top of page

Kingsport Autism Support Group

Public·14 members
Andrew Campbell
Andrew Campbell

Basic Element - Touch You Right Now (Official Video HD) ##HOT##

And to do that, we're going to turn them into some fake apps. So, the first question we're going to ask ourselves is, what needs to be more real? Why are we making these fake apps? What's our goal? So right now we just have drawings. So before we even think about touching any code, we're going to determine how these ideas will look on the screen in our hands.

Basic Element - Touch You Right Now (Official Video HD)


Next up is to get that navigation bar to be the right color. So to do that in Keynote, you open up the Color Picker, and using that magnifying glass tool, sample the color of the status bar above it. And now we've got ourselves a blank navigation bar. Now, that was really simple, right? Well, that's because we're using a screenshot. So, you don't need to know exact pixel dimensions or even colors of UI elements in order to re-create them, which saves us a ton of time. And so, the next thing I want to do is just add in some content. And in particular, some images.

SECRETARY POWELL: We are not trying to identify any particular thing, to use your word Jane, provide an incentive for them to come along on missile defense or to bribe them into missile defense. We think we can make a persuasive case that it is in their interest to do so and it is part of a much broader relationship with the United States that has trade elements to it, economic elements to it, the pursuit of common values with respect to human rights and individual freedoms, with respect to working together to resolve regional problems, and to review the entire strategic framework between the two nations, a strategic framework that for most of the last fifty years was based on a large number of offensive nuclear weapons pointed at each other, and an agreement that said "Thou shalt do nothing to defend thyself from these weapons."

