Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cradle to Cradle

Posted by timothy on from the integration dept.

Logic Bomb writes: "Human progress since the Industrial Revolution has been one big design error. Really. In 'Cradle to Cradle,' architect William McDonough and chemist Michael Braungart have crafted a compelling explanation for why humans need a completely new framework for how we interact with the world around us. Our model of technology and development is completely counter to the natural cycles and principles that worked for millions of years to create the environment we so cleverly manipulate. Sound like typical 'environmentalist' rhetoric? Not by half. This book actually contains reasonable explanations and practical solutions." Read on for the rest of Logic Bomb's review. Cradle to Crade: Remaking the Way We Make Things author William McDonough & Michael Braungart pages 186 plus notes publisher North Point Press rating 10/10 reviewer Matt Rosenberg ISBN 0-86547-587-3 summary Changing how humans relate to our environment

According to the authors, current human technology is a product of "cradle to grave" design. We pull resources from the Earth, shape them into a product, use it, and throw it away. The problem, we've noticed as we've spread all over the planet, is that there really isn't any "away." This is certainly not the first time our endless cycle of resource destruction and waste creation has been brought to light. But the whole point of this book is to show why the usual responses we've developed are useless, and what to do instead.

Consider the typical "recycling" program. What is presented to the public as a way to endlessly reuse raw materials is in fact a downward spiral of degradation in material quality until, just as before, it becomes unusable. Sometimes the recycling process itself produces additional toxic waste. Most Americans have probably heard of "the 3 Rs": Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle (to which the authors add a fourth, Regulate). These are measures that only aim to slow the destructive cycle. In the end, the result is the same. As the authors put it, Less Bad is No Good.

McDonough and Braungart's proposed strategy is called "eco-effectiveness". It revolves around the idea that in nature, waste equals food. Other than incoming energy from the sun, our environment is basically a closed system. Whenever (non-human) life on our planet uses a resource, it is left in a form readily useable to other life. Humans must do the same. The authors envision a world where, when a material item gets worn out, you simply throw it on the ground to decompose. Buildings should produce more energy than they use. Eliminate the concept of "waste" entirely.

The authors put their money where their mouths are. In 1994 they started a design firm that puts these principles into practice. Examples of their work are downright astonishing. The firm was once hired to design a compostable upholstery fabric. According to their principles, not only did the finished product have to be environmentally neutral, so did the production process. In the end, an entire line of fabrics was put into production using a total of 38 chemicals (selected from a list of almost 8,000 commonly used in the industry). Water leaving the factory, originally drawn from the local water supply, tested cleaner than when it went in. And the fabric, of course, could be readily disposed of by tossing it onto the ground where it would decompose back into the soil without leaving toxic chemicals behind. They include plenty of other cases that illustrate how eco-effectiveness can both improve the quality of life and make for a more profitable business.

We live in a complex world, and it is absurd to think that every product and production process could be converted to produce similar results overnight. What about items that consist of metals and other elements that organic life doesn't usually process? There is a whole section of the book to address such issues. The authors also go beyond pure chemistry and physical health to discuss how environment affects the intangible quality of human life, and how applying these same philosophies to architecture and urban planning can produce amazing results. Unlike many environmental advocates, McDonough and Braungart both acknowledge the difficulties and provide a clear path for reform. They include a framework for eco-effective planning and decision-making so their ideas can be implemented as much as is practically possible at any given time, always with an eye for continued improvement down the road.

The writing in this book is extremely clear and articulate. The authors provide explanations of their ideas from historical, scientific, and business perspectives. They even manage to rip apart typical corporate and environmentalist thinking without pushing blame on anyone. And of course, the book is far more detailed and comprehensive than I could cover in a short review. It's hard to read it and not come away convinced, and I think that's a good thing.

One final note for anyone thinking it hypocritical to waste trees so these ideas could be distributed: the book is not made out of paper or printed using a conventional process. It's plastic -- waterproof, resilient, eligible for recycling in most locales, and an early step towards what the authors hope will be infinitely recyclable synthetic book-making materials.

Links: McDonough's architectural firm; the design firm mentioned in the review; a webcast of NPR's National Press Club at which McDonough talked about their ideas far more eloquently than I have."

To go through your own hard times, you can from Crade to Cradle from bn.com Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to submit yours, read the book review guidelines, then hit the submission page.

396 comments

  1. Don't you mean by L0rdkariya · · Score: -1

    Gumbel 2 Gumbel ?

    --
    The /. users are rep'd by 2 groups. Janitors, who post articles, and Trolls who bash them. These are
    1. Re:Don't you mean by cyborg_monkey · · Score: -1

      Human progress since the introduction of hot grits has been one big design error. Really. In 'Natalie: Naked and Petrified,' architect spork_testicle and chemist pr0n_k1ng have crafted a compelling explanation for why humans need a bowl of hot grits poured down our collective pants.

      Our model of warm cereal is completely counter to the natural cycles and principles that worked for millions of years. Sound like typical 'troll' rhetoric? Not by half. This book actually contains reasonable homosexual references and pictures of sporky "gettin' it on" with a goat.

    2. Re:Don't you mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ponkus 4 Wonkus !

  2. none given by Budgreen · · Score: -1

    yay a first post! I can finally go to bed

    --
    The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
    1. Re:none given by L0rdkariya · · Score: -1

      My bad, looks like you'll be awake a little longer.

      --
      The /. users are rep'd by 2 groups. Janitors, who post articles, and Trolls who bash them. These are
  3. FIRST SUBJECT LINE ONLY POST! W00T! by Subject+Line+Troll · · Score: -1

    A HREF="f/?a=1 x f

  4. Score one for the CLIT!! by CLIT · · Score: -1

    And I invite all AC's to lick my scrotum.

    --

    CLIT. Are you a memb

  5. Yes, but... by ceejayoz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In 1994 they started a design firm that puts these principles into practice. Examples of their work are downright astonishing. The firm was once hired to design a compostable upholstery fabric. According to their principles, not only did the finished product have to be environmentally neutral, so did the production process. In the end, an entire line of fabrics was put into production using a total of 38 chemicals (selected from a list of almost 8,000 commonly used in the industry). Water leaving the factory, originally drawn from the local water supply, tested cleaner than when it went in. And the fabric, of course, could be readily disposed of by tossing it onto the ground where it would decompose back into the soil without leaving toxic chemicals behind.

    Wonderful... but people aren't going to jump for it unless it costs the same or less. Look at how hard factories fight things like filters on smokestacks, because it'll raise prices a few cents per item.

    1. Re:Yes, but... by William+Tanksley · · Score: 2

      Cost is a means of allocating scarce resources, as I'm sure you've heard. Some of this plan requires specific, scarce resources, and thus will raise costs; others, though, will effectively reduce scarcity in other resources, and will thus be useful to the people needing them.

      The ethical part of the argument needs to be heard, of course; but pragmatically and immediately, this plan makes sense.

      -Billy

    2. Re:Yes, but... by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The key solution to your proposed problem is to properly account for externalities like pollution and waste. It is cheap to use toxic chemicals in manufacturing because the manufacturer doesn't have to pay to dispose of the wastewater. They usually just dump it. The cost is payed by society as a whole. Obviously, if we had a way to account for the cost of this waste, the cost of the manufactured good would also increase.

      People must understand the complete cost of their actions, as this book tries to point out. If you harvest a tree, you have gained some wood and removed from the world some habitat and a carbon sink. You should have to pay to harvest that tree, because a cost is incurred by society. The same principle applies to clearcutting 100 acres, except the cost is much greater. The same principle applies to polluting bodies of water, paving land, taking game, etc.

      If you carefully consider my point, you will see that it actually fits best with libertarian free market philosophy. The market is the best system, but our current market is imperfect because it cannot account for externalities.

    3. Re:Yes, but... by kiatoa · · Score: 1
      Costs are really the fundamental problem. That much I think a lot of folks would agree with. If only the costs reflected the real (and future) impact of using a resource. I think intelligently applying taxes could really help here. Raise all tax revenues by taxing only natural resources and land. Then when these guys make a compostable couch it will likely cost less than the one made from plastics that will last 100's of years in the local landfill. The other side effect of taxing only natural resources is that a lot of trash itself will be more valuable. Just my daily 2c.

      --
      90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
    4. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so much that our economic system cannot account for externalities, but does not or chooses not to account for them. It's inconvenient to industry.

    5. Re:Yes, but... by ccarnow · · Score: 1

      What you are talking about sounds like Pigouvian taxes but remember that externalites, according to the Coase Theorem, aren't really what cause inefficiency. It's transaction costs. If you initally assign Property Rights to the wrong people (i.e lets say you give the pollutor the right to pollute and their is a landowner downwind that's tenants don't like pollution) if the transaction costs are zero it will be bargained out of existence (the landowner pays the polluter not to pollute imagining one landowner) In the case of pollution above if there was more than one landowner and all of them had to pay the polluter there is probably one that will holdout assuming he can reap the benefits without paying the polluter, if everything thinks this the negotiations will break down, the transaction cost will not be zero. In this case the Law should give the right to collect damages to all the landowners but not a right to forbid him from polluting. See www.davidfriedman.com/Libertarian/The_Swedes.html for more on the theorem.

    6. Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      is cheap to use toxic chemicals in manufacturing because the manufacturer doesn't have to pay to dispose of the wastewater. They usually just dump it.

      Manufacturing industries are highly regulated for all emissions, be they air, water, or solid. Everything must be disposed of properly (however "properly" is defined). This is especially true for toxic materials.

    7. Re:Yes, but... by Bearpaw · · Score: 2
      [...complete costs ...]

      If you carefully consider my point, you will see that it actually fits best with libertarian free market philosophy. The market is the best system, but our current market is imperfect because it cannot account for externalities.

      It fits with the philosophy, yes, but implementing it in reality would be pretty tricky. How do we prevent market players from "externalizing costs" whenever possible, given that it's to their benefit to do so? It's done right now (when it's done at all) by badly-designed and poorly-implemented government regulations, but it seems like anything other than that would be subverted even faster than Whitman subverted the EPA.

    8. Re:Yes, but... by nomadic · · Score: 2

      Well that's the problem with the libertarian philosophy on the environment; they very reasonably insist that companies be responsible for pollution they create, but then they put "pollution" into an extremely narrow category, leaving out most of the harmful things industry creates.

    9. Re:Yes, but... by pnuema · · Score: 1

      Manufacturing industries are highly regulated for all emissions, be they air, water, or solid. Everything must be disposed of properly (however "properly" is defined). This is especially true for toxic materials.

      And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

      Truth is, that it is often far, far cheaper to just dump toxics into the environment and deal with an ineffective EPA. The agency is so hamstrung that it takes years to bring an effective action, and once an action is brought, the fines don't even come close to covering the cost of initial disposal, much less being punative.

      I mean, ask yourself: you are CEO of ABC chemicals. It costs $50 per year to dispose of your waste be environmental regs. But, you know you can just dump it in some poor people's (meaning minority, usually) backyard, and it will take them 10 years to figure it out. Once they do, it will take the EPA 5 years to bring action against your company, and when they finally do, you will pay $100 for lawyers and $200 in fines.

      So, in short, it will cost you $750 to do it by the books, or $300 to dump it. Now what are you going to do?

      Check out Zodiac by Neal Stephenson for a good novel on the subject. One of my favorite books ever.

    10. Re:Yes, but... by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      You clearly have never worked for an actual manufacturer, nor do you have any idea of the damages that one lawsuit can do. Most companies are extremely careful about how they dispose of wastes for the simple reason that they do not want to be held liable for damages. Just look at what is happening to the tobacco industry and they even printed right on their cartons that their product was dangerous.

      I know that when the EPA folks nose around our facility it is all "Yes Sir! Right Away Sir!" We know they could shut us down in a New York minute.

    11. Re:Yes, but... by Jodka · · Score: 1

      People must understand the complete cost of their actions, as this book tries to point out. If you harvest a tree, you have gained some wood and removed from the world some habitat and a carbon sink. You should have to pay to harvest that tree, because a cost is incurred by society. The same principle applies to clearcutting 100 acres, except the cost is much greater.

      Forests produce as much CO2 as they consume. A tree grows, sucking CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering carbon within its body. Eventually the tree dies, falls to the forest floor and rots. As the tree is digested, bacteria, fungi and insects on the forest floor release the same amount of CO2 back into the atmosphere as the tree absorbed in growth. This process is part of what is known as the carbon cycle.

      Carbon sinks don't work unless you harvest the trees. Harvesting trees prevents the CO2 from being release back into the air as the trees decay. If you beleive that externalities should have costs, then you believe that people should be paid to harvest trees beyond the value which they receive for the sale of lumber. Everyone in socity benefits when a tree is harvested, not just the seller and the buyer of the lumber. All of human society should be taxed, and those who harvest trees should recieve a portion of the revenues.

      Note that there are two exceptions, neither of which are likely to apply. First, if the forest is in bog and the trees will sink deeply into that bog, preventing bacterial decay and eventually converting converting to a fossil fuel, then, carbonwise, leaving trees in the forrest is no different than harvesting the trees. Secondly, when trees are burned for fuel, the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. But burning lumber for fuel is so unprofitable that industry doesn't do that anymore.

      Of course, I am not seriously advocating that we tax the world and give the revenues to those who cut down trees. What I am doing is pointing out that sometimes internalizing externalities is just not worth the effort.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    12. Re:Yes, but... by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 2

      You are completely out of your crack smoking head. Industries might be considered highly regulated in the USA, but that explains why manufacturing simply moves overseas. In Singapore, you can get away with a lot more dumping. In Mexico, environmental regulation is a joke. Many products sold in the US and Europe are manufactured in China under the most lax environmental regime. Even in the USA, we still allow clearcutting forests despite the fact that we are down to the last tiny fraction of our native forest (not counting monoculture tree farms).

    13. Re:Yes, but... by dachshund · · Score: 1
      Yes, but that's assuming that most of the wood/paper generated from the trees doesn't biodegrade or burn. This is the case with some of the wood being cut down-- it winds up in furniture, buildings or landfills. On the other hand, there's only a certain amount of stuff we can sequester.

      Clearcutting trees can have some very negative effects in terms of soil erosion, which can significantly multiply the impact of a single acre's logging. Trees are also responsible for pulling enormous amounts of water out of the soil and into the air, and so on.

    14. Re:Yes, but... by lemmett · · Score: 1

      In the end, it cost less and created a new market for the company. The same example is used in a book called Natural Capitalism (highly recommended by the way).

      The original push to develop the new process was that the chemicals used in the manufacture of the fabric were classed as hazardous waste and it cost the company a ton of money to dispose of them.

      After they revised their process their manufacturing costs went down (didn't have to dispose of chemicals), they were able to fetch a premium price for the product, and it opened up the entire market of people with chemical sensitivities that they hadn't been able to sell into before. I believe it also cut down on the number of employee sick days being taken, although that may have been one of the other examples in Natural Capitalism.

      Net of it all: more money to their bottom line, lot's of good publicity, and they're doing The Right Thing(tm).

    15. Re:Yes, but... by Jodka · · Score: 1


      Yes, but that's assuming that most of the wood/paper generated from the trees doesn't biodegrade or burn.

      And that is exactly what the philosophy expounded in this book dictates; Wood and paper should biodegrade and burn, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

      there's only a certain amount of stuff we can sequester.

      Prove it.

      Trees are also responsible for pulling enormous amounts of water out of the soil and into the air

      Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Yet another externality. People who maintain forests whould be taxed for that contribution to greenhouse gas emmissions, so your line of reasoning dictates.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    16. Re:Yes, but... by pnuema · · Score: 1

      You're right. I haven't worked for an actual manufacturer. I've worked for people who buy from those manufacturers, and spray those chemicals on the ground to control weeds. Who have pits out back to bury the waste that is too expensive to be disposed of properly.

      What planet are you from? One lawsuit can't do jack shit to a company with deep enough pockets. Hell, Union Carbide killed 50,000 people in Bhopal, India and they are still doing fine. Those lawsuits don't seem to be bothering them.

      The tobacco industry just paid out nearly a quater trillion dollars in lawsuits, and they are still showing a profit. Doesn't sound like they are really hurting, now, does it? Fact is, tobacco is a 46 billion dollar a year business. They discovered cigarettes were harmful in what, 1968? Sounds like paying the fine was the right way to go.

      How many lawsuits has Monsanto survived? Dow? I come from the country of Times Beach and Doe Run. I know exactly how much damage an EPA lawsuit does - it might shut you down in 20 years.

      Wake up man. Sounds like you either work for a company that actually cares - but more likely is just too small to surivive the EPA.

    17. Re:Yes, but... by Mr.+Fred+Smoothie · · Score: 2
      If you harvest a tree, you have gained some wood and removed from the world some habitat and a carbon sink. You should have to pay to harvest that tree, because a cost is incurred by society. The same principle applies to clearcutting 100 acres, except the cost is much greater. The same principle applies to polluting bodies of water, paving land, taking game, etc.

      If you carefully consider my point, you will see that it actually fits best with libertarian free market philosophy.

      It doesn't fit with "libertarian free market philosophy" because that philosophy recognizes the tree as the property of the person cutting it down, while the myriad people using the carbon sink and depending on the biodiversity resulting from the habitat it provides have no property rights in the tree whatsoever.

      I have long been interested in what the philosophical framework is for property rights in the West, in particular with regard to limited, vital resources. I can't understand why we sacrifice the future of our species on the altar of production and trade.

      If anyone out there knows of any comprehensive treatments of the history of property rights which doesn't have an axe to grind, I'd love to hear of it.

      --

    18. Re:Yes, but... by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      Of course if you were to count actual forested land we've got more of that than ever before (or at least since the plains indians started setting massive fires to create range for the buffalo). Not all replanted forest is monoculture but if its been cut once, it counts as not wooded according to the environuts whether or not the actual ecosystem is wooded or not.

    19. Re:Yes, but... by dachshund · · Score: 1
      there's only a certain amount of stuff we can sequester.

      Prove it.

      Let me put it another way. Carbon sequestration is damn easy to do, with other, faster growing plants. Trees take years to regrow, and overlogging can severely damage an entire ecosystem and have all sorts of other messy effects.

      Not that I have anything against responsible logging. It's just that a vast amount of logging is not responsible (particularly outside this country), and has grave environmental consequences.

      Reducing complex environmental questions to a game of C02 accounting seems rather silly. If that's what the authors of this book have done, then that's a shame.

    20. Re:Yes, but... by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      > I have long been interested in what the
      > philosophical framework is for property rights in
      > the West.... I can't understand why we sacrifice
      > the future of our species on the altar of
      > production and trade.

      Because so far it's been an incalculably great boon. How's that for an answer?

      If you slow technological development because of the alter of eco-fury, you will cause more and more people to die who otherwise would have lived.

      This inexorable climb, slowed, outweighs all but the most severe of possible environmental problems. Never forget that people choking in London a hundred and fifty years ago were STILL living much longer and healthier lives because of the very industries choking them. Any government "solution" should be only as a very last resort to a severe and recognized problem.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    21. Re:Yes, but... by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      What about the cost of us living with lesser technology than we otherwise would have had, thanks to the slowing of the economy of any of various proposed (and real) environmental laws?

      Guess what, people? The cost of 99% of environmentalism hurts more than it helps; any advantage is a magnitude or more less helpful than the truncated economy the enviro laws lopped off, and it ain't even close. I mean, it's not even a contest.

      Non-intuitive? Yes. True? Yes again.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    22. Re:Yes, but... by cyril3 · · Score: 1
      Factories fight filters etc mainly because they are afraid that other factories mightn't put the filters on (esp so if the other factory is in another country which doesn't require filters). If everyone put the filters on costs would rise similarly across the industry and no player would be worse off than other players. Costs are always in the end passed onto the consumer so what do the factories care if the consumer pays $1 or $1.20 as long as the profit margin is maintained. Hell if all goes well they'll put the price up to $1.25 and blame the filter anyway.

      Of course this is a broad statement and may not apply to all products in all circumstances and there will be products that cannot wear a price increase of any kind. But who would want to be in that kind of business anyway.

      The other reason they don't like them is because they are lazy and/or just don't like change, let alone having someone else tell them what to do.

    23. Re:Yes, but... by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

      You should have to pay ... The same principle applies to ... taking game, etc.

      Excellent point about taking game. It illustrates your view very well. As we see in the U.S. from the Pittman-Robertson Act revenues, when the users of a resource have to actually pay for it instead of fobbing the cost off on society at large, that resource tends to be protected. Because in the U.S. the only people that really pay for wildlife conservation are hunters, there's ample money to fund the game management programs that keep the supply of sporting/game animals steady and high. Whitetail deer, for example, are far more numerous today than they were 200 years ago. Certain bears are making a comeback in certain locations mostly because hunters are paying for the conservation efforts that will someday provide them a huntable population. And the overwhelming majority of habitat set aside for migratory birds has happened because hunters paid the tab.

      Contrast that with market hunting and the passenger pigeon, where business interests didn't have to pay a dime toward conserving the resource they were using. They simply shot the passenger pigeon into extinction.

      Making people pay as they go seems like such a simple idea. Good examples where it actually happens are hardly nonexistent, but neither are they typical. That's too bad.

    24. Re:Yes, but... by lesterhv · · Score: 1

      The whole notion of trees as 'carbon sinks' is poor thinking. Trees absorb carbon from the atmosphere, true, but then give it up when they die and rot. In balance, a forest is pretty much neutral.

      If you were to harvest a tree and turn it into something that doesn't rot -- well then you've become a 'sink' -- except the tree still degrades -- just slower.

    25. Re:Yes, but... by Mr.+Fred+Smoothie · · Score: 2
      Because so far it's been an incalculably great boon. How's that for an answer?
      I agree it's been a great boon for some, and even an modest boon to neutral for most. My problem is with the "incalcuable" part.

      Your assertion that slowing progress is unjustifiable except in the face of a "recognized" looming catastrophe begs the question "recognized by whom?"

      For instance, the general consensus among climatologists, from an outsider's point of view at least, is that climate change is occuring and human activity is a primary cause (not neccesarily the only one). Even Bush's own administration just admitted it, but Bush dismisses his own administration's report!

      I guess my argument boils down to: if you're driving forward, and someone says that there is a sudden dropoff ahead, do you keep driving fast because you can't see the dropoff yourself (realizing that at that speed, once you do see it, you won't be able to stop in time)? Yes, driving slow is frustrating and takes longer to get where you're going. But when you don't know the road, it's also vastly safer.

      --

    26. Re:Yes, but... by jaydub99 · · Score: 1

      The whole notion of trees as 'carbon sinks' is poor thinking. Trees absorb carbon from the atmosphere, true, but then give it up when they die and rot. In balance, a forest is pretty much neutral.

      As long as you are willing to maintain that balance, or equilibrium. The bottom line will be, if the total mass of standing trees in forests at equilibrium is reduced (through continual clearcutting and replanting), then there is more carbon out there not being held in the trees. This should be obvious.

      --

      Please mod me up. My grandma might not make it to the weekend and she always wanted me to hit karma cap.
    27. Re:Yes, but... by Cybrr · · Score: 1

      Vapor != gas. Besides, water vapor comes down when the air cools and so provides the land with water, which grows crops and stuff.

      --
      Why did GEAR crush RDP?
    28. Re:Yes, but... by Cybrr · · Score: 1

      Vapor is gas, sorry. I was picturing droplets. http://www.gewex.com/gvap.html says water vapor is critical to the biosphere though.

      --
      Why did GEAR crush RDP?
  6. Shit! I got beat! by CLIT · · Score: -1

    But only to L0rdKariya.

    Almost like getting it myself.

    Mad pr0pz!

    --

    CLIT. Are you a memb

  7. Didn't here the E or T words.. by xtal · · Score: 2

    Energy.. or thermodynamics.

    I'd like to see an energy comparison on which process is more efficient and what the total energy consumption from each was - including, for example, all the energy used to make those chemicals in use.

    The point these people miss is that it isn't raw materials and gargage that does us in. It's going to be the supply of energy.

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is energy an issue? We get lots of energy every day... from the sun.

      It's the chemistry that's important; the material cycle must be closed.

      I quibble with a couple of the reviewer's (or maybe the author's) points: life has not evolved so that waste products are inputs to other reactions; it's the other way around. Life has evolved to make use of whatever resources are available; frequently, another creature's waste is exploitable somehow. And recycled paper, even if it degrades, is still part of a closed cycle: eventually, someone or something burns (or metabolizes) the cellulose back to CO2 + H2O, and trees photosynthesize that back into "high grade" cellulose.

    2. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know if they missed it? Stupid blanket statement -- read the book, why don't you?

      These people haven't apparently already tried harder than you have -- recognize that before you go mouthing off.

    3. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, Correction:

      The people have apparently already tried harder...

    4. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by xtal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't believe that got modded up. Anyone who thinks that solar energy can provide energy at anywhere near the current consumption rate is insane. Look around you. Oil is millions of years of stored solar energy - current theories about bacteria in the earth's core aside - consuption of oil is exceeding discovery of new reserves 4:1.

      Solar energy in it's current form is not concentrated enough. Nobody has proposed a solution that can change that, and ALL environmentalist solutions don't discuss potenital yields vs. current consumption.

      The planet is BIG. There is near infinite room to put garbage and waste, and there's so much aluminum and silica on this planet it will never come close to being all used. What will run out is the energy to process that material. Of course, it's easier to toss that can in a bin than it is to give up a car, now, isn't it.

