The most interesting press conference I have ever seen in the conference.
Press Conference by United Nations on December 19, 2009.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Copenhagen Climate Change Conference
First of all, I have a great respect to all the people, delegates and leaders of the countries, who worked so hard for long hours day and night, staying overnight into late in the morning. Many of them haven't slept for 48 hours.
I have been following it watching the webcast.
At around 3am in the local time, the draft of what is called Copenhagen Accord was presented in front of the Plenary, asking the parties to consider in one hour, after only small number of countries in the closed door spent many hours to draft it, leaving majority of delegates waiting. It was good that the one hour timeline approach was soon dropped.
Basically majority of the parties were forced to swallow what was created by small number of countries (it seems to me, possibly even before the beginning of the conference). The draft should have been created in the Plenary involving all the parties. All the parties were working hard and willing to do whatever takes to solve this difficult problem of climate change all two weeks.
I have been following the last Plenary overnight taking a break here and there and after almost 12 hours later, I couldn't continue any more unfortunately, so I could not see how it was ended. But the those hours saw the involvement of all the parties and that should have been the way all throughout the two weeks. I think that may have brought a better result.
I have been following it watching the webcast.
At around 3am in the local time, the draft of what is called Copenhagen Accord was presented in front of the Plenary, asking the parties to consider in one hour, after only small number of countries in the closed door spent many hours to draft it, leaving majority of delegates waiting. It was good that the one hour timeline approach was soon dropped.
Basically majority of the parties were forced to swallow what was created by small number of countries (it seems to me, possibly even before the beginning of the conference). The draft should have been created in the Plenary involving all the parties. All the parties were working hard and willing to do whatever takes to solve this difficult problem of climate change all two weeks.
I have been following the last Plenary overnight taking a break here and there and after almost 12 hours later, I couldn't continue any more unfortunately, so I could not see how it was ended. But the those hours saw the involvement of all the parties and that should have been the way all throughout the two weeks. I think that may have brought a better result.
Friday, December 18, 2009
United States' attitude in Copenhagen Climate Change Conference
Since the beginning of the Conference, there have been many informal consultations involving only a small number of countries despite the fact that the delegates from many countries were there to work in the plenaries. And many countries expressed their concern about "transparency".
Now the United States is using the same word, "transparency", for a different context.
First of all, if "transparency" is important, they should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, instead of just announcing what they do about clean energy technology in their country.
Second, while they used the word, "transparency", they formed a closed door meeting with only handful of countries, despite the fact that great majority of the head of states and the leaders are there in the Conference. What they are doing doesn't have any "transparency".
It almost sounds like to me that they took advantage of the situation where many countries are upset about "transparency" in the Conference and used the same word in a different context to diffuse people's attention away from their own responsibilities. In other words, the perception of the majority of parties have been that the United States and China are the blocker of the deal and the United States manipulated to make it look as if China is the only problem.
Now the United States is using the same word, "transparency", for a different context.
First of all, if "transparency" is important, they should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, instead of just announcing what they do about clean energy technology in their country.
Second, while they used the word, "transparency", they formed a closed door meeting with only handful of countries, despite the fact that great majority of the head of states and the leaders are there in the Conference. What they are doing doesn't have any "transparency".
It almost sounds like to me that they took advantage of the situation where many countries are upset about "transparency" in the Conference and used the same word in a different context to diffuse people's attention away from their own responsibilities. In other words, the perception of the majority of parties have been that the United States and China are the blocker of the deal and the United States manipulated to make it look as if China is the only problem.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tokyo Cabinet (rufus-tokyo) - TableQuery :stroreq and :numoreq
Quick note about what I found.
The documentation for Rufus::Tokyo::TableQuery says "string/number which is equal to at least one token" for :stroreq and :numoreq, respectively. But this collection of tokens cannot be an array. It must be a string with tokens separated by comma.
How did I find that array doesn't work?
First, it didn't return the expected result.
Then I looked at the code for the add method by clicking on "View source" and found that to_s is called immediately on the passed val (in this case, a collection of tokens). So if array is passed, to_s is called on it, which only returns a string concatenating all the array elements. So how the code following it can distinguish the tokens for the string, e.g. "123"? - (1 and 23) or (1 and 2 and 3), etc?
So I simply tried passing a string with tokens separated by comma, e.g. "1,2,3". Then it worked.
The documentation for Rufus::Tokyo::TableQuery says "string/number which is equal to at least one token" for :stroreq and :numoreq, respectively. But this collection of tokens cannot be an array. It must be a string with tokens separated by comma.
How did I find that array doesn't work?
First, it didn't return the expected result.
Then I looked at the code for the add method by clicking on "View source" and found that to_s is called immediately on the passed val (in this case, a collection of tokens). So if array is passed, to_s is called on it, which only returns a string concatenating all the array elements. So how the code following it can distinguish the tokens for the string, e.g. "123"? - (1 and 23) or (1 and 2 and 3), etc?
So I simply tried passing a string with tokens separated by comma, e.g. "1,2,3". Then it worked.
Ruby on Rails: background job for uploading file
Quick note.
Running the work of uploading file in the background using Delayed Job doesn't work well because it has a problem with serializing the data into YAML::Object that it uses.
Workling with Spawn works well.
Running the work of uploading file in the background using Delayed Job doesn't work well because it has a problem with serializing the data into YAML::Object that it uses.
Workling with Spawn works well.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Bolivia's position on the climate crisis
I think what they say hits the points.
(The embedded video below doesn't seem to work well. So I put a link, too)
(The embedded video below doesn't seem to work well. So I put a link, too)
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Musique Jazz - Sadao Watanabe "Rendez-vous"
Un saxophoniste, Sadao Watanabe (渡辺貞夫).
Parce que je l'écoute souvent à YouTube parce que je ne le trouve pas encore dans iTune ou autre, j'ai décidé de le mettre ici.
Parce que je l'écoute souvent à YouTube parce que je ne le trouve pas encore dans iTune ou autre, j'ai décidé de le mettre ici.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)