Slashdot Mirror

Extreme weather created by greenhouse gasses should at some point hurt our economy too, reducing our output even more, so you could say "Earth will fight back." Considering the drought we're experiencing now, perhaps it's already started.

That's funny, because the DOE says that, "In some cases, water levels were so low that power production at some power plants had to be stopped or reduced." Oh, and there is another article on the subject here. I could probably find more info for you, but I promised myself to only spend a couple of minutes googling the topic.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said "certain areas?" Do you suppose this is some conspiracy to thwart your world views with facts?

How cute, linking to a 2008 (ethanol) crop report in a discussion about the flooding and/or drought in 2011.

$2 billion in cattle lost, $2 billion in cotton lost, $1 billion in corn/wheat/others lost, with the wheat production estimated to be 35% of normal while prices are 139% normal. And that's just Texas, and only "so far this year" (it's expected to stay drier than normal until next year, with La Nina in effect this winter). .

NASS's nationwide crop estimate report for September (summary of the executive summary: corn estimate had to be reduced 3% since August but is still just barely above last year's crop, soybeans are down 7% from last year, cotton is down 9%, oranges are down 8%). If I'm reading the rest right, the rice production estimate is down 20% from last year's production, sugarcane +5%, tobacco -12%, barley -7%, oats -29%, wheat -6%, peanuts -17%, spring and summer potato production were up (+3% and +15% respectively) but the larger fall crop hasn't begun yet (2010 spring summer and fall crops were roughly 2.4M, 1.1M and 36M lbs respectively).

BTW What good is a longer (summer) growing season when it delays fall planting? What good is a hotter summer growing season when July kills your crop?

Actually, we're teaching farmers how to focus on renewable crops that don't immediately bleed the soil dry, while also massively increasing productivity. Not bleeding the soil dry is a big part of long-term productivity. And using genetically altered seeds is a big part of increased crop yields.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=ageconfacpub
http://haitirewired.wired.com/profiles/blogs/sri-taught-to-haitian-farmers

Chemistry to the rescue!

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/17-01/mf_extreme_farming

I'm not saying there shouldn't be reasonable concern. But we're looking at a very complex problem. For what it is worth, I don't think food will be the issue. We have a handful of farmers who are vastly more efficient than others and people are just starting to catch on.

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/17-01/mf_extreme_farming

And we've got programs where agriculture experts have been travelling to Africa, Haiti, etc. and doubling/tripling their crop yields by teaching them to farm smarter.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=ageconfacpub
http://haitirewired.wired.com/profiles/blogs/sri-taught-to-haitian-farmers

So I think we have considerable room to grow when it comes to agricultural efficiency. And it isn't like we're currently using every available inch of available land for farming.

The big concern is safe, drinkable water. Because alarmists have been so busy screaming that the world is all going to starve and that we'd all die, it seems like we weren't really prepared for the population to keep growing. Fewer people are starving today. People are living longer. The alarmists were all completely wrong. So we haven't invested in the infrastructure to process drinking water for the exploding population. Thankfully, that is a manageable, if expensive crisis.

You don't keep up with the news do you? http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

Not really. This site isn't even new. It is a carbonatite intrusion that was discovered years ago. But REE prices were low then, and it didn't proceed to development. The deposit has sat there until REE prices have risen. This isn't poor stewardship, it's market forces.

There is quite a bit of background in the PDF document on the company's website, including the fact that the initial discovery of the carbonatite intrusion was due to the Nebraska Geological Survey and the US Bureau of Mines in the 1970s, when they drilled a borehole to determine the cause for a gravity anomaly detected in regional geophysical mapping (i.e. it was your tax dollars at work that first found it). This was followed up by a company called Molycorp in the 1970s to 1980s, who did a program of 106 drillholes and chemical analyses to figure out what REE concentration and volume was there (carbonatites are well known for exotic and sometimes valuable minerals). A bunch of their maps and geochemical data are scanned in and available from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Molycorp found decent amounts of some REE elements, especially niobium, but not enough to be profitable at the 200m-or-so depth of the intrusion, which is eroded and buried beneath younger sediments. There is no surface expression. It's fairly flat farmland. Based on the map at the company's website, the center of the intrusion is about here, just to the SW of Elk Creek, which is a tiny town SE of Lincoln, Nebraska. The company cited in the press releases has bought out the company that previously held the exploration rights in this area. They've re-done analyses from the cores drilled by Molycorp. It is probably only because of the increased market prices for REE that they have become interested.