      Everything! is about energy. How much energy does X consume. If it takes less energy to throw something away, we should do that instead - because it's the energy consumption (oil, coal) that's ruining the environment.

      The real environmental saviour is safe nuclear (fission and fusion) power. The lobby did a good job on that on in the 70's, though.

      --
      ..don't panic
    5. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by CBenning · · Score: 1

      xtal, you have hit the nail on the head.

      This is the first intelligent, reasonable post I have read in this thread.

    6. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by leezardscure · · Score: 0

      Wind Power... It is totally renewable, an almost perfected technology, and in some areas would be FAR more Space effective than even Solar energy. It is largely ignored but extremely effective.

    7. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 2

      The planet is BIG. There is near infinite room to put garbage and waste, and there's so much aluminum and silica on this planet it will never come close to being all used. What will run out is the energy to process that material. Of course, it's easier to toss that can in a bin than it is to give up a car, now, isn't it.


      Everything! is about energy. How much energy does X consume. If it takes less energy to throw something away, we should do that instead - because it's the energy consumption (oil, coal) that's ruining the environment.


      The real environmental saviour is safe nuclear (fission and fusion) power. The lobby did a good job on that on in the 70's, though.


      These points need repeating because most people just don't know this. Most people have the few that resources are scarce and getting scarcer. In fact, resources have become more plentiful and cheaper throughout recorded history and there's no end in sight to this, as long as we have cheap enough energy to process them.


      Garbage is, for the most part, an economic problem, not an ecological problem. The only pollution problem that's both ecologically significant and hard to solve (carbon dioxide) again involves energy.

    8. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      your post makes no sense.

      resources are not becoming more plentiful. they may become more *accessible*, but not more plentiful. please realize that you're suggesting an infinite supply. this is not realizable unless our consumption is either at or below production levels. and we can take a fairly educated guess that this is NOT the case. as accessibility increases, consumption tends to increase.

      as far as the ecology of garbage (and everything else): we simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND the ecological system that contains us. we can't model it effectively. we don't know all the interactions, and we don't know the effects of a given input or factor. so it's TOTAL FUCKING BULLSHIT to pretend like we do. both you and the rabid environmentalists are FUCKING WRONG on this one. the only difference is that their way assumes a worst case scenario and proceeds with caution, while your way accelerates the - let me repeat this again, maybe you'll understand it this time - FUCKING UNKNOWN RESULT.

      do you like those odds? enjoy them? take your total lack of risk assessment somewhere else, please.

    9. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

      I can't believe that got modded up. Anyone who thinks that solar energy can provide energy at anywhere near the current consumption rate is insane.

      Sure it can. Solar energy flux (at peak generation) is 1 kW/m2. You get a gigawatt per square kilometre. Even with a 10% duty cycle, the area of (ideal, perfect) solar arrays needed to power a city is much less than, say, the farmland required to feed that city.

      The best photovoltaic panels currently in the laboratory are about 15% efficient. Commercial panels are 5%. Photovoltaics will be a lot more practical in the next 20 years or so, when thin-film photovoltaics reach high enough efficiency (thin film cells also require far less energy/materials to produce, before you bring up those arguments).

      For a more practical solution, you can build arrays of aluminum or steel mirror-troughs to focus light on pipes and use a conventional heat engine to extract energy.

      This isn't even touching space-based solar power generation, which has the potential to be a lot cheaper (you can make big concentrators very thin and light, as structural stresses are far less).

      IMO, we're likely to go with fusion instead of solar, but solar is still capable of running the world (it's just cheaper for the time being to use fossil fuels).

    10. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by leongalt · · Score: 1

      I simply don't buy that arguement. I can't see how we will ever run out of energy, or how it will even be a major issue. The only reason solar or wind or hydro energy isn't used more often is becaus eit is currently easier/cheaper to simply burn something. But I believe that would change if more development was done on those alternative sources. We aren't spending a lot of resources on those technologies because it is still so cheap to burn things. When we start running out of things to burn, the price of those things will rise and create monetary incentive to look for alternatives. As long as it is cheaper to use oil, we will. But I don't think for one second that we can't get enough energy from other sources to meet our needs.

    11. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Wind has two fairly big problems:

      First, you have to find some place windy to put it. That generally means at the top of a mountain. Most places just aren't windy enough to make turbines effecient.

      Second, you have to transport the power. You don't want to lose too much in transmission, so you have to build it close to people, and then you have the NIMBY crowd screaming.

      Generally, if you want to produce wind power, you have to spread wind turbines all over the top of a mountain, which means developing the mountain, which means building roads and power lines and service stations and all that pisses off environmentalists anyway. Sorry, wind may work in a few situations, but there's no way it'll power the world.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      Solar energy is too diffuse because we've got this thing called an atmosphere that filters out most of it. Orbital solar stations that turn the energy into microwaves and beam it down to earth are theoretically practical in a way that ground based solar will never be because microwaves will lose much less energy travelling through the atmosphere than unconvertad solar radiation.

      I'm with you on nuclear power as it's likely to be much easier to make when the third world starts waking up and ditching their crony capitalist/socialist/klepto governing systems and try honest to goodness rule of law capitalism.

      The problem is that we need practical fusion very quickly or we're going to soon run low on fissionables.

    13. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      Actually resources are literally becoming more plentiful via arrival from space but they also are becoming more plentiful in a practical economic sense. If oil shoots up to $40 a barrel, Canada becomes the #1 oil nation in the world. Canada doesn't extract that oil because it's too expensive. Availability is there, it's just that nobody but the scientists are exploiting it. In practical terms, price increases (which decrease consumption) trigger expansion in supply of commodity (as more expensive sources become economically viable).

      There are real ceilings on resource prices. It's one of those phenomena that is important but woefully understudied.

    14. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by blue+trane · · Score: 0, Troll

      Solar energy in it's current form is not concentrated enough. Nobody has proposed a solution that can change that

      Decrease the population by ~90%?

    15. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by bafu · · Score: 1

      Solar energy is too diffuse because we've got this thing called an atmosphere that filters out most of it. Orbital solar stations that turn the energy into microwaves and beam it down to earth are theoretically practical in a way that ground based solar will never be because microwaves will lose much less energy travelling through the atmosphere than unconvertad solar radiation.

      Agreed, but there's something that makes me nervous about having orbital platforms that send concentrated beams of energy down to the planet. Maybe someone will come up with some clever scheme for preventing accidentally or deliberately "misaligned" units from firing. I assume the earth stations would be in pretty desolate areas, though, for a start.

    16. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real environmental saviour is safe nuclear (fission and fusion) power.

      So you actually think Uranium is a never-ending source? I won't bring up the environmental dangers of nuclear energy (did that before), but uranium is also not very abundant, and that source will dry out even before fossil fuel will. Using those reactors that are supposed to turn used uranium into plutonium that turns into uranium again (sorry, I don't remember the English word for that thing :-( ), have proved to be resulting only in extra polluted, extra radio-active material, unusable for reactors. And some more additional radio-active waste. So these are not going to help either.
      Nuclear energy is only clean (sort of) while the fuel is in the reactor. Before and after (mining, refining and afterward storing the waste) it's just an outright environmental horror.
      (And did I mention what terrorists could do to nuclear reactors or, worse, with the fuel and/or by-products/waste if they set their mind to it? Pretty nasty stuff!!)

      I guess this post will be modded as a troll or something, but I don't mind. Those naïve people who want to believe what the nuclear Big Moneymakers tell them, don't know any better :-(

    17. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      I would imagine that they would be on coasts where they can pull seawater out to split hydrogen for pipeline or tanker truck transport and eventual use in fuel cells.

    18. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when the third world starts waking up and ditching their crony capitalist/socialist/klepto governing systems and try honest to goodness rule of law capitalism.

      You mean the same capitalism that includes purchased legislation (DMCA), contempt of court being selectively ignored (microsoft submits false evidence using doctored tapes and goes unpunished while 2600's antics provoke action and biased in-court commentary from the judge), 9/11 profiteering, war for oil, venture capital firms (which broke the law to force investors to invest in unviable companies during the dot-boom, and have yet to be held accountable), and n'sync?

      Capitalism is the greatest distributor of wealth in the world, but american capitalism is completely and utterly vulgar. You've failed to realize that like all systems both physical and societal created by human beings, it needs proper maintenance or it breaks down.

      "honest to goodness" my fucking left nut.

    19. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hehe... makes me think of a flaming train wreck full of USians, which isn't far from the truth.

    20. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      > consuption of oil is exceeding discovery of new reserves 4:1

      So you are claiming that people who say we have more oil reserves than ever before, in the sense of more years left of oil than ever before, and that this is increasing year by year, are lying?

      In any event, long before oil begins to become scarce (as measured by increasing price) we'll have substitutes produced directly from bacteria or some such thing. If an environmentalist wants to worry about hydrocarbons, they should realize, if honest, that we'll more likely than not always have them, until powerful batteries and fusion become cost effective, thus the harmful effects of hydrocarbon useage are something to be watched for, not a false worry about running out of oil.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    21. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      The US still has massive reserves in Alaska and off the shores of CA and the Gulf of Mexico (not to mention Texas and Pennsylvania, with modern technology.) Most are closed due to political issues, not scientific (or even environmentally rational) reasons. (Note that this benefits the US -- use up the rest of the world's oil first, which isn't a bad policy. Of course, that won't happen either as substitutes will emerge [invention] long before a true oil crisis happens.)

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    22. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, it's called a breeder reactor.

    23. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      The best photovoltaic panels currently in the laboratory are about 15% efficient.

      Actually, the best PV cells in production right now are multi-junction GaAs/Ge cells that run at around 26%-28% efficiency. I've heard that there are already 30%-32% cells in the labs.

    24. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

      Actually, the best PV cells in production right now are multi-junction GaAs/Ge cells that run at around 26%-28% efficiency. I've heard that there are already 30%-32% cells in the labs.

      Cool!.

      Do these suffer from degradation over time as with other high-efficiency designs, or are they more durable?

    25. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by (outer-limits) · · Score: 1
      This planet is nowhere near being 'infintite'. And just because there are plenty of places to put your garbage and waste, that aren't near you, doesn't mean that you have the right to put them there.

      I can recall the story of the garbage barge from NY city trolling up and down the American East Coast trying to find somewhere to dump it's load. No one wanted it, of course.

      This is a typical 'human' oriented point of view, that this planet is just ours to use as we want. It isn't.

      The idea that we should not change our way of using the planet is just a reflection of the most important principle in our lives. (No, it's not energy, it's money). There are plenty of wealthy companies that just want the easy way out, and protect their turf. This means changing nothing about the way they do business, as they believe that any change will affect profits.

      --

      Microsoft - Where would you like to go today, Maybe Jail?

    26. Re:Didn't here the E or T words.. by GileadGreene · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that they at least as robust as Si cells. They get used a lot in space applications, so you have to figure that they're pretty tough.

  8. waste == cost by oogoody · · Score: 1, Informative

    Any waste produced means the you are being
    inneficient with resources which means you
    are losing money. This type of design can be
    cheaper beacause it is far more efficient
    in the use of resources.

    1. Re:waste == cost by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      The process that's used to reclaim the resources may use more energy (and thus resources consumed elsewhere) than you reclaim. Can't get something from nothing...

    2. Re:waste == cost by DennyK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not really, in the way the authors are referring to waste. If a business producing non-biodegradable, disposable products, and sells 90% of the material the business produces, they wouldn't consider that waste, they would consider it profit. But that 90% will still end up in a landfill, accomplishing nothing, in a few weeks/months/years/whatever, and that is what the authors are referring to as "waste". If it cost twice as much to make those products environmentally friendly, what incentive is there for a business (whose primary goal is probably to make as much money as possible in the short term, remember) to take those steps, when all it does *for them* is reduce their profits and increase their costs?

      DennyK

    3. Re:waste == cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Any waste produced means the you are being
      inneficient with resources...

      So does that mean a cork up your ass will make you more efficient?

  9. Re:Shit! I got beat! by News+For+Turds · · Score: -1

    u r teh sux

    --
    -- You are such a fucking fag
  10. Re:Shit! I got beat! by L0rdkariya · · Score: -1

    Props to the CLIT.
    As R. Kelly says,

    I'm that star up in the sky
    Looking for that little girl
    Hey I found her
    She's the world's youngest

    --
    The /. users are rep'd by 2 groups. Janitors, who post articles, and Trolls who bash them. These are
  11. Stunning News!Petrified Natalie Portman Sex Grits by IAgreeWithThisPost · · Score: -1

    (from Salon.com)

    June 3, 2002 | Young "Star Wars" fans at a loss for what to do with their Padmé Amidala action figure might take a few tips from the woman behind Amidala, Natalie Portman herself.

    Portman tells Rolling Stone magazine that, growing up, she had quite a collection of dolls and "I remember them being very sexual. I don't remember ever not having my dolls have sex with each other."

    The actress says that, though all she knew how to do was rub her little dolls against one another, she did it constantly.

    "All my dolls would get it on together," she says. "Even the Barbies would get it on with other Barbies, and the guys would get it on with each other."

    In fact, she says, "My tub toys also had sex."

    Glug, glug, glug ...

    Props CLITS

    --
    security through obscurity = modding down anti-linux posts so maybe noone will see them
  12. dreaming... by dikappa · · Score: 1

    ...of fighting against thermodinamics laws... and winning.

    I don't such things are possible. A building cannot produce more power than it uses. If you produce thermal power from chemical power (that is: you burn charcoal) you are pushing a degradation in energy.

    one energy is degraded, there is no way back.

    I'm not discussing the skills of the writer of the book, nor I'm saying there isn't a better way to handle the estract-mangle-use-throw cycle.

    but we must use energy to do things, and once you used energy... you can reuse it a finited number of times.

    obviously this does not apply to solar power :)

    --
    :dikappa
    1. Re:dreaming... by LBrothers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But a building with a green top, that being trees, grasses, etc would help reduce ambient temperature caused by normal metallic/asphalt roofing materials. Furthermore rainwater falling on such a building could be used to at least flush toilets and water plants. Additionally there are new solar cells being constructed that could easily be incorporated onto new construction to help it reduce / eliminate its need for an electrical power grid. It doesn't seem that the authors are against progress or power grids, but they want to see more logic and thought go into creation processes. Rooftop gardens actually save the owners money over time (temperature regulation), but how often are they considered?

    2. Re:dreaming... by jms · · Score: 2

      But a building with a green top, that being trees, grasses, etc would help reduce ambient temperature caused by normal metallic/asphalt roofing materials.

      You should take a look at the City of Chicago is doing with the roof of their City Hall. Sadly, the greentop is being treated as a research project and is not open to the public.

    3. Re:dreaming... by LBrothers · · Score: 1

      The name of the television program eludes me at present, but it was an analysis of modern city planning. They looked at heat produced/reflected by buildings. They scanned a city, noticed an aluminum building with unusual properties, and then found a "dark zone" where there was little heat emitted. Looking at a map they realized it was a greentop building. Go figure.

    4. Re:dreaming... by joib · · Score: 2

      You know, the heat death of the universe isn't exactly imminent...

    5. Re:dreaming... by Transcendent · · Score: 2

      The new Ford Rouge Plant in Michigan that is being built will have a totally organic roof (besides the support). It will be covered in grass, trees, etc, and will provide much better cooling, better heat capture, and will lower the cost/energy consumption used in the heating and cooling process... It also helps scrub the air of the waste gas given off during the car production process...

      I'd say that's a big step in the right direction.

    6. Re:dreaming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One big fscking problem with the solar panels. Right now there aren't any that actually produce more energy than they take to make. They wear out before they create more energy than was put into them at the factory. That's right folks, solar power is just a battery, made in a factory powered by polluting power plants, and which produces toxic waste (some VERY nasty stuff) while making the solar panels. So guess what - they aren't environmentally friendly like everyone would like to believe. People who suggest using them for power so that there is no pollution are only half right, that the pollution isn't made by the solar panels. It is made by the plant that creates them, and since it isn't in Their Backyard and isn't obvious, it is touted as environmentally friendly. So guess what - these buildings are in fact NOT energy producers. They take more energy to make than they in turn create. The only difference is you only put in energy once (and it is a lot of energy) instead of put in a little at a time. Now green roofs, that's fine with me, and is a fantastic idea to reduce the cost of cooling. Same thing with water effeciency. But just because people make their building a very effecient consumer, don't believe it is a producer.

  13. Litter is advocated? by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1, Troll

    These are not the environmentalist ideas we're looking for.

    And no mention was made at all about how comfortable those eco-chairs were. How long could you use it before the upholstery wore out?

    Greens need a better argument than this review intimates. How much regulation is necessary? What is the maximum negative economic impact allowable before environmental regulations must be curbed. Name industries where ecological improvements resulted in better revenues, or other tangible benefits.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Litter is advocated? by jmu1 · · Score: 2

      The way we have to view the whole situation is this: don't touch anything. If you regulate the life out of the various industries, then you will kill the economy, and we'll end up in a world somewhat like that which existed before the Industrial Revolution. If you don't touch anything, either the world will be destroyed, thinking will evolve toward a more gentile nature, or life on Earth will evolve. I can't speak for everyone, but I would much rather face the possibilities that would come of a non-regulatory state, than having the tyranny of an over-regulatory government be pushed down my throat. I believe the saying goes: "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!".

    2. Re:Litter is advocated? by elmegil · · Score: 2

      Litter wouldn't be a problem if it decomposed anytime soon, now would it? Tree leaves in autumn, for example, are nature's litter. No mention is made in the review of the answers to your questions; however, I'd be really surprised if those issues aren't at least considered in the book, since they are, after all, so bloody obvious.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    3. Re:Litter is advocated? by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 2
      What is the maximum negative economic impact allowable before environmental regulations must be curbed. Name industries where ecological improvements resulted in better revenues, or other tangible benefits.

      Wow, those are really important issues. Let's phrase them another way:

      What is the maximum negative environmental impact allowable before the economy must be curbed?

      I think my version reads better.

    4. Re:Litter is advocated? by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

      What is the maximum negative economic impact allowable before environmental regulations must be curbed

      The entire framing of the issue that we normally use is off IMO. People tend to think that it is an intrinisic right to throw pollutants in the air. It is not. One would need to own the air to have that right, but all people share the air.

      I'll give an example. Let's say I take a dump on the sidewalk in front of your house. Now I could go on and on saying that you don't have scientific proof that my dump has harmed you, but your response would probably be "To heck with you! Prove that you haven't hurt me. You took a dump on the sidewalk." So just have I have no right to take a dump on the sidewalk companies have no right to pollute the air.

      However, we do live in a society in which people have been allowed to take dumps on the sidewalk for a long time and it will be hard to change.

      I think the only realistic option is lots of R&D spending to come up with envoirnmental ways of doing things. We must make the search for new energy sources the new space program or we'll all die

      --
      Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
    5. Re:Litter is advocated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mike@hallock.net

      This isnt quite true. In legal terms, which rules our society, the air is owned by the state. At least thats the argument used in many drug felonies involving canine units, which seems to go over just fine with our justice system.

    6. Re:Litter is advocated? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      These are not the environmentalist ideas we're looking for.

      What do you think you are, some kind of Jedi Master?

    7. Re:Litter is advocated? by Hamshrew · · Score: 2

      Name industries where ecological improvements resulted in better revenues, or other tangible benefits.

      Coal. The gunk gathered from the scrubbers turns out to be a good fertilizer, which the companies sell for a profit.

      At least, I think it was coal... my father works in that industry, so maybe I should ask him before arguing further.

      --
      - Free tabletop fantasy gaming! Grey Lotus
    8. Re:Litter is advocated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New smeltering operations purify the stack emissions and remove the sulfur dioxide and add an additional process in which it is converted to sulfuric acid (via another waste stream from smelting) thus money is saved both in environmental fines (where applicable) and the sale of the sulfuric acid

    9. Re:Litter is advocated? by bcboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Name industries where ecological improvements resulted in better revenues, or other tangible benefits.

      This has happened in the paper industry. I can't find figures for profit increase at the moment, but here's a link to one of the mills involved:

      http://www.ipmaine.com/html/environ_right.html

      A lot of technologies like this are just sitting on the ground, waiting for industry to use them even though there are strong financial benefits. I believe in the case of paper the methods were known and used outside the US for some time before someone got the bright idea of doing it here.

      You might also check the book "Natural Capitalism", which discusses industrial scenarios where moving to environmentally friendly solutions have led to a doubling of output with a halving of energy use.

    10. Re:Litter is advocated? by GooseKirk · · Score: 2

      These are not the environmentalist ideas we're looking for.

      I don't know what environmentalist ideas you're looking for, but for my money, no environmentalist makes more sense than McDonough.

      And no mention was made at all about how comfortable those eco-chairs were.

      It hardly seems like making biodegradable fabric comfortable is a major design challenge.

      Name industries where ecological improvements resulted in better revenues, or other tangible benefits.

      Here's one obvious example. The living roof will cost them $15m as opposed to $50m for a standard roof, as well as saving on water treatment. There are plenty of examples in a variety of industries if you care to look.

    11. Re:Litter is advocated? by markmoss · · Score: 2

      no mention was made at all about how comfortable those eco-chairs were. How long could you use it before the upholstery wore out?
       How much it costs to make? How much pepsi, or sweat, does it absorb before it decomposes right in your living room? Does it actually decompose in a landfill, or does it last forever like most other "biodegradeable" materials? (Do they really think people will just toss their trash furniture in the backyard and wait for it to melt into the soil? Um, I've got neighbors like that, but the town council is giving them a hard time...)

    12. Re:Litter is advocated? by jafac · · Score: 2

      What is the maximum negative environmental impact allowable before the economy must be curbed?

      It's funny you put it this way. Alan Greenspan fights like hell to put the brakes on the economy when it's expanding too fast - by raising interest rates. Why don't they just use some plug-n-play legislation when the economy's going too fast; slow it down with environmental regs, stop fucking with interest rates - then when the economy slows down, temporarily suspend the environmental regs?

      The science supporting both is pretty weak anyways. (not environmental regs in principle, but the actual effectiveness of environmental regs - along with pork, loopholes, trade-offs, etc.)

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  14. Hmmmm... by Black+Aardvark+House · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One final note for anyone thinking it hypocritical to waste trees so these ideas could be distributed:

    Actually, I thought trees were a renewable resource, and when disposed of properly, paper can be biodegradable.

    The only problem I see is the bleaching in some papers.

    --

    I am the evil aardvark!

    1. Re:Hmmmm... by DennyK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trees are renewable, but it takes a *long* time to renew the amount of tree that goes in to a reasonably successful book printing run... ;)

      DennyK

    2. Re:Hmmmm... by TweeKinDaBahx · · Score: 1

      Trees, if used properly ARE a renewable resource. However, the bulk of wasted trees has nothing to do with paper/lumber, but with the deforestation of the rainforest...

      Since that's niether here nor there, let me move on...

      The bleaching of paper does add chemicals to it, making it less likely to biodegrade in a useful way. So don't bleach the paper using harmful chemicals. There are many ways in which this can be accomplished, as Bandalier papers here in Santa Fe has demonstrated. Like with most things, binary or bilogical, there is always a better way...

      --
      Linux is dead.
      LU
    3. Re:Hmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paper products should be encouraged. There are vast pine forests in the Southern US that would not exist if there was not a need for lumber and paper. These are tree "farms," the companies do not just cut all the trees down and move on. They always replant them.

      It's like cows. If cows were vital to the environment, so everyone stopped eating beef, there would be no more cows.

      If the paper companies start losing money, they will sell their land to developers WHO WILL permanently cut down most of the trees.

      So go buy some paper!

    4. Re:Hmmmm... by Bearpaw · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Trees are renewable, but it takes a *long* time to renew the amount of tree that goes in to a reasonably successful book printing run... ;)

      [nod] Yup. Unfortunately, a good possible alternative -- hemp -- makes the people who benefit from the War on Some Drugs freak out. And given that some of them have used the WoSD to get and/or stay in power ...

    5. Re:Hmmmm... by timeOday · · Score: 0
      Nah, paper is made of softwood. It grows pretty quick.

      Worrying about running out of trees because of paper is like worrying about running out of oats due to Cheerios.

      I realize some paper comes from old growth, but those old trees are cut for lumber, and paper is made from the sawdust and other waste.

  15. WAY TO HIT "ENTER" AT THE END OF EACH LINE, IDIOT. by Subject+Line+Troll · · Score: -1

    A HREF="f/?a=1 x f

  16. Wow, a plastic book. by tg_schlacht · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Finally someone makes a book it is safe to read in the bathtub.

    I wonder how a plastic book would stack up against a paper book for longevity?

    And just to keep on topic here, I think that looking at the way we manufacture things with an eye to increasing the potential for recycleability is a good thing. Landfill space is finite and we definitely don't want to wind up living in a sea of disposable diapers, plastic 6-pack holders, discarded hot-dogs and stale twinkies.

    1. Re:Wow, a plastic book. by TweeKinDaBahx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure a plasitc book would be nice, but look at it this way:

      Plastic (at least most plastics) do not biodegrade. There are exceptions to this, such as plastics made from corn/soy/(and if many people would pull thier heads out of their collective arses)hemp which can biodegrade.

      Also, most plastics are petroleum based, so when the oil runs out, so does our gross overuse of plastic (back to the basic conservation of resources debacle...).

