Selecting a best hosting company for the business could be an uphill task, especially if someone is new and don't know about the hosting which will fit his/her needs. However, failing to do so might be an expensive mistake. It may result in spending plenty of funds on the website' features which are not required. Apart from this, it might end up in losing the site visitors owing to the lack of uptime or website features. Witnessing the same, we have listed ten factors that you should consider before selecting an ideal web server hosting company for your business. Read on!
It is one of the major factors that need to be considered before making a decision of choosing a web host. Though, it should not be deciding factor as there are various things that you need to know about free hosting. For instance, they might not be taking proper security measures and don't provide enough support. In addition, they don't have a control over the ads and their placement. Therefore, unless, it won't cost you heavy nowadays.
Shared hosting is skilled of hosting, be it low or average traffic of the websites. In case, your site demands heavy traffic, then you might consider the dedicated servers. In order to select a hosting company for your business, you first confirm the offerings by the company according to your needs.
This is the vital factor which should be look after to select a hosting company with friendly and dedicated customer care executives. Getting beached in the midnight the moment your site crashes or lose the files is obviously the last thing that you ever want.
There are some things that you must look for how the support is provided. Does hosting provider offers ticket (email) system, phone support, and live chats for every hosting plan? Do they provide support services round-the-clock? These things are essential, especially when you reside in different time zone than hosting provider. Does service provider responds within the timeframe of 24 hours.
Hosting reviews are also good information resource. Most of the web server hosting providers claim on the websites the opinion of customers/clients about them. There are clients who shares their views, so you must read their reviews about the hosting company that what they liked or disliked about them. Also, listen to family and friends for recommendations. After that, you can make the judgment.
With no doubt, any of the business needs dedicated email addresses which can be utilized for various business activities. Therefore, prior selecting a hosting company, it is necessary to check the availability of email addresses. Apart from this, one must check automated responding capability of email addresses. A company must have an adequate solution of stop spamming problems.
There are a few features that you must consider as per the goals of the website. In case, you are planning to possess over one domain so you must look for hosting company which is providing several unlimited add-on domains.
In addition, you should also look that if a hosting company is providing money back guarantee or free trial. However, not each hosting company, but many provides such features and assure to offer reliable hosting services.
In the past and even today, you read about the sites which are being hacked. So, it is necessary that you must opt for a hosting company which considers security as its top priority. You must ask a few questions like whether these data centers are secured or servers working on new software version or do they provide SSL certificates.
In spite of the fact that site must load faster, security is must as without it the website is of no use. Instant loading website always lure more and more visitors. Thus, a web hosting provider must guarantee the security, regarding personal, private and financial data.
The hardware of hosting provider regulates the hosting performance that affects the loading speed of website. It is vital to check hardware of a web hosting provider. What sort of the hardware they are using? Are they sufficient enough to meet the clients' requirements? Are the servers tested or latest? Do a web hosting provider's data center is well-equipped with cutting-edge technology? Is it just a one-man show or a set up based in the garage with only two servers? You must inquire about all these things and get complete information.
A few web hosting providers gives several hosting plans and products which comes handy. If the site is facing huge amount of traffic which needs upgradation to a new hosting plan like maybe from shared hosting to the dedicated server or VPS. In case, web hosting provider is not offering such plans, they will manage the moving hassle to other service provider and it also provides you the required update. This could be best in case you opt for a hosting company which permits the scale up in the near future at the time when website grows.
Bandwidth limit, hard disk space, and numerous domains permitted are a few basic features which you must check before signing up with a web hosting provider. The storage space of website is hard disk space. Nowadays, many shared hosting providers give 'unlimited' space in hard disk. What they mean is you will get high space as compared to a simple website will provide you. If you have a forum or an e-commerce website, so you might require a lot of space. Therefore, refer TOS. Though, ensure that you will require backup space according to the growth in future.


text:
Dream Act Dies (But It's Okay if It Happens When a Republican Rules a Committee)
Getting down to the waning days of this Legislative Session so things are happening quickly.
One bill that has died was the DREAM Act which would have allowed children of undocumented workers access to higher education in the state. I supported this bill simply because it is common sense. These kids had no choice about where they were brought to grow up. If they have the smarts to get through high school and be ready for college, we should let them in. Because they are not going back to their country of their parents and we are constantly being told we need an educated populace. Well, with higher ed costs soaring, something has to give.
What really annoys me is the hypocrisy. You might recall that when the charter school bill was in committee last year, that the committee head, Sharon Tomiko-Santos, refused to allow a vote. (I thought that was wrong then and I said it.) The Republicans could not have been more scathing in their reaction.
Fast forward to today when the EXACT same thing happened with the DREAM Act. The committee chair, Senator Barbara Bailey (R), refused a vote. And more than 100 students had come to Olympia to speak at a hearing which she then cancelled. Not so classy.
The Senate Majority leader, Senator Rodney Tom, not only did not blame her, he said the bill died because the Dems supporting it didn't work hard enough. He also had it in his power to bring it to a floor vote but refused.
Pot, meet the kettle.
Labels: DREAM act, state legislature
Sorry but I don't agree. College aid & in-state tuition are benefits granted to legal Washington residents because they are financed by taxes paid by legal Washington residents.
Dream Act would give children of undocumented workers advantages not currently being offered to the children of US Citizens and legal residents living in other states (through no fault of those kids' own, either). How is that fair?
Children of undocumented residents are already welcome to apply for aid at private universities same as anyone. With the pool of funds so limited, draw the line as other states do and offer in-state benefits to legal residents only.
-Evergreen
Evergreen, on the state level, they pay sales tax on what they buy just like legal residents. On the federal level, many work using fake social security numbers, so the FICA and income tax withholding are taken out of their paycheck, but they don't get to collect medicare or social security benefits or file tax returns to get tax refunds. (There are also some who avoid that by working for cash, but it gets hard for an employer to hide such large cash payments and they risk getting in trouble for not making employer's contributions to social security.)
The education of all those young people within our borders remains one of the best investments the state can make, and it's a shame the state is going to pass on it.
Evergreen, I certainly see your point. We have scarce funds to try to help certain students through higher ed. But the children of undocumented workers aren't going anywhere. I'd rather see them do better than worse because it will benefit all of us.
Patrick, I'm not against these kids getting free K-12 education in our public schools.
Once they turn 18 these students are legally adults. They should have to establish residency by the same means that we already require legal residents from Oregon, for example, before being eligible for in-state tuition or financial aid! Or let them apply as an international student, or to private colleges.