This is a very different type of deposit from the ones in China -- a "hard rock" deposit. That would probably make it more expensive to mine than the REE-rich clays found in China, even leaving aside the difference in labor costs and concerns about environmental impact. It's tough to compete when you're talking about crushing up solid rock 200m+ below the surface versus scraping up clay on a dry lake bottom. Concentrations will have to be correspondingly higher.

It's also an exaggeration to say that the US has "plenty" of oil. The US produces about half of what it uses, and US production has been in decline since the 1970s not due to regulations or "not going after it", but because practically all the big deposits on land have already been found and the only big deposits left are offshore where it is 10x as expensive to find and develop them. Most of the production onshore is from old fields late in their production history, hence the decline in rates. There may be quite a bit left, but it's like squeezing the last bit of water out of a sponge -- a lot slower.

The basic problem whether oil, gas, or REE deposits is the fact that they are non-renewable and the US has already thoroughly explored for the easy/large deposits and depleted them. Natural gas isn't so bad because of recent technological improvements that have opened new areas to exploration (e.g., coal-bed methane and shale gas), but even for that the US imports a lot of the natural gas it uses from Canada.

The basic story is: the easy stuff is already found and depleted. There's plenty left in some senses, but it is lower grade and more expensive to develop even if you ignore issues like regulation. It's not as if you could reverse the decline in oil production in the US by dropping regulations, for example. It's the geology and the normal behavior of non-renewable resources that limits

It turns out the Nelson guy quoted did his dissertation on this. Well *OBVIOUSLY* an education major would find results that indicate his field should pay less.

Educational Administration, Department of Educational Administration: Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research
"Differential Tuition by Undergraduate Major: Its Use, Amount, and Impact at Public Research Universities"
by Glen R. Nelson

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=cehsedaddiss&sei-redir=1#search=%22effects+of+differential+tuition%22

Do you have any proof that homosexuality is not a preference? Because I haven't seen science offer any evidence yet.

And before you add, I don't support the Catholic views and their repressive beliefs.

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html

Measuring people's finger patterns may reveal some surprising information.

Animal models have indicated that androgenic steroids acting before birth might influence the sexual orientation of adult humans. Here we examine the androgen-sensitive pattern of finger lengths, and find evidence that homosexual women are exposed to more prenatal androgen than heterosexual women are; also, men with more than one older brother, who are more likely than first-born males to be homosexual in adulthood, are exposed to more prenatal androgen than eldest sons. Prenatal androgens may therefore influence adult human sexual orientation in both sexes, and a mother's body appears to 'remember' previously carried sons, altering the fetal development of subsequent sons and increasing the likelihood of homosexuality in adulthood.

In women, the index finger (2D, second digit) is almost the same length as the fourth digit (4D), although it may be slightly longer or shorter; in men, the index finger is more often shorter than the fourth. The greater 2D:4D ratio in females is established in two-year-olds. Because all non-gonadal somatic sex differences in humans appear to be the result of fetal androgens that masculinize males, the sex difference in the 2D:4D ratio probably reflects the prenatal influence of androgenon males.

In an anonymous survey, 720 adults who were attending public street fairs in the San Francisco area were asked their gender, age, sexual orientation, handedness, and the number and gender of children their mother had carried before them. As expected, men have significantly longer fingers than women (P < 0.001), and we confirmed reports that the 2D:4D ratio is greater in women than it is in men.

This sex difference in 2D:4D is greater on the right hand than on the left (Fig. 1a), indicating that the right-hand 2D:4D is more sensitive to fetal androgens than the left-hand ratio.The right-hand 2D:4D ratio of homosexual women was significantly more masculine (that is, smaller) than that of heterosexual women, and did not differ significantly from that of heterosexual men. Thus finger ratios, like otoacoustic emissions, suggest that at least some homosexual women were exposed to greater levels of fetal androgen than heterosexual women.

2D:4D ratio of homosexual men was not significantly different from that of heterosexual men for either hand (P > 0.09). However, segregating male subjects based on birth order provided support for the role of fetal androgens in male sexual orientation. The more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to develop a homosexual orientation. Confirming these reports, we also found that only homosexual men had a greater than expected proportion of brothers (P< 0.01) among their older siblings (229 brothers:163 sisters) compared with the general population (106 males:100females).