      To make a general point, maybe we should be more concerned with auditing our resource usage and pollution than with creating a book one can read while wasting water by taking a bath.

      (I'm just bitter because I live in a desert and people waste water which they shouldn't. These people in the hills with their lawns and swimming pools are going to be sorry when they have a pretty lawn but nothing to drink...)

      --
      Linux is dead.
      LU
    2. Re:Wow, a plastic book. by Kintanon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just think of all of the plastic as a way to store petroleum resources for your grandchildren. Some day people will be mining landfills for plastic to recycle! Just imagine it....

      "Hey Jim! We hit the motherload, there's diapers from here all the way through! We're RICH!! RICH!!"

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    3. Re:Wow, a plastic book. by Matey-O · · Score: 2
      Plastic (at least most plastics) do not biodegrade. There are exceptions to this, such as plastics made from corn/soy/(and if many people would pull thier heads out of their collective arses)hemp which can biodegrade.
      That's not entirely true. Plastics that were thought to out live us by several lifetimes have turned out to be rather fragile. Bakelite and the plastic they made Barbie dolls out of leap immediately to mind. See googlechached article here (no comments on the slimy PVC residue that's leaching out, only that what we thought would last forever DOES decay)
      --
      "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
    4. Re:Wow, a plastic book. by bp33 · · Score: 1

      discarded hot-dogs and stale twinkies.

      I didn't think Twinkies got stale.

    5. Re:Wow, a plastic book. by majestyk2000 · · Score: 1

      "Hey Jim! We hit the motherload, there's diapers from here all the way through! We're RICH!! RICH!!"

      Mother-load? snicker...yep, that would be the load of all loads.

  17. phuckphacethemadmadmotherphucker by News+For+Turds · · Score: -1
    "The Shithole", by News For Turds
    Sung to the tune of "The Middle" by Jimmy Eat World.
    Enjoy!

    Hey, don't write that comment yet.
    It's only on Slashdot you feel left out,
    And looked down on.
    Just troll your best.
    Troll everything you can.
    It doesn't matter if it's good enough,
    For some A C.

    Just join the CLIT
    (little troll you're in the shithole)
    Fill the page with shit
    (everything everything)
    Goatse will do the trick
    (everything everything)
    Crapflood will do the trick

    Hey, you know they're all the same.
    You know you're doing better while logged in,
    So don't A C.
    Troll right now.
    And just be an ass.
    And don't you worry what the moderators
    Are gonna say.

    Just join the CLIT
    (little troll you're in the shithole)
    Fill the page with shit
    (everything everything)
    Goatse will do the trick
    (everything everything)
    Crapflood will do the trick

    (guitar solo)

    (repeat first verse)

    (repeat chorus)

    --
    -- You are such a fucking fag
    1. Re:phuckphacethemadmadmotherphucker by L0rdkariya · · Score: -1

      I like it.

      --
      The /. users are rep'd by 2 groups. Janitors, who post articles, and Trolls who bash them. These are
    2. Re:phuckphacethemadmadmotherphucker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      What? No tablutare?!

      You biznatch.

    3. Re:phuckphacethemadmadmotherphucker by k0osh.CEOofCLIT · · Score: -1

      stfu AC

    4. Re:phuckphacethemadmadmotherphucker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      I have a better version:

      Hey, don't write that comment yet.
      It's only on The Dot you feel left out,
      And looked down on.
      Just troll your best.
      Troll everything you can.
      It doesn't matter if it's good enough,
      For some A C.

      Just join the CLIT
      (little troll you're in the shithole)
      Fill the page with shit
      (everything everything)
      Goatse will do the trick
      (everything everything)
      Crapflood will do the trick

      Hey, you know they're all the same.
      You know you're doing better while logged in,
      So don't A C.
      Troll right now.
      And just be an ass.
      And don't you worry what the crapflooders
      Are gonna say.

      Just join the CLIT
      (little troll you're in the shithole)
      Fill the page with shit
      (everything everything)
      Goatse will do the trick
      (everything everything)
      Crapflood will do the trick

      (guitar solo)

      (repeat first verse)

      (repeat chorus)

  18. Hmm... by TweeKinDaBahx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe a book like this could get people who live in places like New Mexico to look at how we use our EXTREMELY limited resources.

    Not to mention how wasteful the rest of the world is...

    Now I don't want to come off as some Tree-Hugging Hippy, but there is a lot of substance to this whole conservation thing. Just look at LA. If they don't find another way of getting water, there are going to be a lot of thirsty people in the near future. (This is the case with much of the west/southwest US).

    There is more to be said for clean technologies too. They may be more expensive to implement initially, but in the long run not only do they save money, you're saving the planet so future generations don't have to clean up you mess (fuel-cells and fusion anyone?)...

    *Glares at the baby boomers...*

    --
    Linux is dead.
    LU
    1. Re:Hmm... by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      I live in LA, and the water tastes so bad I consume nothing but the bottled type. When I go to the market, there are about twenty different brands of the stuff, so I don't think I'm going to be thirsty anytime soon.

      Smelly, maybe, but not thirsty. I believe that bathing and irrigation take up the bulk of water use.

      D

    2. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LA is so bad because the natural ecology never had the capacity to support the population density that is currently there. Wanna have better water/air? Don't live in a crouded, stinky, dirty city.

    3. Re:Hmm... by Slurms · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just look at LA. If they don't find another way of getting water, there are going to be a lot of thirsty people in the near future.

      No worries, when the sea level rises, I expect the people in the LA basin will have plenty of water.

      --

      -----
      Pretty Bad Privacy (PBP) Public Key
      6
    4. Re:Hmm... by iuyterw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're assuming that once the water runs out, the thirsty hordes of less fortunates who can't get bottled water are going to let you drink yours.

    5. Re:Hmm... by garett_spencley · · Score: 2

      How do you wash your dishes or take a shower?

      Things would get awfully expensive very fast.

      --
      Garett

    6. Re:Hmm... by jafac · · Score: 2

      It will simply be factored into the cost of living. (or hidden somehow by some apparently well-meaning politician in search of votes). But in the end, it will simply cost more to live there, and people who can't afford it will move somewhere else. (Ask the folks in Denver, CO, who have seen a huge spike in property values in the last 10 years as people fleeing California moved in).

      So in this way, the invisible hand continues to jerk us off.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    7. Re:Hmm... by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      That's why I said smelly. In other words, it's hygiene that's the problem, not raw thirst.

      For dishes, I can always use paper plates. No washing required.

    8. Re:Hmm... by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      No, the less fortunate normally consume soft drinks or beer. Besides, the bottled water I consume (Crystal Geyser in one gallon containers) costs $1.29 a gallon.

      The rents around here are going to get the less fortunate out a lot faster than a water shortage ever would.

      D

    9. Re:Hmm... by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      Actually, long before an actual run out, the thirsty hordes who can't afford it are likely to move someplace with more water.

      Let's not forget that the poor of america have a middle class income compared to a lot of the rest of the world.

  19. Re:Shit! I got beat! by L0rdkariya · · Score: -1

    Hey, I just realized that R. Kelly and Katz have something in common. I'll leave it up to you, the reader, to figure out what it is.

    --
    The /. users are rep'd by 2 groups. Janitors, who post articles, and Trolls who bash them. These are
  20. You think the couch you have now is rotten... by mrgrey · · Score: 2, Funny

    The firm was once hired to design a compostable upholstery fabric.

    Just think of what your unwashed geek body would do to this one.

    --
    -Tolerate my intolerance
  21. We only learn from disaster by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 4, Insightful
    People rarely change their behavior unless a clear signal tells them to do so in one discrete visible event.

    The affects of environmental damage are incremental, so it will take an enlightened authority to force these changes on society.

    1. Re:We only learn from disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are also largely made up by pressure groups whose funding depends on maintaining the fiction that any of this matters.

    2. Re:We only learn from disaster by Overd0g · · Score: 1

      Ahh, the great father/savior/dictator will use his/her absolute power over life on earth to "force" a change. Not while I live.

    3. Re:We only learn from disaster by Hack+Shoeboy · · Score: -1

      How can any post seriously postulating "an enlightened authority to force these changes on society" be modded "Insightful?"

      --

      IN TEH FUCHAR, LITERSY WLIL EB OPSHANAL!!!!!111
    4. Re:We only learn from disaster by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      The irony of this is that if you were forced to change, you wouldn't have a choice.

      So, I'm assuming you'd commit suicide before someone forced you to be more ecofriendly?

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    5. Re:We only learn from disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      We are talking about slashbots. How could you possibly be surprised?

    6. Re:We only learn from disaster by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      To some people freedom is not an abstract concept but something that they would give their lives to uphold. Perhaps you have heard of the slogan "Live Free or Die" some of us actually believe this to be a good motto to live (and perhaps die) by.

      In other words, for me to go along with this sort of approach to environmentalism I would have to be convinced that it was in my own best interest. If I could not be convinced personally then the proponents of the plan would have to convince a large enough percentage of the community where I live so that laws could be passed that would oblige me to act in a certain way. If I thought that the plans were stupid I would do my level best to oppose the passage of these laws, but I would abide by the laws passed (assuming that they didn't infringe on my constitutional rights).

      Unfortunately, many zealots believe that their cause is important enough that it warrants short circuiting these procedures.

    7. Re:We only learn from disaster by neocon · · Score: 1

      Or at least that's what all of the groups who hope to be tapped to be that `enlightened authority' keep telling us.

      The problem with this argument is that in fact rich developed countries are already polluting less and less each year. Now if only the less developed nations would adopt economic systems which would allow them to grow into rich, developed nations, the problem would just go away...

    8. Re:We only learn from disaster by 5KVGhost · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The affects of environmental damage are incremental, so it will take an enlightened authority to force these changes on society.

      There's no need to "force" changes on anyone, in fact that's probably the surest way to garner further resentment and skepticism toward your cause. In fact, I don't think you can find a single example of an authoritarian government with a good environmental track record. Russia's littered with toxic mistakes, China's building the world's largest dam project depite lots of protests, and the formerly communist and socialist countries of eastern Europe are only now recovering from the messes they made. Abuse and neglect are the inevitable result of granting that kind of power to anyone, no matter how "enlightened" they might allegedly be.

      You simply can't force people to do anything really worthwhile, at least not for very long. Yes, businesses can be regulated, but the costs of each regulation have real-world impact that must also be weighed.

      You have to use persuasion. The only enlighted authority that will make individuals change their behavior for the better is good old fashioned enlighted self-interest.
    9. Re:We only learn from disaster by dswensen · · Score: 2

      The affects of environmental damage are incremental, so it will take an enlightened authority to force these changes on society.

      Our society being what it is, I think it's a question of profitability rather than enlightenment. Enlightenment (in regards to environmental well-being) generally means nothing to anybody's bottom line and thus, in terms of capitalist society, is meaningless.

      Corporations and / or government will do something about environmental damage when it becomes profitable, or when it becomes too expensive NOT to do anything about it, or when it's too late. Not before.

    10. Re:We only learn from disaster by Denny · · Score: 1

      The problem with this argument is that in fact rich developed countries are already polluting less and less each year.

      Wrong.

      America recently dropped out of one of the most significant international environmental treaties, as it was not in the short-term financial interests of American industry to abide by that treaty, and the current US president appears to jump to industry's tune more than the last few did (not intended as a slur particularly on the US - we have the same problem in the UK at present, with the prime minister bending over for any industry special interest group that brings enough cash lubrication to the proceedings).

      Have a look at this:
      http://eces.org/ec/facts.shtml

      * The richest fifth of the world's population, including the U.S., consumes 86 percent of all goods and services and produces 53 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions. Looked at another way, that same privileged fifth also consumes 80 percent of the world's natural resources and generates 80 percent of the pollution and waste.

      * The U.S. alone, with only five percent of the world's population, gobbles up 30 percent of the natural resource base, using 20 percent of the planet's metals, 24 percent of its energy (the highest per capita consumption in the world) and 25 percent of its fossil fuels.

      Regards,
      Denny

      --
      Police State UK - news and
    11. Re:We only learn from disaster by neocon · · Score: 1

      America recently dropped out of one of the most significant international environmental treaties, as it was not in the short-term financial interests of American industry to abide by that treaty, and the current US president appears to jump to industry's tune more than the last few did (not intended as a slur particularly on the US - we have the same problem in the UK at present, with the prime minister bending over for any industry special interest group that brings enough cash lubrication to the proceedings).

      The problem with this analysis is that the US dropped out of Kyoto not out of a lack of concern over emissions, but because the structure of the Kyoto treaty was inherently unfair, and would have crippling long and short term effects on the US economy. The basic problem with the treaty is this: because it arbitrarily picks `1990 emissions levels' as its emissions target, the EU gets a free ride by claiming credit for all of the horribly polluting East German factories which went off line after 1991, while the US is required to roll back a decade of tremendous economic growth. In addition, nations like China, which are responsible for a sizable percentage of the world's emissions, would not be curtailed at all by the treaty.

      The fact that the US chose not to sign the treaty does not change the fact that amount of pollution produced by the US has been dropping steadily for decades.

      The richest fifth of the world's population, including the U.S., consumes 86 percent of all goods and services and produces 53 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions ...

      So if rich nations consume 86% of goods and services, but produce only 53% of emissions,doesn't this confirm exactly what I said -- namely, that rich nations use more efficient technologies and thus pollute less per quantity of goods consumed? And doesn't this indeed confirm that the best thing that could happen for the environment is for more nations to adopt economic systems which would allow them to grow prosperous and migrate to more efficient technologies too?

      So doesn't it seem that after starting with a thunderous `Wrong!', you've just said the same thing I had said?

    12. Re:We only learn from disaster by Denny · · Score: 1

      You conveniently skipped over the second half of that first quoted paragraph:
      that same privileged fifth also consumes 80 percent of the world's natural resources and generates 80 percent of the pollution and waste.

      (the part about 53% which you were happy to quote referred purely to CO2 emissions, not all pollution)

      We're not the good guys here. Sorry, but we're not.

      Americans seem to find this fact harder to deal with than the inhabitants of any other rich nation - something in the American culture compells Americans to fight furiously against being portrayed as the bad guy, no matter how clear the evidence might seem to be.

      Regards,
      Denny

      --
      Police State UK - news and
    13. Re:We only learn from disaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not the good guys here. Sorry, but we're not.

      Yes, we (the U.S.) are the good guys, though not the only good guys. The good guys are the ones who solve the problems, not the ones who create them. Who is going to solve the world's problems? The answer: the technologically most sophisticated. Certainly not third world countries. And the problems won't get solved as long as environmentalists insist on turning the U.S. back into a third world country. It will probably take more energy consumption to find the solutions, not less.

      And, as I'm sure you know, Kyoto is not popular among any advanced countries. Especially, in the U.S., President Bush takes all the heat over the matter, but the simple fact is, that Kyoto would be voted down by the Senate by a very large marjority.

    14. Re:We only learn from disaster by grokk · · Score: 1

      It's not to be expected that libertarian IT geeks, especially U.S. ones, would have the least comprehension of what communism is all about. Suffice it to say here that U.S.-controlled police states the world-over are every bit as authoritarian -- and then some -- as any past or present 'communist' state.

      The point I want to make here is that bourgeois thinkers are constantly re-inventing the wheel, so to speak, when the issue of 'what to do about the chronic crisis of overproduction' inevitably crops up each 'business cycle' (Crisis. You know: mass unemployment time). Every new phase of a capitalist economy seems to invariably produce intellectual schools of thought which reproduce (I would rather say 'ape') the present thinking of the ruling class (but maybe with a new 'angle'). And the solutions proffered always inevitably seek to keep the capitalist system as a whole, intact; but fat chance solving these pressing world problems under a system that refuses to be the least bit honest about how it actually works.

      All these newfangled theories which involve 'market forces' suddenly getting religion, are simply attempts to avoid the REAL issue: the unavoidably anarchic nature of capitalist production -- because the obvious solution is a world-wide system of planned production -- i.e. communism. And really: what could be more free than a system where nobody is worrying where their next meal is coming from (the real 'bottom line')?

      Marxists have had the solution to these growing world problems for quite some time. Comparing the historically awful practices of supposedly 'communist' states to their richer imperial adversaries only exhibits a gross ignorance of that history, and of the issues.

      Resist the snake-oil salesmen.

      --
      EON condensed matter distributed-computing project.
    15. Re:We only learn from disaster by neocon · · Score: 1

      With due respect, Kyoto refers purely to emissions of CO2 and a few other gasses, not to all pollution.

      As for who is `the bad guy' here, I'm not sure what bothers you about the US. Perhaps you can explain? So far, the only complaint you've made is that we consume a lot, but this amounts to no more than complaining that we are a rich nation.

    16. Re:We only learn from disaster by Denny · · Score: 1

      > Kyoto is not popular among any advanced countries.

      This isn't a popularity contest. I don't care if the treaty is "popular" - it's necessary (unless you have a better idea, in which case, post away).

      Regards,
      Denny

      --
      Police State UK - news and
  22. First Linux is Dying Post by Jon+Katz+on+Tuesday · · Score: -1

    The following information requested it be free:

    A conservative U.S. think tank suggests in an upcoming report that open-source s
    oftware is inherently less secure than proprietary software, and warns governmen
    ts against relying on it for national security.

    The white paper, Opening the Open Source Debate, from the Alexis de Tocqueville
    Institution (ADTI) will suggest that open source opens the gates to hackers and
    terrorists.

    "Terrorists trying to hack or disrupt U.S. computer networks might find it easi
    er if the federal government attempts to switch to 'open source' as some groups
    propose," ADTI said in a statement released ahead of the report.

    Open-source software is freely available for distribution and modification, as l
    ong as the modified software is itself available under open-source terms. The Li
    nux operating system is the best-known example of open source, having become pop
    ular in the Web server market because of its stability and low cost.

    Many researchers have also suggested that since a large community contributes to
    and scrutinizes open-source code, security holes are less likely to occur than
    in proprietary software, and can be caught and fixed more quickly.

    The ADTI white paper, to be released next week, will take the opposite line, out
    lining "how open source might facilitate efforts to disrupt or sabotage electro
    nic commerce, air traffic control or even sensitive surveillance systems," the
    institute said.

    "Computer systems are the backbone to U.S. national security," said ADTI Chair
    man Gregory Fossedal. "Before the Pentagon and other federal agencies make unin
    formed decisions to alter the very foundation of computer security, they should
    study the potential consequences carefully."

  23. Maybe I'm missing something, but... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And the fabric, of course, could be readily disposed of by tossing it onto the ground where it would decompose back into the soil without leaving toxic chemicals behind.

    What's to stop the fabric from decomposing in my living room? It doesn't matter whether I leave a steak outside or in my living room, the steak is going to decompose.

    What seems to be a missing point is durability. I would think that something that easily decomposes would be less durable than something that "lasts forever", almost by definition.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:Maybe I'm missing something, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't you going to throw it out in 5 years anyway? When it starts to look old and dull, and its not really the colour you want. Ever moved into a place with 15 year old carpets and decide that the first that should go is them?

      Carpets, IMHO, should never last forever.

    2. Re:Maybe I'm missing something, but... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      Aren't you going to throw it out in 5 years anyway? When it starts to look old and dull, and its not really the colour you want.

      Well, you typically throw it out because of durability issues. I dont tend to recarpet my house just to change the color myself, although some may. The point is that if I had carpet that would last for 50 years without fading or wearing out, I'd buy it in a second.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    3. Re:Maybe I'm missing something, but... by commonchaos · · Score: 2, Informative

      What seems to be a missing point is durability. I would think that something that easily decomposes would be less durable than something that "lasts forever", almost by definition.

      Not really a departure from the status quo, fabric furniture nowadays still need to be reupholstered every decade or so.

    4. Re:Maybe I'm missing something, but... by fawcett · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if you could have the best of both worlds.

      Perhaps your carpet would last indefinitely in your living room, but when it was time to toss it out, you could spray it with some enzyme that would eat the thing up and decompose it into non-toxic waste...

    5. Re:Maybe I'm missing something, but... by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 2

      Well, buy wool carpet then. Preferably berber. Even thick pile wool carpet will last 30+ years. Berber would last 50 years standing on its head (so to speak), and it's biodegradable. Consider most natural fabrics will composte, it's just that we keep them clean enough inside that they don't. Of course, your avg code monkey like me can only afford the synthetic stuff ;-).

    6. Re:Maybe I'm missing something, but... by rfischer · · Score: 1

      If the environment in your living room is like "tossing it on the ground" you might be right, but in most normal living rooms, lack of sun, moisture, dirt, bacteria, etc. would probably slow the process.

    7. Re:Maybe I'm missing something, but... by eam · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, just because something doesn't decompose doesn't mean it is more durable than something that does. Think of how often a device made of plastic will break & become useless. We have very few products left which can really be repaired.

      Considering that durability is rare, it would be much better if the tons of broken & otherwise discarded would just rot. The only question is: How do you convince it not to rot until it has exceeded its useful life?

    8. Re:Maybe I'm missing something, but... by nhavar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cotton, hemp, wool, etc. are all natural fibers that decompose easily when left to the forces of nature. Yet when those same materials are used for durable goods and cared for or left in the right conditions they can last for thousands of years without decomposing. Therefore assuming that the couch will decompose in your living room the same as it would outside exposed is incorrect. Likewise the steak you have would decompose much differently inside than it would outside because of the lack of external forces speeding it's decomposition. A steak left on the floor of your living room might just dry up, get hard and become a peice of jerky, whereas a steak outside would attract wildlife, flies, and other insects that would convert the majority of it's mass into fuel for themselves.

      Some people have also scoffed at the idea that eco-friendly could be cost effective. But if you look at just the one example above - taking a material that could be made from thousands of chemicals and producing a similar product with only thirty eight - couldn't it easily be argued that the manufacturing equipment, cost of supplies, cost of training, cost of development, etc. would all go down using this methodology. While initial retooling and design costs might be up the end result is a product that costs less to produce and therefore provides a quick turn around on the initial investment.

      What's the lifecycle of the average polyester shirt? While I know that thrift stores are filled with 20 year old polyester shirts and pants, how many more went into landfills and are still there relatively intact today? We have the knowledge today to create buildings that use the environment itself to create a comfortable work and living environment inside - lessening the need for electricity and other utilities, yet most companies continue to build the same old environmentally unfriendly and people unfriendly buildings they always have. Twenty years later (sometimes only a year later) people end up gettng sick because of poor ventilation, carpet fumes, ceiling tiles, what have you. What's the cost when that happens?

      --
      "Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
    9. Re:Maybe I'm missing something, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private folks are one thing, but businesses very frequently replace stuff before it's truly worn out. A chic restaurant or a night club that still had the same furnishings and flooring it had 15 years ago is going to look painfully out of date. And people don't want to rent cars that are 10 years old, for the most part. Things usually get plain ugly before they wear out.

  24. Like animals? by joib · · Score: 2

    So I should just drop down my pants and take a dump when and where I feel like it?

    1. Re:Like animals? by TweeKinDaBahx · · Score: 1

      Hey, everyone has a neighbor that walks thier dog by your house and from time to time the dog lays down a nice order of Aunt Fiodocia's Fiber loaf. So do it on your neighbor's lawn, it'll save them money and they won't have to use chemical fetilizers. Plus, it smell a lot worse when they step in it on they way to grab the paper. >:)

      --
      Linux is dead.
      LU
    2. Re:Like animals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell do you mean, pants?

    3. Re:Like animals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late, you just did.

  25. BLACK POWER MOTHAFUCKA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Jesus was a Negro

    Praise be to the negro Jesus.

    Amen, bros.

  26. 'environmentalist' rhetoric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sound like typical 'environmentalist' rhetoric? Not by half. This book actually contains reasonable explanations and practical solutions."

    As does every 'environmentalist' book I've ever read. You are more of an environmentalist than you would like to admit.

  27. Designer bugs by bravehamster · · Score: 3, Funny
    . It revolves around the idea that in nature, waste equals food. Other than incoming energy from the sun, our environment is basically a closed system. Whenever (non-human) life on our planet uses a resource, it is left in a form readily useable to other life. Humans must do the same.


    Personally, I think it would be easier (and much cooler!) to gengineer bugs that do eat our waste. Of course there is that whole risk of mutation and the bugs eating all the plastic around us, sending our civilization into chaos and disorder, eventually collapsing, but that always seems pretty cool in the books too. Then I can become a warlord and get my harem. Warlords get a harem, right?

    --
    ---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
    1. Re:Designer bugs by Apostata · · Score: 3, Funny

      *sigh* Yes, warlords get a harem.

      --

      This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
    2. Re:Designer bugs by skaffen42 · · Score: 1

      Actually the idea of designer bugs make a lot of sense.

      Implied in the statement "left in a form readily useable to other life" is that the waste making entity has any choice in the matter. This is not the case. In reality the choice rests with the waste consuming entity which sees food, not waste.

      If we really wanted to do things the *natural* way we would produce as much waste as we feel like in any form that suits us. At the same time we would look around us and try to use any waste we see lying around. If, of course, it happens to be (economically) feasable to use that waste.

      So creating designer bugs to turn other people's waste in $$$ is one of the few ways this argument makes sense.

      Too bad I gave up genetics for Java...

