I’ve been accumulating news snippets about the as-yet-to-be-formally-scheduled release of Guild Wars 2 for an email newsletter I send out to my friends and acquaintances in the Guild Wars community.
Lots of links with folks just catching up from last week’s events at PAX.
A welcoming column on the new “lights” of modern Europe:
Normally, to read a book, one turns on the light. I had thought of that, but the numerous light switches in the room only brought a dim glow from various lengths of compact fluorescent lamps, some shaped like paperclips, others coiled like something from the pavements of dog-loving Dijon. You could tell that they were switched on, but it was as if someone had given the lights several coats of opalescent lacquer. It almost seemed as if the lamps attracted light gravitationally from nearby parts of the room, which were consequently left in shadow.
[. . .]
Except for not emitting light, there is little wrong with the new energy-saving bulbs, apart from their causing night-time falls, triggering epilepsy and storing up deadly poisons. But we must expect to make little sacrifices to save energy.
All over Europe, people are tumbling down the stairs in the small hours, snapping their femurs like breadsticks when they venture out of their bedrooms, perhaps to go to the loo – it isn’t unknown. That is because the energy-saving bulbs in the landing light take time to warm up. Those who survive the nocturnal pitfall soon notice that the new kind of bulbs flicker. For some, this triggers migraine; for others, epileptic fits. For me, it merely induces nausea and a sensation that the room is moving backwards and forwards. So I should count my blessings.
As for the mercury that the energy-saving bulbs contain, I have always found it a most beautiful metal, aptly named quicksilver, shining like the moon. Certainly, the effects of mercury poisoning are no fun: shedding of skin, loss of teeth and hair, salivation, sweating and forgetfulness. Yet anxiety about such matters is soon dispelled by the FAQs on the Energy Saving Trust website. “Energy-saving bulbs contain only tiny traces of mercury,” it says soothingly. “Imagine a pellet smaller than the tip of a Biro.” Yes, I’ve imagined that. It sounds ideal for the tip of a blowpipe-arrow or a Bulgarian secret service umbrella.
So remember to be very careful when you dispose of these wonderful new high-tech devices.
. . . each fluorescent light bulb contains about 5 milligrams of mercury. Though the amount is tiny, 5 milligrams of mercury is enough to contaminate 6,000 gallons of drinking water, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Low level mercury exposure (under 5 milligrams) can cause tremors, mood shifts, sleeplessness, muscle fatigue, and headaches. High level or extended length exposure can lead to learning disabilities, altered personality, deafness, loss of memory, chromosomal damage, and nerve, brain, and kidney damage, as stated by the EPA. There is a particular risk to the nervous systems of unborn babies and young children.
H/T to Chris Greaves for the link.
Felix Salmon on the state of US flood insurance:
Ben Berkowitz has a big report on the the National Flood Insurance Program — something which is a veritable bucket of fail. In a nutshell, it undercuts private insurers and therefore is the only game in town; it insures only a small minority of homeowners; and it loses gobs of money. In September 2005, the NFIP was $1.5 billion in hock to the federal government; that number has now ballooned to $21 billion, and is certain to rise further.
There’s a simple answer to all these problems: let the NFIP raise its rates. And I don’t understand why it’s not being allowed to do so. If the rates rose, then that might allow private insurers into the flood-insurance game, giving consumers a choice and helping to get the word out about how insuring your home against flood damage is a really good idea. The NFIP could become profitable, and thereby start paying back all the money it owes. And while homeowners are quite price sensitive when it comes to flood insurance, the fact is that so few homeowners take out flood insurance right now that the number would be unlikely to fall dramatically if rates went up to a reasonable level.
The Economist is usually pretty gung-ho about high speed rail development in general, so this article expressing some serious doubts is noteworthy:
Earlier this year the coalition government announced details of a £32 billion ($52 billion) super-fast railway line from London to Manchester and Leeds via Birmingham (see map). Philip Hammond, the transport secretary, claims it will be a “fast track” to prosperity. If the project goes ahead—and there is still, just, time to reconsider—the final route, and Stoke’s transport fate, will not be decided until 2012 at the earliest. The first trains won’t reach Birmingham until 2026, and Leeds and Manchester until 2032-3.
There are practical reasons to favour a new north-south line. Good infrastructure lasts a long time: Britain is still enjoying the fruits of Victorian railway investment. At some point in the next 20 years the existing west-coast main line will face a capacity crunch. Upgrading lines is disruptive and expensive, so constructing a new one appears sensible. The vision of a futuristic train scything across Britain at 250mph (400kph) is appealing.
But although the plan has cross-party support, the British public is not entirely convinced. Objections have so far focused on two concerns. First, the environmental damage, particularly to the Chilterns, an area of “outstanding natural beauty” and home to many well-off voters. Second, the business case for the line: the projected doubling of long-distance rail use by 2043 seems ambitious.
Like everyone else, I hate paying tolls, but my time is worth more than the toll to use the faster route. The C.D. Howe Institute is proposing converting the existing (and additional planned) high occupancy lanes on highways to toll lanes:
Car-pool lanes on Canadian highways should be converted to high-occupancy toll lanes to reduce congestion and generate revenue for municipalities, says a C.D. Howe Institute report released Wednesday.
High-occupancy toll lanes differ from high-occupancy vehicle lanes by allowing solo drivers to use them, but at a cost. The lanes require that individual drivers pay to use them, but vehicles carrying more than one passenger can drive on them for free.
“When you have bad congestion, the only way to maximize capacity of the highway is to restrict and manage access,” said Ben Dachis, author of the report. “You do that by charging people for that access.”
My commute into Toronto is pretty much at road speed until I get off the 407 ETR (a toll road) and get on the southbound 404 (a non-toll road with an HOV lane in each direction). That’s about the halfway point of my journey, but I’ll spend 75% of my travel time on the second half of my commute. The HOV lane is rarely full to capacity, and there are always “cheaters” who use the lane even though they’re alone in their vehicles (you can tell because they dart back into the regular lanes at the first hint of a police cruiser ahead).
In my own case, converting the HOV lanes on the 404 to toll would only save me 10-15 minutes, as the Don Valley Parkway does not have HOV lanes, but saving 20-25 minutes per commute would be quite worthwhile for me.
If so, it was probably a brilliant move:
I think we all know that Google’s pretty good at, um, obeying tax laws to the letter. For example, they’ve paid an entire £8m in UK corporation tax on revenues of some £6bn from 2004 to 2010.
[. . .]
However, this deal to purchase Motorola Mobility might be a coup to beat that hands down. The headline price to purchase the handset-maker and their bundle of patents is $12.5bn but that’s not what the net cost to Google might turn out to be. How about $3.8bn for that? For, along with the company and the patents, Google has also bought a series of tax losses.
For the record, it’s cheap politics to accuse a person or a corporation for paying “only” so much tax. If the politicians have set up the system to allow certain deductions or credits, then you’re insane not to take advantage of them. Like a number of headlines over the last day or so, pointing out that this or that company paid less in taxes than they paid their CEO. If the company paid more than it should, it’s depriving its shareholders of what they are rightfully due, and will likely be facing them in court.
Powered by WordPress