it. With for desalination, it's not unheard of to run the process directly off of a nuclear reactor.
5. Not all water comes from rivers. A lot of it comes from aquifiers - a cheap source of good-quality freshwater. While these do refill naturally, it's going to take a very long time - and they won't refill so long as they are being drained.
6. Don't underestimate water demand. It's not just domestic use - water is used in farming. No water, no crops, no food.
7. Many places just can't use rain, because there isn't enough of it by a wide margin. Much of the middle east, large areas of Africa, even the coastal areas of Spain. They are using large-scale desalination, because it's not just the only way to run toilets, but the only way to keep the drops from drying out.
8. Nice attempt to score political points and diggs with the straw-man attack on 'liberal environmentalism,' but not only is it a transparent strawman, but completly irrelivent to the argument. - inactive, on 11/20/2008, -2/+1LOL, no *****! ;-)
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is