      --
      People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
    3. Re:Designer bugs by tibbetts · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think it would be easier (and much cooler!) to gengineer bugs that do eat our waste. Of course there is that whole risk of mutation and the bugs eating all the plastic around us,

      Just imagine the laffs when our "gengineered" plastic-eating bugs are let loose on our futuristic, half-flesh half-plastic cyborg race!

      --
      :wq
    4. Re:Designer bugs by markmoss · · Score: 2

      If we really wanted to do things the *natural* way we would produce as much waste as we feel like in any form that suits us. At the same time we would look around us and try to use any waste we see lying around.

      This is the part of biology the average "environmentalist" doesn't understand. Quite contrary to their romanticized view of nature, "natural" (unthinking) organisms pay no heed whatever to their ecological impact. If bacteria find a good enough food source, they'll reproduce like mad for a few hours, until they've poisoned themselves in their own wastes. Larger animals can't destroy the ecology that supports them that fast, but remove whatever factors normally keep them in check (predators, e.g.), and it will happen in the long run.

      Humans have the possibility of being smarter than bacteria - but better not start out with romantic misconceptions of what you are trying to protect.

    5. Re:Designer bugs by jc42 · · Score: 2

      > it would be easier (and much cooler!) to gengineer bugs that do eat our waste.

      Actually, this has already happened. There have been a number of reports of bacteria that can degrade and consume several of the more common kinds of plastic. Most plastics are organic polymers, after all, and they contain a lot of food and energy, if you can find the enzymes to break the right bonds.

      Of course, there are only a few cases known so far, and they probably aren't terribly efficient. But we can expect them to improve as our newfangled wastes accumulate in the environment.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  28. Anonymous Experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Buy the book from bestbookbuys.com and don't click on the link at the bottom of the story. bestbookbuys.com is a meta-comparison-deal finder site and slashdot won't see any cash from them for advertising this story.

  29. The result of the cycle. by Violet+Null · · Score: 2

    These are measures that only aim to slow the destructive cycle. In the end, the result is the same.

    Entropy wins again.

  30. Engineering vs Engineering by Telastyn · · Score: 2

    Everyone likes environmentally safe/clean engineering designs, but they are usually last on the list, and nearly never on the "need" portion of the list; very similar to how everyone likes secure software, but that feature is neearly never above usable, cheap, and quick.

    1. Re:Engineering vs Engineering by rfischer · · Score: 1

      Well, there's more to these ideas than can be brought out in a quick book review. An important point is that the economics of these eco-friendly strategies are usually better (for producer AND consumer) than the strategies they replace.

      I believe one of the case studies was Nike. They designed an eco-friendly sneaker with a special sole material. As the sole wears, the wear particles can degrade naturally in the environment. The non-degradable upper part of the sneaker can be brought back to a Nike store for a trade-in on a new pair. Everyone wins.

    2. Re:Engineering vs Engineering by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      Though you'd also assume that writing secure software would be much more economically sound, as the company doesn't need to spend as much on patches. They wouldn't lose as much through bad pr. And god forbid, wouldn't need to spend as much on lawsuits if the software is that bad.

  31. grave to cradle? by tps12 · · Score: -1, Troll

    There are a few other possible approaches that can be taken with this. One depressing one is a "grave to grave" methodology: you start with a filthy, used-up world and let it stagnate. A better one could be called "grave to cradle."

    Basically, you have to accept that you are starting with something bad. Face it, our forefathers were not omniscient, nor were they smart. We have no ozone layer, few trees, no more horned owls, global warmth, the list goes on. Now, just do the opposite of what people would do in the "cradle to grave" approach. Instead of building factories, tear them down. Instead of cutting down trees, plant some new ones. Replace your car with a horse and buggy, your GAP clothes with furs and skins, your television with books and sex. Instead of a Cold War, have a Cold Peace! Live backwards.

    After a few generations, we will have restored Earth to its glory days.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    1. Re:grave to cradle? by kwan3217 · · Score: 1

      Instead of building factories, tear them down. Instead of cutting down trees, plant some new ones. Replace your car with a horse and buggy, your GAP clothes with furs and skins, your television with books and sex. Instead of a Cold War, have a Cold Peace!

      Instead of having billions of people, kill 95% of them.

      Go ahead. Roll a D20. If you get 20, you get to live. otherwise, kill yourself.
      --
      Lots of technical and environmental problems are solved by the application of vast amounts of nuclear power
  32. While I will not address the eco-notions. . . by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This is not how nature works. Nature is not a harmonious system where all waste is designed as "food". There is no intelligent design in nature. Rather, evolution uses fundamentally random changes, with negative modifications being discarded, and positive modifications being kept, through survival of the succesful. Efficency is important. Not minimal environmetal impact.


    Environmetal impact only matters if it threatens the survival of the species. Thus, locusts can not do their thing unchecked. This is the same with most other species. There are checks and balances against everything. Except us, but if we can determine most environmental externalties and associate them with economic production costs, our economic system will 'weed' out net (environmental/economical) producers.


    The Problem, of course, is correctly analyzing externalities. This is what needs more work, and even with more work, will probably prove impossible in some cases.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    1. Re:While I will not address the eco-notions. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I don't know, seemed to work fine on this planet before we decided we owned it. For millions of years, the planet revolved quietly around the sun, surviving. And then around 500 years ago we decided that we shouldn't live by nature's rules and we began trashing the planet.

      Millions of years... to our hundreds. One of my favorite quotes from the Matrix was the one about us being a virus. It fits so perfectly its scary. In the end, all we are is an evolved virus.

    2. Re:While I will not address the eco-notions. . . by nhavar · · Score: 2

      can you give some examples of what waste products in nature do not become "food" for some other part of the system?

      --
      "Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
    3. Re:While I will not address the eco-notions. . . by ahde · · Score: 2

      Why is the typical evolutionary arguement, "Man descended from lower creatures through natural selection, but man is completely different than all other creatures, by some divine mandate or whatever"

      It's one or the other. you can't have it both ways.

    4. Re:While I will not address the eco-notions. . . by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      For millions of years, the planet revolved quietly around the sun, surviving.

      In case you haven't noticed, it still is revolving quietly around the sun, surviving, in spite of what environmentalists would have us believe.

    5. Re:While I will not address the eco-notions. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, locusts swarm and devour and all that, but they still fit into the system. A dead locust can decompose, leaving nutrients in the ground. Presumably the waste that a living locust leaves behind has some value (and if not, that would mean that they use 100% of the "good part" of the food they eat, which would be pretty damn impressive).

      Its also important to remember that evolution also takes waste into account. If all locusts ever did was swarm, then they would not be around. Because it is not a common event, plants can still grow and locusts can have something to eat. Constant swarming would obviously cause the extinction of locusts, as there would eventually be nothing left to eat. Other life forms would then fill in the gap that they left.

      The more efficient a life form is, the greater the possibilities for population growth, the more likely they are to survive.

    6. Re:While I will not address the eco-notions. . . by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1
      you are missing the point. I am saying that nature is not designed with an intelligent, self-sufficent plan. Rather, evolution tends to mark those things which are able to use plentiful resources as succesful. Any given waste product of a successful species is plentiful. Thus, things which consume waste, often become succesful. If externalities are internalized in a capitalistic, laissez-faire system, a capitalist system will function in the same way.


      If you believe in the intelligent designer, well, you have other problems.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    7. Re:While I will not address the eco-notions. . . by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      Man is different, because EVOLUTIONARY processes determined that man with self-awareness is more effective. Man is able to comprehend complex processes more effectively than animals, and thus, is able to 'see' the future more effectively as well. This is the only difference, but the consequences of it are expansive.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    8. Re:While I will not address the eco-notions. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice eco-bashing to religion-bashing in 1 step.

  33. Not really original by pubjames · · Score: 3, Insightful


    This review reads like a Wired article - "visionary thinkers with groundbreaking ideas set to revolutionize the world!", whereas in actual fact these type of ideas are fairly mainstream in some parts of Europe.

    I don't want to start off a USA vs Europe thread, but it's true that in some countries in Europe (not all) the level of environmental awareness and recycling is extremely high in industry as well as the government and public spheres.

    1. Re:Not really original by fruey · · Score: 1
      I don't want to start off a USA vs Europe thread

      Looks like you are trying to, really.

      The USA was founded by a spirit of adventure and PROFIT at the expense of others. So were most other colonies. People didn't go there to be environmental, they went there to get rich and were ready to kill the natives if necessary.

      The current administration scares the hell out of me. Look at all those conspiracy theories, even one about 9/11 now, that the Pentagon was not even hit by a plane but by a missile fired from short range (i.e. from the USA). Marilyn Monroe was assassinated. The truth is indeed much stranger than you think.

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    2. Re:Not really original by pubjames · · Score: 2

      I don't want to start off a USA vs Europe thread

      Looks like you are trying to, really.

      No, I'm not f**king trying. Jeeze. You can't even make a simple comment pointing out something positive about Europe in comparison to the USA without it being modded as Flamebait and getting responses like yours.

    3. Re: Re:Not really original by tg_schlacht · · Score: 1

      The truth is indeed much stranger than you think.

      While the truth may be much stranger than you think, in most cases your thinking is much stranger than the truth.

    4. Re:Not really original by brsmith4 · · Score: 2, Funny

      LOL - First they mod you down as flamebait and then they mod you up for defending your 'flamebait'. I don't even see how your original thread was flamebait to begin with. I had best stop using the word 'flamebait' before I become 'flamebait'. What is this discussion about again?

    5. Re:Not really original by fruey · · Score: 1
      Sorry, but I have to respond. Firstly, because if you're not trying to start something don't mention that you're not trying to. Reverse psychology tends to attract flames etc.

      I am European. I am on your side, I suppose. The point being that the American lot will indeed get up in arms whatever happens, and I get more anti-American every day - not anti American people, but anti- the American system.

      I got modded as overrated and yet I just forgot to unclick the bonus point. And I don't care anyway, karma means nothing. Interesting discussion is what it's all about, but I don't have the time to explain properly.

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    6. Re:Not really original by ahde · · Score: 2

      Isn't Europe the place that went into a panic and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of animals when symptoms of a benign disease was "detected" that they hadn't bothered to check for before the panic. Several times in the past few years.

      I'm not saying common sense and a rudimentary understanding of biology are directly tied to environmental awareness, but there could be at least some correlation, couldn't there?

    7. Re:Not really original by twfry · · Score: 1
      I don't want to start off a USA vs Europe thread

      But by stating that Europe has a high level of awareness (implicitly stating that America is the opposite) you are stating an opinion which others obviously disagree with. So why are you getting so annoyed when others speak what they think?

    8. Re: Re:Not really original by fruey · · Score: 1
      Clever turn of phrase, but is it original?

      Incidentally, although I don't go for the Pentagon thing (though it coulda been an accident) I have read convincing argument that Monroe was indeed assassinated. But really being driven to suicide or assassinated is pretty much the same so many years down the line anyway.

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    9. Re:Not really original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but it's true that in some countries in Europe (not all) the level of environmental awareness and recycling is extremely high in industry as well as the government and public spheres.

      That's because overpopulation is a much more severe problem in Europe than in the US. Sure, we have severely overpopulated cities, but we also have much more rural area than most European countries. When the population of a country doubles that of a large US state, but exists on the land mass equivalent to a mid-sized US state, you're going to get concerned about the environmental impact much more quickly. At least most of Europe has very small and/or negative population growth as a result, though.

    10. Re:Not really original by jafac · · Score: 2

      no, let's just face it. The US Sucks and Europe rocks. We need to do away with all this American Football nonsense, and just sit down and start liking soccer for starters.

      Then later, we can adopt the metric system, give all our workers 6 weeks of vacation a year, and endure 10% unemployment.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    11. Re:Not really original by fatbastard10101 · · Score: 1

      One really noticable difference is the simple refillable glass bottle.

      Below from http://www.incpen.org/html/german_draft_ord.htm

      The German government argues that deposits will promote refillables because retailers will want to avoid having to operate two systems (refillables and non-refillables). However, experience from the US indicates that mandatory deposits on all beverage containers are more likely to discourage refill systems.

      It is easier for retailers to throw cans and plastic bottles in a sack for recycling than to place refillable glass bottles carefully in crates. The result was exactly the opposite of the law's intention - glass bottles disappeared from the market.

      Industry uses refillable, returnable systems when they make environmental and economic sense. Refillable bottles are still used in the bar trade, and reusable packaging is increasingly used for business-to-business (for example, collapsible crates are often used to ship components to an assembly plant).

      However, because refillable containers have to be strong enough to withstand repeated journeys and fillings, they are heavier and take up more space than single trip containers. This means that they often use more resources and energy.

      Choice of container system depends on a huge range of technical, social and environmental considerations, including the nature of the distribution systems used and consumer behaviour and preferences. The new proposals will interfere with industry's ability to determine when it makes environmental sense to use a refillable or a non-refillable system.

  34. Re:waste == cost -- Yet, but... by Tune · · Score: 1

    I agree with your line of thinking wrt. an ideal global open market democracy.

    Unfortunately, your argument only holds when the things you use cost what they cost. That is, if you don't pay an unreasonably low price for (raw or fabricated) products comming from third world countries and if don't burn fossile fuels at the rate we currently are simply because they are "cheap".

    Inefficiency is really a relative thing when "cost" is as unbalanced as it is currently defined by the global currency markets.

  35. Re:WAY TO HIT "ENTER" AT THE END OF EACH LINE, IDI by suffocate · · Score: 1

    I like your gimmick.

  36. No. Yes. by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, like animals. No, animals don't wear pants.

    --
    Infuriate left and right
  37. yeah well... by D0wnsp0ut · · Score: 1

    Eliminate the concept of "waste" entirely.

    This post stored using recycled bits and rendered using recycled pixels.

    --
    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!"
  38. That's what nature is all about by Kris+Warkentin · · Score: 2

    In McDonough's speech, he talks about this. Trees produce millions of flowers whose petals fall on the ground. It's not efficient, it's EFFECTIVE. To fit in with a prolific natural world, he argues that we should produce MORE but ensure that all of what we produce fits into the cycle - our waste becomes someone elses food.

    --

    In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
  39. It's all Human Nature by fruey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Buy now, pay tomorrow. Do now, pay tomorrow... procrastination and put off until tomorrow.

    Anyone earning large amounts of money exploiting other people, materials, chemicals that are bad for the environment... they're all doing it

    Anyone consuming the cheapest product, without any care for production... they're doing it

    Nobody calculates the REAL cost of anything any more. Look at the dot com crash. Before that there were investors buying in to exploration trips on ships that would never get a crew and sail. It comes back again and again.

    This book sounds like a great read. Will you read it? Probably not. Will you buy more expensive, eco friendly stuff? Probably not.

    And who is most to blame? World leaders. Corruption. You name it. But the only person you can really blame is yourself. For that, indeed, is the only thing you can really change.

    Global attitudes have to change. These things are possible. Stop chasing the money dragon, and get into a more zen life.

    Or you could just say bollocks to it, and get run over by a bus tomorrow... you can't be a finite being in a (to all intents and purposes) infinite world and still contribute to the greater good, really, can you?

    --
    Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    1. Re:It's all Human Nature by Cuchullain · · Score: 1

      It isn't just "your fault".

      If THE COOLEST products coming out were green, or even the cheapest ones, then green products would sell.

      They don't now because they cost more and vary between marginally better to inferior to non-green products.

      If the fastest production car in the world, think Viper, ran on a clean engine (pick your fuel/engine combo of choice) and was made with superrigid carbon fiber and green materials, would people buy them? What if you had an alternative to a gas sucking SUV that cost a similar amount but used clean power and green materials? Now what if production facilities were developed that made these cheaper to produce?

      Lots of what ifs, but that is what we need. Don't waste design on JUST trying to build green, make it cooler than the alternative and people will flock to it.

      People will always pick the thing that offers the greatest good to them at the least cost. I believe that people will readily choose green products when they offer more than those which aren't, at a similar price.

      Check out the Viridian project if you want to see a group of people who speak to this better than I ever could.

      Cuchullain

      --
      "If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is not shared." -St. Augustine
    2. Re:It's all Human Nature by mtrupe · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod you down as "stupid." If you really believe in what you typed, you would shut your computer off right now.

      --
      [FromTheMorning]
    3. Re:It's all Human Nature by fruey · · Score: 1
      If that you could be judged on who you are, and not what you own, most of your argument goes out of the window.

      Sadly the trend in the world is that what you own (and how "cool" it is) is somehow more important than how much you care. Keeps me awake at night, that one.

      Green products should not HAVE to be cheaper and better. They need to be neither. People need to change, not products.

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    4. Re:It's all Human Nature by Cuchullain · · Score: 1

      People have been trying to change society since it began. I sympathize with you when you lament the fact that society isn't as idealistic as you. I felt that way when I was 20 also.

      The reality is that you are a part of a material oriented society. No one has offered any ostensibly workable alternative to it.

      If you take this as an unfortunate truth, how then can you convince people to come around to your way of thinking?

      If you can't force something on people, as we live in a society with some freedom of choice, you need to make it desirable to them.

      Make green products and lifestyles desirable to people and they will be adopted. There is no social way to force the majority to adopt your ideals. Use an economic and practical way by making your ideals cheaper and more attractive.

      IE cooler and cheaper.

      Cuchullain

      --
      "If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is not shared." -St. Augustine
    5. Re:It's all Human Nature by ahde · · Score: 2

      zen seems to be doing pretty well, monetarily speaking, these days.

    6. Re:It's all Human Nature by chizzad · · Score: 1

      Yes, Human nature is the problem. For many it's human nature to drive HUGE Stupid Usless Vehicles, build McMansions on swamps in surburbia, and drive 30+ miles to work. Idiots!

      I have a 1000 sq foot house in the city and drive my VW 3.9 miles to work. My fiance walks to work from our house.
      Also, I compost everything I can, recycle everything I can, and we only have one 13 gallon bag of garbage/week.

      Am I a better than the average consumer? Probably, but I'm also a lazy and cheap bastard.
      Simplify people, simplify!

      Also, has anyone else notice the positive corelation between satellite dishes and houses that need painting?

      --

      Don't write in this space.
      OK
    7. Re:It's all Human Nature by Jhan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem to be completely missing the point. Making a green product is harder. Therefore, it will be less cool or more expensive.

      Even if you managed through sheer brain sweat to produce a product that is green, cheaper and cooler, then company B could just rip off your design and replace the eco-flogiston with spun plutonium, halving the price.

      Suppose everyone, everywhere bought one Gizmo a day. You can select between the $1 standard Gizmo and the $2 Eco-Gizmo. Will most people but the standard version? Hell yes!

      Unfortunately, that's exactly what people are doing in the real world. They don't bother the read the fine print on the standard Gizmo that says:

      After buying 10.000 standard Gizmos, our friendly customer relations people will hunt you and your family down and kill you with very dull edged implements. Enjoy!
      --

      I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.

    8. Re:It's all Human Nature by neocon · · Score: 1

      Sure, you say that now. Have kids, try to fit them in a 1000-sq-ft house. Start worrying about whether your kids would survive a crash in your tiny little car. Start noticing how much more trash you generate when you have kids and a little more money.

      Then we'll talk...

    9. Re:It's all Human Nature by Omega996 · · Score: 1

      perhaps if your definition of coolness or what makes a car attractive or what makes life good were different, you'd be buying green stuff, instead of helping to squander the world's resources to fuel your greed for instant gratification. corporations decide what's cool, you buy it (literally and figuratively), love it for a week or two, and then toss it. i love consumerism...

    10. Re:It's all Human Nature by Omega996 · · Score: 1

      but what if he's running linux on an old 386? he's broken the three-month throwaway cycle computers live now...

    11. Re:It's all Human Nature by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      Chizzad you've got the same idea I do; think globally act locally. I drive my Honda 6 miles to work each way, and my girlfriend walks to work...HEY, wait a minute are you having an affair with my girl?

      Just out of curiosity, how many miles are on your VW? We could get into a "I'm more eco-friendly than you" contest! Of course I will have to get rid of this 19" monitor, but it's probably cheaper (in the book's view) to keep it than to dispose of it in a landfill (or recycle it or whatever.)

      When I read the back-and-forth debates in this article, I can't help but thinking of that line from Voltaire: "We are living in the best of all possible worlds" The fact that so many people zealously rush to defend the status quo, and so mnay others jump in to bash it, indicates to me that we need to take a nice, long look at the situation and assess the strengths and weaknesses. My guess is that about 20% of the people here are willing to do that. It's the same thing we see in the presidential elections every four years, most people's minds are already made up before the campaign even begins!

      I don't know about the satellite-dish to paint correlation, but I've noticed that since the World Cup started my plants desperately need watering.

    12. Re:It's all Human Nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wrote a few sentances about what you just said, but frankly one word sums it all up.

      TROLL

    13. Re:It's all Human Nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunatly those who do not own SUVs are in trouble when the drunk in his explorer runs a red light.

    14. Re: It's all Human Nature by rsborg · · Score: 1

      The things that will destroy us are:

      politics without principle;
      pleasure without conscience;
      wealth without work;
      knowledge without character;
      business without morality;
      science without humanity,
      and worship without sacrifice.

      - Mahatma Gandhi

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    15. Re:It's all Human Nature by fruey · · Score: 2
      People have been trying to change society since it began. I sympathize with you when you lament the fact that society isn't as idealistic as you. I felt that way when I was 20 also.
      Well I'm the wrong end of twenty and still putting my money where my mouth is

      The reality is that you are a part of a material oriented society. No one has offered any ostensibly workable alternative to it. If you take this as an unfortunate truth, how then can you convince people to come around to your way of thinking?
      Well you can just try to be a good person yourself. That was my point. Persuading others won't often work, but leading by example is what must be done.

      If you can't force something on people, as we live in a society with some freedom of choice, you need to make it desirable to them. Make green products and lifestyles desirable to people and they will be adopted.
      Never give up. The problem with this statement is that what is desirable is defined by reactions of peers to your accoutrements. My peers feel less good about their purchases if others disapprove on moral, ethical or other grounds.

      There is no social way to force the majority to adopt your ideals. Use an economic and practical way by making your ideals cheaper and more attractive. IE cooler and cheaper.
      Why does it have to be economic? People pay 3x more for flat LCD monitors, not just for the "cool" factor but a number of other practical things.

      The bottom line is that I refuse to give up on my idealism, and I try to set an example. If I fail to convert others, it's a shame. But I won't ever give up to pessimism myself, and just accept things the way they are, as you have. Then again, I'm not old enough yet to be completely disillusioned, so maybe you are right.

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    16. Re:It's all Human Nature by majestyk2000 · · Score: 1

      Q: What's the white stuff in bird poop?

      Astonishingly enough (or not), there is a website that answers these and other tough questions:

      Scoop on poop

      Scroll down to "Why is bird poop white?"

  40. replenishable energy by Alien54 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Why is energy an issue? We get lots of energy every day... from the sun.

    actually, there is some evidence that oil reserves may be self replenishing if you wait a reasonable period of time.

    The source would be microbes buried deep in the hot rocks of the earth.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:replenishable energy by BabyDave · · Score: 0
      The source would be microbes buried deep in the hot rocks of the earth.


      Unless it's just the fact that the oil and gas are under fairly high pressure underground (the gushing effect isn't just to make the whole thing Freudian, you know)
    2. Re:replenishable energy by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      > Other than incoming energy from the sun, our
      > environment is basically a closed system. Whenever
      > (non-human) life on our planet uses a resource, it
      > is left in a form readily useable to other life.

      I beg to differ with the article poster. This does sound like another eco-nut.

      In anywhere from 10 to 200 years we'll produce energy from fusion and won't have to rely on energy from the sun. Now, which type of society will get us there fastest? A powerful economy pumping technological development both thru private enterprise and government funding, or a busted economy with little private enterprise, little government funding (can't tax if it isn't there and can only borrow so much before you collapse)?

      Heck, more than a trivial amount of energy is already derived from non-sun induced fission.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
  41. Re:No. Yes. by TweeKinDaBahx · · Score: 1

    I bet they would if they could, PANTS RUEL!!! :D

    --
    Linux is dead.
    LU
  42. World Summit for Sustainable Development by Denny · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is a world summit coming up (a 10 years later follow-up to the Rio Summit) in which many issues related to this topic will be discussed.

    I've been working as a contractor on a website project recently for a UK university. The site uses the Slash code, and is aiming to focus discussions between special interest groups in the time before the summit (groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, etc).

    The site is called Earth Summit for All, and there is quite a lot of background information there relating to sustainable development in general and the summit in particular, as well as the discussions powered by the Slash software which are only just starting to take shape...

    Regards,
    Denny

    --
    Police State UK - news and
  43. Homer Simpsons puts it best: by Anomolous+Cow+Herd · · Score: 3, Funny
    Buildings should produce more energy than they use.

    In this house, we OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS!

    --

    "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush
    1. Re:Homer Simpsons puts it best: by tg_schlacht · · Score: 2, Informative

      I guess you don't use solar power then.

      Down in Austin (I think, but am not certain, I saw it on the news about a week ago) there is a business that sells solar power equipment; they also use solar power for their shop. They produce more power than they use, which leaves the power company owing them money. Apparently the power company replaced the power meter a couple of times thinking there had to be something wrong with it.

    2. Re:Homer Simpsons puts it best: by Jhan · · Score: 1

      A nuclear plant is a building. Are you saying that nuclear plants produce less energy than it takes to run them?

      --

      I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.