They shouldn't get an easier or better deal than legal residents do!
Any payroll taxes they may or may not have, were from work done here ILLEGALLY.
Evergreen, the point is that all payroll taxes they pay, they are not able to collect because they were paid on a false SSN. They do not receive refunds on taxes either. So in reality, illegal residents are paying taxes and not getting any of the benefits of paying those taxes.
HP, it's impossible to know how many illegal workers have taxes withheld from their wages, or how many work for cash off the books, etc.
Of those who do, it's impossible to know how much of those funds withheld actually make it to the government in the form of taxes paid, or how much ends up in the pocket of unethical employers.
But because these people are working ILLEGALLY, it's not realistic for them to expect they should receive the same benefits as legal workers would, whether that be Medicare or Social Security or public college benefits for their children.
The fact that they DON'T qualify for Federal benefits is simply more evidence that they shouldn't qualify for State benefits either!
I would argue that undocumented workers COST the state in lost L&I and taxes because they depress wages for all low-paid occupations, often work in unsafe conditions, and take minimum wage jobs away from legal residents (including immigrants) who would have paid withholding taxes and filed a tax return!
Evergreen, it was also illegal for bankers to foreclose on housing loans without documenting the loan status. Should we deny their children in-state tuition?
I am not sure it is as cut and dried as either side of the debate suggests.
Countering Evergreen: undocumented immigrant families pay the same sales taxes as the rest of us, and either directly or indirectly, the same property taxes. There are not "refunds" (that I know of) on any of those -- so I don't see the validity of claiming that somehow they are freeloading in terms of "taxes in, benefits out." Every new resident who lives here for a year and then is eligible is getting far more "for free" than a family of undocumented immigrants that has shopped her, paid rent here, or owned a home here for 10 or 15 years. From a "did you (or your family) pay taxes to support the benefits you now want, the entire system is set up in a manner that does not require fairness. But many people don't mind that, until the recipient is someone objectionable to them on other grounds (because their families have not established residency in accordance with applicable federal laws).
To Patrick's and Melissa's point, on the other hand -- I have no clue whether the state Dream Act can bear the weight of the "this is a good investment" analysis or the "it will benefit all of us" analysis. These young adults may very well return to (or be deported to) their countries of origin, making any benefit to Washington and its citizens tenuous indeed -- and since funds for aid are scarce, it is not like cutting them off will mean the money isn't spent -- it just won't be spent on them! (Some kid born in Adams County, or Grant County, or Thurston County, or Wyoming, or whatever, will get it instead -- and they are at least as likely to "stay here" rather than return to China, Mexico, or another country of origin.
If we do this, I think we do it because for all practical purposes, these are "our" kids -- at least for now. They were brought here by others through no fault of their own. This is their home (and no, an 18 year old "woman" should not be expected to return "home" to Mexico or central America, or wherever, to start the immigration process, while doing -- what? -- to support herself in a country she may have not seen since she was 2. I cannot think that Evergreen is suggesting this!) They are here. They may stay. They are "kids," of 18 or 19. They have been in school for decades with our kids, and are our kids' friends. And we are their community, their village. We need to treat them like other members of our society. Not because society will benefit any more (or less) if the money goes to these kids versus kids born here -- I think it is a wash. Or because they didn't pay taxes to "earn" these benefits (they paid far more than out of state folks who live here for a year to establish residency). We should do it because we are humans, and it is human decency to do so -- and wrong not to.
Melissa -- thanks for your point, though, on the hypocrisy of the GOP, screaming about Sharon Tomiko Santos's (heroic, in my view) attempts to prevent bad ALEC-form legislation from being imposed on Washington citizens with insufficient deliberation (remember those 11th hour attempts to squeeze in ed reform bills?), but claiming that their similar inaction with respect to the DREAM act (which was not shuffled in in the dark in the 11th hour) were justified (or better yet, the Dems fault? How sleazy is that, Senator Tom?) It reminded me of last week, when Speaker Boehner complained that Obama and the Dems were "holding deficit cutting hostage" to their demands for increased revenue! Ha! Well, if anyone should be able to identify hostage taking in negotiations, it is Boehner and the House.
Payment of state sales taxes has never been a criteria for establishing Washington residency, nor should it be.
What about the thousands of Canadians who cross the border each year to shop in Bellingham, should they be allowed to buy their residency status by paying state sales tax? Or the Japanese tour groups who visit for a weekend Mariners game, hotel and shopping, should their children become eligible for in-state tuition and financial aid?
Of course not, and neither should undocumented aliens. We should not offer anyone benefits simply because their parents broke the law!
If they have lived here over a year and paid all the local taxes for over a year, than yay, the kids who did not choose to be here should enjoy the same benefits as other kids who have been here for a year. You can't compare them to Canadians who shop here or tourists who visit.
You're right, HP. So why did you bring up the fact that some pay sales taxes? It's irrelevant to this discussion, because paying sales taxes does not establish residency.
Those tourists visit here LEGALLY. The Dream Act rewards people who have broken the law by living and working here ILLEGALLY. There's just no comparison!
Update on Strategic Plan Task Force Meeting
Further thoughts on Highly Capable Policy
Public Review of Native Education Program Grant Ap...
Yes, the Cracks are Showing in Ed Reform
Seattle Schools Transportation - Towncars?
Mayoral Forum Tonight
Interesting Article from the NYT
Legislature Can't Get It Done, Adjourns
Seattle MAP Protest Goes On (and Goes International)
In Advance of the Mayoral Forums
Failure to Manage
New Advanced Learning Policy
Youth Opportunities from Seattle.Gov
Want to Hear Some Frank Talk on Bullying?
80 Students Won't Graduate Due to Math Test
What Do We Spend Our Education Dollars On?
NAEP Scores in Economics - Pretty Darn Good
New Definitions
Scope and Sequence, Alignment and Walk-Thru, Oh My
Big Fight at Nova/World School Yesterday
Oversight of Teaching and Learning
Mayoral Candidates Education Forum
Oversight Work Session: Teaching and Learning
Adoption Cycle
Debarments
Following Up on the Equitable Access Framework Wor...
Ravitch Blogs about WA State PTA and McDonald's Co...
Do You Have a Quiet Kid?
Let's ALL Get On This: Let Your Legislator Know Wh...
Seattle Schools News
What Do We Want Girls to Think?
City Items of Interest
Guess Which One is NOT Like the Others?
Ed News
Seattle Schools' Enrollment Projections
Seattle Schools and Data Confidentiality
Yakima School District Also Applying to be Charter...
California Dems Say No to Corporate Ed Reform
Special Education Op-Ed
PTA News
Charter Commission Meeting, Part Two
Seattle Schools Enrollment Predicted to Top 51,000...
Equitable Access Work Session
Charter Commission Meeting Wrap-Up
Some WA State School Districts Exaggerating Gradua...
CPPS Announces First Mayoral Forum
Dream Act Dies (But It's Okay if It Happens When a...
Silas Takes a Plea
Caroline Kennedy to Promote Poetry at Sanislo Today
Seattle Schools and their Strategic Plan
Silas Potter Arrested (Again)
Kids and the Ability to Create Films
April is Autism Awareness Month
When Will Bill Gates Leave Public Education Alone?
BEX Changes - Thornton Creek to Move Into New Buil...
Seattle Schools Updates
RIP Roger Ebert
Charter Commission Picks Questioned
Local Ed Reform Pushing Hard (But Looking Desperate)
Keeping Up with Language Usage (Do Keep Up)
Added To Board Meeting Agenda: RIFs
Seattle Schools Named for 2012 Achievement
Twelve Districts May Be Charter Authorizers
Ed Reform Collapsing Under Its Own Weight - Part O...
Update on Drunk Driving Incident Near Eckstein
Charter Commission to Have First Meeting
Nancy Coogan to Leave SPS for Tukwila

