US AuctionsAustralian AuctionsAustrian AuctionsBelgian AuctionsCanadian AuctionsFrench AuctionsGerman AuctionsIndian AuctionsIrish AuctionsItalian AuctionsDutch AuctionsSpanish AuctionsSwiss AuctionsUK Auctions

Best MatchTime: ending soonestTime: newly listedPrice: lowest firstPrice: highest firstPrice + Shipping: lowest firstPrice + Shipping: highest first

No items matching your keywords were found.

5 Responses to “Scale German”

1. David Martin
   September 9th, 2010 @ 5:37 am

   Clean coal tech hasn’t been invented yet, other than at laboratory scale.German emissions of carbon are huge, just like Denmark’s, which also has a lot of wind input in the system.Once you go above around 5% of the grid, then any carbon savings from wind are negligible, as you have to burn a lot of coal or gas to make up for the intermittency and at higher levels the savings can actually go negative, as it restricts the ability to use truly low carbon sources like hydropower or nuclear.Solar makes no difference either way, as in spite of vast subsidy it only accounts for around 0.01 or 0.02% of German energy use depending on how you count it.

2. ekitibwakyabuganda
   May 10th, 2011 @ 9:51 am

   Mr Musisi,

   1/16 Regarding your opening point on Geneva Conventions, recall that their principle focus is humanitarian treatment of victims of war. They are very specific to the phenomenon of war, whether interstate or domestic. That is the sense in which they apply to the intra-national sphere. So, they can apply to a conflict within Uganda’s boundaries. When you go a step further to assert that, just because Geneva conventions can apply to domestic situations, therefore any other convention can then we have a problem, and a big one at that; of warped deductive logic. That is why I dubbed yours as a case of non sequitur, i.e., concocting non-existent linkages between phenomena. I should have added that you are making yourself a hostage of the fallacy of syllogism. Here you go: Geneva Conventions apply to intrastate situations; the Montevideo Convention is a Convention; therefore the Montevideo Convention applies to domestic situations. Put differently, “God is love; love is blind; therefore god is blind”. That is your style of reasoning Mr Musisi.

   2/16 That was the first problem with your line of reasoning. Just as a lame duck would lay a putrid egg, you then went ahead to mix up the question of spatial applicability of a convention with the source of its initiation. I am here reminded of a similar style of logic of your submission on Thu, 3 December, 2009 11:05:39 when in your attempt to deny that the public can own land, you listed the four types of land tenure and then asked, do you see the public listed there in the supreme law? Just as if modes of land ownership are a category to be conflated with varieties of land owners. Same usual problems of lack of logic even in this instance! Indiscriminate deployment of Latin will not fix those problems for us. We need to look elsewhere.

   3/16 I highlighted the point of your irrelevant invocation of uti possidetis by showing you that that principle is not an end in itself but it is a means to ensuring there are no instances of “no one’s land” or terra nullius. That is a fact, which fact you are electing to deny. My intention was to show you that, uti possidetis is irrelevant to Kayunga and so on. I still hold so. In its original form, uti possidetis applied to interstate relations (not intra-state) between post-conflict countries, particularly in connection with territorial acquisition. That does not apply to Buruli/Buhekura etc, which were cases of internal boundary re-demarcation within one state, albeit a nascent one. In its later derivation, i.e., uti possidetis juris, the principle applies to post-independence polities, which may be what you are referring to when you talk of avoiding revising borders. However, that also belongs to a totally different realm from that of Buruli/Kayunga etc. It is interstate and not intrastate. It is not a “mumbwa” made in Butambala, that can treat every problem on earth: headache, barrenness, bankruptcy, etc etc. May be one can actually say that, uti possidetis is like the Butambala “mumbwa” after all: it is very low on the efficacy scale. The German empire that initially dusted uti possidetis out of Roman law books following the end of the Franco-Prussian war in a bid to hold onto Alsace-Lorraine was not helped much some 70 or so years later when their territorial grab was restored to France. And, and, and: Buruli, Bunyala, Buhekura etc are Bunyoro’s Alsace-Lorraines! Also, do note that if the Prussians had taken seriously Otto’s (Otto Von Bimsarck) objections against holding onto Alsace-Lorraine, they would not have suffered that ignominious climb-down after WWII.