    3. Re:Homer Simpsons puts it best: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is 100% bogus. I think you were talking about electricity, the thing that cames over 1xx or 2xx Volt lines ? In this case you cannot just pump energy back into the system. I mean, you can but you will break tons of regulations. First you will put the lives of the workers at risk. Second, do you think the el. company will alow you to provide other customers with your electicity ? What if you burn their equipment ? And whats more, we are talking about AC here, if you just have your own generator and you connect this to ANY power line (even if it's the same voltage) you WILL get a big boom.

      ======
      Down in Austin (I think, but am not certain, I saw it on the news about a week ago) there is a business that sells solar power equipment; they also use solar power for their shop. They produce more power than they use, which leaves the power company owing them money. Apparently the power company replaced the power meter a couple of times thinking there had to be something wrong with it.
      =======

    4. Re:Homer Simpsons puts it best: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be a dick. Not all buildings are nuclear plants. All buildings are what this is about.

    5. Re:Homer Simpsons puts it best: by vovin · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. You can just 'pump the energy' back. There are common methods for this - single meter and dual meter. For the single meter if you supply more electricity that you use the meter runs backwards. The Utility will then purchase that energy at retail or wholesale depending on the rules which govern your Utility. In MN they are required to: Use the single meter system. Buy your generated electric at retail. AFAIK there are 33 states which have mandated use of the single meter system. More here and here.

    6. Re:Homer Simpsons puts it best: by pete-classic · · Score: 2

      If every building produced more energy than it used wouldn't they cause rampant global warming?

      -Peter

  44. Did anyone mentioned to these guys... by TheFalken · · Score: 1

    ... thermodynamics ? Esp. the bit about entropy, and it always increasing ?

  45. My Couch by JMZero · · Score: 2

    Is made out of leather, wood, and cotton (and some little metal bits, but not a significant amount).

    Am I an enviro-God?

    Are couches really the pinnacle of achievement in terms of bio-safety? Wouldn't a naturally produced, biodegradable television be a little more impressive?

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    1. Re:My Couch by tg_schlacht · · Score: 1

      My Couch... Is made out of leather, wood, and cotton... Am I an enviro-God?

      Clearly not.

      Your couch is the result of the death of innocent bovines, slaughter of defenseless trees, and the poisoning of countless boll weevils.

      Now excuse me while I go ruminate on your total lack of environmental consciousness while I eat my mesquite-smoked, charcoal-grilled, rare, ground-chuck hamburger and wipe my greasy fingers on my cotton T-shirt.

  46. This book is aimed at /. readers by ciaohound · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Damn, I wanted to review this book. Oh well, I'll just say that while anyone can enjoy reading it, it is clearly aimed at the designers of products, not merely at consumers. The whole premise is that we can't solve the problem by just consuming less -- we need products that behave as nature does.

    Take textiles. Many textiles contain unwanted materials such as heavy metals or pesticides, what the authors refer to as "products-plus". Why are they included with the product? Did you the consumer ask for them? Such products can't be safely decomposed or recycled. The only safe place for them is a landfill (hence the term cradle-to-grave). Take the long, long-term view and it is clear that, if this cradle-to-grave model continues, we'll fill the planet with landfills.

    However, if you model the product on nature, then the waste from the textile production process and end-of-life product itself can be used safely as mulch: cradle-to-cradle. The challenge for the designers is to distinguish the biological nutrients from the technical nutrients, and provide a way for these nutrients to be reused, the way nature reuses them. This is not hypothetical: the authors provide many examples of companies that are doing this type of work.

    If you are a scientist, engineer, or designer, you will need to be familiar with the techniques these guys espouse. The MBA's willl need to recognize the value of this approach, but it's up to the designers to select the materials and techniques that achieve the results.

    Also, I was very impressed with the example the authors provide of Bill Ford at Ford Motor Company. He is transforming the ancient River Rouge plant into a model of these principles, and saving as much as $35 million in the process.

    In short, this is a really thought-provoking book.

    --
    Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
  47. Should we still recycle? by linderdm · · Score: 1

    I haven't read the book, so I don't know if they mention this or not. Since they say that recycling is not the answer and is bad, should we stop doing it, or continue to recycle what we can, in the meantime, until the "real" solutions present themselves and become commonplace and economically feasible?

    1. Re:Should we still recycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the most part, recycling's fine and admirable. It's got great potential, it's just messed up right now. But I've read the book and spent a fair amount of time hearing the authors speak and reading their other stuff, and I'm not going to stop recycling anytime soon.

  48. other complementary books by mlas · · Score: 1

    I haven't read this book, but I'll certainly keep an eye out for it. However, for anyone who read the words "how environment affects the intangible quality of human life" and nodded in agreement, I'd like to point out the excellent "A Pattern Language" (Christopher Alexander, Sara Ishikawa, et al., Oxford Press 1977), which identifies the bits of a building and its surroundings that connect us to the world, from the placement of windows to the optimal width of sidewalks. After reading this book, it's hard to drive past a newly-sprouted field of designed-in-a-vacuum McMansions without seeing how ridiculously unnatural they are.

    And for a lighter look at how we got here, "From the Bauhaus to Our House" by Tom Wolfe is a great (admittedly skewed) history of 20th century architecture, and how Socialist model housing of the 1920s became the signature style of international corporations by the 1960s.

    Both of these books are ostensibly about architecture, but I keep coming back to them as general design touchstones when I need to remember that the stuff I'm making (programming, teaching, designing) has to be about people and interactions, not just stuff.

    --
    "Luck is the residue of design" --Branch Rickey
    1. Re:other complementary books by Omega996 · · Score: 1

      architecture *is* an accurate reflection of the state of influential society at the time.

  49. similar to operating systems? by tps12 · · Score: 1

    The "cradle to grave" way of living reminds me of Windows, while "cradle to cradle" sounds more like open source. Any thoughts?

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    1. Re:similar to operating systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, puh-leeze.

    2. Re:similar to operating systems? by Hack+Shoeboy · · Score: -1
      Any thoughts?

      no.

      --

      IN TEH FUCHAR, LITERSY WLIL EB OPSHANAL!!!!!111
    3. Re:similar to operating systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. I think if you like something you compare it favoribly to "open source" and if you dislike something you compare it to "Windows" even when you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Asshole.

    4. Re:similar to operating systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "cradle to grave" way of living reminds me of Windows, while "cradle to cradle" sounds more like open source. Any thoughts?

      What? Please back up your apparently ludicrous assertion.

    5. Re:similar to operating systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      absofuckinglutely

    6. Re:similar to operating systems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Any thoughts?

      Yes. You're an idiot.

  50. Re: usable, cheap, quick... by Denny · · Score: 1

    ...pick two.

    (not mine, but I can't remember where I read it)

    Regards,
    Denny

    --
    Police State UK - news and
  51. a non-regulatory state? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
    ..but I would much rather face the possibilities that would come of a non-regulatory state, than having the tyranny of an over-regulatory government be pushed down my throat.

    You want a non-regulatory state?

    Fine.

    Let's start by getting rid of the laws that create land rights, mineral rights, water rights, and other state-granted exploitation of the planet.

    And those laws that create limited-liability corporations should go out the window.

    Finally, repeal the laws that prevent us from acting in reasonable self-defence when some greedhead poisons the water and air we all share.

    Now, personally, I'm fine with that. I think we could come up with more co-operative means of resource allocation and economic organization, and a more gentle type of industrial development.

    But you strike me as a capitalist sort of person, a big fan of a powerful state choosing and backing private concerns to control resources. In which case, we could keep all those laws and make sure that they're structured so that the artifical rights granted by the state to mess with the land don't let industry poison us.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
    1. Re:a non-regulatory state? by TweeKinDaBahx · · Score: 1

      I had to do this, just because it sounds like pro-enron/global crossing republican rhetoric...

      But you strike me as a capitalist sort of person, a big fan of a powerful state choosing and backing private concerns to control resources. In which case, we could keep all those laws and make sure that they're structured so that the artifical rights granted by the state to mess with the land don't let industry poison us.

      You ever BEEN near LA? I suppose not, otherwise you'd notice the oxymoron in your statement...

      --
      Linux is dead.
      LU
    2. Re:a non-regulatory state? by jmu1 · · Score: 2

      Capitolism has nothing to do with a powerful state. You sir, have no idea of what you speak. It is quite the opposite. Capitolism is an economic term, not a political term. What you are talking about is political means, tyrrany, in a capitolist world. You seem to be so caught up in your socialist/utopian fervor, you can't even distinguish the difference between political and economic terminology. I reply, as I shall not stand down to ignorance. Get educated, or get out of the gene pool. If I were like minded as you, I would say that phrase should be law. Instead, I wish to let nature exclude the ignorant.

    3. Re:a non-regulatory state? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      and you can't even spell capitalism

    4. Re:a non-regulatory state? by Omega996 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so what's the correct terminology to use when corporations and funded special interests run the government? republicanism? democracy?

    5. Re:a non-regulatory state? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Capitolism has nothing to do with a powerful state.

      I don't know about "capitolism", but "capitalism" - despite the ideas of so-called "anarcho-capitalists" - depends on a powerful state to create, assign, and defend property rights.

      Capitalism is based on property rights. Not just "natural" property rights, like "I own this land because I live on it and farm it", or "I own this widget because I made it with my own hands", which most people would be recognize and understand in the absense of government; but artificial property rights like "I own the mineral rights on these 10,000 acres because I paid the state money for a paper that says so", or "I own 1,000 shares of this corporate entity created by state fiat," or "I own the government-granted patent on this invention". It takes a government of power to do that.

      Capitolism is an economic term, not a political term.

      Trace any claim of property back and you find an act of government. The economic is inherently political.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    6. Re:a non-regulatory state? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what's the correct terminology to use when corporations and funded special interests run the government?

      Fascism

    7. Re:a non-regulatory state? by Noel · · Score: 2

      Governments are large organizations that exploit individuals for their benefit. Corporations are large organizations that exploit individuals for their benefit.


      Sure, the benefits and methods may differ somewhat. Governments use law, force and money to ensure power and profit. Corporations use money, law and force to ensure profit and market power. Often, government and corporations work together. Tell me again how they're different?


      <expected_rant type="libertarian" content="governmental_force" />


      Oh, and please don't tell me that only governments use physical force on individuals. Corporations often use government troops or mercenaries against people standing in the way of their profits.

    8. Re:a non-regulatory state? by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      Corporatism is the usual term for that situation. Fascism is sometimes used but that gets the relationship backwards. Fascism is actually the state control of the means of production.

    9. Re:a non-regulatory state? by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      Bingo.

      Hint: What's the correct terminology to use for a nominally privately owned medial industry controlled by the government, all bathed in nationalistic rhetoric?

      When cornered by doctors regarding the government setting rates, supplies, etc., Hillary DID suggest to limit the number of specialists.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    10. Re:a non-regulatory state? by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      To bust this straw man comparison, I will only point out that capitalism, as derivative of freedom, has brought magnitudes more progress to the average individual than any other "system" (as if choice of system were morally ambiguous, which 't'ain't.)

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    11. Re:a non-regulatory state? by jmu1 · · Score: 2

      Excellent points, all. The main situation in government which allows corporations to run their fellow man over is the "bubba system". It is quite common in the area I live in(SE Georga, USA). The situation arises when you have an elected official who thinks he is helping out his country by helping out his friends who just so happen to run a large company. Eventually, it turns into a mutual "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" scenario. They can have all the good intentions they want, but they will succumb to the corruption and greed that persist in our government today. Once corporations were considered individuals with the same 'rights' as any one of us(minus voting... they get to do it with the spectacular spending power they have). Oh, and let's not forget about the career politicians! I conceed that corporate bodies use the government to exercise physical force upon those who do not share their views, do their work, etc. An excellent example would be the Ludlow Massacre, brought on by Rockafeller and executed by the US National Guard. I cannot even begin to express my utter disdain of that man, nor his cronies. They, along with good ol FDR are the reason that we as citizens have come to rely on the corrupt corporate government that we have today. We are only a few steps short of socialism with a capitalist spin(read not communist, for those who don't know the difference... look it up). The good of mankind is in the eye of the richest, I cannot deny that. However, if you divorce the state from the business altogether, then you won't see as much of this behemoth collusion. Will it happen... someday. I don't plan on seeing it anytime soon though. Not with heads of oil in power. Not with laws and treaties being used to set the path for global corporations. I do agree with one poster that LLCs must be done away with. It's just another kickback from the early days the Welfare State. I would like to thank those of you who have participated in this discussion, I enjoy reading other's opinions...and yes, my views are just that. Simple speculation.

    12. Re:a non-regulatory state? by Noel · · Score: 2

      Eons ago, I grabbed a quote from Hydrophobe here on slashdot that summarizes the situation perfectly:

      We need corporations to protect us from governments. And vice versa.

      As long as there's a balance of power between the two, then they spend their resources counteracting each other, and those less fortunate (i.e., us) are safer from exploitation.

      The dangers come when government and corporations join and work together. It doesn't matter whether the government is running the corporations, or the corporations are running the government -- both communism and corporatism lead to exploitation.

      What we need is some way to discourage or prevent the two from working together. I have no idea what that could be, though. Seems like historically, the two are naturally drawn to each other, and only random acts of nature drive them apart.

      I think I agree with removing the "natural person" status of corporations - it gives them the ability to use resources far in excess of those of us who are only a "normal person." Once this enormous power is removed from the corporations, though, we would have to watch out for the pendulum swinging the opposite direction.

      I still think the real solution would be to find a way to ensure the separation of corporation and government interests. True campaign reform would help some, but we still have the "buddy" system that you mentioned - the overlap between business power and government power, and the "revolving-door" pattern of employment, need changing, too. That would be harder, though. It doesn't sound right to prevent people from ever changing careers between business and government, so there must be some other way of reducing this overlap. It would be silly to say that we can't allow people with business expertise in a certain area to use that in the government...

      It's too bad we can't infallibly test the motives and corruptibility of politicians and bureaucrats before allowing them to serve in government. It's also too bad that motives are rarely considered as a major reason for voting for or against someone...

      Now I'm rambling, I know...

      Another part of the solution might be to find a better way to measure the health of the country. Right now, the core assumption is that if something is good for the economy (i.e., big money, big business), then it's good for the country -- "a rising tide lifts all boats," you know. Hah! Double hah!

      I wish we could somehow make the government realize that the country's good can be better seen by looking at the median income, or the cost of health care for the typical citizen, rather than looking at the big, bottom-line numbers.

  52. POUR HOT GRITS DOWN YOUR PANTS FUCKTARD!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all you stupid faggots on slashdot are a bunch of freaking stupid moronic pieces of shit and should go jump off a fuckin cliff this paragraph doesn't mean anything its just tog et passt the filterz

  53. What foolishness... by mprinkey · · Score: 1

    Non-biodegradeable this and that. We need to recognize something. We as a species will almost always do what is easiest, cheapest, and most directly to the purpose. One hundred years ago, most things were made out of wood, because it was readily available and it was fairly cheap to process. Fifty years ago, everything was made out of steel because it was readily available and cheap to process. Now, everything is made out of plastic because...you get the idea.

    In the future, oil reserves will diminish. We will need to adjust our modes of production and our supply lines. This goes for consumer goods, for food, and for energy. It is all part of the economic optimization process. *That* is the fundamental principle that has been at work in the rise of nature and human civilization. As a working engineer, I know that it takes effort and know-how to build a reasonably efficient design process that minimize costs and maximizes operational efficiency and still conforms to the current emissions requirements. Adding further constraints to that engineering process will come at some cost in quality or availability. In an economic reality, this stuff will just cost more.

    The most telling point is the institution of the "fourth R." Regulation. Yep, more regulation is the key. That will guarantee that the "environmentalist" teet doesn't dry up for they can retire. We need better engineered systems that do their utmost to optimize system efficiency and minimize costs.

    </rant>

    1. Re:What foolishness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we as a species always do what is easiest and cheapest, then we as a species need to evolve. We need forethought and sustainability to take precedence over immediate gratification.

    2. Re:What foolishness... by why-is-it · · Score: 2

      The most telling point is the institution of the "fourth R." Regulation.

      Given that humaity tends to be stupid, lazy and vain (c.f history of mankind) I do not see how the necessary paradigm shift away from the non-renewable resources we currently depend on will happen without some encouragement. Who do you trust? Obviously not big, evil governments. I suppose that the socialist hordes that make up pan-national governing bodies are not to be trusted either. So what's left?

      Unfettered capitalism will devour the planet and leave nothing of value in its wake. Corporations do not tend to take the long-term view because it is not particularly profitable to do so. Besides, they are only accountable to the shareholders, and the shareholders mainly care about ROI.

      If I understand your argument then, the paradigm shift will be forced on us when the status quo becomes unprofitable and unsustainable, and not a minute sooner.

      That sounds like a pretty crappy future. Especially when we have the option of choosing an alternative one. But why should we inconvenience ourselves? Let's just ignore the problem and hope it just goes away. If that strategy fails, we can always comfort ourselves with the knowledge that the problems really won't come to a head in our lifetimes...

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    3. Re:What foolishness... by mprinkey · · Score: 1

      We will shift to other resources as economic and/or political factors demand. The government can do a great deal to *encourage* the development of alternative technologies. That is a useful mechanism to help emerging technologies (i.e., fuel cells) reach a critical mass as which point they would become economically self-sustaining.

      They can also encourage conservation, recycling efforts, and alternative technologies with tax credits, research grants, etc. I am not the least bit opposed to this.

      The critical point is that it must be economically self sustaining. Otherwise, we will get the same "bust" that occurred with solar power in the early 80's. The technologies were propped up with tax incentives but inevitably were unable to compete in the free market. Encourage new technologies with SBIR funding or tax incentives, but let's not get stupid and *mandate* this sort of thing.

    4. Re:What foolishness... by why-is-it · · Score: 2

      Encourage new technologies with SBIR funding or tax incentives, but let's not get stupid and *mandate* this sort of thing.

      So, subsidies are ok and publicly funded research is ok. But enforcable standards are not? I do not understand the trust you place in organizations that are not accountable to the public at large.

      I understand the thrust of your argument, but I cannot accept it. Consider the evidence: large corporations cannot be trusted to behave ethically if they have the option to do otherwise. It would appear that if a corporation can make more money by engaging in un-ethical behaviour, they will go for the unethical behaviour - particularly if punishment for being caught doing so is inconsequential.
      (*cough* microsoft *cough*)

      I work hard for my money and do not want my tax dollars to be wasted on corporate welfare. I see no value in allowing corporations to reap the benefits and profits from publicly funded research. To me, that would be *stupid*. BR>
      Far better that there are standards. In addition to those standards, there should also be significant punishment for non-compliance. How many corporations would choose to pollute if part of the punishment for doing so was that the board of directors would go to jail for a minimum 5 year term and the personal assets of board members would be siezed and sold to help finance the clean-up operation?

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    5. Re:What foolishness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, first of all I don't know where you get the idea that the US government is particularly accountable to the public...

      Yes, of COURSE corporations are unethical. They're businesses. They exist to make money, and for no other reason. They're not really here to make the world a better place, that's just what their ads tell you. So it follows logically, then, that if it isn't feasible economically to do all these things the authors propose, no sane corporation will do them. Ever.
      Except possibly as a marketing tool (e.g. Ford lately) and even then they'd have to get a LOT of publicity to make it worthwhile.

      I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting that corporations profiting from publicly-funded research is "stupid". It happens all the time and you should be glad it does. If corporations always have to pay for their own research, prices on everything go up, poverty line goes up, quality of life goes down. Not to mention that scientific advancements slow to a crawl because noone wants to share their research with competitors (e.g. the U.S pharmaceutical industry).

      If you apply your "standards" as a government mandate you once again hurt people without doing anyone any good. You basically end up taxing consumers to force corporations to do things that aren't economically a good idea. See what happens when corporations pass increased costs to consumers (and they will; the government can't stop that) in the paragraph above. As for jail terms, that's an incalculably stupid idea. Do you honestly think corporations have their facilities here for the weather? They'll just move somewhere else with less ridiculous laws and despite the turmoil that would bring on here in the US, I wouldn't blame them for a second.

  54. Usual Ishmael Plug by hoover · · Score: 0
    If you would like to attack that problem at an even deeper level, please go and read the award-winning novel "Ishmael" by Dan Quinn.



    It's the best explanation of "how things came to be this way" within our global culture I have read so far, and his logic and reasoning is very interesting.



    If you've ever wondered how "humanity" as we like to call ourselves (but only the members of our culture) came from a relatively stable population to the brink of a global collapse within just 500 generations, then this book is for you. From glacial growth to exponential growth.

    --
    Ever wondered whats wrong with the world? http://www.ishmael.org/
  55. humans are nature by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Humans do nothing that breaks the laws of nature. A skyscraper is no less 'natural' than a termite mound.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:humans are nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The things (in the rest of nature) that destroy the place they live in (rather, who use it for only their own benefit) are generally called viruses. Perhaps we should just re-classify humanity as a virus, then we won't have to worry about what we destroy (we're meant to destroy it if we're a virus!).

      That's right, Neo, humanity is a virus!

    2. Re:humans are nature by sgage · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the old "anything humans do is natural". What a load of unhelpful semantic bullshit. Yes, humans exist in the real world, and are in that sense "natural", but you know damned well the meaning of the term in the context of these discussions.

      Humans are, of course, natural. We need food, water, shelter, etc. One might say that by abstracting ourselves out of the real world, we are able to get ourselves way out on a limb. Which we are busily sawing off on the wrong side. Oh well, natural species go extinct all the time.

    3. Re:humans are nature by avandesande · · Score: 1

      but you know damned well the meaning of the term in the context of these discussions.
      So where do you draw the line?

      One might say that by abstracting ourselves out of the real world, we are able to get ourselves way out on a limb. Which we are busily sawing off on the wrong side.
      This was exactly my point, I was just curious to see if someone would get it. This is really the crux of the problem, the furthur we abstract ourselves in our vinyl sided houses reading slashdot the worse it gets. Maybe our only way out is by colonizing mars, so we can pollute that too.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re:humans are nature by Tardigrade · · Score: 1

      I don't know whether the other person meant that phrase as a matter of semantics or not. It can also be viewed as a fundamental difference in thought between two states of mind.

  56. Ishmael by BinduWavell · · Score: 1

    I just finished reading Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It was a great read. My guess is that this work was derived from Quinn's in some way. Speaking of which, the movie Instinct starring Anthony Hopkins and Cuba Gooding Jr. is a reasonable film with some great philosophy that was inspired by Ishmael.

    1. Re:Ishmael by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      careful, I enjoyed the books a lot myself, however upon some deeper analyses I felt that it was using something of straw man arguments.

      whenever the "opposing view" was put forward it was typically put forward as a caricature, and was dealt with in a, for lack of a better term, prejudiced way.

      still an excellent read, and definitely bring up some great points.

      there are a couple of sequels. "My Ishmael" and "The Story of B" there may be more by now

  57. this post is for peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no more war!

    1. Re:this post is for peace by Overd0g · · Score: 1

      That's easy. If the weak always submit to the strong without a fight, there will be no more war.

  58. I read this book and reviewed it... by gordgekko · · Score: 1
    I read this book and reviewed it for my magazine about a month ago (Review here.)

    I'm not an environmentalist by any stretch of the word but I was sympathetic to their aims. Problem I found was that they had few specifics about how exactly this massive undertaking of rethinking how we make things would occur. It's one thing to say, let's make things cleaner, another to lay out this process.

    As I said in my review, "It's one thing to write a manifesto as an intellectual exercise and quite another to trigger a revolutionary change in the fundamental way that humanity goes about creating the things that they use. It's a process that we have using for over a century and if we are to shift direction, it's incumbent upon the manifesto authors to build an airtight case for how that shift is to be undertaken."

    Despite that, I thought McDonough and Braungart did writing a fascinating piece of blueskying.

    --
    You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
  59. Actually hemp would work better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, trees are a renewable resource, but the time your talking, hundreds of years, before a new tree will grow is unacceptable to turn a profit. Of course, there's always hemp, which could produce the same amount of paper pulp in a much shorter time, like 1 year.

    But with such a great renewable resource at our disposale, we decide instead to wage war on against it in the name of Knowing Whats Best for You. Of course the fact that hemp oil burns brighter than any other oil and could provide an infinitely renewable energy source makes it a prime target of the oil and industrial companies, which of course will keep your governments from doing anything to curb their massive profits. These are people that care so much about money, that they're willing to destroy the planet for their future generations.

    But then now with Cointelpro reinacted, I guess I should stop there.

    1. Re:Actually hemp would work better... by Noel · · Score: 2
      Of course, trees are a renewable resource, but the time your talking, hundreds of years, before a new tree will grow is unacceptable to turn a profit.

      You need to check your facts. Trees planted for pulp/paper do not take "hundreds of years". It depends on the tree and the location, but it ranges from 20-50 years for North American softwoods, to 3-5 years for eucalyptus in Asia.

      Perhaps hemp is still preferable, but let's do an accurate comparison...

    2. Re:Actually hemp would work better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "infinitely renewable energy source"? Even the sun will go out, someday. Get a clue, kid.

  60. Thermodynamics by Jodka · · Score: 1


    Buildings should produce more energy than they use

    How does that work ? Are the buildings powered by perpetual motion machines ?