Press Briefing by Tony Snow and Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental QualityWhite House Conference Center Briefing Room Play Video Press Briefings Audio 12:03 P.M. EDTMR. SNOW: Welcome. As you heard just a few minutes ago, the Presidentgave extensive remarks on international development and theinternational development agenda leading up to the G8.Among otherthings, he described his ideas that will be presented to the G8ministers about the environment, and I figured the best person to answerany questions and all questions about it is Jim Connaughton, who is theChairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and the President'stop environmental advisor, somebody who has been deeply involved in thecrafting of this policy.So without further ado, I will turn it over to Jim on this topic, andthen we'll be happy to tackle all others afterward.CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Thanks, Tony, and good afternoon, everybody.Today, in the context of the President's speech on development, he'sannounced our going forward strategy on the issue of energy security andclimate change. I think it's important to note that this was in thecontext of the development agenda. The President emphasized some veryimportant issues on education, on health, on good rule of law.Well,energy is also important to development, and he underscored the themethat in order to help nations grow and prosper, they need access to moreenergy. But energy carries environmental consequences, and so -- and werealized that, and so the issue is, how do we move forward with anincreased use of energy, but to do so in an environmentally responsibleway.Part of that issue is the challenge of global climate change. Ourunderstanding of the science has strengthened, and our understanding ofthe technology opportunities for solving the problem has also carried usforward with meaningful solutions.So the President laid out a three-part agenda that he will be takinginto discussions at the G8 next week, and more broadly independent ofthe G8, and the three parts are as follows. First, the United States isgoing to commit to help lead the way on the development of a newframework on climate change for the time after the Kyoto Protocolexpires in 2012. We are going to bring to the United States thecountries that represent the largest energy use and the largestemissions of greenhouse gases.In numbers, about 10 to 15 countries areresponsible for more than 80 percent of energy use and greenhouse gasemissions. We hope to find consensus on the statement of a long-termgoal for reducing greenhouse gases. That has not been done beforecollectively in the climate change process.In addition to trying to find consensus, including with countries likeIndia and China, on a long-term vision for where we want to be ongreenhouse gases, we're going to work to develop, each country willdevelop its own national strategies on a midterm basis in the next 10 to20 years on where they want to take their efforts to improve energysecurity, reduce air pollution, and also reduce greenhouse gases.We will then bring together industry sectors. So imagine you havetransportation, you have power generation, you have fuels, buildings.There are industrial leaders and NGOs who are very active in each ofthese sectors.What we want to do is get the representatives from thosesectors in each country to see if they can come up with a common workprogram to share best practices, but also, we would anticipate theywould set targets, too. This is an approach we used more recently insomething called the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development andClimate that already involves China and India, as well as South Korea,Japan and Australia.And then the final element of part one is that we will have a strongerprogram of measuring performance and making that very transparent so wecan compare apples to apples on how we're doing.The second part of the agenda is a broad agenda that involves all of theparticipants in the U.N. Framework on Climate Change -- that is 189countries -- and it's to see if we can develop a common agenda aroundfour main areas of emphasis. One is sustainable land use -- betterforestry practices, better agricultural practices, and better thinkingthrough our cities. We want to stop illegal logging -- that's a bigproblem, and we want to see if we can -- what we can do about haltingdeforestation.Second is efficiency. All nations benefit from efficiency. If we'reusing energy more wisely, that's good for everybody. The third piece istechnology sharing: How can we do more to bring technologies in thedeveloped world and get them into the developing world?The third component will then be an accelerated program on technologyand advancement. The United States has already committed tosignificantly increase its investment in advanced clean energytechnologies -- most notably, in the State of the Union announcementthis year the President indicated how much more we were going to putinto advanced biofuels, as well as other clean coal technologies andother technologies. We're going to call on other leaders to see if theycan make similar commitments and get our research programs workingtogether.Another component will be to see if we can bring a greater priority inour international development banks, who have billions of dollars tolend out at a low-cost basis to see if we can bring a greater priorityto clean energy investments by the multilateral development banks.And then we're proposing two things -- one that's within reach. We havehad several years of discussion on the elimination of tariff barriersand non-tariff barriers to the trade in clean energy technologies. Thisdiscussion has been going on for several years in the context of Doha.We are going to -- we want to drive to agreement on a schedule ofeliminating these tariffs in the Doha round, which seems quitepromising, and in any event, to do so by the end of next year.Thesooner we can remove these tariffs, the sooner we can get a lot ofcommonly used technologies in America moving into the globalmarketplace.And then finally, the U.S. government taxpayer dollars pay for a lot ofresearch and development of new technologies. We often make thattechnology available to U.S. manufacturers at very low cost. We areproposing to extend that policy globally, that if the taxpayersproducing new clean energy systems will make that available globally, aslong as other countries make the same commitment.So these are the elements of the plan.We hope to conclude this by theend of next year, so within 18 months to have this new frameworkestablished. And the President will be bringing these ideas to the G8.Now, these ideas are going to build on the solid foundation that we nowhave in America of a whole system of new regulations that will help usdeal with energy security and climate change, a system of more than $10billion in tax incentives and innumerable technology advancementpartnerships, as well as what you heard, again, this year in the Stateof the Union, our desire to replace gasoline use by 20 percent in thenext 10 years, which should also help us halt the growth of greenhousegas emissions from passenger cars.So these are the kinds of things we're going to be bringing to thetable.This is very consistent and closely in line with the thinking ofPrime Minister Blair and Chancellor Merkel, who have laid the foundationfor some of this work in Europe. And we also know that there's interestin many of these countries in light of the Asia-Pacific Partnership,where we've gotten the conversation started already. So we're off to amoving start; we're not starting from square one on this.So, happy to answer your questions.Q Will the new framework consist of binding commitments, or voluntarycommitments?CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: It will move similar to the current system, where-- in this instance, you have a long-term aspirational goal that sends aclear signal that we want significant reductions in greenhouse gases.And then what we're calling on is that each country will develop theirnational strategies for the first phase of trying to meet that goal.In those national strategies, I'll give the American example. We nowhave mandatory fuel economy standards, and those are binding. We havemandatory renewable power standards at the state level; those arebinding. The President has called on new fuel standards and newauto-efficiency standards. Europe is doing the same thing. They've gotsort of a European direction, but each of the European member statessets their own binding national programs.But also we anticipate it will include technology commitments by sectorsthat don't require regulation. And those are just good, old-fashionmarket agreements. And then we think there will be incentives involved,as well.Q Now I'm confused.Does that mean there will be targets forgreenhouse gas emission reductions and that everybody will be makingbinding commitments to each other about greenhouse gas reductions -- or,at the end of the day, are those just voluntary commitments?CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: The commitment at the international level will beto a long-term aspirational goal --Q Voluntary.CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, I