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Trademark Abuse
As you may know I am much more favorably inclined towards trademarks than other forms of intellectual property. (Michele is less favorably inclined.) It seems to me a good thing that it is possible to tell who you are doing business with, and no downside monopoly. That may be the purpose of trademark law...but there is another part of creeping IP: the apparent right under trademark law to protect the image of your product. Daniel Monchuk directs us to an article in the WSJ about what seems to me to be trademark abuse. The article is about costume companies that are being sued by trademark holders for providing costumes based on trademarked characters. For the life of me I don't see what this has to do with identity: there is no claim that these costumes are authorized by the trademark holder, nor can a costume based on a comic book be confused for a comic book. Perhaps Justin or someone else who knows more about the law than I do can comment on whether this is a proper use of trademark law as it exists. Certainly if the law allows it, then there is a big problem with trademark law.
[Posted at 07/23/2008 10:51 AM by David K. Levine on Intellectual Property comments(14)]
Deriving from the natural right to truth (against falsehood) there is a natural right against misrepresentation and misattribution, whether by implication through omission or context, or explicitly.
Whether this right is protected by the means of a national registry or through ad hoc arbitration (as and when ambiguity is recognised, and remains unremedied or wilful) is another matter. The latter would be fairer albeit possibly more expensive, whereas a registry of trademarks and tradenames, might be tolerable and cheaper.
The problem is 'overreaching'. This results from a confusion between the natural monopoly of identity and the unnatural monopoly over use of a name/appearance.
Even twins don't get to sue each other for using each other's likeness (though they should get a remedy for any misrepresentation if they did so exploit their similarity).
However, if copyright and patent are abolished, there might be less judicial confusion over the difference between the justifiable need for identity disambiguation and an unjustifiable, albeit commercially valuable, iconographic monopoly.
Trademark is a lesser problem than copyright or patent, but it is an increasing one, as it becomes infected by the idea that it concerns a state granted, transferable monopoly for the commercial benefit of the trading entity rather than the natural, non-transferable monopoly of a trading identity in the public's interest.
With respect to the example you give, if a costumed character represents the iconographic symbol for a trader, and its use risks confusing onlookers into believing that the costumed character is representing the trader, or the trader's endorsement, then the trader would have a right to require the confusing use to be remedied such that it was no longer confusing. So, it might be upheld that a Michelin man appearing in a play might indicate sponsorship, unless through context or explanation this was clearly not the case.
However, characters originating in cultural works do not represent traders/publishers (much as they'd like it otherwise), so Mickey Mouse may well be part of Disney's iconography, but it does not represent Disney. It could be used to mislead an audience into believing a work was authored by Disney, but this is misattribution, not misrepresentation aka trademark infringement. And simply creating a shell company called Mickey Mouse Productions in order to claim the character as a trademark is putting the cart (cultural icon) before the horse (trader in need of trademark). In this case, no-one who sees Mickey Mouse (apart from Disney branding executives) will ever recognise the character as the trademark of the shell company.
A trademark or brand is accepted as a means of identifying the manufacturer of a vase or the owner of cattle. It is not a right to exclude others from using the registered symbol or name. This means that it can't already be in similar use, such as Budweiser, if it is to be acceptable as a name. Only after one has registered a unique association of identifier with identity can one have cause to exclude others from a subsequent confusing use.
Again, there is no right to a trademark registry, but it is a viable means of arbitrating over identifiers as means to avoid misrepresentation. I would agree that it is in need of reform, and could be persuaded that it is too prone to monopolistic abuse to be legislated.
[Comment at 07/23/2008 01:36 PM by Crosbie Fitch]
In a free market, a trademark wouldn't give anyone a monopoly over the thing (name, mark, etc.) trademarked. Anyone could use it as long as such use didn't violate anyone else's natural rights. An example of an invasive use of a thing trademarked would be Smith picking up a Coca-Cola sign and bashing Jones over the head with it. However, Smith would have the right to use a Coca-Cola sign in any way that didn't violate anyone else's property rights, such as in an advertisment or other commercial or noncommercial use. The Coca-Cola company owns its own copies of Coca-Cola signs, but doesn't own anyone else's copies. You can see the parellels with copyright. An author owns copies of his book, but doesn't own either the expression of the book, which is the thing copyrighted and allegedly "propertized" (ugh), or anyone else's copies.
Following Rothbard (and Walter Block, among others), I disagree with Crosbie that anyone has a natural right against misrepresentation and misattribution. No one owns anyone else's opinion of himself. Jones can't have a property right in Smith's opinion of anyone, including himself. That's why in a libertarian world, there would be no laws against libel, slander, and defamation. If Smith spreads falsehoods about Jones, the latter has a right to defend himself by countering the former's calumnies. What he would not have a right to is a legal claim aginst Smith.
If a costumed character confused onlookers into thinking that they were representing a trader, then the trader has a right to set the record straight.
Murray Rothbard has a good discussion of knowledge issues in his book The Ethics of Liberty. See chap. 16 for "Knowledge, True and False." Ironically, Rothbard defended copyright, but opposed patent. His discussion of patent was good as far as it went, but didn't go all that far. He is good on libel and slander, and shows why libertarians oppose laws against these actions.
[Comment at 07/23/2008 06:18 PM by Bill Stepp]
If you excuse me...Where does natural rights come from?
I am more of a consequentist..myself..I like to justify things based on outcome of act X, in this case economics. Though it seem inadequate for moral reasoning. Natural right may be problematic in that it may lead to absorb situation.
What if I have steal a nuke to save the world from aliens or something?
So I tend to relies on weighing on what make most sense to me in a situation. Taking values into consideration, as well as the possible consequences, and real world experience/knowledge are what I would use to judge the moral situation at hand.
Thinking about moral is a rather difficult exercise because our theory of morality is too nontrival and complex to not have holes.
Now if you excuse me....I am going to read his work, because I am interested in anarcho-capitalism.
[Comment at 07/23/2008 08:36 PM by kiba]
I agree with you Bill that "No one owns anyone else's opinion of himself. Jones can't have a property right in Smith's opinion of anyone, including himself."
However, when there is the intention to mislead, deceive, defraud, or otherwise impair the truth, then I believe this should be legally remedied.
Of course, the truth is unknowable, but falsehood is knowable, and we may obtain evidence that falsehood is intentional.
It's very sensible to allow those who cause and suffer from confusion to remedy the situation, but legal arbitration should be available, with penalty in the case of malice.
Kiba, you can read a fair bit on natural law and natural rights via Wikipedia and Google, but here's something I knocked up when William Patry asked me a similar question: Natural Law Protects Natural Rights.
As to 'steal' and 'save the world', I think it is self-evident that the right to life (its protection when in jeopardy) supersedes the right to privacy (and property).
Crosbie, when you write that, "... when there is the intention to mislead, deceive, defraud, or otherwise impair the truth, then I believe this should be legally remedied," you are painting with too broad a brush. Libertarians distinguish between speech and commercial activities, such as buying a box of cereal. Speech can be deceptive, but cannot be fraudulent. In order for fraud to occur, there has to be some kind of conveyance (I think). For example, if Smith buys what he thinks is a box of oatmeal from Jones, but it turns out to be Cheerios, he has been defrauded by Jones and has a right to a legal remedy. He has exchanged money for a specific type of cereal, but didn't get what he thought he paid for.
You can't defraud someone by uttering words. There has to be an economic exchange for fraud to occur, and the defrauded party must get something other than what it bargained for. Merely uttering words, even intentionally false and defamatory ones, is not a crime. Sleazy and unethical yes, but criminal and legally actionable no. Otherwise every politician would be in the hoosegaw for something other than theft. Hey, maybe it's time for a radical rethink....
[Comment at 07/24/2008 04:44 AM by Bill Stepp]
Well, principle precedes legislation. However, given self-interest is prone to end up being put before principle you also have to be careful not to create legislation than can be easily abused. So, I'm not really intending to pronounce upon what precise form it should take.
Exchanges are just one of those things that may result from false information. Non-exchanges may also result. One can avoid partaking in an exchange because of malicious falsehood, e.g. "Don't buy from him, he sells stolen goods".
People can also engage in violence upon each other based upon false information, e.g. someone convincing the police that a neighbour is a terrorist (or other shoot-first pariah of your choice).
Lesser than violence is a deleterious effect upon someone's livelihood. Stigma may attach to someone due to malicious falsehood, and this may not be in the affected individual's power to remedy alone (even if they figure out who's culpable).
People have no need in their liberty to impair the truth. The truth is vital for justice, and the public have a natural power and right to protect it against attack or damage. I am not implying that truth is absolute here, just that deliberate attempts to attack and damage it are not in an individual's liberty. In the pursuit of truth an individual may well radically change an existing consensus of it, but that is fine if in the pursuit of truth, but not if in the pursuit of falsehood.
I would have a legal remedy against intentional plagiarism, the deliberate attempt to claim authorship of another's work. Copying and building upon another's work is fine, so there's no need to falsely claim something is entirely original if it has actually involved copying from another. Naturally, the default expectation is that no work is entirely original.
"No one owns anyone else's opinion of himself. Jones can't have a property right in Smith's opinion of anyone, including himself. That's why in a libertarian world, there would be no laws against libel, slander, and defamation."
Like many libertarian ideals, this runs aground on the shoals of reality, and as usual particularly that of economic inequity.
Public figures like presidents and CEOs and famous actors and so forth have the means to fund their own PR operation to put a positive spin on events concerning them and to reply to any attacks with counterclaims and rebuttals.
Joe Random does not.
In your world, Joe Random essentially has no recourse if, say, several people decide (for whatever reason) they don't like him and maliciously gang up to spread lies about him.
Formerly, his attackers would probably have had to go through a publisher of some sort to get a large enough audience to include almost everyone important to Joe -- family, friends, potential future lovers or employers, present boss and coworkers, and so forth.
That publisher then makes a single, high-profile target whose own reputation may be diminished. It could also be bought off, though probably not by Joe, or in the real world be sued for libel. You'd remove that last remedy.
On the other hand, it's looking increasingly moot because of a new publishing engine. Joe's attackers can defame him on the Internet, and Google and other search engines will index their vicious lies and direct anyone searching on Joe's name directly to their crap. It may not reach a particularly large number of people, but it is likely to reach everyone important to Joe, to the extent that everyone who wants to check up on Joe does a Google search on his name.
Ultimately, Joe is in for a world of hurt if he cannot also go after his attackers themselves for libel, say because you got your wish and that law was struck down. For they can just keep repeating their nasty claims, and we all know (from the example set by the advertising industry) that repetition makes a message stick in peoples' minds, and that when a message sticks in someone's mind they tend to default to behaving as if it were true. If that message is "Joe is a nasty person", then people who have seen it repeated often enough will start to be wary around or not want to associate with Joe, without even thinking about it. The subconscious mind just forms associations, and in this case, a negative one; it doesn't really think and it can't generally reject anything it keeps seeing repeated.
Repetition will also pump up the Google rankings of the attack-o-grams.