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:Thermodynamics by de+Selby · · Score: 1

      Some work has gone into getting solar panels on the roofs of wide buildings and materials that generate electricity when tall buildings sway.

  61. over-under by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Me, I'd rather stagger like a drunk between the possibilities of over and under regulation...And I don't drink!... Alchohol, that is.

  62. Shut up bitch. by cyborg_monkey · · Score: -1

    Did all of the tapeworms came jumping out of your anus, yelling "abandon shit!"?

    1. Re:Shut up bitch. by News+For+Turds · · Score: -1

      Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer Wizard
      v 02.00

      Table of Contents
      1. Overview
      2. DHCP
      3. DNS
      4. IP Address Support
      5. Suggest IP Address (Autonet)
      6. NetWare Support
      a. Supported Versions
      b. NDS Multiple Tree Support
      c. NetWare 5 Support
      d. No Novell Print Path
      e. No NDS volumes
      f. Support for NDS localities
      7. Device Discovery
      a. Gateway
      b. Multi-homed Machines
      c. 0.0.0.0 IP Addresses
      d. Class A Subnet Masks
      8. Driver Support
      a. License Acceptance
      b. Have Disk Support
      c. HP Driver Updates
      9. IPX Port Monitor and Data Corruption
      10. Printer Names
      11. Printer Share Name
      12. Error Messages
      13. Known Problems Installing HP Printer Drivers Under Windows 95/98
      14. Known Problems Installing HP Printer Drivers Under Windows NT 4.0

      1. Overview
      This Read Me file contains last-minute product information for the Hewlett-Packard
      Install Network Printer wizard for Windows 95/ 98 and Windows NT.

      2. DHCP
      If you try to change just the subnet mask on an HP JetDirect print server that has
      been configured via DHCP, you will get an error message while using the Hewlett-Packard
      Install Network Printer wizard. Once a JetDirect print server has been manually
      configured, it will store the IP address, subnet mask and default gateway statically
      instead of trying to obtain them dynamically. Allowing a static change only to the
      subnet mask would cause DHCP-configured IP conflicts in the future. For more information
      on this subject, see the HP JetDirect documentation.

      3. DNS
      In a DNS environment, the Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer wizard will
      automatically set up the port with the host name rather than the IP address. If you have
      a DNS environment that allows Host lookup by IP, but not the reverse lookup, the printer
      will never print a page. We consider this environment to be an invalid DNS environment.
      To fix the port without changing the DNS environment, view Properties for the printer.
      Select the ports tab. Select the port that is in use for that printer. Click Configure
      Port. Change the host name to the correct IP address.

      4. IP Address Support
      Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer Wizard do not support class D IP address. Class D IP
      addresses are those addresses with the form of 224.xx.yy.zz

      All addresses of the form 127.xx.yy.zz are reserved for loopback testing. They are not valid IP
      to be used to configure device on the network.

      5. Suggest IP Address (Autonet)
      The algorithm for obtaining the IP address for the "Suggest Settings..." button is
      derived from the Internet Draft DHC-IPV4-AUTOCONFIG by R. Troll entitled "Automatically
      Choosing an IP Address in an Ad-Hoc IPv4 Network". The algorithm for generating the IP
      address is to randomly generate an address in the 169.254.x.x reserved address range,
      then determine if it is in use on the network. If it is in use, generate another address
      in the range. Repeat until an address is generated that is not in use. The resulting
      address is not intended for use on the Internet. Microsoft uses a similar scheme for
      determining an IP address on Windows 98 and Windows 2000 when the system is in an environment
      that doesn't have a DHCP or bootp server, and the system is configured to dynamically
      determine and IP address.

      6. NetWare Support
      a. Supported Versions
      The supported versions of NetWare are: 3.11, 3.12, 3.2, 4.11, 4.2. For Novell
      queue creation, you must be logged into a Novell bindery or NDS server using a Novell
      supplied client requester. See www.novell.com for client updates.
      b. NDS Multiple Tree Support
      The Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer wizard only provides support for the NDS
      tree the user is currently logged into. If a different tree is desired you must quit
      the application, change your login to the desired tree and rerun the application.
      c. NetWare 5.0 Support
      If NetWare 5 is configured for IPX, and an IPX connection is being used on the client,
      the Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer Wizard can be used to create an NDS print
      queue. If NetWare 5 is configured for TCP/IP and a TCP/IP connection is being used on
      the client, the Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer wizard can be used to create
      an IP print path. If the client on which the application is being run has an IPX
      connection to the NetWare 5 server, and the client is logged in, an NDS queue server
      print path will be recommended. If IPX is not in use but TCP/IP is, a TCP/IP print
      path will be recommended. In order to create NDS queues, an IPX connection with a
      login must be present.
      d. No Novell Print Path
      The Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer wizard relies upon several DLLs that ship
      with the Novell Client for 95 and NT. The application will look for these DLLs and
      the associated entry points within them. If any of the necessary DLLs are missing,
      or if they do not have the needed entry points (perhaps an old version), a Novell
      print path will not be available although other supported print paths will be. If a
      Novell print path is not available when you think one should be, try upgrading your
      Novell client software to a newer version.

      e. No NDS volumes shown in NetWare 4.11
      There is a known problem reading the list of available NDS volumes in NetWare 4.11 with
      service pack prior to version 7. This problem has been seen in cases were the user
      logs into an NDS context that is at a lower level than the available volumes. The solution
      is to install the NetWare 4 Support Pack 7 or upgrade to NetWare 4.2.

      f. Support for NDS localities
      The Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer Wizard cannot recognize localities in the
      NDS context.

      7. Device Discovery
      a. Gateway
      Discovery performance will be very slow if your client PC does not have a gateway
      configured. To configure a gateway, choose "Network" in the Control Panel, and then
      look at Properties for the TCP/IP protocol. An input should appear for entering a
      gateway address. See the online help for a more information on TCP/IP and gateways.
      b. Multi-homed Machines
      Multi-homed machines are not supported. In a multi-homed machine, it is not possible
      to distinguish between multiple devices with the same IP address. A multi-homed
      machine is a computer with more than one network connection. It is possible for two
      or more devices on different networks to have the same IP address. A multi-homed
      machine would see both devices and there would be no guarantee that you are
      configuring the correct device. In this case, either disable all but the correct
      network card, or configure the HP JetDirect print server from another PC that is on
      the correct network and has only one network card. This problem may also occur on
      PCs that contains both a network card and a dial-up adapter.
      c. 0.0.0.0 IP Addresses
      Assuming that an IP address is not assigned, a JetDirect-connected printer will have
      an IP address of "0.0.0.0" for approximately 2 minutes after a factory reset. After
      2 minutes the IP address will automatically be assigned "192.0.0.192". Attempts to
      configure a "0.0.0.0" device through an IP print path will fail. You must wait until
      the HP JetDirect device has a non-zero IP address before attempting to configure it.
      d. Class A Subnet Masks
      If the machine running the Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer wizard has an IP
      subnet mask of "255.0.0.0" (which is known as a "Class A" subnet mask), device
      discovery will suffer a significant performance degradation. To improve discovery
      performance you must change your subnet mask to a non-Class A subnet mask.

      8. Driver Support
      a. License Support
      Some drivers require the acceptance of a license. When installing a driver, if a
      dialog appears that requests acceptance of a license, you must approve the license
      before the application will continue. Failure to approve the license will result in
      the application hanging.
      b. Have Disk Support
      To support new printers or drivers, the "Have Disk" button can be utilized during
      driver installation. For the "Have Disk" functionality to work, the media must
      contain an "inf" file (e.g. filename.inf). Some driver updates available on the
      World Wide Web are in the form of self-extracting archives and are not in a format
      that "Have Disk" can utilize. In this case, install the driver before running the
      Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer wizard.
      c. HP Driver Updates
      Hewlett-Packard driver updates can be found on the World Wide Web at:
      www.hp.com/go/support
      NOTE: This URL is subject to change.

      9. IPX Port Monitor and Data Corruption
      Some printers may experience data corruption when used with the Hewlett-Packard IPX
      Port monitor under Windows NT. These errors may be corrected either by installing an
      appropriate hot fix for NT or by installing Service Pack 4 from Microsoft.

      10. Printer Names
      When naming a printer within the Hewlett-Packard Install Network Printer wizard you
      must enter a name in English that conforms to the Microsoft Printer Naming rules
      (i.e. what would be accepted in the Microsoft Add Printer wizard). If a localized name
      is required, assign the printer name in English and finish the install. Then open the
      printer folder from the Control Panel and select the desired printer. Select "Rename"
      from the File menu and rename the printer with a localized name.

      11. Printer Share Name
      Spaces are not allowed for naming printer shared name.

      12. Error Messages
      Error writing to for : The system cannot write to the specified file.

      This error message may appear when attempting to print a test page or during regular
      use. It usually means the printer is out of paper or unavailable. Check the printer
      and make sure it is plugged in, has paper, etc. If you were running the Hewlett-Packard
      Install Network Printer wizard when this occurred, there is no need to rerun the
      application. Simply locate the printer in the printer folder and right mouse click on
      it. Choose "Properties" and select to print a test page. If you have corrected the
      error condition, a test page should now print.

      Driver cannot install. Must run printer's setup program.

      When installing certain HP printers (see tables below under #11 and #12), the Hewlett-Packard
      Install Network Printer wizard may not be able to install the driver. You will receive an
      error message stating that you need to run the printer's setup program. The Hewlett-Packard
      Install Network Printer wizard may create the printer in the printer's folder despite this error.
      The installed printer will not function properly. After the wizard exits, run the setup
      program that comes with the printer. You may have to identify the printer as existing on a
      local port such as LPT1. Install the printer using this setup program. Now delete both
      printers from the printer folder (the printer created by the HP wizard and the printer created
      by the printer's setup program). Run the HP wizard a second time. This time choose existing
      drivers. You will see two similar printer strings. One will be from the first HP wizard
      install and one from the printer's setup install. Choose one. If the wizard exists
      successfully you chose the proper driver. If the installation fails, rerun the wizard and
      this time choose the other driver. Finally, check to make sure the printer created is the
      default printer. This can be accomplished by right mouse clicking on the printer in the
      printer's folder and seeing if "Set As Default" is checked.

      13. Known Problems Installing HP Printer Drivers Under Windows 95/98
      Some HP printer drivers do not install correctly using the printer .INF file and the
      "Have Disk..." option. These drivers and the behaviors that they exhibit are listed
      below, along with directions to install these drivers properly.

      Printer Model: HP LaserJet 8100
      Behavior: PCL 6 driver will not install. The user will receive a "Spool 32" error.
      Solution:
      1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
      2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the PCL 6 driver.

      Printer Model: HP LaserJet 8000
      Behavior: PCL 6 driver will not install. The user will receive a "Spool 32" error.
      Solution:
      1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
      2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the PCL 6 driver.

      Printer Model: HP Mopier 320
      Behavior: PCL 6 driver will not install. The user will receive an error message telling them
      to run the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run the printer
      installer again.
      Solution:
      1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
      2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the PCL 6 driver.

      Printer Model: HP LaserJet 4050
      Behavior: PCL 5e driver will not install. The user will receive an error message telling them
      to run the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run the printer
      installer again.
      Solution:
      1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
      2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the PCL 5e driver.

      Printer Model: HP Color LaserJet 4500
      Behavior: Postscript driver will not install. The user will receive an error message telling
      them to run the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run the
      printer installer again.
      Solution:
      1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
      2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the Postscript
      driver.

      Printer Model: HP DeskJet 2500C
      Behavior: The DeskJet 2500C driver will not install. The user will receive an error message
      telling them to run the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run
      the printer installer again.
      Solution:
      1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
      2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the driver.

      Printer Model: HP LaserJet 5M
      Behavior: The following drivers will not install properly: PCL Standard, PCL Enhanced,
      Postscript. The user will receive an error message telling them to run the setup
      program that came with this printer, and then to run the printer installer again.
      Solution:
      The drivers for the HP LaserJet 5M can not be installed with the "Install Network
      Printer Wizard." Please use JetAdmin or Web JetAdmin to install this printer and drivers.

      Printer Model: HP Color LaserJet
      Behavior: The following drivers will not install properly: HP Color LaserJet, HP Color LaserJet
      5/5M (CLJ5FR), HP Color LaserJet 5/5M (HP). The user will receive an error message
      telling them to run the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run
      the printer installer again.
      Solution:
      1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
      2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the driver.

      Printer Model: HP Color LaserJet 5
      Behavior: The following drivers will not install properly: HP Color LaserJet, HP Color LaserJet
      5/5M (CLJ5FR), HP Color LaserJet 5/5M (HP), HP Color LaserJet 5/5M Postscript. The
      user will receive an error message telling them to run the setup program that came
      with this printer, and then to run the printer installer again.
      Solution:
      1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
      2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the driver.

      Printer Model: HP LaserJet 6P
      Behavior: The following drivers will not install properly: PCL Standard, PCL Enhanced,
      Postscript. The user will receive an error message telling them to run the setup
      program that came with this printer, and then to run the printer installer again.
      Solution:
      1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
      2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the driver.

      Printer Model: HP LaserJet 6L
      Behavior: The PCL Standard will not install properly. The user will receive an error message
      telling them to run the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run
      the printer installer again.
      Solution:
      1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
      2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the driver.

      Printer Model: HP OfficeJet Pro 1170C
      Behavior: The OfficeJet Pro 1170C driver will not install properly. The user will receive an
      error message telling them to run the setup program that came with this printer, and
      then to run the printer installer again.
      Solution:
      1. Run the file Setup.exe that came with the printer driver to install the driver.
      2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the driver.

      Printer Model: HP DeskJet 1120
      Behavior: There is a port monitor error right after installing the printer. The printer supplied
      driver is not supported
      Solution:
      1. Run the Setup.exe that came with the printer to install the driver.
      2. Run the "Install Network Printer Wizard" to install the printer with the driver.

      14. Known Problems Installing HP Printer Drivers Under Windows NT 4.0
      Some HP printer drivers do not install correctly using the printer .INF file and the "Have Disk..." option. These drivers and the behaviors that they exhibit are listed below, along with directions to install these drivers properly.

      Printer Model: HP LaserJet 8100
      Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 PCL 6 client driver.
      Solution:
      1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
      manually.

      Printer Model: HP LaserJet 5000
      Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 PCL 5 client driver.
      Solution:
      1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
      manually

      Printer Model: HP LaserJet 4050
      Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 PCL 5 and PCL 6
      client drivers.
      Solution:
      1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
      manually

      Printer Model: HP LaserJet 2100
      Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 PCL and Poscript
      client drivers.
      Solution:
      1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
      manually

      Printer Model: HP Laser Jet 6L
      Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 Postcript client
      driver.
      Solution:
      1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
      manually

      Printer Model: HP Laser Jet 5P
      Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 Postcript client
      driver.
      Solution:
      1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
      manually

      Printer Model: HP Laser Jet 5L
      Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 Postcript client
      driver.
      Solution:
      1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
      manually

      Printer Model: HP Laser Jet 5
      Behavior: Driver will not install. The user will receive an error message telling them to run
      the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run the printer installer
      again.
      Solution:
      1. Run the Setup.exe that came with the printer to install the driver.

      Printer Model: HP LaserJet 5Si Mopier
      Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 client driver.
      Solution:
      1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
      manually

      Printer Model: HP DeskJet 895C
      Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 client driver.
      Solution:
      1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
      manually

      Printer Model: HP DeskJet 890
      Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 client driver.
      Solution:
      1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
      manually

      Printer Model: HP DeskJet 870
      Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 client driver.
      Solution:
      1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
      manually

      Printer Model: HP DeskJet 2000C
      Behavior: Driver will not install. The user will receive an error message telling them
      to run the setup program that came with this printer, and then to run the printer
      installer again.
      Solution:
      1. Run the Setup.exe that came with the printer to install the driver.

      Printer Model: HP DeskJet 2500C
      Behavior: Windows NT 4.0 shared printers cannot install the Windows 95/98 client driver.
      Solution:
      1. Windows 95/98 client connecting to the Windows NT shared printer must install driver
      manually

      Printer Model: HP OfficeJet Pro 1170C
      Behavior: No inf file that describe printer drivers.
      Solution:
      1. Run the Setup.exe that came with the printer to install the driver.

      Printer Model: HP CopyJet
      Behavior: No inf file that describe printer drivers.
      Solution:
      1. Run the Setup.exe that came with the printer to install the driver.

      Copyright 1999 Hewlett-Packard Co. All Rights Reserved.

      --
      -- You are such a fucking fag
  63. How do I recycle this book? by Frederick+Paepke · · Score: 1

    I'm halfway through this book and so far it is a good read. But it's missing few things that I think are critical:

    (1) The authors discuss the book and how it's infinitely recycleable, but offer no clue as to who to contact to do so! Maybe I'm wrong in assuming that my local recycler doesn't know that the book is recycleable or how to do it.

    (2) I would have liked more contact information regarding some of their projects and resources for similar projects. The Natural Home book had resources, why not this book? Contact info for the folks that designed the "dura-book" would have been nice, too. (I'd love to have some of my favorite books printed in this format!).

    1. Re:How do I recycle this book? by Chuut-Riit · · Score: 2

      Melcher Media, Inc.
      55 Vandam Street, Suite 805
      New York, NY 10013

    2. Re:How do I recycle this book? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.mbdc.com/features/feature_may2002.htm

  64. These ARE the glory days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have more forests, cleaner air, and cleaner water in the US now than we did at the turn of the century. So in the past 100 years, these ARE the glory days.

  65. Diamond Age by Pfhor · · Score: 2

    Of course, Neal Stephenson had a pretty good idea of the impact of practical nano construction is.

    One of the coolest parts of the book was how eco friendly the designs were, and not by intention. Because when you have the ability to build at the same level nature does (molecule by molecule) you can make extremely simple designs, which are easy to break down. The whole idea that the water intake system for the raw materials plant was not a gigantic intake duct, but instead, thousands of little tubes which could do a better job because of its ability to act as a wick. The side affect of this design was that it was almost identical to clump of reeds, and after like it.

    And items could be broken back down easily, however if they were made pre-nanotech, it took longer, because their patterns were chaotic.

    1. Re:Diamond Age by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2

      The whole idea that the water intake system for the raw materials plant was not a gigantic intake duct, but instead, thousands of little tubes which could do a better job because of its ability to act as a wick.

      Actually, that passage specifically states that it would have been easier to do a big pipe, or something ugly, but they didn't precisely because they cared about aesthetics. That was just part of being a Victorian.

      And items could be broken back down easily, however if they were made pre-nanotech, it took longer, because their patterns were chaotic.

      But they didn't do so, by and large - makers would only break down stuff that was tagged as a made item.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:Diamond Age by Pfhor · · Score: 2

      I seem to remember it saying that if it had been more efficient to make a big duct they would have, but then they would have needed a grill and something keep the grill clean from all the birds etc. that would have been sucked into it. I don't have my copy on me to check.

      And it would be entirely feasible to break down material not made by the makers, it would be a process similar to the raw materials harvesting facilities.

  66. May IP has been banned for 5 days now... by CmderTaco · · Score: -1

    Posting through different proxy...
    http://www.eveeieyhfgfcdoosammgwsnboivvb sczxlzgabc / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj

    --
    - Marco
    1. Re:May IP has been banned for 5 days now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice work!

      Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

      It's been 19 seconds since you hit 'reply'!

      If this error seems to be incorrect, please provide the following in your report to SourceForge.net:

      Browser type
      User ID/Nickname or AC
      What steps caused this error
      Whether you used the Back button on your browser
      Whether or not you know your ISP to be using a proxy, or any sort of service that gives you an IP that others are using simultaneously
      How many posts to this form you successfully submitted during the day
      * Please choose 'formkeys' for the category!
      Thank you.

  67. Culture of Maximum Harm by demiurge8 · · Score: 1

    The problem is that as many here have pointed out, forcing regulations on corporations isn't going to change anything as long as people's minds aren't changed. People (at least some of us) need to have a different mind set if we're going to survive in the long run. That is, as long as we think of ourselves as outside of "nature" and living in a separate place from it, we'll never realize that we are only making our very own habitat uninhabitable for ourselves.

    It will probably take a few generations to change minds (look at civil rights in the U.S.), but it can be done and not all minds need to be changed for a change in the impact we as a culture make on the world to be affected.

    For another set of books more on the cultural aspects of this issue, check out any of the following Daniel Quinn books (all quick reads): Ishmael, The Story of B, My Ishmael, and Beyond Civilization.

    1. Re:Culture of Maximum Harm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read also "The Sacred Balance" by David Suzuki. Unchecked consumerism and biological/ecological effects and consequences. Humans are making a go at actually separating ourselves from nature. However, we are the siamese twin that's more dependent on the other. Separation always ends up in death. Conservation is not about saving the planet (it will be here long after we're gone), it's about saving ourselves by not destroying the resources that keep us alive.

  68. Heads are Gonna Roll: The Lexical Connection Betwe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Heads are Gonna Roll: The Lexical Connection Between Capitalism and Death

    While doing research for a longer expose on the correlation between Western Economics and the worst forms of human violence, such as war, slavery, and murder, I have discovered a most fascinating bit of history. There apparently is a connection between the economic system known as Capitalism and a killing device known as a Guillotine. The connection may leave your head spinning ;^)

    We begin by examining our language, for our language has evolved along with our human cultures. Studying word origins (etymology) may give us insightful clues into our history, the unpleasant parts of which the historians may have sanitized in order to make their product (history books) more marketable. We humans, it seems, don't like to be reminded of our savage origins, or the logical inconsistency of our savage nature.

    In this essay, I will begin to explore some ideas I have which may explain our violent culture, which Rutgers University Law Professor Gary Francione says exhibits a "moral schizophrenia", a society which Frank Zappa called "socially retarded" and "dumb all over", a community defined by for-profit media corporations spewing confused doublespeak to unquestioning alcohol anesthetic brains, a culture which, rather than condemning all violence, attempts to justify that violence which suits our own savage lust for blood, fills our bellies, is good for our investments, or guarantees us a cheap tank of gas for our sport utility vehicles.

    Contrarily, I assert the premise that a civil and democratic society with a stable population (i.e. not growing) based on the principles of non-violence is the only logically consistent, sustainable, and morally defensible kind, a society where the civil order is spontaneous, arising from social contracts amongst morally responsible beings. This utopian ideal is opposed to our current world, where a kind of fascist order is imposed by gangs of violent thugs with high-tech weapons, operating only under color of an ersatz law imposed by a savage and non-representative elite ruling class.

    In my studies and experiences, the correlation between savagery and our dominant religious beliefs were always clear (the topic of a different essay!), but at some point I began to formulate a hypothesis that there may be more to blame than just religion as the source of Western violence.

    During my research, I discovered that our happy, G-rated, warm and snuggly word "capital" shares it's roots with the not-so-splendid word "decapitate". "How curious!", I thought. What could be the common thread connecting these things? Any ideas? Well, it turns out the key is right inside your head.

    Well, not inside exactly. It's in all heads. It *is* all heads, in the abstract sense: a roundish bone covered with flesh and hair containing eyes and a brain, the center of consciousness of an autonomous creature possessing the animating force, which roams the earth of its own free will, self-aware, and aware of its surroundings.

    So where the hell can I be going with this, you ask!

    Well, open up any dictionary, and you will learn that the Latin root of the word "capital" is "capitalis", from the Indo European "kaput", which means head. Remember the guillotine we spoke of before? This is a device used for decapitation, where the unlucky victim loses his head. Are you beginning to see how this all fits together?

    Now our Economic System has become a "sacred cow", so to speak, as the people who criticize it are labeled the most horrible names. All of us who grew up in America were taught from the earliest age the evils of "Communism", a rival economic system, but never told exactly why it was evil. During the 1950s and 1960s, Senator Joseph McCarthy lead one of the largest witch-hunts in modern history, and many professional actors and musicians were blacklisted as being suspected members of Communist organizations.

    But because we enjoy challenging the herd-think, let's see if we can find other lexical connections between our economic "sacred cow", and death. Perhaps it will lead us to some other sacred things which are often overlooked, even trampled upon by the stampeding mob, so obsessed by greed, so absorbed with getting stroked by Adam Smith's Invisible Hand of self-interest, they can't even hear the cries of those they hurt, or don't think those others matter. Perhaps they simply don't care.

    But maybe, just maybe, Adam Smith and all his followers (like Ayn Rand) are wrong. Perhaps selfishness, since all life is connected, is a kind of self-hatred. And since self-hatred seems to often lead to self-destruction, those of us who actually enjoy life and feel it is worth living, and worth sustaining, want to see self-hatred transformed by love into something better.

    Every man, woman, and child, every smelly leper, every prisoner, every bird, every bee, and every cockroach and spider are all perfect reflections of the Divine Spirit, so perhaps the greed embodied by Capitalism is a kind of blasphemy, perhaps a capital offense.

    Which provides a nice segue back to our topic! A "capital offense" is a crime deserving the death penalty, a possible sentence for which is when the accused heads off to the guillotine. Notice however, that a capital letter is at the head of different sort of sentence. A Capitol is where the head of the government lives, which is (hopefully) a man with a good head on his shoulders. Finally, in Russian, a thing which is "kaput" is as dead as Marie Antoinette. If you begin to see how this all fits, go the the head of the class!

    But all of these capital-death denotations come from etymological connection between the word "capital" and the word "head". But from where does this connection derive?

