Slashdot Mirror


From Turkey Guts to Fuel Oil

Untimely Ripp'd writes "The latest issue of Discover Magazine reports that any day now a plant will go online in Carthage, Missouri that processes turkey guts into high grade oil, natural gas, some minerals, and water. Unfortunately, the Discover article isn't online yet, but here's a newspaper article. The system, developed by Changing World Technologies uses thermal depolymerization and apparently works on almost any and every kind of organic waste. They assert that applying it to 100% of the US' agricultural waste would produce about 4 billion barrels of oil per year -- about the amount we currently import. It sounds too good to be true, it sounds like one of those fly-by-night-in-the-face-of-the-second-law deals, but it isn't happening in somebody's basement -- it's happening in a multi-million dollar facility developed with Con-Agra."

400 comments

  1. When you think about it... by CommieLib · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is really just fossil fuels for the extremely impatient.

    --
    If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    1. Re:When you think about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Relations between the Turks and the US are already strained enough without us threating to turn em into oil

    2. Re:When you think about it... by swtaarrs · · Score: 1

      True, but we need it. We are using oil much faster than it is produced in nature, so we will eventually run out, making this a great breakthrough. And for those wondering, it's not an April Fool's joke, I get Discover and I've read the article.

    3. Re:When you think about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn... President Gump just invaded Iraq for no reason at all!

    4. Re:When you think about it... by xerid · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this could be applied to medial waste, too.

    5. Re:When you think about it... by skepticiam · · Score: 1

      First we burn it in our vehicles. Then .... do the words 'Soylent Green' mean anything to you young whippersnappers.

    6. Re:When you think about it... by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      Same here; this isn't an april fools day article. Which, in a way, is a pretty funny joke to play for april fools day: insert a serious story that will seem incredible. Perhaps we should have a dupe on another day so that people will realize that it is serious if they disregard all april first articles.

    7. Re:When you think about it... by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      This can't turn people into food. This can do a bang-up job of turning people into water, minerals, clean-burning gas (not gasoline), and very light crude oil. Soylent brown is more like it. But we shouldn't have to end up feeding people to this thing, since it can handle all sorts of things. It's really neat that it can handle chicken guts, corpses of people, and old plastic pop bottles with the same process.

    8. Re:When you think about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Discover magazine this month has an excellent right up on this and it sounds really cool. The process can work on ANY carbon based refuse, including sewage, computers, tires, plastics, bio-medical waste, etc... but won't work on radioactive waste.

      The process is very scalable and has a very high energy efficiency (only uses 15% of the substances energy to transform it).

    9. Re:When you think about it... by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      the ezist way is to drink lots of Tequila.. then insert rubber hose into air intake of car by breathing into it every half mile ypo wil be able to use absoultly no fossel fuels. hic

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    10. Re:When you think about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This can't turn people into food. This can do a bang-up job of turning people into water, minerals, clean-burning gas (not gasoline), and very light crude oil. Soylent brown is more like it.

      Wonder if the 5th Geneva Convention will consider it a war crime to turn the enemy into fuel for military vehicles.

    11. Re:When you think about it... by metlin · · Score: 1

      It takes guts, man! ;-)

  2. I feel let down by antaeogo · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was expecting that evil 'bit' story...

    1. Re:I feel let down by jfengel · · Score: 1

      That's the evil "bit" story, as opposed to the "evil bit" story. Same story, different judgment call. And I'm with you on that.

  3. WTF? by wumpus188 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Where's my IPv4 story dammit?

  4. in theory.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but in practice, that waste is already partly used for other purposes (fertilizer, compost, etc.).

  5. This is wonderful by madfgurtbn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Something like this could really help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I betcha the oil industry is going to try to discredit this breakthrough in energy technology.

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
    1. Re:This is wonderful by mgs1000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've heard the the oil industry has already issued a press release stating this was a hoax.

    2. Re:This is wonderful by Finni · · Score: 1

      Actually, it can make (for example) coal much cleaner to burn, and more efficient as well due to the pre-processing. There was more in the article dealing with the other ways in which this would be an excellent adjunct to our existing fossil-fuel economy and most associated businesses, while ALSO reducing our need to pull this stuff up from the ground.

    3. Re:This is wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe the u.s. could stop bombing the crap out of other countries for thier oil.. err I mean.. trading food for oil and let the population in other countries starve.. err... concentrate on fuel efficient engins to ensure that this doesn't kill nature.. but then again it does require organic material to produce something that will (in the end) kill organic organisms...

    4. Re:This is wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, shut your pie-hole, fuckstick. How about this. Your shithole country can come up with technological advances, then the US will follow your lead, m'kay? Why is it that the US has to come up with all the earth-saving advances, save the world from dictators with funny hats and WMD, and shovel all your shit? Why am I arguing with a stool sample?

    5. Re:This is wonderful by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      he must have hit pretty close to the mark to get you all riled up like that

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    6. Re:This is wonderful by cashisking · · Score: 1

      If there is money to be made the oil industry will jump all over this technology.

    7. Re:This is wonderful by AugstWest · · Score: 1

      ....but only if they can control it.