There are only four ways that Joe can deal with this situation. 1. He can take legal action, but not in your world. 2. He can simply ignore the attackers, but before long those present for the repeated accusations and those Googling him as part of things like background checks will want nothing more to do with him. Even those who would claim to be open-minded or not prone to believe just anything they hear will, in the presence of an oft-repeated claim and in the absence of any counterclaim, tend to drift toward having a negative opinion of Joe. Eventually Joe becomes unemployed and largely ostracized from society. In some countries, this may mean he starves. The more likely eventual outcome is suicide. But really, his attackers have murdered him. 3. He can convince the attackers to stop somehow. If the attackers are cold-blooded malefactors, that will mean paying them off or submitting to some demand or other. Joe becomes the victim of blackmail and extortion. 4. He can put out a countermessage, equal and opposite to his attackers' message, but that may well turn into a full-time job. For his countermessage to be effective, it will have to exploit the same repetition effects that his attackers' message exploits. In particular, to rank up there with the attack message on Google it will have to be repeated at least as often, and to make the people reading the attack messages maximally likely to see the countermessage whenever they do so, every occurrence of an attack will need a separate reply. Joe's attackers, given they outnumber him, will be able to generate as a part-time hobby more attack messages than Joe can generate countermessages working 24/7 at doing so, unless Joe resorts to automation, whereupon Joe has been forced to become a spammer in self-defense! Joe's attackers will simply respond by automating their attacks, and/or complaining to Joe's Internet provider. Eventually everyone is forced onto abuse-friendly providers and then the attackers force Joe to spend as much on bandwidth as the attackers' combined budgets for same, in order to equal or exceed their output.
Things look pretty dismal for Joe, unless he has recourse to legal action in response to false and damaging claims published about him, or he is fortunate enough never to get this kind of negative attention from even a handful of people. (All it takes to outgun Joe is *two* people that hate his guts and decide to gang up on him. Even Gandhi probably had at least that many people hate his guts. Most of us probably have more.)
Barring an alteration to human nature that renders this kind of repetition-based "advertising effect" to influence people moot, it is clear that a world without enforced anti-defamation laws is not a world anyone but the deep-pocketed will find livable for very long. (The deep-pocketed can have their own PR agency representing them and defending them in public, and often have public visibility that, if they behave themselves, can be used to maintain a solid reputation despite any mudslinging and rumormongering.)
Indeed, enforcement seems to need to become stronger, so that it's easy for someone without a lot of money to get damages and injunctions from defamers (perhaps by allowing people to sue defamers in small claims court and get injunctions), and so that they can go after overseas defamers. A "notice and takedown" system to get service providers to pull down defamatory material would also come in handy. If Joe's attackers start a blog called "Why Joe Sucks", for example, and then delete any comments by Joe trying to defend himself, Joe's current only recourse if he can't afford lawyers or the blog's hosted overseas is to start his own blog about what a great guy he is and try to get it to rank higher in Google than the enemy blog, which may cost Joe quite a lot in hosting fees and fees for SEO and other services. A "notice and takedown" system with international scope would let Joe pull the plug on the "Why Joe Sucks" blog if it was caught saying anything untrue and nasty about Joe. (Allowing "sucks" sites targeting corporations, and perhaps also certain categories of public figures, seems necessary in the interests of consumer protection and freedom of political speech, but there is no public interest in allowing any random private individual to be publicly vilified in front of a worldwide audience of billions!)
On the other hand, your libertarian ideals will, as usual, leave the less well-off stuck between a rock and a hard place. Currently they lack economic power, but don't lack political power; indeed, the majority are non-rich more or less by definition of "rich", so the strata of society tend to gain in political power as they lose in economic power (or would, with the right campaign finance reforms, in the case of the US). They also don't have individually strong voices, while the rich do, but what the rich can say is constrained by libel law and the rich make a high-visibility target, which helps prevent this disproportionate speech power from too disadvantaging the poor (and even the middle classes).
The rise of the Internet has been a mixed blessing here; everyone may potentially reach a large audience now, but this doesn't stop ordinary Joes being outgunned; all that has to happen is for Joe to be outnumbered now. And his opponents may not be especially high-profile targets, nor easily located to serve legal documents to. Indeed, his opponents may be essentially anonymous and of unknown precise number, or be a single malefactor with a bot masquerading as a lynch mob of thousands of screaming enemies.
What recourse would you suggest for Joe against this kind of crap, if not legal remedies? In your society market power is everything and Joe has next to none; Joe's political power is useless and, in fact, diminishes as the attacks wear on. Joe hasn't the means or expertise to fight fire with fire (attack his attacker) and may not even know the attacker's identity, and hasn't the means or expertise to fight it with water either (rebut every nasty claim made, and outshout his opponent(s) or out-SEO them).
As near as I can tell, the only think going for Joe is your wishful thinking that people will actually be the rational actors in ideal market theory, and will completely discount the nonsense being said about Joe by his detractor(s).
With that and a dollar, Joe can buy a cuppa.
"Merely uttering words, even intentionally false and defamatory ones, is not a crime. Sleazy and unethical yes, but criminal and legally actionable no. Otherwise every politician would be in the hoosegaw for something other than theft."
And this would be a BAD thing? :P
"People have no need in their liberty to impair the truth."
Right on -- at least in principle. In practise, the option should remain to conceal elements of one's lifestyle or similarly, and even to lie to do so, and this should remain so for as long as the majority is prone to tyrannize some minority or another.
Right now, for example, all hell would break loose if all gays currently in the closet were outed, perhaps because they were suddenly prevented legally from alibiing themselves for time spent on gay activities, or similarly. A fair number of them would be exposed to violence, and a larger number to job loss or other economic or social hardships, in various backwards places.
Ideally, mistreatment of minorities defined by some non-harmful common factor in their appearance, nature, or behavior should not occur. In the real world, some kind of counterweight has to exist, and that counterweight is called "privacy" and it sometimes must be defended with white lies.
"What if I have steal a nuke to save the world from aliens or something?"
What happens if any nut who *believes* he has to steal a nuke to save the world from aliens is given access to nukes? :P
[Comment at 07/25/2008 06:58 AM by None of your business]
@None of your business
Changing times means changing people. Of course, the internet makes it easier for people to anonymously spread lies about someone. Sensible people, therefore, do not put much faith into such anonymous messages of hate. Sensible people base their opinions on the evidence, wherever available. Using the internet, one might solicit Joe Random's website or Joe Random himself for evidence if it is deemed necessary. I think you are grossly overestimating the power of defamation. Even if you're right, people will adapt their behavior (put less faith into people claiming bad things about other people without providing evidence) to remedy the situation.
You say "Barring an alteration to human nature that renders this kind of repetition-based 'advertising effect' to influence people moot, it is clear that a world without enforced anti-defamation laws is not a world anyone but the deep-pocketed will find livable for very long."
You make this type of argument very often, each time asserting that government intervention in some particular case is absolutely necessary because poor people otherwise will suffer terribly. Forgive me for not giving you much credit for it, especially since it is again provided without any evidence at all.
You say "Right on -- at least in principle [people have no need in their liberty to impair the truth]. In practise, the option should remain to conceal elements of one's lifestyle or similarly, and even to lie to do so, and this should remain so for as long as the majority is prone to tyrannize some minority or another."
In practice, I have never found it necessary to lie and I'm very fond of privacy. One could also say, instead of lying, "none of your business" - an approach of which I'm sure you are aware. People who value privacy might make it a habit of saying "none of your business" when they cannot verify a need to know in the inquirer, to camouflage the times when they have something to hide with the times that they don't.
However, I agree that lies are not necessarily fraud, and fraud is what we should be most angry about. I don't think I would want to live in a society where lying is a crime, even if I think lying is hardly ever necessary.
[Comment at 07/26/2008 12:53 AM by Kid]
'The Truth' in a natural rights sense is not 'truth' in the boolean sense, nor truth in the absolute (unknowable, all seeing god) sense, but an inference of the truth as we, the public, should know it. It is truth as consensus, a socially apprehensible construct of knowledge of the facts. It is society's grasp of what the truth is as far as it can and should be aware. Such a 'public' truth, far from exhaustive, is vital to a society in order that its citizens' rights can be protected.
So, whilst people have no need in their liberty to impair the truth, this does not preclude the use of falsehood to avoid compromising one's privacy (if that is all the falsehood does). This is because one's private domain, one's repository of secrets, is not part of the truth.
However, an invasion of privacy in pursuit of truth may be warranted in the protection of life or arbitration of privacy (note the use of 'warranted' rather than 'worth a try on the off-chance the astrologist was right'). In this case those critical facts that may be found within someone's private domain rightfully become part of the public truth and the private citizen then has no right to impairment through falsehood.
So, Bill Clinton should not have been questioned about Lewinsky and had a right to protect his privacy through falsehood ("I did not have sex with that woman"), given the details of his private affairs were unnecessary to the protection of anyone else's right to life or privacy. His falsehood did not therefore impair the truth.
"Of course, the internet makes it easier for people to anonymously spread lies about someone. Sensible people, therefore, do not put much faith into such anonymous messages of hate."
Conscious decisions of what to believe are not at issue.
"Sensible people base their opinions on the evidence, wherever available."
Malefactors can often fake "evidence" that's convincing enough to the general populace. Ever heard of Piltdown Man?
Furthermore, conscious decisions of what to believe are not at issue.
People can be persuaded, UNconsciously, by sheer repetition. The entire advertising industry's business model is predicated on this, and it seems to be successful enough. (It's actually doomed, but for unrelated reasons, to wit the loss of a captive audience and the rise of video-on-demand and similar technologies. All future media are increasingly user-controllable, and there will always be things like AdBlock Plus.)
Repeating something often enough makes it stick in someone's memory. Whether it's true or false, and even if they KNOW it's false, once this has occurred it will tend to influence them whenever they are not consciously making an effort to discount it.
For your world to work, people must become much less susceptible to indoctrination and subconscious manipulation. I don't foresee that happening until there's advanced genetic engineering or nanotechnology, and it's unlikely that the first to obtain such methods will use it for anything like so desirable a purpose. They may, on the other hand, use their new capabilities to establish a permanent monopoly, so that there will be no SECOND to obtain such methods...
"You make this type of argument very often, each time asserting that government intervention in some particular case is absolutely necessary because poor people otherwise will suffer terribly. Forgive me for not giving you much credit for it, especially since it is again provided without any evidence at all."
That's a vicious lie -- I have provided plenty of evidence and reasoning to support my arguments.
The basic reasoning is that your ideal world seems to have only two types of power -- economic, or market power, and physical force. The poor have, BY DEFINITION, little market power; there are no market incentives to provide for them, because they can't afford to pay the going rate. POSSIBLY if the marginal cost of all basic necessities went to zero (nanotechnology?) the poor could get by in a capitalist anarchy. Otherwise, they just starve, or else they try to violently overthrow things.
The desperate poor of your world will be the source of quite a high crime rate. Lots of robberies and muggings will occur, and of course with only private security and no real police, your world breaks down into streets full of poor people fighting over scraps, plus a few heavily guarded gated communities of the well-off, along with their tank-like armored limos to convey them around.
