skeptical writes:

"and bans the entry into the E.U. market of new electronic goods containing a slate of poisonous chemicals"

Does that mean that only goods manufactured outside of the EU are subject to this rule?

No, it doesn't.

If you google for "RoHS", the first non-paid link that comes up is http://www.rohs.gov.uk/, which says:

What is RoHS?

The RoHS Directive stands for "the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment". This Directive bans the placing on the EU market of new electrical and electronic equipment containing more than agreed levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants.

Manufacturers need to understand the requirements of the RoHS Directive to ensure that their products, and their components, comply.

Note the words "...bans the placing on the EU market...". Note the lack of mention about whether such placement happens by manufacture within the EU, or by importing into the EU. Note the mention of "manufacturers" in the second paragraph. Note that the UK is within the EU.

skeptical continues:

It wouldn't be the first time "environmental" legislation was used to create a protectionist system.

Well, if it were, it might or might not be, but it ain't.

Travel the world, meet interesting people, and torture them to death.

http://billmon.org/archives/001521.html

http://billmon.org/archives/002731.html

http://www.thememoryhole.org/phoenix/

The Swedes are happy with their well-functioning society, and the Sweden's opposition -- the four right-wing parties who were in the electoral coalition that replaced the Social Democrats -- had to move their policies to the left in order to become electable. So the shift to the right isn't as great as one might think.

Indeed, Sweden's (and the whole of Scandinavia's) farthest-right parties are probably somewhere in the centre of the U.S. Democratic party.

I've been a software engineer for over ten years now. In some jobs, my job description has been "application developer", in some "software engineer". When I tell people what I do, I say I'm a programmer.

After all these years, I still don't know what the difference is between "programmer" and "software engineer". Does anyone?

For a while, I've been meaning to write the same thing as helist did: "I'm surprised at the number of negative responses Stephanie's reviews attract."

While I don't agree with every single one of their opinions, I think that Salon's movie reviewers, including Zacharek, are among the best. Their reviews are consistently intelligent, informed by a deep knowledge of the history of films, and of culture in general.

I saw Children of Men before reading the review, and the review made me appreciate it even more than I did in the cinema.

Felix writes:

Most of these complaints are simple quibbling, like the president has to be born in the US. This is not a test for entrance to the bar, it is a citizenship test, and it would be ludicrous to demand all the fine details.

As far as the right to keep and bear arms, you are dead wrong. If the right were a collective right, the second amendment would be the only amendment so worded, or you would have to apply it to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

But why do you quibble so about the exact interpretation of the second amendment? This is a letters column, not a court of law; so surely the exact interpretation of the US constitution should matter much less than in an exam for US citizenship -- where it doesn't matter much at all, according to you.

I agree with Patrick that the 747 is quite beautiful, but I don't think the A380 is uglier or more beautiful than the average passenger airplane. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course.

That said, you've made it quite clear what you think of the A380's looks, Patrick. About half a dozen times so far. Might I suggest you give it a rest?

Leoniceno wrote: "Ivan, if you'd read any Robinson you wouldn't make disparaging comments about his supposed status as a 'science fiction' writer."

I don't understand what's "disparaging" about calling a science fiction writer a science fiction writer. That is, unless you think that "science fiction" is a term of disparagement, which I, for one, certainly don't.

"What Robinson writes might broadly be called science fiction, but it predicts stuff that is in the near future."

Near-future science fiction is also science fiction.

But quibbling aside, I agree with your opinion of Kim Stanley Robinson. He's one of my favourite sf authors, too.

Surely Andrew is entitled to post the odd humorous bit among all the weightly analysis?

I don't quite understand all these people who, for various reasons, are counselling the LW to take no action, or at least not to sue the perpetrator.

To me, the situation is simple. The perpetrator assaulted the LW. That is illegal, and it is no small matter. To get justice, the LW has to sue the perpetrator. It is the right thing to do, not only for the LW, but for upholding the principle of law: you assault someone, you get sued, and hopefully convicted.

Just sue the bastard.

Clockwork Smurf wrote" "No one Speaks English, they all talk American!

"The truest fact is, the ubiquity of English is not based on the archaic tongue of one European Island nation, but the melting pot of dialects and influences that became American Standard English."

Errrr, right. I believe the ubiquity of English has something to do with the British Empire, too. And good luck in getting the name of the language changed to "American".

spacecabooie, can I have a toke of whatever you've been smoking?