We found that the male 2D:4D ratio, which is unlikely to be influenced by social factors, also varies with the number of older brothers. The ratio was significantly more masculine in men with two or more older brothers than in men with no older brothers (Fig. 1b). There is also a significant correlation (r = -0.104; P < 0.05) between the number of older brothers and the right-hand 2D:4D ratio in men. If male subjects are divided by sexual orientation, the same pattern of later-born men displaying a more masculine 2D:4D is seen. Having older sisters has no apparent influence on male sexual orientation2, or on the 2D:4D ratio in men. No effect of older brothers or sisters on 2D:4D in women was observed, consonant with reports that older siblings exert no effect on female sexual orientation.

Our results suggest that events before birth (or even before conception in the case

I currently work 80 hours a week for two weeks straight, then take two full weeks off.

Unless you happen to work in a job where a larger portion of your reported hours is time spent resting (e.g. On Duty Emergency Services personnel), then who ever is paying you is making a huge mistake.

The 40 hour work week did not grow out of any workers rights movement, It came from a study in productivity. This initial study showed that productivity drop over the long run if employees worked greater than 36 hours a week. Since there have been many further studies showing that working higher number hours reduces productivity.

In your case (with the exception listed above) you are working at less than 70% efficiency and possibly as low as 50% efficiency. Meaning your employer (even if you are self employed) is getting no more than 56 hours of actual productive work for every 80 hours you work. If your hours were cut to 40 hours and a second employee was added who also worked 40 hours (assuming the task can be partitioned as such) your employer would get at least and additional 24 hours of productivity per week.

The situation gets far worse if you are a knowledge worker, such as an engineer, as you will actually reach negative productivity if your working long enough hours (You end up making costly mistakes rather than producing anything of value).

You can start here for reference.

There is a journal article which discusses the acetaminophen toxicity in snakes and lizards. Apparently there are two theories - glutathione depletion leading to hepatic necrosis as you mentioned, or methemoglobinemia, which is apparently a condition where normal oxygen-carrying hemoglobin is replaced by methemoglobin, which does not carry oxygen and effectively causes death due to cellular oxgyen deprivation (I wonder if this would explain the findings of clear fluid in the lungs/trachea of the snakes/lizards they tested this on?). I'm not a doctor or a chemist, by the way, just found it interesting.

The day is coming when a mechanical surrogate may come to the door. Very much like Ray Bradbury's, "I Sing the Body Electric". But the day in which Asimov's 3 Laws is a long way off. Robots have one thing that Man has always coveted, "The Concurring of Time". It will take about 40 years to see how Robots can teach children. Some will fail, some will succeed. But the both groups can offer to each other what the other desires most.

Glass isn't a liquid, despite what my (and possibly your) high school chemistry teacher taught.

You are wrong in 4 ways:

• You misspelled "since"
• The proper term is "cue," as in, "Cue the lights," a direction for stage-hands.
• The idea that glass is a liquid is an urban legend. See here.
• Not all mirrors are made from glass.

You are forgetting: there is a limited amount of oil in the world and one day it will all be gone.

There is also a limit to the amount of corn, switchgrass, sugar cane, etc. we can grow and convert into ethanol but we are nowhere near that limit and we can continue to produce ethanol in this manner indefinitely.

Recent research suggests corn ethanol has a net energy gain: http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0901220.shtml

Finally, the production of ethanol from corn causing higher food prices is a myth: http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Food__Water_Watch_Sept_07.pdf
and probably more closely related to the cost of oil: http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/FOOD_PRICE_BACKGROUNDER.pdf

Well I couldn't find the site I read, but here's some additional info: http://extensionhorticulture.unl.edu/Articles/SJB/zucchini.shtml

Meanwhile most people here in SE Australia (educated or otherwise) know all two well that a "slight change" in weather patterns can really screw up a civilization. Grain harvest have been cut in half for 8 out the last ten years, billions of dollars of hydro infrastucture built in Tasmaninia in the 90's sits idle for lack of water, the high tech bass-link cable that was to be used to export that power to the mainland is now used to import power. Firestorms convert forrest into grassland, and grassland into desert, the dust from which can be seen on most mornings simply by looking at your car. Lakes that have survived for tens of thousands of years become toxic and whole forrests of 600yo red gums wither and die. Every state capital in the country has been forced to ration water while thier governments spend billions building some of the world's largests desal plants. Had this happened over geological time scales nobody except geologists would have noticed.

Now I have never been to WI but I hear from reliable sources it is also experiencing drought conditions. Tell me, do they teach history in WI?