We already have places sort of like that. They're the Third World countries that lack rule of law and have some strong business interests located in them. Mexico resembles the projected structure of your "ideal" world; though it legally has a normal government, that government is even more bought and paid for than the US government, and is effectively the private security firm of the rich (while also guarding tourists, a significant source of income).
Your "ideal" world ends up looking very similar, save that the legal fiction of a legitimate government is avoided and the defacto private security firm for the rich is also legally and politically up front about being so.
And there is the empirical evidence for the things I say. Countries with no functioning government, or where the government is bought and might as well therefore be a private corporation, exhibit a whole lot of negative traits and tend to be a) tax shelters for the rich and b) places where lots of poor people are dying, frequently violently, and lots more keep fleeing as refugees. Only if you had your way there'd be noplace different for the refugees to go.
"In practice, I have never found it necessary to lie and I'm very fond of privacy. One could also say, instead of lying, "none of your business""
Unfortunately, there have been many places and times where "none of your business" is regarded as incriminating. When someone pleads the Fifth, you generally suspect that they're guilty of something, right? And isn't the credo of at least one world leader "if you aren't with us you're against us"? In lots of places, there is no "right to remain silent" or there is a "presumed guilty until proven innocent" attitude, even in legal situations, and in those cases remaining silent may not suffice; no, you'll have to vehemently deny any truth in the accusations.
Even in countries where the legal rule is "innocent until proven guilty", that only affects criminal prosecution by the government. When people privately decide who to dislike and who to avoid doing business with, their attitude is, quite usually, "guilty until proven innocent". After all, it's a business risk that's avoidable -- you can generally always find someone to do business with that DOESN'T have whatever nasty rumor circulating about them.
When it comes to issues where some people have strong negative feelings, it gets even worse. A *suspicion* that someone is, say, homosexual can result in viciousness. If they don't engage in deception and manufacture the appearance of being hetero, they will generally continue to be mistreated. In some places, staying in the closet is both essential and impossible without deliberate disguise, because to the hate-mongers someone is presumed gay until proven straight!
The same applies to other areas of, generally, religious repression. During the Spanish Inquisition, it wasn't enough not to be openly Muslim or pagan; one had to be seen to be practising Christianity, or one would be tortured and killed. If one was not a genuine believer, one was either lying or a dead man walking.
Of course, you might argue that inquisitions like that require the kinds of government you'd abolish, but that simply isn't true. Any bunch of rabble can form into a lynch mob. And in your world, no police would restrain them from acting against members of the lower socio-economic classes.
There are places in the Deep South where they'd still lynch blacks more or less at random if they could get away with it. There are places all over the country where they'll lynch gays. There are pockets of antisemitism and other forms of hate here and there, too. In your world, it might be very bad to be one of whatever the target-of-hate-du-jour might be unless you were also fairly wealthy, wealthy enough to pay for private security and to have enough freedom of movement and transaction to be able to avoid the haters. The poor will be stuck dealing with whoever can supply basic necessities within a walking distance of their hovel, and if none of them will serve a black man, or a gay one, or whatever, then they starve. That's assuming they don't starve anyway for lack of money.
Ultimately, government is needed to do two things. One is to provide something of a level playing field for the economic activities, and to referee these; in the absence of such, the wealthy have an advantage in every transaction and will maintain their position at everyone else's expense, i.e. you'll have an aristocracy.
Another is to provide a safety net for those who fall off the playing field. Poor that at least are guaranteed a roof over their heads, three square meals a day, and some amount of freedom so long as they behave are poor that will not rise up in arms, or go out mugging and burglarizing, as a general rule. Poor that can look forward only to slow starvation quite literally have nothing to lose by trying to obtain basic necessities through violence. And without government, who will charitably give food to these poor? Certainly not private business, except maybe as part of the occasional PR stunt. Charities of some sort? Chronically underfunded in the real world. Probably even more so in a world run by ruthless corporations where anyone but the rich needs to be a penny-pincher or risk joining those masses of poor.
I suppose you'd suggest that they all just get jobs, but as a rule there won't be enough jobs to go around, and there's the whole defamation thing, too -- who will employ someone that's a minority they don't like, or who has rumors swirling about them, when there are plenty of qualified applicants that don't have these traits? Remember, with no strong government there's no affirmative action, no legal restrictions against hiring discrimination, none of that; and for most jobs there will be plenty of qualified applicants. The rest are top-skilled professions, where one can generally write one's own ticket, and won't be available to the poor, since they won't be able to pay for an education and your government (if there even is one) sure as hell won't provide them one for free!
That's ignoring the plight of those unable to work anyway. In your world, if you have a career-ending injury, it's a life-ending injury, because no job = no money, no money = no medical care, and no medical care = you can't get it fixed and go back to work, and maybe the injury kills you outright where it might not have done with proper treatment. Regardless, being permanently benched in your world means you starve, unless you resort to robbing grocery stores or something to keep fed.
Moreover, robots will replace more and more unskilled work soon. In doing so, they may lower the prices of basic goods, including food, but they won't lower it to zero straight away, and meanwhile there will be no work available for those without a university degree level education or above. And in your world, no university degrees available for those who don't have a few tens of thousands of dollars lying around someplace or else a job. Catch-22. How many would starve between then and the marginal cost of food bottoming out near zero?
I don't expect the poor would be able to get by hunting and gathering, either. Those methods cannot sustain large or dense populations, and there will be six billion people below the poverty line by that point. There are five NOW.
Special Needs Company Super Duper Fights Mattel to Use Trademark SAY in Product Titles
http://www.mmdnewswire.com/super-duper-9171.html
Fourth Circuit Judges Let Mattel Take ''SAY'' Away from Special Needs Company Super Duper Publications and Give Mattel $3.6 Million Greenville, South Carolina (MMD Newswire) July 5, 2010 -- In a decision that turns trademark law on its head, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Dennis Shedd, G. Stephen Agee, and Clyde Hamilton, have upheld a trial court verdict ordering special needs educational company Super Duper Publications www.superduperinc.com to pay $3.6 million to Mattel Toy Company (of which $2.6 million is attorney's fees) and to stop using the word SAY in seven of its product titles. According to these judges (and trial court Judge Henry Floyd), the use of the word SAY by Super Duper in titles of speech and language therapy materials it makes for children with autism and other communication disorders, infringes on the trademark of a Mattel toy called SEE 'N SAY and dilutes this Mattel trademark. http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/091397.U.pdf The court reached this conclusion even though there was no evidence at trial that for more than 17 years of Super Duper's existence anyone had ever been confused between a Super Duper SAY educational product and the Mattel toy. The court reached this conclusion even though there was no evidence that people think that the Mattel toy named SEE 'N SAY is "famous" similar to the names BARBIE or KODAK. The court reached this conclusion even though there was no evidence that anyone ever thought of the Mattel toy when they heard the names of Super Duper's SAY educational materials like FISH AND SAY, SORT AND SAY, or SEE IT SAY IT. Significantly, instead of issuing a published opinion in which they would have had to analyze the evidence according to established trademark law, the three judges chose to issue an "unpublished" opinion, which the court emphasized is "not binding precedent in this circuit." The result was Judges Shedd, Agee, and Hamilton rubber stamped Judge Floyd's trail court decision even though the evidence did not support this incredibly unfair result. The trial record indicates in 1987 Super Duper began using the word SAY in titles of books, games, card decks, and other materials it created for special needs children. www.superduperinc.com For 17 years Super Duper produced SAY materials and obtained registered trademarks on its SAY products without objection from Mattel or any person and with the approval of the US Patent and Trademark Office. In 2004, Mattel opposed Super Duper's application to register the name SORT AND SAY on a series of educational magnetic games, claiming consumers were likely to confuse these educational products with Mattel's SEE 'N SAY electronic toy. Mattel later sought to cancel three other registered SAY trademarks owned by Super Duper. The dispute ended up in federal court, where Super Duper sought protection of the court, Mattel sued Super Duper for $10 million of Super Duper's profits, claiming Super Duper had engaged in trademark infringement and trademark dilution. For those of you who are not familiar with this toy by its name, SEE 'N SAY is an electronic toy that plays a sound when you pull a lever. ("The cow says...moooo.") Super Duper's highly specialized materials are used by professionals in therapy to help children with autism and other communication disorders improve their speech and language skills. Mattel's toy is used as a plaything by children. The only professionals to testify at trial, two speech pathologists, stated they had used many Super Duper SAY products in therapy and had never confused them with the Mattel toy. According to the trial testimony of Super Duper owners Thomas and Sharon Webber, "these products completely different, and the chances of anyone ever confusing them are nearly impossible". Mattel sells its toys to the general consumer market through large retail outlets like Wal-Mart and Target, while Super Duper sells its educational materials primarily to speech pathologists and special educators only through its own mail order catalog and website. The two companies never attend the same trade shows, have completely different packaging designs and logos, advertise in entirely different media outlets, and have no overlap in distributing their products. In its appeal before Judges Shedd, Agee, and Hamilton, Super Duper argued that a proper application of the Fourth Circuit's seven-step trademark infringement analysis would lead the court to conclude that there was no likelihood of confusion between the Super Duper SAY products and the Mattel toy. In their opinion, the judges chose not to apply this seven step analysis, and instead summarily ruled that the "likelihood of confusion" issue was a matter for the jury to decide. And that is not all. The court went even further by upholding the jury's finding that Super Duper's use of SAY diluted the Mattel SEE 'N SAY mark. In order to reach this conclusion, the jury had to find that: (1) the term SEE N' SAY was a "famous" mark on a level similar with marks such as BARBIE and KODAK; (2) consumers "associate" the Super Duper SAY names with the name of the Mattel toy (even though Mattel did not present ANY evidence of this association at trial.) In other words, the judges upheld the jury finding that when average people hear the name of these seven Super Duper SAY therapy products, like its "FISH AND SAY" game or SEE IT SAY IT flip book, they immediately think of the SEE 'N SAY Mattel toy and believe that Mattel has made FISH AND SAY or SEE IT SAY IT educational materials; and (3) Mattel was entitled to $1 million in profits that Super Duper had made on these SAY products since 1987, even though Mattel admitted the sale of Super Duper's items did not impact Mattel's sales at all.
Super Duper is appealing this decision. Media Contact: Name Nancy Wolfe Email speakup@speakupforsay.com Phone 864-243-9000
[Comment at 07/06/2010 04:17 AM by Nancy Wolfe]
Interesting, and clearly an outrageous decision by that appellate court.
But next time, please use these nifty things called "paragraphs" to organize your text. It would make it much easier to read.
[Comment at 07/07/2010 02:29 AM by Nobody Nowhere]
Super Duper is finally getting what it deserves. There are so many people out there that they have screwed (ex-employees) that are provding Mattel with the REAL story about Super Duper. It is not just about "SAY", it is about a company that takes advantage of everyone they meet to market their cheap chinese junk and all the little people they have stolen ideas from!
[Comment at 07/22/2010 09:50 AM by ByteMe]
UnoSixZeroQuatro:


>long record of being able to fool people.
We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high.
We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns.
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!


text:
Companies that develop innovative technologies and solutions in wastewater management
Innovative corporations in wastewater management
The sustainable future for wastewater management
*Updated November 2022
In the newest issue of the Innovating Sustainability series, we teamed up with Supertrends to explore the most influential and disruptive technology trends that will have the greatest impact on the wastewater management industry becoming more sustainable.
Through our platform and the collaborative help from Supertrends, we were able to generate data-driven insights on technology and companies in wastewater management, which helps to identify market disruption and opportunities with ease.
Staying ahead of disruptive technologies and new market trends is vital for businesses. Both Valuer and Supertrends platforms are created with the same goal in mind: to help companies make better, data-driven decisions that drive sustainable growth.
Together we offer a larger range of actionable intelligence, and our complementary features cover almost every angle that decision-makers need to assess in order to navigate the challenges of innovation and the uncertainties of the future.
The report includes valuable data, technology in wastewater management, market predictions, important milestones, case studies, and more.
The publication covers three topics relevant to wastewater management: smart water management, wastewater treatment, and sludge management.
The importance of wastewater management innovation
One person's trash is another one's gold. This saying is particularly relevant when we talk about wastewater management and its circular economic nature. Innovation within this industry is imperative as the average family wastes around 9,400 gallons of water per year, while farming and agriculture account for 70% of the worldwide consumption of freshwater.
Mix this in with poor recovery technologies, pollution, contaminants, and freshwater recourses can expect to see issues with growing scarcity, environmental degradation, and potentially irreparable damage. The long-term solution lies not in drastically cutting water usage but rather in innovative technologies and practices in wastewater management and wastewater treatment.
This is why in this month's innovating sustainability report, we are taking a deeper look into this industry and using our platform to help highlight and identify the technology trends and innovative companies in wastewater management.
The full version of the Innovating Sustainability report includes four case studies: three corporations (SUEZ Group, Veolia, and Xylem) that implement sustainable wastewater management practices and one startup that develops innovative technology (Kando).
Inspired by these companies, we decided to highlight even more startups and corporations that implement and develop sustainable solutions and technologies within wastewater management.
Innovative wastewater management companies
Hydria Water
Hydra Water provides solutions to water and wastewater treatment plants. It is specialized in robust mechanical sludge and solids removal from inlet to outlet, with an offering encompassing installation, service, and production of high-quality equipment.
Sofi Filtration
Sofi Filtration specializes in industrial water filtration. It targets industries with large water streams with fine particle contaminations, providing a microfiltration technology adapted to various applications.
Anue Water Technologies
Anue Water Technologies is a wastewater treatment company providing solutions for wastewater odor, industrial corrosion control, municipal sewage water, and process water applications. Its technologies reduce operational costs for sustainable water treatment.
Apx10™
APX10 helps water, wastewater, and district heating utility sectors to leverage the rapidly growing amount of data via its big data analytics platform. Their products provide actionable, data-driven insights through dynamic presentations, including GIS maps, heat maps, and charts.
Aquagreen
AquaGreen is a CleanTech company that promotes a sustainable approach to wastewater treatment that destroys microplastics, medicine residues, and other harmful organic compounds and captures heavy metals. To this end, the company's technology dries wet biomass residue and treats it with pyrolysis, turning it into biochar and thermal energy.
Aqua Robur Technologies
Aqua Robur Technologies offers an IoT-based system and wastewater management solution that leverages the technology to detect leaks and other potentially harmful malfunctions in public water systems through data collection and measurement. The system uses prospective communication technologies such as Narrow-Band IoT, LTE-M, and LoRa-WAN.
C-Green technology
C-Green Technology develops an alternative sludge wastewater treatment. The company offers OxyPower HTC, a process that converts sludge to biofuel and thus promotes a cost-efficient and sustainable approach.
Kando
Kando is a smart wastewater solution provider that detects early-stage water events within the wastewater network and offers real-time insights for the wastewater management team to help them prevent damage to the network. It provides a SaaS platform that provides the clients with well-informed management of wastewater networks.
Puraffinity
Puraffinity develops and creates biologically derived purification materials for water and wastewater treatment. It specializes in designing and developing bio-based novel absorbents capable of removing pollutants from contaminated water and wastewater. The company's Customised Granular Media is significantly more efficient in eliminating PFAS than traditional methods like advanced oxidation processes, adsorption resins, ultraviolet treatment, and carbon nanotubes.
Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies Inc.
Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies is a sustainable water treatment and nutrient recovery solutions, provider. Applying a more systemic approach to managing nutrient flows, the company produces solutions that facilitate cyclical phosphorus utilization while contributing to clean water and food security.
Trea Tech
TreaTech is developing a patented wastewater solution for the disposal and recycling of sewage sludge and all types of wet waste. TreaTech's solution enables the disposal of liquid waters, turning them into byproducts such as biogas, clean water, and mineral salts that can further be upgraded to phosphorus products such as fertilizers.
Oxymem
OxyMem is a spin-off company that has developed a technology based on MABR (Membrane Aerated Biofilm Reactor), patented and commercialized in 2013. It replaces the traditional activated sludge process in wastewater treatment which reduces the costs of wastewater treatment plants, thus enhancing their system's efficiency.
Pharem Biotech
Pharem Biotech is a biotechnology profit organization that produces enzymatic products to remove organic pollutants in water. Its filtration system removes harmful organic and pharmaceutical components from wastewater through enzyme neutralization occurring in the filter chambers.
Axine Water
Axine Water leverages advanced electrochemical oxidation technology for industrial wastewater treatment. The company developed an in-house proprietary reactor that eliminates water pollutants through oxidation, creating byproducts that can be further used and water that can be reused in industrial processes.
Nexom
Nexom is a company that provides its clients with biological and filtration-based technologies for wastewater treatment and nutrient removal. Its offering contains several different technological processes for the removal of nitrogen, phosphorus, and select metals.
Orege
Orege is a cleantech company that develops, manufactures, and markets municipal and industrial sludge treatment solutions. Orege's SLG (solid, liquid, gas) changes the rheology and properties of the sludge, allowing for better and quicker isolation of sludge solids from the filtrate.
Epic CleanTec
Epic CleanTec provides individual buildings with a circular wastewater treatment system, enabling the clients to recycle their water. It uses the solids from wastewater to produce a high-quality, carbon-rich, and endlessly renewable soil product, while the remaining water gets returned for toilet flushing or watering lawns.
Kuraray Aqua
Kuraray Aqua is a company that provides wastewater treatment solutions. Their flagship product is the PVA-Gel, made for aerobic treatment, nitrification, and wastewater denitrification.
SUEZ Group
SUEZ Group has been operating in the water and waste management industry for 160 years. It provides solutions for smart and sustainable management of resources worldwide. It was among the first companies to join the "Business Ambition for 1.5°C: Our Only Future" campaign launched in 2019 by the United Nations Global Compact.
SUEZ Group has defined and is committed to implementing its strategic plan, Shaping SUEZ 2030, which aims to increase the group's positive contribution to creating value in a world affected by climate change. With this plan, the Suez Group aims to strengthen its leading role in preserving the environment and restoring natural capital by accelerating the deployment of the circular economy.
The basis of the Shaping SUEZ 2030 plan is the company's value proposition: offering a portfolio of sustainable solutions with high added value. The portfolio directly contributes to human health and quality of life, supporting a sustainable, circular economy leading to a reduced carbon footprint in the industrial sector.
This is one of the three commitments for 2030 aligned with the 1.5°C trajectories. The other two are to reduce the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions from its activities by 45% and help its customers avoid 20 million tons of CO2 equivalent a year by 2030.
SUEZ has already made headway towards its goals. For 2019, the company reported successes in its social and environmental impacts. In terms of water scarcity, 41.4 million people received drinking water and sanitation services in developing countries.
Additionally, the group achieved 79.8% technical efficiency in drinking water distribution networks. SUEZ also reported that in 2019 it sorted and recycled 400,950 tons of plastic, produced 7.1 billion m³ of drinking water, recovered 50.9% of waste in material or energy form, and enabled customers to save 10.2 million tons of CO2.
Veolia is a French transnational company providing water, waste, and energy management solutions, aiming to be the benchmark for ecological transformation. In 2020, the company supplied 95 million people with drinking water, 62 million people with wastewater services and treated 47 million metric tons of waste. With figures as high as these, Veolia has a significant role to play in combating climate change.
Veolia is committed to all 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and directly impacts 13. This means that there's a direct link between Veolia's operational performance and its ability to respond to the international community's new targets.
The company's Impact 2023 strategic program aims to deliver multifaceted economic, financial, commercial, social, societal, and environmental performance. To this end, Veolia will invite independent third parties to audit and measure its 28 key performance indicators and progress on the 2023 targets.
Concerning environmental performance, Veolia has set up four indicators: combating climate change, circular economy, protecting natural environments and biodiversity, and sustainable management of water resources.
Measured against a 2019 baseline, the company has set a target to avoid an equivalent of 15 million metric tons of CO2 and achieve a volume of 610,000 metric tons of recycled plastic by 2023. Additionally, Veolia aims to achieve more than 75% efficiency in drinking water networks by 2023.
From 2015 to 2020, the company's CSR roadmap has included commitments related to resourcing the planet, resourcing regions, and the company's workforce. For 2019, Veolia reported that it generated €5.2 billion in revenue in the circular economy. Additionally, it captured 60.7% of the methane from landfills it operates, reduced 78.2 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents, and avoided a further 33.2 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents.
Xylem is a water technology company providing solutions in more than 150 countries. It is dedicated to creating innovative and smart technology solutions that address the world's water, wastewater, and energy challenges.
Xylem's contribution to sustainability has led to the company receiving an ESG rating of AAA from MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) and the top Systainalytics score for the industrial machinery industry. Additionally, as of December 2020, Xylem occupies the first place among the companies with the highest environmental, social, and governance capital as a percent of the market capitalization of all large-cap companies (<$9 billion).
Xylem's approach to sustainability is centered around its commitment to deliver solutions that will help its customers achieve their sustainability goals, build sustainable business operations and practices, and provide support to communities affected by water shortages and economic challenges. This is encompassed in its comprehensive set of 2025 Sustainability Goals, with eight goals focused on the world's most urgent water challenges.
The company has set out to save more than 16.5 billion m³ of water and treat 13 billion m³ of water for reuse. Additionally, it plans to provide access to clean water and sanitation solutions for at least 20 million people living at the base of the global economic pyramid. Xylem aims to power its major facilities with 100% renewable energy and recycle 100% of the process water for its operations.
By 2021, Xylem has made significant progress toward reaching its 2025 targets. Its 2020 milestones include treating 4.3 billion m³ of water for reuse, representing 33% of its 2025 cumulative goal, and preventing 1.4 billion m³ of polluted water from flooding communities or entering local waterways.
Additionally, it achieved a reduction of 0.7 million metric tons of CO2, representing 24% of its 2050 cumulative goal. Furthermore, 10 of its 22 major facilities have switched to using 100% renewable energy, and two facilities use 100% process water recycling.
Green is definitely the new black, as sustainability is progressively becoming a priority for companies and investors alike. This shift towards a circular economy in wastewater management is being propelled by disruptive startups in the industry along with innovative corporations who are embracing sustainable business solutions.
Sustainable technologies and solutions are the way forward and are a massive new market opportunity that you will want to stay on top of. But in order to for all this innovation to thrive, there is an important component, and that is collaboration.
It is through collaboration that innovation can really take off and expand. In that direction, Valuer's offering encompasses connecting clients with innovative companies based on technology, industry, company description, and patent features. After pinpointing a selection of relevant entities, our research team prepares bespoke reports highlighting companies, services, technologies, and more, aiding our clients find new business opportunities.
Innovating Sustainability: The Future of Energy Management
innovation sustainability SDG energy management systems
Innovating Sustainability: The Future of Waste Management
innovation sustainability waste management
Platform in Action: Energy Management
Data-Driven Innovation valuer innovation platform Valuer platform
A Field Guide to Finding Supply Chain Partnerships
Partnership market opportunity supply chain