want to be careful about the word"voluntary," because we do these kinds of goals all the time,international agreements. It's the implementing mechanisms that becomebinding. And in this instance we are expecting that each nation willmake a commitment to a national program strategy to achieve this.I'll give you the example. We do the same thing in fisheries.We set agoal for a fishery, but that has to be carried out through nationallegislation. That's where it gets its binding characteristics. There'sa lot of misconception about what's binding and what's not binding. Theissue is you agree on goals in the international process; you implementthem through national strategies that include binding measures.Q But you couldn't really do that internationally, anyway. I mean,you couldn't make it binding through international --CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: There are some international agreements that youbring in a structure that can be enforced, sort of mutually enforced.That has not been utilized in the context of climate change in the past.And it's just challenging because you're trying to deal with bigeconomic issues. If you're dealing with --Q Why not do that with climate change?CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Because where the rubber meets the road onclimate change is the effectiveness of the national strategies and thecommitment of countries to actually carry them out.I'll give you an example. China has made a national commitment toimprove the energy efficiency of their economy by 20 percent by 2010.That's a very consequential commitment. They're going to achieve thatthrough a wide array of programs. Some of them are quite dramaticallyregulatory. That's exactly what we'd like to see China do, but theyretain sovereignty -- they get to decide on the right mix, rather thanus telling them what the mix should be.Q Chancellor Merkel has made clear that she wants to use next week'sG8 summit to forge a consensus on climate control. Now the Presidentwants to call a summit, but later, on the same issue. Doesn't thiseffectively undercut her effort and put the process off further to thefuture?CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Actually, it's the inverse of that. We've beenhaving a lengthy discussion -- you'll see a text on climate change andenergy security that will be longer than 20 pages, and what we're tryingto do is reach closure on the broad elements of that. We've had somedisagreement over a few issues, but this will actually bring closure onthe core of what we can agree on, and that's what Chancellor Merkel istrying to achieve, a situation where the G8 has a sense of how they wantto develop a framework, but we are doing it in a way that will also beattractive to large emerging economies, like China and India and Brazil.That's our real challenge -- the G8 is already moving in a commondirection; how do we bring these other countries on board.Q I'd like to go back to the example you just cited of China, forexample. If they were to set their own goals, which would be bindingwithin their own system, if they do not hit it, what's left for othersto do about that? What's the price?CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, what we do is similar to what we're doingnow, is we put in a system of measuring progress. We work with theChinese -- one is to understand why they didn't hit their mark. Thereare some goals that you try your best and the technology doesn't comealong, there are other goals you try your best and technology comesalong a heck of a lot faster than you thought, in which case you canramp down your goals. We do the same thing, for example, in theMontreal Protocol on ozone depleting substances -- we break it out intoair conditioning, we break it out into cleaning electronics, aviation.And each country has set its own strategy for how to do that. Then wetake it back to the international process and make sure we're making theprogress we want to make. This is a marathon, it's not a sprint, and sothere's lots of stages to getting to this long-term objective.So weshouldn't lose sight of the fact we want a constructive outcome, whereeach country is really bringing home to their own domestic circumstancesa message of progress that will take hold.Q The President and you have both again emphasized the development ofbiofuels, but at the same time, the oil companies say that that focushas them questioning the feasibility of improving refineries andbuilding new ones, thus the higher prices. So what's the balance,what's the answer?CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: I think your question is answering itself. Weneed to find a balance, but the President is very adamant that we've gotto make faster progress on improving our energy security through theapplication of new technology.We've done a lot of internal work in theadministration to see just how far we can push the envelope on bringingthe second generation of biofuels online.Now the way that happens, though, is you then get Europe to pursuesimilarly ambitious goals, you get the developing world to pursuesimilarly ambitious goals, then all of a sudden the market jumps in andyou get a lot more investment, like we're already seeing on cornethanol. And we expect with this much more ambitious mandate thePresident set you're going to see a huge push by the private sector ofthese second generation fuels.When you have the second generationfuels, you then get the second generation vehicles to use those fuels.So it's part leadership and setting a very aggressive goal, but thenit's also being sure that you're responsive to the pace of technology.We believe we will be successful. If we're not, we're going to have totake stock on our way to meeting the goal to see if it requires someadjustment.Q So in the short-term, then, should the oil industry then just notdo anything about its aging refineries; let the status quo on that andlet the prices just keep going up?CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: The President has emphasized we actually needmore of everything. We need more renewable fuel, we need more domesticsupplies of oil and gas for energy security, we need a strategicpetroleum reserve that gives us the security against a major supplydisruption, and we need more efficient vehicles, and we need toalleviate traffic congestion that massively wastes fuel. We need towork on every aspect. There's no silver bullet to the energy securityequation, just like there's no silver bullet to the climate changeequation. We need it all. And those who suggest there's one approachversus another, they're not facing reality.Q And no silver bullet to the prices, right?CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: No silver bullet to prices. But markets work,and if you're sending clear signals, the markets will respond.Andyou're already seeing a significant investment and more joint venturesbetween oil companies and farmers, between livestock producers andtechnology providers. So we're already seeing, with these high gasolineprices we're experiencing, a lot more interest in the next generation.If global leadership backs that up, it gives the confidence to themarkets to respond.Q You, specifically, in the past couple of days rejected Europe'sproposal to set specific limits -- a degree increase beyond which wewould not go -- presumably because you felt the world could not meetthis without economic penalties that were unacceptable. Do you believethat Europe can meet the goals it has set? Do you believe it hasachieved the reductions it claims over the past -- since the passage ofKyoto?CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: Well, first of all, we have actually disagreedwith one aspect of one piece of this 22-page agreement, and that's theEuropean -- the recently established European goal to commit to atemperature outcome. We don't think that's a very practical approach --leaving aside other issues with trying to state your goal ontemperature. You can't manage the temperature. You can manage to --emissions. And so that's what the President is talking about.Let'sfigure out what quantity of emissions we want to try to reduce by by acertain date.And there's lots of different ideas on that, by the way. Europe doesn'thave the lock on this.Europe has one goal they think it should be;Japan has stated a slightly different one; Canada has stated it stilldifferently again. So we want to bring all these -- this ambition toone conversation.On the second part, how are we doing? The President did highlight inhis speech today that we got a flash estimate for '06 where the UnitedStates actually had a net reduction of greenhouses gases of 1.3 percentduring a period when we had economic growth of 3.3 percent. That is aremarkable outcome. Now that's as a result of reasons intentional andunintentional.The unintentional are, we had cooler summers and warmerwinters. The intentional are, we have a lot more clean power coming online, and with the huge new investment in new manufacturing and moreproductive manufacturing in America, we're getting more efficientproduction. So we're getting more output with the same or slightlyincreasing amount of e


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...


bottom of page