Where the heck do you live, Alaska? The temperature inside a parked car in many locales can soar well over 120 F in direct sunlight with the windows raised. In fact, 150-200 F has been recorded. And cracking the windows open 1.5 inches does essentially NO GOOD AT ALL.

Summer Temperatures Make a Car a Potential Oven
American Physical Society: Temperature Rise And Heat Buildup Inside A Parked Car
Direct measurements documented
Pediatrics: Heat Stress From Enclosed Vehicles: Moderate Ambient Temperatures Cause Significant Temperature Rise In Enclosed Vehicles

I was pretty sure they cleared that "glass is a liquid with a high viscosity" myth in one of those "Myths my science teacher taught me" books. This should help clear that up for you though: http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C01/C01Links/www.ualberta.ca/~bderksen/florin.html

While I very much enjoyed the MIT museum http://web.mit.edu/museum/ while hunnymooning in Boston, we live in Nebraska, and I can recommend a few places here... Pioneer Village in Minden http://www.pioneervillage.org/ Stuhr Museum in Grand Island http://www.stuhrmuseum.org/ Of course there is the S.A.C. museum near Omaha http://www.strategicairandspace.com/ Elephant hall in Lincoln http://www-museum.unl.edu/ And the Omaha Zoo http://www.omahazoo.com/ There is also a local history Museum in Gohner, http://www.sewardcountymuseum.org/home.html which has a miniture live steam train that you can ride on weekends http://www.the-chippewa.org/index_content.html

Some sound devices can warn the birds away. [ pdf in link ]

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=icwdmbirdcontrol

Some of the frequencies are ultrasonic so humans won't here it.

Thou its negative effects on other wildlife that can hear ultrasonic might be needed
unless you can focus it primarily in the air.

No, your missing the point. It has already been established that F5 is NOT a standard refresh button.

Did you even read my post? The thrust of which was "it doesn't fucking matter which key is the standard for refresh?"

Yes, there are people too stupid to push the right button. Just because some program came along and started using the Lock Application button as their non-standard key for refresh does not make Notes wrong. You are falling for the old 'The first way I saw it must be the "right" way.' mentality.

If I, a human being, hit F5 and it wastes my time doing something I don't want it to do, then yes that is Notes' problem.

And you're falling for the "it's Ok for the software to be obnoxious now because 15 years ago that behavior wasn't obnoxious" mentality. Since we're making up mentalities. Yes, you're right: Notes had F5 first. Here's a news-flash: I don't give a shit.

BTW, the argument "Notes isn't that bad because it does the same thing it did in 1992" is... well, retarded. Notes is a good product because it doesn't change with the times? So I guess, in your opinion, Photoshop would be an *better* product if they removed layer groups? Since it didn't have those ten years ago... right? And GIMP would be awesome if every single possible command was in a right-click menu (it would be too generous to call it a "contextual menu"), because that's how old versions of GIMP were? Oh, and damn Microsoft for removing Active Desktop!

That would be due to two VERY good reasons. One is that Notes predates security on the desktop. They implemented locking because back before your your obviously limited time, 'locking' Windows wasn't security.

Does Notes even run on Windows versions that don't have a real lock mechanism? Let's check. The answer is: http://notes.unl.edu/newnotes2/requirements.shtml FUCK NO.

So Notes still has its own locking feature... why? Because the spec is append-only? Because if they removed it, it might make Notes less bloated? Because Notes fans love it when people hit F5 and accidentally lock their email program because then they have an excuse to give a lecture on history?

Again, a product that doesn't change with the times is a crappy product.

You also make a point to have the software run the same on all platforms.

I know; that's why the usability sucks ass on *all* the platforms it runs on. That's an anti-feature, not a feature.

Here's a tip: if Firefox ran the same on OS X as it does on Windows, nobody would ever use it on OS X. Ask the OpenOffice guys how many Mac users they had before they finally made it at least pretend to be a Mac application. Hell, even Microsoft had to learn that lesson the hard way with Word 6.

Now take that a step further. Not only does Notes look like a bad port on OS X, it actually somehow manages to look like a bad port *even on the most popular OS on the planet* Windows. That takes an almost legendary amount of incompetence and contempt for your users.

So, now it isn't that it doesn't follow the standard?

No, my point is that the standard doesn't fucking matter.

It is amazing that you are seriously arguing that because there is a group of people who blindly press a function key that has no standard function, people who know what the buttons they press do must be robots.