    The Cult of the Cow: Capitalism and The Idea that Things with Eyes and a Brain are Ownable Property

    The connection between capitalism and the Indo European word for "head" comes from another nexus, that between economics and cows. From antiquity to the present, cattle have been referred to "heads of cattle"; even the word Cattle derives from "chattel" also from the Indo European word for head. Note the word "chattel" has been used to refer to "animal property" (horses, pigs, sheep, cows, and yes, even human slaves), for hundreds of years. Heads are Money, or so our language seems to be telling us.

    The capitalism-cow connections are endless: A successful business venture is a "Cash Cow". When investments are growing, it's a Bull Market. When you are exhausting some resource, you are "milking it for what it's worth". While not explicitly a cow connection, the phrase "making a killing" (meaning making a profit) may indirectly refer to the slaughter of innocents for profit, to sell to those that crave the taste of blood.

    There are connections to other animals, and slavery: one United States Federal Reserve Note (a/k/a, a dollar) is also called a "buck", a unit of money. But a buck also means a male deer (a unit of food to a carnivore), and is also slang for a male slave.

    Now I'm losing some of you right now, because you say the Bible allows killing animals. We need meat in order to be healthy. Animals aren't moral agents, and don't have souls. We've always exploited animals for our gain. Look at nature! Big fish eating little fish...

    But I argue that the same idea that allows ownership of a cow, allows for the ownership of a man. And if you think that slavery is gone from the modern world, you are not seeing the forest for the trees. The same notion that allows for the killing of a cow for selfish reasons, can be used to justify killing *any* creature, or *any human society*, for those same selfish reasons.

    Isn't it time for the cycle of violence to stop?

    Even the word "stock market" derives from the slave trade, where "livestock" was sold at auction. Now this word only connotes non-human animals, but historically it was applied to human slaves as well. There are still remnants in our language of this. Today, human prisoners are kept in holding devices or cells called stockades or a bull pens.

    Thus, cows, prisoners, slaves, and those murdered by the state for their crimes, are all connected in this way, not just to the roots of word Capitalism, but also to the Capitalist idea which treats each of these creatures as beings not of their own right, but ownable property, having no self interest nor the power of self determination, but existing only to serve the interests of their owner, the Master or the State.

    We humans claim to be smarter than the animals, "higher" than those savage brutes. So why can't we use our heads for something more than a place to park our John Deere ball cap, and figure out a way to formulate peace? Can't we create a new economy which does not rely upon dominination of the weak, and explotation of those creatures which don't speak our language?

    End.

  69. meat by trb · · Score: 2

    In other words, we want more things made out of meat.

  70. who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    man will destroy himself with bio/nuclear weapons, long before he makes the earth uninhabitable. Point: who gives a crap.

  71. Energy Entropy by nukeade · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is indeed a lot of wasted energy as far as the Earth is concerned. We choose to use the most convenient and cheapest to harvest forms, i.e. fossil fuels. The big issue seems to be that we need some total amount of cost to do things. Therefore, I propose that

    Cost = Entropy used + Energy Used

    Saying that, for example, you could use a very fast process to extract oil from the ground that uses minimal energy (what you pay for) but increases entropy (makes a big environmental mess). At a greater energy cost, you could make it a lot cleaner. Fortunately, we have a saving grace:

    The sun provides us with an almost unlimited amount of energy.

    The problem here is that we choose to use the more inexpensive forms of energy, but if we did use forms that come from the sun rather than toxic entropy-increasing forms or non-renewable forms (possibly the same, considering the toxic by-products of fossil fuels, which I understand did come from the sun, but are toxic nonetheless. The sun's energy was expended so that these toxins could be trapped.)

    What a lot of people whose posts I am reading are forgetting is this:

    Plants (wood, food) = Solar, their energy to grow comes mostly from the sun, and what doesn't goes back to Earth
    Wind = Solar, pressure is due to heat from the sun
    And of course direct solar energy.

    Therefore, it is not hypocritical to make a book with paper. Paper is solar energy. Considering the vast amount of this energy that goes unharvested and unused, it is therefore not impractical to harness a virtually unlimited and safe energy source.

    ~Ben

  72. NIGGER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eat shit!!!!!!!!

  73. Re:FIRST SUBJECT LINE ONLY REPLY! GENTLEMEN!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  74. Energy by slowtonejoe75 · · Score: 1

    Energy is never consumed... It just changes form. Duh...

  75. paper is quite recycleable as are trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find nothing wrong with paper books. They could
    easily be made of recycled paper. Trees are
    wonderful producers of paper and sequesters of
    carbon and shade producers. Don't think cutting
    trees is bad-it is not as long as you replace them.

    1. Re:paper is quite recycleable as are trees by pdeweese · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the 5th 'R' Reduce Reuse Recycle Regulate Rot Any product that can rot properly without contaminating the soil will not need to end up in a landfill.

  76. Shells turn to Limestone by pussyco · · Score: 1

    Shells and skeletons fall to the bottom of the sea and turn into limestone.(calcium carbonate)

    Peat bogs fail to rot, but thicken and thicken, eventually turning to coal.

    1. Re:Shells turn to Limestone by nhavar · · Score: 2

      1. giving other animals raw material for shelter
      2. peat bogs have a great amount of biodiversity and provide habitat for many animals and plants. The lifecycle of coal is a downward cycle. Layer upon layer of mass is placed on top of the peat and eventually it becomes coal. The cycle should be that it continues to be burried and is at some point reclaimed into the earth's core to be melted and recycled to another area as new sea floor or new island etc. Another part of the lifecycle is that coal can provide home and food for bacteria which produce waste product in the form of natural gas (there are many different theories and processes for natural gas BTW). Natural gas/Methane/etc. then provide part of the component for climate regulation/"global warming" that keeps the planet warm and life sustaining.

      --
      "Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
  77. Authors sound like idiots by swagr · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    What do they mean by "we"?
    Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine",
    and noted philosopher Daniel Dennet's "Conciousness Explained" both evince that there is another non-biological life entity that we are composed of. That is the meme.
    (do some reaserch if you don't know what I'm talking about).
    Recent history and the world as it is now have been great for memes.
    So givin that all good replicators are selfish, memes and genes will compete. Who should win?

    --

    -... --- .-. . -.. ..--..
    1. Re:Authors sound like idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      givin that all good replicators are selfish
      What balderdash. Altruism and co-operation are wildly successful strategies for survival.
    2. Re:Authors sound like idiots by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      >So givin that all good replicators are selfish

      Oh please. I'm getting tired of this protrayal; we might be selfish in the end, but the means often involve teamwork, co-operation, comprimise to get there. I dont understand why this is so difficult for some to comprehend - to borrow the other reply's terminology, altruism is often required to achieve this 'selfishness' .. when selfishness is achieved through altruism, competition is no longer part of self fulfillment.

      People are not driven by greed, they are driven by the desire to co-exist with minimal social friction, which is usually best achieved via altruism, teamwork, etc. Only once minimal social friction is achieved (or at least the illusion), people move onto their greed. We sometimes forget that we wouldn't be so selfish were there not authorities to protect us from social friction that would result from wanton, socially unchecked greed.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    3. Re:Authors sound like idiots by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      except during Republican administrations.

    4. Re:Authors sound like idiots by swagr · · Score: 1

      >So givin that all good replicators are selfish

      I was talking about our genes and memes. Not "us".

      --

      -... --- .-. . -.. ..--..
  78. Getting Industry Interested by Denny · · Score: 1

    Right, it's inconvenient and they see no return for that inconvenience, so they take no action. However, recently there have been cases where the level of consumer interest in specific environmental/ecological/etc issues has risen to a sufficiently high level that it started to affect consumer purchasing decisions.

    That is when industry starts to pay attention to environmental issues. As a specific example, it is now not much more expensive and certainly no more difficult to buy organic milk/eggs/etc (in the UK anyway) than it would be to buy the less healthy/moral/whatever alternatives...

    If you want to persuade industry to behave in a better way, you can only get their attention through their balance sheets. In most high income countries (if you're reading this site, that's probably you) people are often happy to pay more for environmentally less damaging products once they have been made aware of the issue(s) involved.

    People will even pay an extra amount which is more than the difference in production costs - so the manufacturers can make more profit by selling the 'better' type of product! Now that's the kind of good reason for developing a social conscience that companies can see the sense in :)

    Regards,
    Denny

    --
    Police State UK - news and
    1. Re:Getting Industry Interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *chuckle* all I have to say to that is "people are pretty stupid aretn they?"

      of course my oponion on that is whay Im hopeing my kids have anoportunity to grow up on mars.

  79. Whats that smell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great. Make a sofa that rots after a few months or years. Planned obsolescence has never been easier. When the dog starts rolling in the couch it's time to get another.

  80. plastic book by oliverthered · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "the book is not made out of paper or printed using a conventional process. It's plastic -- waterproof, resilient, eligible for recycling in most locales, and an early step towards what the authors hope will be infinitely recyclable synthetic book-making materials. "

    Isn't that kinda against the opening few paragraphs of your review, isn't recycling degrading the materials, where as paper can be thrown on the ground....

    Anyhow, I'm a bit of an anti-wood pulp man, and think they should have printed the book on hemp paper, which will last a few hundred years, be recycleable, use less chemicals etc...

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  81. You didn't do any more reading... by Svartalf · · Score: 2

    ...than the initial article. Had you done a little more research, you'd have found out that they used natural fibers (wool, etc.) to make it and that they used non-environmental impacting dyes, etc. in the rest of the manufacture. It's won many awards and apparently works rather well.

    People need to realize the costs of the disposal/waste that they produce and add them in acccordingly. Sure, the stuff's cheap, but people aren't paying for the problems right now either.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  82. Mass and Energy by Denny · · Score: 1

    Wasn't there some guy with an equation about this one? ;-)

    No, seriously, I suppose if we develop far enough scientifically you can take the view that energy is all that matters, because we can use the energy to make the materials we want... but the chances are we'll run out of something we need before we reach that stage, so I think you're right really.

    Regards,
    Denny

    --
    Police State UK - news and
  83. Cost is an issue, but not the only issue by markwelch · · Score: 2
    Someone wrote:

    > people aren't going to jump for it unless it costs the same or less


    I disagree. A huge segment of the population, possibly even a majority, is willing to pay extra for environmental benefits. The question is not "if," but "how much?"


    There are two problems: First, there is the "raw" cost difference (how many extra dollars for the biodegradable upholstery), and second, there is the "hidden" cost difference (difference in life span -- longer or shorter -- or difference in net energy cost from using the "environmental-friendly" product)


    I'd gladly buy an electric car, for example, if the cost were 20% more than the cost for a regular car (alas, the difference is more like 60% currently, and the environmental "advantages" are not entirely clear since the batteries are not biodegradable).


    Alas, there is an economic battle going on: the automobile and oil industries are fiercely resisting any change, and they are cleverly pricing alternatives so that they will appear "unaffordable" or to defend their false claims that "nobody wants electric cars" etc.


    I'm planning to buy this book today.

    --
    -- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
  84. Produce more energy than it uses? by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 2
    Buildings should produce more energy than they use.

    See? All he wants is for us to invent a perpetual motion machine. It's not so much to ask, we're just thinking about it wrong.

    mark
    --

    If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    1. Re:Produce more energy than it uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See? All he wants is for us to invent a perpetual motion machine. It's not so much to ask, we're just thinking about it wrong.

      The book talks about putting solar panels on buildings. These fellas are really thinking clearly, please give them some credit and respect, no?

    2. Re:Produce more energy than it uses? by FreeUser · · Score: 2

      See? All he wants is for us to invent a perpetual motion machine. It's not so much to ask, we're just thinking about it wrong.

      "The Earth is not a closed system, it is powered by the sun. So fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun."

      Any random building you find you will discover is wasting much of the energy that strikes it each day, in the form of sunlight, wind, and rainwater washing down its surface, to name just three.

      Building buildings that produce more (presumably electrical) energy than they use doesn't require a violation of the 2nd law ... just a little attention to detail.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    3. Re:Produce more energy than it uses? by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 2
      The book talks about putting solar panels on buildings. These fellas are really thinking clearly, please give them some credit and respect, no?

      I was just making a joke because of the wording of the article here actually, don't worry.

      It is physically impossible to produce more energy than you take in. If you have solar panels on a building, you are taking in that energy, so you aren't producing more than you are taking in. It just comes from the sun instead of a power plant. And I support ideas like that, of course.

      mark

      mark
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    4. Re:Produce more energy than it uses? by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 2
      Building buildings that produce more (presumably electrical) energy than they use doesn't require a violation of the 2nd law ... just a little attention to detail.

      Adding in "electrical" changes the meaning completely, and kills my joke (yes, it was supposed to be a joke). By using rainwater, sunlight, and wind, you are still taking in more energy than you are producing. You are just taking advantage of other prevalent energy sources that are normally wasted. Of course this is good.

      Since you're the second person not to get the joke I'll just admit that it bombed.

      =P

      mark
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
  85. EcoVillage by leezardscure · · Score: 0

    Another aside (I have yet to read the book) is an article in Mother Earth News (www.motherearthnews.com) on how to live in such a world andmove out suburbs into true communities.

    An example is a cohousing community in Ithaca, New York. Check out the website, it is truly fascinating! Esp for conscientious geeks...
    http://www.ecovillage.ithaca.ny.us/

  86. actually not a dictator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like a junta. A meritocracy, a small band of the intellectual elite to command society. There's way too many people without the intelligence, education, or interest in making decisions for democratic change to work. What america has always wanted, whatever you might think, is 1) creature comfort for the average person, and 2) a general excuse not to make decisions. 1) is obvious, 2) is indicated by the dwindling voter turnout year after year and the general ignorance of significant political, cultural, or scientifc matters of the day.

    So let's just remove the rights that people have been allowing to wither on the vine, as it were and replace our government that will give people what they want. Comfortable existences in which the scary decisions are made by people with an understanding of the significance of those decisions.

    1. Re:actually not a dictator by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      The problem is keeping the junta from becoming our current plutocracy .. how do you ensure their goal is always 1), and not 1)s/average person/themselves-at-the-cost-of-others?

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
  87. Enlightened Force by Denny · · Score: 1

    I'd like to think an "enlightened" authority wouldn't be "forcing" anything.

    Goverments won't make environmentally considerate policies until their citizens demand it. They're a lot like companies in that respect (more so every day, it seems!)

    If you care about what happens to this planet, don't sit around waiting for some 'enlightened authority' to save you - start arguing with people in a position to do something about the issues you care about. Join political pressure groups, write to your local govt representative(s), local papers, etc etc etc...

    Okay, so maybe you can't save the planet. And maybe I can't. And maybe that guy over there can't. But how about you, me, him, and these other several thousand people? How about if we add all their friends into that question too??

    The number of people noticing that things aren't quite right grows every day - provide them with an example of what to do once they've noticed! (Hint: sitting still and keeping quiet is not the right example)

    Regards,
    Denny

    --
    Police State UK - news and
    1. Re:Enlightened Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      > (Hint: sitting still and keeping quiet is not the right example)

      But... but... THATS HOW I CONSERVE ENERGY!

    2. Re:Enlightened Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Okay, so maybe you can't save the planet. And maybe I can't. And maybe that guy over there can't. But how about you, me, him, and these other several thousand people? How about if we add all their friends into that question too??

      You mean like all those Floridans during the last presidential election?

  88. Out to sell something by Jodka · · Score: 1


    The authors put their money where their mouths are. In 1994 they started a design firm that puts these principles into practice.

    The authors are trying to sell their business by associating it with environmentalism. It is a selling point, they hope to increase their profits by doing so. That's not the same as "putting their money where their mouths are". They are putting their customer's money their. I think a little skepticism is in order here.

    It revolves around the idea that in nature, waste equals food. Other than incoming energy from the sun, our environment is basically a closed system. Whenever (non-human) life on our planet uses a resource, it is left in a form readily useable to other life. Humans must do the same.

    Environmental contaminants which promote growth can be just as harmful as those which limit it. Fertilizer runnoff from farm fields promotes algae growth in lakes and streams. This pretty much destroyes the ecologicial balance. The algae take over, displacing fish and everything else. In the specific instance of biodegradable fabrics, perhaps there is a net advantage in creating waste which can be consumed by nature. But contrary to what the authors claim, the creation of eco-consumable waste should not be endorsed as a general principle.

    And the fabric, of course, could be readily disposed of by tossing it onto the ground where it would decompose back into the soil without leaving toxic chemicals behind.

    Note that if you are one of those who fear CO2, then this is exactly the wrong thing to do. Decay releases CO2 into the atmosphere. If you want to reduce atmospheric CO2 then you must imitate nature in different way; entomb your waste under the ground. Coal and landfills are both ways of accomplishing the same thing-- Removing Carbon from the atmosphere locking it beneath the surface.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  89. It's not just humans by CBenning · · Score: 1

    Humans are not the only creators of waste.

    Animals create waste, plants create waste, stars and planets create waste. In fact, everything creates waste. Its called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    These guys are making a living telling us all how naughty we are for doing something that it is fundamentally impossible not to do. Thanks a lot jackasses.

    1. Re:It's not just humans by sgage · · Score: 1

      Talk about totally missing the point, jackass.

      The idea is that all these wastes become food or other inputs to other living things, etc. They are exactly saying that it is impossible to not make "waste", but that by proper design, it won't be dead-end, lost-to-the-ecosystem "waste".

  90. what about the long-term? by waxmop · · Score: 1

    Following the Coase theorem might succeed in forcing marginal cost to include external costs, but it completely fails to develop sustainable systems.

    Using your polluter and downwind landowner scenario: the polluter will have to buy the right to pollute off the landowner.

    So, the pollution begins, and the landowner gets compensated for that pollution, but the environmental damage still exists!

    People forget that compensating property owners is not the end of the story - we have to make sure we don't unknowingly destroy ourselves, even if we get a good price for it.

    plus, in the real world, the true cost of some externalities is usually not known at the moment of pollution. Look at DDT - it was thought to be safe, and then later found to be poisonous. How would the Coase theorem work then, after the property rights have been transferred?

    --

    --
    Long-term effects of Bush deficits
    1. Re:what about the long-term? by ccarnow · · Score: 1

      The main problem the Coase theorem tries to solve is trying to make things efficient. (i.e goods which costs are lower then the value when it is produced get produced and things which costs are higher than the value don't get produced) It lets landowners owning certain rights decide the cost of pollution to them and in this case their tenants. Externalites really have nothing to do with the Coase Theorem. Transaction costs are what decide the outcome. And I don't suggest that the polluter has to buy the right to pollute from the landowner, because in the case of multiple landowners one landowner may be a holdout to try to get a higher percentage of the money from the polluter buying the right and the negotiations may break down. (This is assuming pollution is more efficient, with some of the technolgy suggested about this book I think pollution won't be efficient any longer) I think the landowners should have a right to collect damages from the polluter not buy the right. I don't suggest the Coase Theorem is perfect but it's better than most regulation. We can't dismiss public or private regulation, but pick and choose the best ones.

  91. Eco-friendly authors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McDonough and Braungart's proposed strategy is called "eco-effectiveness" It revolves around the idea that in nature, waste equals food. ... the book is not made out of paper or printed using a conventional process. It's plastic

    So in essence the authors went for the do as we say not as we do. Instead of choosing an eco friendly product like paper that biodegrades, they chose to publish using plastic books that will fill our dumps thousands of years after their 15 seconds of fame have come and gone.

  92. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm going to start building a monument simialr to crazy horse, using wind and water errosion I expect to finish in 2930.

  93. Revise the business case by why-is-it · · Score: 2

    Look at how hard factories fight things like filters on smokestacks, because it'll raise prices a few cents per item.

    That is because the people doing that bitching are only concerned with their own immediate interests, and nothing more. If your eyes do not look beyond the next quarter's financial statements, effective and intelligent planning for the future is next to impossible. "Why implement Kyoto? It will have a negative effect on our profits - and our stock options".

    It would be in everyone's best interest to maybe look at the big picture once in a while. I suspect that if you take the long term view, the question is no longer "How much is this going to cost us?" Instead the question becomes "What is the cost of not doing this?" In that case, the filters on the smokestacks should be a slam dunk because their relatively trivial cost more than offsets the enormous costs of not cleaning up the environment.

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
  94. Garbage dumps as gold mines by SiliconEntity · · Score: 2

    In the future, our present-day garbage dumps will be gold mines of resources. With nanotech we will be able to recycle and recover all the resources that are there - metals, hydrocarbons, polymers. All can be converted to useful form, in many cases in higher concentrations than played-out natural ore veins.

    It's pointless to spend expensive resources today on conservation when in a few decades we will have infinitely more powerful and cheaper abilities to fix the problems. Better to divert our efforts into speeding the progress of the advanced technologies which will let us re-green the earth cheaply and easily.

    1. Re:Garbage dumps as gold mines by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      and: get us off this planet.

  95. How does the individual participate? by lythander · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First, for those whining about cost, durability, etc., please listen to the webcast. The buildings designed for major companies (SONY, Norman Miller, Ford, et. al.) end up costing much less in operating costs and increasing productivity. The plant they are building for Ford will cost $13M more than a standard comparable plant, but will remediate $48M worth of ecological damage Ford was required to fix by the government. 1 factory, out of the box saved the $35M.

    Which brings my question -- how do I help. I do what I can. I'm a homeowner, so I avoid using chemicals where I can (no turfbuilder!), drive an efficient car, etc. Can someone suggest practical ways to implement on an individual or household level these very forward-thinking ideas?

  96. We don't have a supply problem by bcboy · · Score: 1

    We have a demand problem. Most of the energy we produce goes to waste. Solar could provide all our energy needs by a very wide margin, if me merely stopped wasting all that we're producing.

    Nuclear power is a messy solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

    1. Re:We don't have a supply problem by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      Sure, we can supply all our energy needs with solar but then we'd be building a dyson sphere or some real world hybrid like Ringworld. I think both variants are so far off that we've got to come up with intermediates between here and there. Nuclear sounds just fine to me.

    2. Re:We don't have a supply problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear pebble bed reactors, fuel cells and orbiting solar arrays could handle our needs until something more exotic (hot fusion, "cold" fusion, zero point, etc.) comes along.

    3. Re:We don't have a supply problem by bcboy · · Score: 1

      Dyson sphere? Pffft. Yeah, right.

      People are going off-grid with solar today, by eliminating all their waste and buying PV and solar thermal solutions. Industries can and have built buildings than generate more power than they use. That was the point of the article. In a word, you're wrong.

      Solar for home use is not economical largely because the market doesn't accurately reflect the cost of oil, and because (like any new technology) it can't benefit from economies of scale, and refinements of mass-production until it sees wider adoption.

    4. Re:We don't have a supply problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are missing an obvious solution, go with orbital or lunar solar arrays. You can collect Alot of power(multiple Terrawatts for a 4-5k array from what i've heard) by putting up an multiple Km array in orbit and beam it down to the earth in one form or another were it can be recieved by a rectenna array.
      True, this idea does cost alot in the short term, but over a deacade or so you could easily repay the building cost. And besides, unlike nuclear or coal and oil, there are no waste products. You do have to pay the maintanance costs, but when you compare the price of repair to the amount of power generated and the price it could be sold at, it easily pays for itself. Plus it would give the government an excuse to develop our current space tech.

    5. Re:We don't have a supply problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "rectenna array"???

      You pulled that one out of your ass, didn't you?

  97. BIG != infinite by why-is-it · · Score: 2

    The planet is BIG. There is near infinite room to put garbage and waste.

    Dude, our planet is not "near infinite", and spelling "big" in all caps does not make it any more so.

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
  98. Oil: The source of all evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In the future, oil reserves will diminish.

    Mmm yes eventually. We've already begun to run out, but instead of trying to solve the problem, our oil comp... oh sorry, our goverment, under the leadership of George W. decided to find another source. So instead, we're gonna drill under a national wildlife preserve, and go to war against people in other countries that can supply us a good route for an oil pipeline to Uzbekestan, etc.

    People are stupid enough to believe the "War on Terrorism" is about freedom, when all we've done is destroy a group of people that opposed our capitalist "me, me, me" ideology, and coincidently resided in an area that would work great for an oil pipeline. Hell, we even put in their new leader, who fully backs the pipeline because of his past work in... oil. In fact if I'm not mistaken, he came up with the idea.

    What's scarier is the fact that since now we have secured our oil supply for the next few hundred years, our government has decided it doesn't even need to answer to us anymore. Cointelpro, and by it's own admission this administrations policy of misleading it's own people, as well as Bush's new "We'll go wherever we need to to fight terrorism", will work out great for the Olligarchy that has come to rule this country. Now we can't stand against them, they won't tell us the truth, and they'll go do all the things that they've wanted, but havn't had political ground to do so.

    If it keeps goin this way, we won't be able to change it. If half of the disenfranchised voters in this country started voting, they'd overwhelmingly overpower the current voting class. But no one cares.

    1. Re:Oil: The source of all evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were given the moderation +1 Insightful. I just meta-moderated that as Fair, even though I think your view is totally full of shit.

      THAT, dumbass moderators and meta-moderators, it what moderation is all about.

  99. Re: Cheapest? by Denny · · Score: 1

    Green products might well be cheapest - if you use a more encompassing definition of 'cost'.