   4/16 Then, when it comes to inviolability of borders, the point you want to emphasize in relation to protection of Buganda, you know how uti possidetis failed to help in the Eritrea/Ethiopia situation. And do not jump in excitement that Eritrea is akin to Buganda, so twekutuleko! Remember, Asmara was no Kampala. By the way, go back and revise the differing contexts of uti possidetis and uti possidetis jusris. Take note of the post-independence and post-conflict contexts. Do not mingle it with your universalis, de facto, and what you called juris (please call it de jure, if only for intellectual hygiene).

   5/16 I stressed the point that Yugoslavia was different from Uganda. Yugoslavia was a federal state made up of republics. In light of my assertion, you ask me, “what was Buganda in 1894, 1962 and 1966?” Are you saying that Buganda was a Republic? Are you saying that Uganda was a federal polity? As for Slovenia’s state formation, my remark was based on a fair grasp of the history of that polity right from 7th Century, as the land of Alpine Slavs or the principality of Carantania. At whose expense was it constituted? What have I overlooked?

   6/16 You are smuggling federo into the political texture of Serbia, for no other reason other than federo fundamentalism. The point I was putting to you is that Serbia has had to pay a price for the territorial grabs which Serbian ultranationalists forgot about when they were spawning off the disintegration of Yugoslavia. The problem here is the difficulty of employing metaphors, analogies, similes and such other figures of speech for one like you who loves to get the weeds wrapped around his axle. Because you perceive such figures of speech literally, you then keep harping on irrelevance, straying, digressing! My point is Kooki, Buruli, West Buhekura, North Bulemezi are for Buganda, like Kosovos, Vojvodinas and Montenegroes have been for Serbia. The Serbian ultranationalists I mentioned touched off the unravelling of Yugoslavia but little did they know that they would wind up with the crumbling of what they thought was a “bundle”. And who are the narrow ultranationalists and gingoists of contemporary Uganda? Mr Musisi, Mr Kyanjo, Mr Nsubuga, Mr Mandazi…..when I listen to those, I am remided of Slobodan Milosevic, Ratko Mladic, Rodovan Karadjic and such others languisihing painfully on the dung heap of history, thanks to their ill-judged hysteria. And by the way, the etymology of Buganda has nothing really much to do with your bundle business. It was all to with brotherhood….so as you have perceptively advised, I have not dared to take your words for it. You have referred to people coming together to form the bundle. First read the history of your “bundle” from 1896.

   7/16 And oh yes: many of you like citing the example of Toro when it comes to Bunyoro’s territorial losses. It is one thing for a territory to secede and form an independent entity and another thing for territory to be excised by an alien force for annexation to an adversarial neighbour. So, Buruli/Bunyala etc and Toro: as usual you are not comparing like for like. NB: Do not be glum about territories east of Buddu that were excised from Nkore and added to Mmengo. What has saved you so far is your friend who you would rather not acknowledge, who restored your “monarchy” but declined to restore the one that rightfully owns everything to the Southwest of Buddu. I am sure you know Kabula, etc.

   8/16 On the question of the partitions of Poland, I stated that the process began in 1772 and you refute that fact and go ahead to confidently assert that the initial partition was in 1775. Sasa: one can only wonder where you derive that date. There are three partitions of Poland known to history: the one of 5th August 1772, followed by that one of January 23rd 1793 and then the one of October 24th 1795 which marked the end of Poland’s existence. One can probably mention a “Fourth Partition”, that towards the end of WWI as that involved the redistribution of diasporas and ethnic communities. So, where did you get 1775 from?

   9/16 When you talk of Poland being “fully restored” after 1918, all you are telling us is that you are interested in overlooking that other partition of 1939 that followed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that killed off the Second Polish Republic. You are using the point of loss of 20% of territory by Poland in 1945 as the basis for dismissing the restoration of Poland. Very clearly, you do that because you have decided to be unaware of the fact that in 1939, the Poland that you celebrate as having been “fully restored” in 1918 was actually erased from the map as we have just seen.

   10/16 What you call loss of territory to Soviet Union was actually a restoration of territory that Russia lost in 1918 when Poland was being “fully restored”. Recall that the restoration took place at a time when Russia was in a meltdown at the height of the Bolshevik Revolution, a time when that country could not send representatives to the talks that culminated in the delimitation of the Curzon line, i.e., the eastern border of Poland. This was done at the expense of the weak Russian empire and as soon Russia recovered, now as the Soviet Union, it sought to correct the excesses of the Curzon process. So, there are quite a few important historical facts missing in your argument, while the few that are available are at best dubious.