One of the top app development companies. Brilliant web team, really creative geniuses!
I knew I wanted my business to grow, just wasn't sure how. They helped me clarify my ideas and delivered just the apps I needed.
If you are searching for mobile application developers, this is the team you are searching for. They are genius with creative designs!


text:
The Idolator Interview: Butch Walker And Patrick Stump
noah | December 16, 2008 12:00 pm
It's no secret that the denizens of Idolator HQ are big fans of both Fall Out Boy and really smart pop, so having FOB frontman Patrick Stump and pop troubadour Butch Walker interview each other is kind of the perfect way to introduce our new series of conversations between artists. After the jump, the two have a friendly chat about first concerts, free stuff, and how each developed his signature singing style.
BUTCH: When I first saw you sing with Fall Out Boy, you were much younger and were singing pretty damn good for then, but you have since evolved into a much more soulful voice for the band. Did you always want that, but took time and maturing to grow into that kind of singer? Or did you sing for the genre when you were younger? Did you always grow up listening to soul singers?
PATRICK: When I started it was in the hardcore scene which was very accepting of our band as people, but barely accepting of pop-punk music in the first place. We were too heavy for the pop-punk kids, too happy for the emo kids, and too light for the hardcore kids. So I feel in retrospect A) it was fear of being accepted and B) simple inexperience. I think I've been able to sing a lot of this stuff for a long time but just too much a wuss to do it in front of people. As for soul music, from the start of my career as a singer I'd always looked to soul singers as the be all and end all. I performed Marvin Gaye songs in the high school battle of the bands and stuff like that. Marvin, Otis, Solomon, Ray, Jackie, these were all who I looked to for inspiration. They're like the Hendrix, Clapton, Page, Vaughn, and Green of throats.
BUTCH: Do you find yourself ever wanting to do a solo album to showcase your diverse and eclectic styles and influences? I know there's a certain thing that you have to do for the band, but is there ever a time you want to just make your Under the Cherry Moon? Sorry if that's a bad reference.
PATRICK: I go back and forth on the idea of solo material because on the one hand my band allows me to be so hands on with our music that it really stretches the limits of the term "collaboration." On the other hand I occasionally write lyrics and I've never had an outlet for any of that. If I made a solo record though I don't think it would be as soul as everyone assumes it would be. I don't have a clue what type of music it would be and it'd have to meet my band's approval anyway. I don't know. Probably not going to do a solo record ever.
BUTCH: Do you guys get lots of free clothes? And if so, tell me which brands you love the most (don't say Clandestine!).
PATRICK: I don't personally get very many free clothes because I don't look very good in them haha. I have however gotten free stuff here and there from Supra, Nike, Mishka, and Diesel amongst others. I wear a lot of street wear stuff and for the most part I don't know a lot of people making street wear. I don't mind it anyway cause I think one should have to pay for stuff every now and then.
BUTCH: I worked with you on a song on the last FOB record and I was impressed with your ability to jump around different instruments to work out the idea for the song. I wonder if you ever left the house when you were young? I didn't much! Were you in school band?
PATRICK: The funny thing is I never had that many instruments as a kid. My dad had a guitar that I was too small to play (a Harmony 12 string that sounded terrible) and his only other guitar is his phenomenal 1969 Gibson that I was too terrified to touch. I spent most of my time learning drums banging on my knees with sticks or on buckets and stuff like that and to be honest I didn't get out very much, no. I was in school band off and on but I hated it. I just hated getting up so early and I thought band geeks were too cliquey and weird… the trumpet players wouldn't socialize with the woodwinds… I was like, "Man this is lame." I quit freshman year but snuck in during lunch period to play the piano and the upright basses.
BUTCH: Not only am I gonna ask what was your first concert ever, but also give me your exact memory of the whole day leading up to it. Anything you can remember… I want details all the way to bedtime.
PATRICK: I was 8 years old in about 1992 and Chicago had the world's best radio station. It was called WXRT and they played stuff I still haven't heard anywhere else to this day. They'd put together bitchin free shows at Grant Park every year but before I ever went to any of those I went to see a show they sponsored headlined by Midnight Oil. They were my favorite band ever on Earth at the time and my Dad had won 3 pairs of tickets to see them (!) One pair was up front, one pair was a bit further back, and one pair was on the lawn. Of course Pops made sure the closest seats were for the two of us. It was at the World Music Theater in Tinley Park (now I don't remember what it's named these days) and it couldn't have felt like a bigger deal. The set started with Hothouse Flowers who were totally awesome kind of Irish soul…they reminded me of a cross between Squeeze and Van Morrison. Next up, I had to pee. Dad and I were standing in line forever because we had never heard of the second act and we didn't care much. While we were at the porta-potties though we were like, "This is totally awesome! We're missing some good stuff!" We ran back to hear the last few bars of Paul Westerberg's set. We were disappointed in ourselves for putting piss over what I would later find out was "Alex Chilton." After that was Ziggy Marley and the Melody Makers, who were totally great but I feel about reggae the same way I feel about metal: I really only need like 5 records for my whole life. Ziggy hasn't made one of them. His dad made nearly all of them. Finally Midnight Oil came onstage. They were the perfect balance of punk rock energy, left-wing politics, tight performance and musicianship, great sound, intense stage presence, and sing-along choruses. Peter Garrett's intimidating frame and serious facial features scared the crap out 8 year old me, especially when he threw his harmonica into the sky into apparent oblivion after finishing his solo at the beginning of "Truganini." I left the show super stoked. I actually wrote Peter Garrett a letter once at the beginning of Fall Out Boy's success cause he entered Australian parliament. He wrote me back and said he'd check us out. Was pretty cool.
PATRICK: You've been in the business for a while. It's even been implied you were witness and participant to the late-'80s club scene. You still seem to be moved by music. How do you keep your appreciation alive?
BUTCH: I've never hidden from my past or tried to cover it up (there's this thing called the Internet… Maybe you've heard of it? It's definitely heard of everyone else). I'm proud of where I came from and all I've accomplished and tried to accomplish, but God knows I'm not that proud of some of the shit I said, sang, played, wore, produced in my early years. It's like looking at a high school year book 10 years later and going, "why did I wear those Limp Bizkit pants?" (or in my case, a Glass Tiger or Hagar-era Van Halen shirt). I digress… What my point is… I always want to grow, learn, evolve, progress and simply just get better at music. I love it and respect it way too much to draw on the negative of the career side of things, or to do a record, it flop and just go, "well that was a laugh… Back to the coffee shop." It motivates me when I hear a record by someone new that's like 12 years old and blowing my mind with what they can do. Or to find a record that missed my radar when I was young and I had my head too far up commercial music's vapid ass to even give it the time of day. This is one of the few things that gets old in life. Fuck being jaded and thinking you've heard it all by the time you're 18. I don't believe that is someone who truly loves music. That's just someone who loves to feel smart. Dumb your shit down every once in a while and LISTEN to music. Whew… Sorry… We are in trouble here aren't we?
PATRICK: I remember a piece I'd read that praised you as the go-to-guy for ballads for female artists. It didn't really mention much about your work with rock bands, even your Grammy. Just that you were very good at making big hits for the ladies. I, being a male who worked with you on a very uptempo song, wondered if you found that at all condescending or backhanded? I did, that's why I'm asking.
BUTCH: Good question, Patrick. It gets asked in different forms like, "why do you give away your best songs?" Or "how does it feel to be known as a producer and not an artist as much?". It all can be perceived as a bit backhanded, but I also know that the public believes what they are served. And let's face it, Avril sold a fuckload more records and was on TV a lot more than say Hot Hot Heat or Injected or The Donnas or even ME! I remember one time the guitarist for Injected (one of the first real records I ever produced for a big label) confronted me in a club recently and attacked me about never mentioning them in interviews when asked about shit I've done. I had to back him up and say, "Dude! They write and edit out what they choose to! I can't control the fact that they think Avril is a hotter topic than you!" Hell, most of the time, when I do an interview in support of one of my own records, the whole Q&A turns into questions about what's it like to work with Pink or Avril. Even my indie-est of friends are fascinated more by that than how I got the drum sound on that Injected record or whatever. It's ok though. I don't and shouldn't ever get upset that people are interested in what I'm doing. Being ignored your whole life? That only works for critics.
PATRICK: Most producers get into it because they were just never handsome or charismatic or talented enough to be the star. You're the rarity of a producer who's much cooler looking than the bands you work with but is totally capable of outplaying most any member of most any band at their instrument. How did you get into production in the first place?
BUTCH: Well I was a model in a runway show once, and the sound system broke during this hot model's walk (I think his name was Ashba or something) and I had to get his back, so I ran back to the sound board and found the problem. There was a shorted wire in the XLR connectors to the DAT machine that was playing his walk-out music, so I broke the wire with my teeth and hot-wired it with chewing gum tinfoil (Big Red!) and we were back in business. While he waited nervously for me to fix it on the catwalk, in the interim, I turned up the mic and started singing a song I was writing on the spot (I reached over to the dj mixer and turned the reverb up and made it sound like a gregorian chant. Models love that chant shit). It brought the house down. I never got to do the catwalk. I was in too high demand after that to produce music for fashion shows.
PATRICK: I don't want names, but you have to have bumped into some pretty nasty artists with pretty big chips on their shoulders. I'd like an anecdote about the most obnoxious personality you had the misfortune of working with, albeit as anonymously as you feel comfortable divulging.
BUTCH: I've been blessed to work with a lot of great people and people who are infamously known to be dicks, but were great to/with me. One person was… How should I put this… Not an asshole… Just not… There. I was in the studio in NY waiting for this person to show up for like, six hours. Now I'm not a knob jockey or some "hourly wage" dude. My time is my time and I don't like to be disrespected. I sat there and wrote the fucking song for them to sing, recorded every instrument, and all they had to do was come in and fucking sing. Well I get a phone call finally from them, not to apologize for running late or not even showing up to write the song with me (which they would later demand writing credit on)… But to ask me if I'd like to go to dinner with Paris Hilton instead. I was like, "I'm working.. Maybe you've heard of it?". They finally come down, brat-pack posse in tow. There's the token BFF (BeneFriend Forever!), the token little sister, the token GBGF (Gay Best Guy Friend, and a few other lucky sonofabitch hangers-on. GBGF starts trying to say to The Artist what HE doesn't like about the track (he's not in the music business btw. I've seen him jump like a parasite to about three other popular stars over the years). The little sister is freaking out over my shoes, and the assistant is frantic and acting melodramatic on her blackberry in the corner to make it seem like she's "working". Artist steps up to the mic to sing. First note is fucking horrible, out of tune, and cracking like a dinosaur bone in '08. They're like, "stop the music!!! I think I just damaged my vocal chord!!! The sister is crying. The GBGF is crying. The assistant is frantic, calling paramedics (no shit) to come to the studio. I run outside to call my manager to tell him I'm going home and that this is retarded. While I'm on the phone (it's only been 10 minutes), 2 whitecoat doctors come walking by me and into the studio (no shit). I walk in and instead of them checking their throat, they are giving them a cortisone shot in a zit about to come in. Unlike the last answer to the last question, this one is absolutely true. I couldn't make this shit up if I tried.
PATRICK: You have a pleasant rasp to your voice. I'd say it's a signature of your sound. It's very rock and roll but you're still capable of crooning. I was wondering (cause I doubt it's all "Whiskey and cigarettes" as the saying goes) how does that develop? Did you always have a little growl to your throat or did it grow over time?
BUTCH: As much as I want to say its the aforementioned anecdote, it's not. Age baby… I smoked a pack a day for 15 years and when I quit at 30, my voice got raspier and cooler sounding. Go figure. Always doing the backstroke in the sea of irony…
Butch Walker [MySpace]Fall Out Boy [MySpace]
Tags: bigpic=true, Butch Walker, Fall Out Boy, Interview, Patrick Stump