Do you have any reading comprehension skills at all? Are you running some kind of crazy proxy that completely alters my Slashdot posts in some mysterious way?

There's two points here:

1) Human beings using Lotus Notes frequently hit F5 expecting it to do a certain thing. Notes doesn't do that thing, but, in fact, does something completely different.

2) Lotus Notes was built by people who have absolutely no conception of how actual human beings behave when using software. I jokingly referred to these people as "robots", ha ha ha.

Your argument makes as much sense as say

Wastewater "sludge" often goes to Land Ap meaning it's spread on farmer's fields.

The wastewater enters the local stream or river to go and "visit" the town downstream.

In the Chicago area you need to be be well outside the general Metro area where the local river flow isn't above 90% "wastewater impacted" or the flow is basically 90% wasterwater or higher.

My perspective would be that I'm surprised that recycling water didn't already happen.

Unless you've been synthesizing your water, that's all you've been drinking.

Buffalo herds were occasionally honored right off of cliffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-Smashed-In_Buffalo_Jump
http://contentdm.unl.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/trails&CISOPTR=834&CISOBOX=1&REC=3

As with any group of millions of people, I imagine attitudes varied.

How about border collies?

Worth noting: that UNL link is a cached version of an page *from another site* from a course outline for Chemistry teachers, so NOT a UNL page.
http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869E/CHEM869EInfoFiles/pubCHEM869E-Info080.html
The linked-to site ( http://www.altgreen.com.au/ ) is down, but the google cache reveals this:
"This site is primarily an information exchange and contains reviews of environmental issues. It presents the alternative green view and does not endorse . . ."

Also linked from the UNL course is an NIH page describing DDT toxicity.
http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869E/CHEM869ELinks/ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/8_RoC/RAC/DDT.html
or you can read a more recent study:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=0704C8A4-F52A-BE78-5C81C16C5C1F14C9
Summary: in some groups (rodents separated by strain and gender), no evidence of carcinogenicity for some/all of DDT, TDE, and p.p.-DDE [a fact conveniently cited out of context by a variety of pro-DDT publications] . . . but all showed definite carcinogenicity in at least some groups. As such, it is classified as "Reasonably Anticipated to be a Human Carcinogen".

Worth noting: that UNL link is a cached version of an page *from another site* from a course outline for Chemistry teachers, so NOT a UNL page.
http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869E/CHEM869EInfoFiles/pubCHEM869E-Info080.html
The linked-to site ( http://www.altgreen.com.au/ ) is down, but the google cache reveals this:
"This site is primarily an information exchange and contains reviews of environmental issues. It presents the alternative green view and does not endorse . . ."

Also linked from the UNL course is an NIH page describing DDT toxicity.
http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869E/CHEM869ELinks/ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/8_RoC/RAC/DDT.html
or you can read a more recent study:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=0704C8A4-F52A-BE78-5C81C16C5C1F14C9
Summary: in some groups (rodents separated by strain and gender), no evidence of carcinogenicity for some/all of DDT, TDE, and p.p.-DDE [a fact conveniently cited out of context by a variety of pro-DDT publications] . . . but all showed definite carcinogenicity in at least some groups. As such, it is classified as "Reasonably Anticipated to be a Human Carcinogen".

The Gates Foundation is trying to distribute antimalarial drugs to all the poor people in Africa. Too bad there is already a cure for malaria orders of magnitude cheaper: DDT. In epidemiology, you eradicate a disease by preventing its spread, not treating every infected individual. Malaria was already eliminated in places like Sicily by using DDT.

DDT does not thin eggshells of birds. It is not carcinogenic either. I can't tell whether Bill Gates is trying to accomplish anything or just spend lots of money on others out of penance. If the Gates Foundation wants to improve the world, they would have more money for useful charity if they just applied DDT in Africa.

Hasn't this "glass is a liquid" bullshit been debunked countless times?

Yes, it has.

Here are some links:

http://sciencegeekgirl.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/liquid-glass/
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/5_30_98/fob3.htm
http://www.thefoa.org/tech/glass.htm
http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C01/C01Links/www.ualberta.ca/~bderksen/florin.html

This urban legend has been thoroughly debunked. An amorphous solid (which is what glass is) is still a solid.

As for the other posters in this thread and in parallel branches who claim that there's no melting point for glass... this is also factually untrue. See this article for details.