   11/16 You suggested to me that I reread that part of history. Far from it! I am now afraid that you may need to consider reading (and I do not say rereading) that history. But even in the scantiness of your historical facts, all you have actually done is to vindicate my view that looted territory is restorable, hence your observation of Poland’s restoration after 150 years. My starting point was that there are close parallels between Bunyoro and Poland. Remember? We have not moved much from that point.

   12/16 So, back to where we started from: all those facts suggest that it is unsafe for some of you to seek solace in the passage of time to hope that territorial grabs can go uncorrected, or if not corrected, to hope that they cannot be used as bargaining chips in seemingly unrelated contests. In other words, historia is on Miirima’s, and oh yes, on Entebbe’s side. To think otherwise is to have hysteria on your side.

   13/16 You note somewhere that I am straying and off topic, when I assert that the legal principles that you invoke are irrelevant to the issues I was raising regarding the relationship between and Entebbe. In fact, I added that, had they been relevant (Montevideo in particular) the question of whom they bind would also have to be addressed. Hence, when you quote for us the Montevideo Convention in relation to Kayunga/Buruli, your are only trying to show us you know that convention but not bothering about its applicability. May be it does not matter to you that, in order for a state to be bound by a treaty, it has to recognise it through ratification. Unless you want to console yourself that, by being “international” Montevideo is necessarily global and therefore universal.

   14/16 And: you are correct to say that, regional conventions can be sources of universal law. Sadly, your correctness ends just there, especially when you then go ahead to imply that a “source” of a phenomenon can suddenly become its embodiment, just as if a spermatozoon can be referred to as a person. But even if Montevideo was all the things you would wish it to be: global, universal, interstate etc, the case of Kayunga and all that is very clearly intra-national, not international. That is why I said earlier that you were comparing apples with potatoes, a metaphor that you seem to have given a literal interpretation. Let us say, with your legalisms, you are not comparing like with like….or you are forcing a square peg into a round hole…let alone the wrong end of the stick you attribute to me.

   15/16 Once again, on the point of erga omnes, the pitfall I was implicitly trying to expose is what you now turn around to attribute to me: digressing into irrelevance. It is so obvious that if a convention is universal then the principle of erga omnes should apply to that convention. So obvious that to have to stress it as you do is a bit strange, urgency to vainly display our knowledge notwithstanding. It is like talking about a chicken, then at the end of your erudite rendition, you end on a “high note” by noting to your ignorant audience that, “having said all that, a chicken is an organism”. How profound! You belabour the point that uti posseditis is universal, and then also find it necessary to emphasize that uti posseditis is erga omnes? Ah! ….just showing off your legal Latin! Reminds me of our civics debates in P.3 on whether Kayikuzi was cleverer than Walumbe and classmate Bivamuntuyo would shoot up with a point of information and start reeling off with all the big words we had learnt in nature study: “kidney, abdomen, osesophogus, medulla oblongata….” Ah! He was so intellectually mechanical….hence his name: Bivamuntuyo!

   16/16 So, Mr Musisi, let us go back to the issues I raised in my original message. The earlier we take those issues seriously the better. Unnecessary latinisation of the debate is nothing but futile intellectual terrorism, akin to the Radio Katweism of Okello George, Moses Nusbuga, Michael Senyonjo & Co.

   Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

3. Tony T
   May 27th, 2011 @ 10:54 pm

   They might be contenders, but I don't think they have it in their psyche to win anything.
   FM

4. Shirley T
   October 1st, 2011 @ 11:48 am

   There is an old saying, "Where there is Masovian there is borscht." It is believed by many that most of the people in and around Warsaw have some Jewish ancestry. Hitler considered the Slavs subhumans and he hated the Poles more than any as he was well aware of the Jewish ancestry running through the Poles. Poland has been called by one Jewish author as the most traumatized nation in WW2.

   Now, Jews are not in total agreement on what a Jew is.

   Many Reform Jews define a Jew by the religion alone. They view a child being brought up in their congregation with only one Jewish parent whether father or mother as a Jew.

   Orthodox and Conservative Judaism defines a Jew by the mother, not the father or necessarily the religion. That is the old rabbinical definition of a Jew. They say if you have a Jewish mother and are not of the Jewish faith you are still a Jew.
   If you only have a Jewish father the only way you can be considered a Jew is to convert.

   I understand most of the Jews of Eastern Europe were Orthodox. The Jews of Germany had a tendency to be Reform Jews.

5. Tieroise
   December 26th, 2011 @ 6:26 am

   Man City are 3 points off the top, so I think this q is badly timed (they won today).

   Man City at this moment are contenders like it or not.