Counterparties

By Felix Salmon
May 27, 2011
SEC

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

This Jim Dwyer column would be much better if it actually tried to answer the question in its headline — NYT

“Richard Phillips would like to thank the Chateau Marmont” — Gagosian

SEC Charges Former NASDAQ Managing Director Donald L. Johnson with Insider Trading — SEC

“This year I’ve basically become a vegetarian since the only meat I’m eating is from animals I’ve killed myself” — Zuckerberg

iMac puzzles — Tumblr

Jaw on floor, Tetris edition — Kottke

Dan Frommer leaving Business Insider — TBI

The dreadful story of how Reuters journalist Suleiman al-Khalidi witnessed Syria’s torture chambers — Reuters

Not Cool, Urban Outfitters — Tru.che

The entire HBO movie ‘Too Big To Fail’ condensed into 80 seconds — Vimeo

Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s $50,000/Month Tribeca Rental — Curbed

Skype Goes Down, App’s Crashing For Many — TNW

Comments
8 comments so far

Boycotting Urban Outfitters henceforth. Big corporation stealing from independent artists is indeed uncool enough to warrant a boycott.

Posted by EricVincent | Report as abusive

Re urban outfitters…

Urban Outfitters seems to have taken a PR hit…

In any case, this is great news for that designer, because Urban Outfitters has removed their product and she has gotten a huge amount of free PR. If anyone wants the necklace that everyone is suddenly talking about, they have to get it from her!

Posted by DanHess | Report as abusive

“Over the next several hours, the officers placed a false call to 911 about a homeless man in the vestibule of a building near the woman’s, to have an excuse to be back on the block. The bar surveillance camera showed them going into the woman’s building.

Later, the officers reported they were going on a meal break. Instead, they went back to the apartment. ”

Hello? But I guess being unconscious and drunk it was ok to come back 4 times… and they just wanted to … ummm …cuddle…

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive

Versus says Dominique Strauss-Kahn has left many feeling “IMFed” LOL

http://www.youtube.com/user/versusplus#p  /u/0/24a-Qb327ok

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive

Felix:

Have you considered the economic impact of a three foot rise in oceans by the end of this century, which is the average expectation by scientists monitoring such things? With 9% of the world’s population living within three feet of sea level and assuming present population growth trends, that leaves roughly 900M people at risk of major dislocation by 2100.

There are a couple of low-hanging solutions. Redirect 70-80% of the Congo and Nile rivers through underground conduits to irrigate the Sahara, turning it into arable land, stopping desertification, and reducing the amount of water flowing into the oceans. The conduits avoid evaporation. There are a few other areas of the world where rivers could be diverted into deserts in such a manner.

So-called environmentalists will say that such an approach would alter nature. Too late. That genie is out of the bottle to the collective detriment of all species.

Terraforming in various forms will be essential to offset the adverse impact of human activity on earth. Done properly, we can use it to undo much of the damage we have done. True environmentalists should embrace this, since it helps preserve and expand beneficial environment, rather than sit and watch oceans rise, coastlines erode, massive amounts of population dislocation, and incalculable economic destruction.

At the same time, turning the Sahara into arable land helps add food supply, reduce poverty, and provide living space for a growing world population. Essentially, it turns virtually worthless land into valuable territory that also helps offset global climate change, until we can get off of fossil fuels for most of our energy needs.

Another simple solution is to fill undersea hollow salt domes, which accompany hydrocarbon deposits. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_dome

We know where these salt domes are located and how many there are using seismology, and they tend to occur in groups, or chains. Since they accompany hydrocarbon deposits, we already have thousands of off-shore drilling rigs that could be used to inexpensively drill into these domes and allow seas water to fill them. Given that each one foot of ocean water represents 25M cubic miles, and the number and size of undersea salt domes, existing off-shore drilling rigs could be used to offset three to five feet of ocean rise.

Yes, these are long term plans, but there are no short term solutions. If we act on these and other solutions over the next couple of decades, it will pay off huge dividends later vs. having to deal with impact of the dislocation of 900M people.

The real problem occurs if the melt-off is much greater than anticipated. This leads to another economic analysis of continuing to use fossil fuels. Perhaps the cause of this warming phase the world is experiencing has nothing to do with human activity, but what if it has everything to do with it?

The simple answer is the economic impact will make Wall Street’s housing debacle pale in comparison, and there will be a greater depression than the world has seen and increased tensions among peoples of the world fighting for diminishing land and other resources.

Posted by netvet | Report as abusive

Felix:

Have you considered the economic impact of a three foot rise in oceans by the end of this century, which is the average expectation by scientists monitoring such things? With 9% of the world’s population living within three feet of sea level and assuming present population growth trends, that leaves roughly 900M people at risk of major dislocation by 2100.