I'm a student at University of Nebraska at Lincoln, and we recently chose to move from an on-campus solution to either Microsoft or Google. We had letters to the papers and open debates on the topic, including representatives from both companies coming in and talking to the students. Before the decision was made, the majority of campus members were leaning towards Google (whether or not the reasons were technical, I cannot say).

However, the man at the top decided to ignore the desires of the campus at large and went with Microsoft. It's poorly implemented, hard to use, and the adoption rate is terrible (so far, mind). The kicker is a nice donation Microsoft very shortly afterwards, which culminated in our CSCE Honors program being renamed for a Microsoft employee (http://raikes.unl.edu/).

Best of luck, whichever is chosen for you.

Ha, that's waaay too low. Here's the international traffic for one project I work on, CMS:

http://t2.unl.edu/phedex/xml/quantity_cumulative?link=dest&span=86400&starttime=time.time()-30*86400

Total is 3.7PB over the last month. I doubt that one science experiment accounts for 40% of global IP traffic in Cisco's estimates.

So I really don't think my claims are so extravagant when they are based on information coming directly from scientific studies. Granted, I am NOT in the biotech industry and do not possess the requisite education to interpret the findings directly. However, to the best of my recollection, these articles were not published in a biased manner against Monsanto specifically. The presentation of the information was not like that, IMO.

The problem is that none of the studies you referred to demonstrate the conclusions implicit in your posts.

The monarch butterfly study (there were actually many), for example, is one of the talking points of anti-GMO groups, but does not apply to field conditions. The studies most likely behind the claims in your posts basically consisted of researchers finding out how much Bt11 corn pollen had to be on the milkweed leaves before butterflies and other lepidoptera feeding on the leaves were adversely affected. The studies (e.g., here or broad overview of the subject here, and a good abstract that directly addresses the initial misunderstanding of the topic here) generally all find negligible, and potential positive impact of Bt11 on monarchs. More comprehensive studies noted correctly that the alternative to Bt11 varieties is broad-spectrum insecticidal sprays that are guaranteed to impact any butterflies in the field. Also, the number of butterflies that actually use cultivated croplands as a habitat has never been determined conclusively, but is known to be relatively low, as clean cultural practices drastically reduce the density of milkweed in croplands vs uncultivated ground, and the much taller corn plants deter butterflies from landing on milkweed in the field.

Similarly with the BGH-1 and dairy cattle: Studies have shown that BGH-1 consumption can raise the incidence of cancer. Monsanto produces rBGH, which is injected into dairy cattle to increase milk yields. Hence, Monsanto increases cancer!... Except not. While I'd rather not get milk from cows injected with rBGH, it's not because of fear of cancer (rather, it's the higher incidence of mastitis = more possible puss in milk.. eww). The milk from cows injected with rBGH does not contain significantly elevated levels of BGH. The variability of BGH in a cow's milk is such that a given cow not on rBGH, on a given week (it varies even for individual cows) can have higher BGH output in its milk than the next cow over that is being dosed with rBGH. If you want to avoid exposure to BGH, you just have to stop drinking cow's milk. Period. Non-rBGH milk will not help you in any way, shape, or form in this regard.

Finally, I've said it a few places before, but the usual portrayal of Percy Schmeiser's case is another example of a massively disingenuous representation of events for several reasons:

1. The issue of GMOs is completely orthogonal. Schmeiser's field would have been just as forfeit if he had used non-GMO Dekalb (a Monsanto brand) lines instead.
2. Whether or not you agree with the ethicality of the PVPA (plant variety protection act of 1970), Schmeiser was in violation of the law, which *everyone* in the plant breeder industry was extremely well aware of (especially by almost 30 years later!). Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense, and, in this case, was not even a plausible explanation.
3. Anyone reading the case, or even an abstract thereof, will note that 'contamination' was absolutely not the cause of his troubles. He deliberately, systematically, and knowingly selected for Monsanto's varieties.

Monsanto's reaction was unnecessarily brutal, but he was absolutely not innocent. The best analogy I can think of is a display spilling in front of a shoplifter, who gets caught

That said, I think we're making too much of this "make hydrogen while driving" remark. Efficient energy storage/retrieval is definitely a very useful thing, whether or not we end up with vehicles that do so as they drive.

Diamond isn't stable, like glass, it just takes billions of years to lose it's shape, or something like that.

Nope, that's an urban legend.

- How are we 'maxxed out' on hydro?? I guess I'm thinking in terms of Canada too.

