Rising prosperity in India and China means rising demand for air conditioning in those countries (driven by global warming? Shurely not!). And that means more ozone-destroying chemicals making it into the atmosphere, because they're using refrigerants that had been banned elsewhere.

From the BBC:

An international conference is due to open in Norway aimed at banning the use of cluster bombs, despite the non attendance of the US, Russia and China.

The 48-nation meeting has been called by Norway after arms talks in Geneva last November failed to achieve progress towards a ban.

Cluster bombs usually consist of a large shell containing many small bombs that can cover a wide area.

Some fail to explode and endanger civilians years after conflicts end.

The UN estimates that Israel dropped up to four million cluster bomblets in southern Lebanon during last year's war.

The Beeb's Paul Reynolds analyzes the implications.

From the BBC:

An Egyptian court has sentenced a blogger to four years' prison for insulting Islam and the president.

Abdel Kareem Soliman's trial was the first time that a blogger had been prosecuted in Egypt.

He had used his web log to criticise the country's top Islamic institution, al-Azhar university and President Hosni Mubarak, whom he called a dictator.

A human rights group called the verdict "very tough" and a "strong message" to Egypt's thousands of bloggers.

There's a related feature: Eygpt bloggers fear state curbs

Remember, folks, Egypt is considered a pro-Western government.

For comparison's sake, you'd have to rob a bank with a shotgun or accidentally kill someone in a bar fight to get a four-year sentence.

This first started percolating after the Grammys, but now that the Oscars are almost here, I can offer the refined version.

In my vision, all the nominees for a category would go on stage, much like a beauty pageant.

However, when the winner was named, that person would not give a speech. Instead, they would go and sit on a throne, their back to the audience.

Then the losers (and face facts, that's what they are at this point) would have to go before them one by one. Then, while on bended knee, they would have to tell the winner that their performance/film/whatever was better, and then briefly explain why -- or better yet, why they sucked.

The winner would be encouraged to have a superior, triumphalist smirk on their faces.

After they were finished, the losers would have to submissively bow or curtsey to the winner, whichever is most appropriate.

The losers would go offstage as a group to the nastiest boos and catcalls imaginable. The winner would get rapturous cheers.

Hey, I'd watch that! :)

And according to this Globe and Mail story, the producers are trying to spice things up. An excerpt:

Faced with declining viewership (last year's show was the second-least-watched ceremony by Americans in more than a decade) — and previous Oscars that have clocked in at more than three hours — the academy this year is insisting that individual acceptance speeches be, above all, “interesting and memorable.”

If a winner “pulls out a list and starts to read it,” that's pretty much a guarantee that he or she is going to be cut off right away, an Oscar spokesperson said Wednesday.

Even without a list, the famous musical cut-off — when the orchestra drowns out a winner's speech — “still could happen,” she said, particularly if the speech is felt to be going on too long. Winners are being told they have 45 seconds to make their speeches.