There are a couple of low-hanging solutions. Redirect 70-80% of the Congo and Nile rivers through underground conduits to irrigate the Sahara, turning it into arable land, stopping desertification, and reducing the amount of water flowing into the oceans. The conduits avoid evaporation. There are a few other areas of the world where rivers could be diverted into deserts in such a manner.

So-called environmentalists will say that such an approach would alter nature. Too late. That genie is out of the bottle to the collective detriment of all species.

Terraforming in various forms will be essential to offset the adverse impact of human activity on earth. Done properly, we can use it to undo much of the damage we have done. True environmentalists should embrace this, since it helps preserve and expand beneficial environment, rather than sit and watch oceans rise, coastlines erode, massive amounts of population dislocation, and incalculable economic destruction.

At the same time, turning the Sahara into arable land helps add food supply, reduce poverty, and provide living space for a growing world population. Essentially, it turns virtually worthless land into valuable territory that also helps offset global climate change, until we can get off of fossil fuels for most of our energy needs.

Another simple solution is to fill undersea hollow salt domes, which accompany hydrocarbon deposits. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_dome

We know where these salt domes are located and how many there are using seismology, and they tend to occur in groups, or chains. Since they accompany hydrocarbon deposits, we already have thousands of off-shore drilling rigs that could be used to inexpensively drill into these domes and allow seas water to fill them. Given that each one foot of ocean water represents 25M cubic miles, and the number and size of undersea salt domes, existing off-shore drilling rigs could be used to offset three to five feet of ocean rise.

Yes, these are long term plans, but there are no short term solutions. If we act on these and other solutions over the next couple of decades, it will pay off huge dividends later vs. having to deal with impact of the dislocation of 900M people.

The real problem occurs if the melt-off is much greater than anticipated. This leads to another economic analysis of continuing to use fossil fuels. Perhaps the cause of this warming phase the world is experiencing has nothing to do with human activity, but what if it has everything to do with it?

The simple answer is the economic impact will make Wall Street’s housing debacle pale in comparison, and there will be a greater depression than the world has seen and increased tensions among peoples of the world fighting for diminishing land and other resources.

Posted by netvet | Report as abusive

Felix:

Have you considered the economic impact of a three foot rise in oceans by the end of this century, which is the average expectation by scientists monitoring such things? With 9% of the world’s population living within three feet of sea level and assuming present population growth trends, that leaves roughly 900M people at risk of major dislocation by 2100.

There are a couple of low-hanging solutions. Redirect 70-80% of the Congo and Nile rivers through underground conduits to irrigate the Sahara, turning it into arable land, stopping desertification, and reducing the amount of water flowing into the oceans. The conduits avoid evaporation. There are a few other areas of the world where rivers could be diverted into deserts in such a manner.

So-called environmentalists will say that such an approach would alter nature. Too late. That genie is out of the bottle to the collective detriment of all species.

Terraforming in various forms will be essential to offset the adverse impact of human activity on earth. Done properly, we can use it to undo much of the damage we have done. True environmentalists should embrace this, since it helps preserve and expand beneficial environment, rather than sit and watch oceans rise, coastlines erode, massive amounts of population dislocation, and incalculable economic destruction.

At the same time, turning the Sahara into arable land helps add food supply, reduce poverty, and provide living space for a growing world population. Essentially, it turns virtually worthless land into valuable territory that also helps offset global climate change, until we can get off of fossil fuels for most of our energy needs.

Another simple solution is to fill undersea hollow salt domes, which accompany hydrocarbon deposits. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_dome

We know where these salt domes are located and how many there are using seismology, and they tend to occur in groups, or chains. Since they accompany hydrocarbon deposits, we already have thousands of off-shore drilling rigs that could be used to inexpensively drill into these domes and allow seas water to fill them. Given that each one foot of ocean water represents 25M cubic miles, and the number and size of undersea salt domes, existing off-shore drilling rigs could be used to offset three to five feet of ocean rise.

Yes, these are long term plans, but there are no short term solutions. If we act on these and other solutions over the next couple of decades, it will pay off huge dividends later vs. having to deal with impact of the dislocation of 900M people.

The real problem occurs if the melt-off is much greater than anticipated. This leads to another economic analysis of continuing to use fossil fuels. Perhaps the cause of this warming phase the world is experiencing has nothing to do with human activity, but what if it has everything to do with it?

The simple answer is the economic impact will make Wall Street’s housing debacle pale in comparison, and there will be a greater depression than the world has seen and increased tensions among peoples of the world fighting for diminishing land and other resources.

Posted by netvet | Report as abusive

“This Jim Dwyer column would be much better if it actually tried to answer the question in its headline”. I thought he did answer the questions, by noting that the investigators failed to find any DNA evidence of rape.

I think that’s the gold standard these days.

Posted by Kosta0101 | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/