Transporting electricity long distances isn't cheap, so more hydro in parts of Canada isn't an ideal solution. Also, much of the US is in a drought stage (which may be status-quo and we mis-interpreted good years as typical) so it's looking like we've over-maxxed out hydro. Also, hydro can have some pretty harmful side effects too.

- Why did she skip from hydro to fossil fuels and nuclear? What happened to wind, solar hot water heat, energy conservation - increased energy efficiency, etc? I know that in my Canadian home town... they are close to approving the largest wind project in Canada for my county- the first one in the county. Proof that we are far from 'maxxed out' on wind for example.

Similar to hydro, wind power has a significant problem of being geographically sensitive, as you have to use in a high wind area. It also has consistency issues (as does solar) and isn't cheap initially, particularly in land area cost. Obviously most of Canada has an advantage here compared to more densely populated areas.

- If the sudden popularity of compact fluorescent lightbulbs has just recently taken off and can make such a difference, as well as Walmart's push for concentrated laundry detergent, etc, etc, isn't this a sign that we have many, many more areas where efficiency improvements can be made. Lets look at trimming the waste.

Certainly, and I don't think most advocates for nuclear power would disagree, but that misses the point. Currently the majority of our power (power grid + transportation) comes from burning coal, oil and gas, with millions of tons of harmful emissions. If we reduce our fossil fuel use (which we need to do) then something has to take it's place, and currently nuclear power is the only thing that can generate the power needed 24/7 and at most geographic locations.

- What REALLY is the solution to nuclear waste? Isn't it kind of a joke to assume that any human government or corporation will be around and responsible enough to babysit these waste storage locations for 50 or a hundred thousand years? That's THOUSANDS of generations of humans!!! Puh-lease!

Integral Fast Reactors. As been stated elsewhere in this thread, allow the reprocessing of fuel (typical reactors used in the US use ~1% of available energy, IFR 99%+) and the volume of waste would be greatly diminished. (There are other reactor types that solve this problem, IFR looks to me, as an interested non-professional, like the best solution.) What makes nuclear waste dangerous is what makes it still usable as a power source, so if we get most of the energy out then we have ~200 year waste in a smaller quantity (small enough to even store on-site), not the many tons 100k year waste.

- It seems to me that it's kind of a give-up to say nuclear is the 'only' solution.

I definitely agree. Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, bio(waste|diesel), ethanol, clean coal, etc., all have their place (and a more significant one than they do currently), and intelligent reduction of resource usage is very much needed. However, nuclear power alone is usable most everywhere (no need for highly specific geographies like wind paths, coastlines, geothermal vents, etc.,) is highly available (24/7 power,) has manageable emissions, and is doable now with today's technology. The safety issue is largely settled, as TMI would illustrate from the fact that there were no deaths as a result and the long history of successful safe operations elsewhere (France, US navy,

Gee, was it only ten years ago when UNL switched everyone, faculty and students, from normal e-mail to Lotus Notes? No, I think it had to be longer than that.

At it seems they still are using it, at least 10 years later. (Even some of the old pages still exist.) Most recent news: attachment size limit has been scaled back to 120 MB "to increase productivity and reliablity". If I hadn't linked it, you could have found it by searching for that misspelling (and two other hits for the phrase, sadly).

Gee, was it only ten years ago when UNL switched everyone, faculty and students, from normal e-mail to Lotus Notes? No, I think it had to be longer than that.

At it seems they still are using it, at least 10 years later. (Even some of the old pages still exist.) Most recent news: attachment size limit has been scaled back to 120 MB "to increase productivity and reliablity". If I hadn't linked it, you could have found it by searching for that misspelling (and two other hits for the phrase, sadly).

Photo: House dust mites feed on human skin scales...

Engineering based firms that hire Computer Science and Computer Engineering undergraduates are struggling to meet their recruitment goals today. Although coming up with new ways to shape the skills and experiences of engineering undergraduates is noble and necessary. It hardly helps with the overall lack of new students majoring in those subjects at university in the first place. This program is an interesting experiment at an elite school. But it hardly has any impact on the lack of students choosing this field.

The other problem I have with it is that the ideas espoused are not terribly new. At the University of Nebraska's School of Engineering students can enter the JD Edwards Honors program with an emphasis in Business.

http://jdedwards.unl.edu/

I tend to not hire CompSci or CompE students from this program because as entry level hires they have incredibly unrealistic expectations about their first job. They all want to transition to management right away before cutting their teeth on engineering design. So we tend to skip them over when we get resumes.