text:
The 1960 Australian Touring Car Championship was a CAMS sanctioned motor racing title for drivers of Appendix J Touring Cars. The title, which was the inaugural Australian Touring Car Championship, was contested over a single 20 lap, 75 mile race held on 1 February 1960 at the Gnoo Blas Motor Racing Circuit near Orange in New South Wales. The race was the first to be run under Appendix J Touring Car regulations, ushering in a new era that would last until January 1965 when CAMS replaced Appendix J with Group C for Improved Production Touring Cars.

The championship was won by David McKay driving a Jaguar Mark 1 3.4 Litre.

Race
This, the first Australian touring car race to be run under a set of national regulations which defined a level of modification, was dominated by the three Jaguar Mark 1 drivers. The journalist racer David McKay, remembered for his efforts promoting racing cars and sports cars with his Scuderia Veloce team, claimed the racing achievement he is best remembered for, in a touring car race.

A single day of practice was held on Sunday, 31 January, with the fastest lap times from official practice used to set the grid for the race the following day. McKay set the fastest lap time of 2:40 to take pole position, with Bill Pitt and Ron Hodgson, also in Jaguars, setting times of 2:41 and 2:42 respectively to line up second and third on the grid. Later in the day, Hodgson set a lap time of 2:39 in unofficial practice. Multiple cars, including the three Jaguars, suffered overheating problems during the day, while Hodgson also had gearbox troubles with the car jumping out of gear. Roy Sawyer blew an engine which was rebuilt overnight.

Hodgson led away from the start, getting the jump on McKay and Pitt, with the three Jaguars quickly pulling away from the rest of the field. All three drivers missed their brake markers going into Windsock Corner on lap 1, with Hodgson running wide and McKay and Pitt both spinning. This gave Hodgson a lead heading into lap 2 but McKay caught him halfway through the lap. Hodgson again left his braking too late at Windsock, allowing McKay, Pitt and several other cars through. By the time Hodgson restarted his car, he was around one minute down on McKay and Pitt. Hodgson was able to regain third place within the next lap, leaving Max Volkers in fourth while Ian Geoghegan led a battle for fifth until blowing a head gasket.

By lap 14, McKay had a lead of 26 seconds over Pitt, while rain was beginning to fall over the circuit. Sawyer spun his car coming over the crest at Connaghans Corner, hitting the inside bank and rolling. Jack van Schaik narrowly missed Sawyer's car while Ken Miller scraped his roof on one of Sawyer's bumpers. Des West stopped to help Sawyer escape the car while the driver of a Ford Zephyr had also stopped, their car blocking the track. After helping Sawyer, West burned his hands while restarting his own car. McKay was able to slow safely as he approached the scene but was forced to use his car to move the stationary Zephyr out of the way. This allowed Pitt to close the gap and he took the lead when McKay spun on the following lap. However, the overdrive mechanism in Pitt's car began to fail and McKay was able to retake the lead with two laps remaining. McKay led to the finish, six seconds ahead of Pitt, with Hodgson more than a minute behind. Volkers was the best of the rest, finishing one lap down in fourth place.

Results

Statistics
 Pole position: David McKay, 2:40
 Fastest lap: David McKay, 2:35, 140 km/h (87 m.p.h.)
 Average speed of winning car: 133 km/h (80 m.p.h.)
 There were 44 starters of which 31 finished.
 Attendance: 7,000

References

Further reading
 David McKay, First Touring Titles Decided, Modern Motor, April 1960, pages 22–23 & 80-81
 Orange Road Races – Feb. 1st, Australian Motor Sports, February 1960, pages 68 & 71
 Peter Wherrett, Speedy Orange, Sports Car World, March 1960, page 52
 Mark Oastler, Des West's 'Appendix J' Holden 48-215, Australian Muscle Car, Jan/Feb 2011, pages 36–63

External links
 Official V8 Supercar website (contains historical ATCC information)
 Simon Brady's images from Gnoo Blas - February 1960  - page 1
 Simon Brady's images from Gnoo Blas - February 1960  - page 2
 Images from Gnoo Blas - February 1960

Australian Touring Car Championship seasons
Touring Car Championship
Motorsport at Gnoo Blas

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


What to do with the catalytic converter you would like to sell? We can help! We have all the answers you need about your cats.
Please click here for a full list of accepted materials.
Envirometco Inc. is a reliable and experienced scrap metal recycling business that specializes in buying automotive scrap and cores. Read more ..
You can recycle your electronics for free at any time at our Bathurst Drive location.
For a full list of accepted E-waste material please click here.


Below are a few pages from my mini comic, Witchhood and Apple Pie. The full comic will be available for purchase at future conventions and festivals that I attend!
Join Stemma, Crispa, Fuji, Melrose and Ambrosia as they take on the apple-selling business.