    Regards,
    Denny

    --
    Police State UK - news and
  100. WOW! by tekknikk · · Score: 1

    I am very surprised by the number of negative comments made by the /. community. I guess "geekdom" is just as ready to fuck over this planet as anyone else. I'm half way through this book and I think it's groundbreaking. Sure, some of the ideas are not new, especially if you have lived in some parts of Europe, but as a whole it connects and brings together many concepts that, if listened to and acted on, could save us from ourselves.

    1. Re:WOW! by slowtonejoe75 · · Score: 1

      90% of the people on earth will always appear to be a jackass to you (or any individual) at any given time, always... Including geeks at /. or even me.

  101. I don't think they get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason why good economic choices (namely, recycling) don't happen is because people overwhelmingly don't care enough to make it happen. They don't care enough to make it happen because of the social values within societies. Simply pushing for some eco-recycling ideal in society is utterly useless when the entire value-set of industrialised societies is screwed up. The big picture needs to be seen.

  102. locally greedy algorithms by bastia · · Score: 1
    On the average, it seems that humans often make decisions by following a locally greedy manner. By "locally," I mean temporally, geographically, etc. By "greedy," I mean less capital and time and effort and inconvenience. One goal then is to structure large (human) systems (like an economy) so that the locally greedy decision will be the "right" decision. Your point of accounting for externalities in the initial cost of a product is one way of doing that. It puts the cost of the long term consequences of a decision into the initial expense. Thus, when I decide which carpet to buy, I don't have to weigh carpet price plus cost of tax increase so EPA can clean up waste water plus increased unemployment benefits for workers displaced by a company moving operations overseas plus the cost of disposing of it in 15 years etc.

    Of course, getting people to agree on which decision is "right" is often the problem.

  103. Name industries where ecological improvements... by jACL · · Score: 2

    Here's an example at Milliken Carpet. If you read it, you get the sense that each area that prevents having to dispose of something saves money.

    Now, when you take the meta of that, you start to get into the areas of "How much regulation is necessary?" and "What is the maximum negative economic impact..." Here are a few sets to consider: pollution and health care costs; global warming and loss of farmland via desertification; gasoline usage and the cost of the military; clearing of the rainforests and the loss of novel medications. Greens are focused on areas that don't concern a particular company's balance sheet, but go beyond that to "total costs" that are often ignored to make that balance sheet better.

    --
    "It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." Dr. Richard Wallace
  104. Re: Cheapest? by Jhan · · Score: 1

    Green products might well be cheapest - if you use a more encompassing definition of 'cost'.

    Yes!

    Example: What is the cost of a $50 car, that has a 25% chance of killing you every time you take a drive in it? Isn't the true cost higher than that of a $50,000 BMW? Which is why you would rather buy the latter.

    Listen to Radio Nectarine, computer music 24/7

    --

    I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.

  105. enlightened self interest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, i guess it comes down to utilitarian theory. are you dealing with your own "best interest", or to use the jargon, your own "enlightened self interest"? does your self interest stop at your personal bounds, or extend into the cascading effects of your actions? do you factor anyone else into your best interest (i'm not necessarily suggesting altruism)? i agree that everything should be evaluated, that there should be convincing arguments, but it turns out to be extremely difficult to convince people of something that doesn't necessarily affect them directly. and this is, as you might have guessed, an absolutely enormous problem.

  106. Litter doesn't decompose quickly. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

    Litter wouldn't be a problem if it decomposed anytime soon, now would it? Tree leaves in autumn, for example, are nature's litter.

    Ever try leaving leaves on your lawn to decompose instead of raking them?

    It doesn't work so well :). I'm sure if you look around hard right *now*, you'll find mostly-intact leaves from last autumn lying around. They'll eventually degrade into random soil organics, but they'll look pretty ugly while they're doing it. And by the time they do, the next few layers of leaves will be on top.

    Man-made substances are even worse for this. We want them to last for years with no degradation when we store them, so they take even longer to break down in the environment. Paper is just about the most biodegradable substance we produce, but readable newspapers from 80 years ago have been pulled out of landfills. Granted, part of this is the environment of the landfill itself, but my point holds.

    A "green" sofa whose upholstry biodegraded in a reasonable time would start degrading in your living room a month or two after you bought it. A sofa that did not biodegrade over the 5+ years you usd it would take its sweet time degrading in the landfill.

    In summary, I don't think nature is a fast enough recycler to be worth using (at least without help).

    1. Re:Litter doesn't decompose quickly. by rainwalker · · Score: 1

      I am not sure that your green sofa would decompose in your living room...unless your living room happened to be a dark, moist, warm area, filled with microbes and available nutrients. My living room is clean and dry, and I do what I can to keep things from rotting :) The fact is, *I* would rot pretty quickly if placed in a landfill, even assuming I was still alive, whereas I have survived more than 22 years so far without rotting in my environment. The environments that the decomposition takes place in are very different from the use environments. By your logic, paper towels would not exist. After all, they get mushy and disintegrate shortly after contact with water, so of course they would not last months in storage! As one who buys the things in bulk (being clumsy & kind of messy), I can of course attest to the fact that they store quite nicely, even without the plastic wrap, provided that you *don't soak them in water*! :)

    2. Re:Litter doesn't decompose quickly. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

      I am not sure that your green sofa would decompose in your living room...unless your living room happened to be a dark, moist, warm area, filled with microbes and available nutrients. [...] By your logic, paper towels would not exist.

      Good point.

      However, after you spill something on it a few times, I think the inside of your sofa would qualify as a dark, moist, warm, microbe-haven.

    3. Re:Litter doesn't decompose quickly. by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      This does not sound like furniture that will stand up to my two year old. Some people have children who spill, puke, pee, and even crap on the furniture before we get them toilet trained. And pets? forget about it. And how will this biodegradable furniture work with hot water extraction cleaners? How about their ability to stand up to tropical or even subtropical weather?

      No, the real world is not so antiseptic and dry as you seem to make it out.

    4. Re:Litter doesn't decompose quickly. by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      And what about college students in dorms? They're the ones who typically pick up furniture just as it's collapsing at the end of its life, anyway. Then they stick it into their:

      Dark
      Organic
      Rat-infested
      Moist

      rooms.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
  107. Re:Yes, but... but... by Woodie · · Score: 1

    Yes, people do need to understand the complete cost to their actions, but...

    A tree is a limited effect carbon sink. They die eventually, naturally, and release their trapped carbon right back into the system. A tree is not a magic carbon sink. It's more of a delayed effect carbon sink. Who should people pay to cut down that tree? Keep in mind that wood and paper companies pay people to cut down trees - those people in turn pay others for goods and services; hence society as a whole benefits.

    If this is what you were trying to say with your libertarian statement - then say it.

    If you mean by externalities - individual preference and free will, oh well. I guess the market will always be imperfect.

  108. OT: Repairing plastic. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

    Think of how often a device made of plastic will break & become useless. We have very few products left which can really be repaired.

    Plastic is actually pretty easy to repair (at least if it snaps). Acetone will glue some plastics, and methylene chloride (available at hobby stores and possibly hardware stores) will glue almost all of them. Both of them are actually strong solvents, which dissolve and re-form the plastic around the break.

    Now, I'm lazy enough that I'll probably buy a new $3 plastic widget instead of repairing a broken one, but it's still _do-able_ :).

    [Note: Use methylene chloride outdoors only. The fumes are quite dangerous.]

  109. Zen has cash now? by Denny · · Score: 1

    I don't understand your post - how can Zen have money? Zen isn't an institution like the Catholic Church (to pick a name at random which definitely DOES have money!)

    Regards,
    Denny

    --
    Police State UK - news and
  110. The solution? by Noel · · Score: 2

    How about an EAT (Entropy Added Tax)?


    (only half joking...)

  111. Re:No. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its all about the pockets.

    "man" (here im refering to our ancestors) evolved opposible thumbs and could now pick up two things at once. (three if you include the mouth, which is how other animals pick stuff up.)

    we remained living in the wild untill the day someone came along and realized they could use their opposible thumbs to make something new to carry stuff in.

    and so the path to civilization was begun. (after one false start, you see the first one was made by a woman, and the bear hide pouch didnt match the rabbit hide shoes)

  112. Re: Peepol are pretty stoopid by Denny · · Score: 1

    Hrm... I'd be careful with the random accusations of stupidity if you're not going to spell-check them first - it tends to detract from the overall impact of your insult when you can't manage to correctly type and/or spell half of the words in it.

    Regards,
    Denny

    --
    Police State UK - news and
  113. Re:Energy Entropy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paper is solar energy.

    No, paper is matter, not energy, and by your own logic, it's merely a product of solar energy. Even that's a stretch, however, because paper does not naturally occur -- it must be processed and made by humans.

    The difference between making paper and growing trees is in time. It is far quicker to make paper than to make the trees that produce it.

  114. you're right, but it's not that simple by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

    the problem is, if you implement an environmental regulation against a steel manufacturer in Chicago, and the manufacturer in Abudabe has less strict (or less strictly enforced) standards, your Chicago manufacturer is going to get pushed out of business by the Abudabean steel's cheaper prices.

    So doing the right thing only guarantees that the less environmentally friendly company stays in business. Result = you lose your company, your employees lose their jobs, and the environmental damage you prevented in your country is perpetuated somewhere else.

    The solution? Simple. Tax imports for all items from nations that don't adhere to your nation's environmental standards. Or, give your own companies that are environmentally compliant tax rebates (same net result either way). You can't have free trade between two nations without identical environmental standards (or labor standards, for that matter). The nation with less strict rules will steal all the business.

    1. Re:you're right, but it's not that simple by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      > The nation with less strict rules will steal all
      > the business.

      I would argue this is a good thing. It allows the purchasers of items to get away from the higher costs associated with oppressive thumb of silly, mass-idiocy serving governments.

      The only legitimate use of restrictions would be to encourage other governments lacking in human rights laws (ironically, things like freedom of speech, movement, your own body, to own property, etc.)

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
  115. Re: practical energy conservation methods ;) by Denny · · Score: 1

    *LOL* +1 : Made me grin at the end of a workday :)

    --
    Police State UK - news and
  116. What about durability? by cardshark2001 · · Score: 1

    If you spill a glass of water on the sofa, will it begin to decompose?

    Realistically, can we make a Gameboy Advance out of materials that will decompose if you throw them on the ground, but not if you just use the system normally? I refuse to give up my GBA.

    Stuff that easily decomposes is going to be less durable. Period.

    --
    WWJD? JWRTFA!
  117. Which natural principles? by mveloso · · Score: 1

    "Our model of technology and development is completely counter to the natural cycles and principles that worked for millions of years to create the environment we so cleverly manipulate."

    Yes exactly! Those principles include such hits as "survival of the fittest," "kill or be killed," "the weak must die unless they are useful as slaves," "you are either food or mating material," and the ever-popular "hey, don't mess with my women."

    Idealized representations of a nonexistent past should be avoided at all costs.

    1. Re:Which natural principles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We write "natural principles," which we observe in "nature." The defining factor is our observational bias more than what nature "present" to us. What the authors bring up is that while we could focus on "survival of the fittest" as a summation of Darwin's ideas, we could more profitably focus on the abundance of niches that creates rich diversity. The dark side of some of nature's "principles" is that species/populations will compete themselves into extinction, given the chance, by exploiting whatever their situation gives them whether or not it's in their long term interest. Why not try to be a little smarter, and embrace the natural principles that will enhance our entire ecosystem's health, rather than the ones that will destroy the systems we rely on?

  118. More ways of harnessing solar energy. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

    Other important methods of harvesting solar energy that I forgot: hydroelectric power and wind power.

    Both are manifestations of the weather system, which is a giant solar-driven heat engine. While it's doubtful that wind power could provide a reasonable amount of energy on a continental scale, hydroelectric power certainly can. Both of these forms of solar energy harvesting are quite efficient, because you get a lot of the energy concentration for free.

  119. Read the book to find out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Idealized representations of a nonexistent past should be avoided at all costs.

    I think it is you who may have the idealistic mentality that you can take what you wish and discard without worry. No? I'm tired of intelligent people being called idealists by unintelligent brutes such as yourself.

  120. Read the book... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stuff that easily decomposes is going to be less durable. Period.

    Oh please; quit spreading stupidity. Trees are very durable, yet they decompose. You call people idealistic when they understand that we can't continue to modify our environment without respecting nature? Please! I think it is you who are idealistic.

    1. Re:Read the book... by cardshark2001 · · Score: 1

      You have a point, but do you really want to ride in a decomposable airplane? Operated on by a decomposable knife? Obtain life support from a decomposable machine?

      --
      WWJD? JWRTFA!
  121. Sales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The firm was once hired to design a compostable upholstery fabric. According to their principles, not only did the finished product have to be environmentally neutral, so did the production process."

    No mention as to anybody wanting to BUY the finished product, is there? Greens have lots of great ideas, most of which usualy involve me buying something I don't want because of government regulation.

    Lets see a solution that doesn't involve some greenie sticking a gun in my face.

  122. Re:Energy Entropy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, when you put it that way, there are only two sources of energy available to us:

    - heat (from the middle of the earth, and from the sun)
    - nuclear fusion and fission

    All other forms are by-products of the former two. And actually, the heat from the sun is a by-product of the nuclear fission happening inside the sun, so, there is only nuclear energy, and since we don't have enough raw ore for nuclear fission to be a durable source of energy, nuclear fusion will be our only real possible form of really long-term earth-generated energy.

    Too bad nobody wants to invest in research in the stuff.

  123. Above is not troll-like. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The above message is not troll-like, and shouldn't be rated that way. Whoever has doubt, should go ahead and read the troll howto before taking away karma points like that.

  124. The "proper" role of regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most telling point is the institution of the "fourth R." Regulation.

    Regulation should be there to make people pay the true costs of their activities so that it is cost effective for the companies to do the "right" thing rather than making toxic messes that we have to clean up later on down the road.

  125. Regulation should charge for pollutants... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that as many here have pointed out, forcing regulations on corporations isn't going to change anything as long as people's minds aren't changed.

    The goal of regulation shouldn't be to _stop_ companies from polluting; but it should make it so economically infeisable that they look for other options. For instance, instead of setting limits on how much C02 is emitted, regulation should just charge per pound. This way, those companies start spending more money thinking about how to reduce C02 for their competitive advantage rather than lobbying to have limits changed.

  126. Cost = Entropy used + Energy Used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a great explanation. Thank you. What regulation needs to do is charge for Entropy used. That is, charge per pound for messes. Then companies would change.

    ;) Clark

  127. what's the problem? by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

    I'm all in favor of what you said, and I'm a big capitalist advocate.

    People may not give you this impression, but there's a big difference between being pro-big business and pro capitalism. I'm pro capitalism. Take the government out of as much of business as possible. (I won't say all, although some would.)

    The current problem is simple: the government can pass laws drastically effecting businesses. So, a corrupt businessman can attempt to buy favorable legislation, or just trick legislators into passing laws that help him. Honest businesses lose out, and eventually get forced out of business. Look at the big businesses now... how many stories of unfair treatment, pork barrel funding, and tax evasion do you hear? Well, guess what... they have no choice! If you play fair, you get put out of business. Congratulations, US Congress has done a masterful job over the last fifty years of making sure the honest businessman gets burned!

    So, take the US government out of the equation. Make it illegal to give tax rebates in certain industries/geographic areas, or on any level other than the national level. Eliminate the EPA and OSHA or else make abso-fucking-lutely sure that enforcement is consistent across the board and nobody gets pampered treatment. No free use of government land - pay a market price for leasing. No free use of resources from government land - auction it off to the highest bidder, with the minimum bid being 5% below market. Level the playing field, and watch the honest businesses that do the best job of providing what the customer needs excel.

    I'm not logically opposed to OSHA or the EPA, but I've seen incredible double standards of enforcement, even in my simple college summer jobs.

    1. Re:what's the problem? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2
      Take the government out of as much of business as possible. (I won't say all, although some would.)

      I'm not sure where you draw the line between "as much as possible" and "all". As much as possible and still have...what?

      My point is that if you eliminate and invalidate the state's power to hand control of resources over to a favored few, you eliminate the infrastructure that makes capitalism possible. (which is fine by me. :-) ) You then don't need to give the state the powers to regulate capitalism gone amuck.

      In other words, capitalism isn't some natural result of an absence of government action in the economy. (Don't confuse "free market" and "capitalist" - one is about trade, one is about control.)

      I'm all for private property; without it, there can be no private decisions. But it's not a concept that should apply to everything in the universe. For then decisions that affect us all are made by, and for the benefit of, a few.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:what's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a fencesitter, lobbing Fonzi thumbs upps at every side of the issue, trying to avoid mental images of people hating you.

  128. I have met the problem by JWBsDad · · Score: 1

    and as usual it is me.

    --
    Ahhh yess, the obligatory sigh oh, did you say sig?
  129. No, You probably wouldn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The point is that if I had carpet that would last for 50 years without fading or wearing out, I'd buy it in a second.

    Long life options exist in many, many, areas. But, the bean counters are quite good at establishing "prices" based on "total avoided cost" of using a throw away option. They do this because you're buying down what they see as their future revenue stream.

    So you can pay to buy, install, and throw away carpet 5 times over the next 50 years, or pay the same present value cost to install 50 year carpet today.

    Sounds like an OK deal until you realize that you lose the short term insurance values. You are unable to buy new to replace for stains, floods, and other acts of life, or to move without losing the "equity" in the "good carpet", and the fact you're locked out of the next 50 years of technology advance.

    Returnable milk jugs are a historical example of the perversion we call "free markets". After they got over glass jars, they moved to a thick high density clear poly. Tough as nails. 100 cycles then you sent them off for a melt and reform to clean up the scratches. Soon the disposable poly and paper cartons, the ones you see today, cost 1/100th the price of the returnable. Alas, the long-life jug people didn't allow for the cost of sanitation. After all, they sold the disposible cartons and didn't want to lose a dime in the process. Eco-be-damned is the watchword of the world.

  130. Re:Energy Entropy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paper companies "farm" trees. They do not just buy land, whack the trees down, and move on. They produce as many trees as they consume.

    If we stopped using paper, we would force the paper companies out of business. The paper companies would have to sell their forests to other people/companies, who would then cut all the trees down to build a neighborhood or strip mall.

    Buying and using paper creates/saves pine forests. Economics is the driving factor here. The paper companies are the *only* industry with a dependency on forests. As long as they have money, we'll have forests.

  131. You've overlooked somethings by ChaosMt · · Score: 1

    I've been on too many commercial rooftops working on getting carriers roof rights and such. Most roofs don't have much room, that is often where HVAC and such are kept. The other thing you will find often time up there are small racks or closets for cell, network and pager systems.

    Second, how do you propose to keep the proposed plants alive? Most plant's couldn't handle the harsh sun and heat. Would you water these plants? More money. How do you make sure there's no leaks? Things settle over time, so "proper drainage" doesn't always stay that way. How to you patch a leak once you find one? How much top soil are you going to have to dig through? How do you deal with root systems that start to grow into the infrastructure. How much weight is the structure going to have to bear to provide the long term benifit to provide a return? How about the increased liability that the owner will need to incur because the roof will need to have a higher level of maintainence? Would you choose to lose one or two storied off your house (and thus lose money) to have roof garden that *may* survive the heat, and be seen by very few and unusable to most?

    This book sounds good, but this idea is often considered and the cons far outweigh the pros.

    --
    Democrats and Republicans only disagree about how to enslave you
  132. think of Plato's Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to raise the children to serve this role; educate them to be the leaders, think like leaders, and be concerned with 1) and not 2). In other words, breed an effective ruling group according to a set of precepts developed and set in stone.

    I was sort of joking, too. Much as I think people are generally too stupid to make important decisions, the ruling oligarchy strategy has a tendency to terribly awry.

  133. What planet are you living on? by gando · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you are thinking of rooftops that are made of materials that reflect or hold the heat near the rooftop. With dirt and plants there, wouldn't there be less heat, like the heat levels in your back yard? Isn't that the whole point?

    And besides, what plants are you talking about that could not handle the "harsh sun and heat".
    I don't think they are planning on planting ferns. Think of things that love sunlight and need little water. There are plenty of them growing along side our highways right now, in almost every state.

    I think I would try heirloom types of tomatoes, beans, squash and corn, then you get a crop out of the whole thing as well.

    -G

    --
    --Fac Iustum Nec Time-- --Veritas Prevalibit--
  134. throwaway phones... by markmoss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What is really needed isn't decomposing upholstery, it's a lot fewer ideas like this.

  135. This is the problem of the commons by MemeRot · · Score: 2
    If one person can abuse some commonly shared resource to better his own situation, our economic system rewards him. The classic example of the commons is the commons in the middle of medieval European villages. When everyone had a cow or two there the system works fine. When one person starts keeping a lot of cows there, he's degrading conditions for others but still coming out fairly well himself since he does have many cows even if they're not in peak condition. The classic libertarian solution is to divide the commons and fence off little pieces and give every villager a small plat. A sensible solution. But hard to apply to "the Earth's atmosphere". That is a commons that cannot be divided up and fenced off. Everyone on earth has some interest in this commons. That is the link to having an interest in the property rights of the tree. I think the above poster was saying that those whose share of the commons has been degraded need to be compensated for their loss by the polluter. The very act of asking for money for this makes the polluter much less likely to pollute. Making the situation even more hard to calculate, those who have the most interest in the earth's atmosphere's health are the unborn. Whatever the current generation can do, the Earth won't become uninhabitable in our lifetimes. But in our great great grandchildren's?

    Thomas Jefferson said:

    "The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another seems never to have been started on this [i.e., the European side -- Jefferson was writing from France] or our [American] side of the water... that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. -- I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it... A generation coming in and going out entire... would have a right on the first year of their self-dominion to contract a debt for 33 years, in the 10th for 24, in the 20th for 14, in the 30th for 4, whereas generations, changing daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant term, beginning at the date of their contract, and ending when a majority of those of full age at that date shall be dead. The length of that term may be estimated from the tables of mortality. Take, for instance, the tables of M. de Buffon... [according to which] half of those of 21 years [of age] and upwards living at any one instant of time will be dead in 18 years 8 months, or say 19 years as the nearest integral number. Then 19 years is the term beyond which neither the representatives of a nation, nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly extend a debt... This principle that the earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive application..."

    It seems though that our actions can have unintended consequences that will indeed place a burden on future generations. A burden that morally should not be foisted on them.

    Unfortunately a system to deal with the issue of dealing with individual property rights versus costs to the worldwide 'commons' will only become available when ecology is a mature hard science, not the jumble of guesses it is today. No insurance companies will cover GM crop producers, because nobody has the science to predict the possible ecological consequences of GM crops, hence they don't know how much risk is involved. This is something we need, a useful, accurate, non-agenda driven tool. There needs to be a system to weight the interest of future generations in an unspoiled commons against the needs of current residents, and assign monetary values to the costs of adversely affecting the environment. Without that, we can't properly internalize these costs. And we're a long way from having the understanding of ecological science to create this.

  136. Sound like typical environmentalist rhetoric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes.

  137. Here's a legitimate plan by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

    What's the point of making something environmentally friendly so it won't end up in a landfill?

    Here's the proper plan for the immediate (50-200 years) future:

    Dump yard waste and other things into sealed, non-biodegrading landfills. No shortage of space and it reduces CO2.

    In two hundred years, or fifty, send robots into the landfills to manually separate junk for recycling, in ways that aren't economically feasible now.

    To sum up:

    1. Landfills (leaks notwithstanding) are not a problem.

    2. Even if they were, in a few hundred years they won't be.

    Someone from the future reading this, please resurrect me and one envirogeek so I can sit there and laugh at their massively incorrect world view.

    --
    "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
  138. William McDonough Links by fatbastard10101 · · Score: 1

    Re-Design of Ford River Rouge Plant:
    http://detnews.com/2000/autos/0011/01/a01- 142597.h tm
    http://www.mcdonoughpartners.com/projects/p_fo rd_r ouge.html

    Nat'l Press Club speech by WM (really interesting, but long ~50 min):
    http://www.npr.org/programs/npc/020424.wmcd onough. html

    Wired article:
    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.02 /mcdonough . tml

    McDonough Partners Press Room:
    http://www.mcdonoughpartners.com/press.html

    NOTE: screwed up URLs, as usual!

  139. Sounds like an excuse for engineered life by kaladorn · · Score: 2

    One approach would follow the logic above. If life tends to process waste of other life activity in a closed system, and we've now got non-degradable outputs (in any reasonable time), then maybe we need to break out the genevats and cook up some life to turn the non-degradable outputs into something useful again.

    And before anyone rants on, I'm aware of the "we don't know what we're doing" theory of genetics... which is at least partially true... today. But this might well be a worthwhile avenue of approach (ref: using microbes in nuclear disaster and oil disaster cleanup as an example). Maybe in the long run, we can make something that _likes_ polyester (unlike the rest of the universe).

    --
    -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
  140. The Tragedy of the Commons by permaculture · · Score: 1

    The issues discussed in "It's all Human Nature" are generally referred to as "The Tragedy of the Commons". Google that phrase and you get lots of similar treatise.

    --
    Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
  141. Recycling Bits by 3seas · · Score: 1

    I thought this story was a bit out of the /. realm except there is a matter of using the waste of the bit bucket to feed something else......

    But I'm having problems figuring out what, as the open source software and free software don't ever really seem to get thrown in the waste pile. However, the commercial strives to fuel the bit bucket waste can.