Sean

i would suggest searching for "augmentative and alternative communication" or "communication aids" or "AAC). Wikipedia lists a number of resources. You can also try http://unl.edu/ which is the AAC site from the University of Nebraska and has loads of resources. Also you can look into http://aac-rerc.com/ which is a federally funded center for research in AAC.

The height of the dust bowl. Drought. Pestilence. Ecological disaster. Glad everything is back to normal now.

Honestly, I don't know what the big deal is. You figure tuition is $170 x 130 credit hours for a total of $22100 total, for a degree from the University of Nebraska in 4 years. If you add in the additional moneys worst case scenario you have from UNL Comp Eng

So of that, to be on the safe side, is 108 credit hours of engineering at an extra $40 per credit hour gives us a total of $4320. So, again, an aditional $1080 a year. So what. Suck it up.

College Education is a privilege not a right.

Are the undergrad classes still taught by other students? I know the 100-200 classes were typically taught by prof TA's that went to class at UNL.

If these fees are for 'better teachers'. Then they probably should go thru the program and figure out who actually teaches. For example this gentleman does not do the teaching http://cse.unl.edu/~deogun. He shows up for the first class and the second to last class and has his TA do the rest of the class. I know several classes he has done this with. I dropped 2 when I figured out he was teaching it as I did not feel like failing another class. So if you get a class with him skip it...

Also this gentleman http://cse.unl.edu/~scotth put what the university system is really about on the first day of classes. 'I am not here to teach I am here to research.' He is actually a semi decent teacher and shouldn't have that attitude... Maybe that has changed since I went there...

Are the undergrad classes still taught by other students? I know the 100-200 classes were typically taught by prof TA's that went to class at UNL.

If these fees are for 'better teachers'. Then they probably should go thru the program and figure out who actually teaches. For example this gentleman does not do the teaching http://cse.unl.edu/~deogun. He shows up for the first class and the second to last class and has his TA do the rest of the class. I know several classes he has done this with. I dropped 2 when I figured out he was teaching it as I did not feel like failing another class. So if you get a class with him skip it...

Also this gentleman http://cse.unl.edu/~scotth put what the university system is really about on the first day of classes. 'I am not here to teach I am here to research.' He is actually a semi decent teacher and shouldn't have that attitude... Maybe that has changed since I went there...

Using Fossil Fuels mined domestically is a good argument for national security as was the start of this thread. The most used resource in producing Ethanol is Coal which the US has more of then any Nation in the world. I don't endorse the use of coal but I'm assuming much of this is coming from electricity that could use other cleaner sources. You also keep repeating your net energy loss statement which is referring to the one source from Tad Patzek that others have pointed to as using Solar Energy to grow the plants as a net loss. I can show you two independent sources (US Department of Energy and Berkeley) that show a net energy gain from corn based ethanol, while I have only ever seen this one report from Tad Patzek that reports a net loss. I would love to see another report that is not derived from Tad Patzek that shows a net loss.

As toward you EPA link that only addresses FFV (Flex Fuel Vehicles) which as I said they are less efficent then gasoline only vehicles. I'm not even sure why you gave me a link that agreed with me. Here is a link that will show you of an example where a gasoline vehicle was converted to a E85 only vehicle that produced more power, and less emissions while still getting a higher MPG. http://www.engr.unl.edu/~ethanol/unl2000.pdf

I'm sorry you live in a place with no wind. It must be hell.

I just want to know why people continue to believe these myth and seem to accept them so easily. Is it because you believe in the war so much that you don't want to accept that there is other alternatives out there that would have meant that the war is even meaningless then is already is? Do you have some investment in oil? Are you already driving an electric (and I don't mean Hybrid) or Hydrogen car? Do you truly believe that we will never run out of oil or that it's not changing the environment? Did the Catholic church tell you that it was a sin to believe there is an alternative? Did the Scientologist tell you that aliens would abduct you if you don't believe? I truly don't understand your reasonings. I can explain some of mine to be bias towards ethanol. I grew up in Kansas where my parents are still supported by the corn farmers that used to struggle when it was just a food crop. I also think that 80% of the reason why we went to Iraq was because of their oil which is also the reason they don't want us there. Now please explain to me some of your bias.

Since the subject is offensive shock sites - have you seen these pictures of volcanic diarrhea or severed limbs? Disgusting...

Students still can (and do) have static IP addresses; now, however, you have to fill out a form to get one.

The 2000-2001 academic year was a wonderful time to be a freshman at UNL. No network caps whatsoever.