    8. Re:This is wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the oil companies will love this! It doesn't eliminate the oil, it provides another means of production. If I were an oil company, I would be champing at the bit to replace my expensive and environmentally disturbing drilling operations with a plant that processes dirt-cheap waste.

    9. Re:This is wonderful by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      Maybe not. I'm sure oil companies would like a stable source of oil. And they might even make a profit off it.

      Remember, depolymerization can break down almost anything carbon-based. All that sludge in the bottom of the cracking column? Used wood, plastic, paper? AOL cds? Manure? Dump it in, let the oil flow.

      Probably the coolest thing is scalability: A small unit can fit on a flatbed truck. Just put all your paper/food/non-metal into a separate can and it's turned into oil. I can imagine it now: "Do your part to end the oil crisis: Uncle Sam wants your crap!"

      The only problem I forsee is our continued reliance on carbon fuels.

    10. Re:This is wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not enough turkeys.

    11. Re:This is wonderful by hplasm · · Score: 1
      Not enough turkeys.

      Just look around you. Particularly in Election season.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    12. Re:This is wonderful by rve · · Score: 1

      The oil industry will be happy to have a politically more stable source of their raw materials. There are/have been some research projects here in europe sponsored by oil companies to make diesel out of vegetable oil, which apparently works just fine, but is just too expensive to compete with mineral oil at this time.

      The pentagon has different ideas though, a time tested, 19th century approach:
      Reducing resource scarcity by reducing demand is a lefty liberal eurofag solution; real men (tm) use military and economic force to secure an increase in supply instead. This approach is far more thought through, and will continue to work for ever, because reserves of fossil fuel are infinite after all, all you need to do is send your army to get it.

    13. Re:This is wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to discredit this at all.

      Exxon and Haliburton will have their government bomb this to stone-age if it really worked.

    14. Re:This is wonderful by Jazu · · Score: 1

      Wow, you actually sounded stipider than he did.

      --
      My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
  6. And I thought... by Marley · · Score: 3, Funny

    petro products stunk... I bet this smells much more foul... ;)

    1. Re:And I thought... by hopbine · · Score: 1

      Surely it should be much more FOWL

      --
      Semper ubi sub ubi
    2. Re:And I thought... by insanecarbonbasedlif · · Score: 1

      It sounds too slick to be true... I can't waste my time here.

      --
      Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
    3. Re:And I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "slick" from oil made from "waste". hehe. super funny. You're "waste"ing my time with your dumb puns....

    4. Re:And I thought... by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      and a mime is a terrible thing to waste

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  7. Paranoid by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm so paranoid, I can't tell if this is another April Fools or not!

    1. Re:Paranoid by cur3 · · Score: 1

      i'm paranoid and i tell you this is another April Fools!

      this 'petrol-moving-penis' fool is...

      George Bush

      --
      how the end always is ...
    2. Re:Paranoid by ThatWeasel · · Score: 1

      Why do you have to be paranoid to wonder that. I hate April 1st. Surfing from one site to another and trying to figure out who is being fool or being serious. Only 8 hours hours of this wackiness and I can stop being a fool.

      --

      TW
      Television is dead. Long live That Weasel Television

    3. Re:Paranoid by Psiolent · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's definitely real. I've read the article in Discover, complete with a full page picture of intestines, spleens, and various other turkey pieces. Not a good idea to flip to while you're eating dinner.

    4. Re:Paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And Discover would never run an April fools article.

    5. Re:Paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Discover magazine does April Fools jokes every year. Once, they even got cited by a creationist group for their story on pre-historic music.
      So it's very, very possible that this is just for laughs.

    6. Re:Paranoid by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it. My wife started telling me about this the other night. I was only half paying attention (as usual, one eye on CNN, yeesh) -- when I did a double-take and went 'huh? what? really? no way -- she went and grabbed the article and put it in front of me. Man, I really lost my appetite.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    7. Re:Paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they .

    8. Re:Paranoid by nurightshu · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hate April 1st.

      Try having today as your birthday. Jesus. One time, when I turned nine or ten, my best friend handed me this big freakin' box. I unwrapped it, and there was another box inside of it. Unwrapped that one, and lo and behold, another box. Three or four more iterations, and I unwrap the final box. It contains...two decorative soaps (shaped like seashells).

      "April Fool!" he says.

      I knee him, right in the balls. He goes down and I'm following him, punching his head repeatedly. My parents come rushing over and pull me off of his crumpled form. Chuck E. Cheese employees are freaking out, and so are all my other friends.

      I found a new best friend shortly thereafter, but that didn't stop the pranks. Every year, somebody thinks it'll be clever and original to do something stupid, then shout, "April Fools! Happy birthday, Mike!"

      My temper's under better control than it was when I was nine. I don't beat them up anymore. Now I have sex with their spouses.

      Happy birthday. Happy frigging birthday to me.

      --
      They that would sacrifice their .sig space for that cliched Franklin quote deserve neither.
    9. Re:Paranoid by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The story is certainly full of shit; it is just a matter of whether it is full of literal shit or figurative shit.

    10. Re:Paranoid by harrkev · · Score: 1
      And Discover would never run an April [museumofhoaxes.com] fools [museumofhoaxes.com] article.

      And they would certainly not run them in their MAY issue!

      Check the date on the cover before assuming. News CAN happen today! Or maybe those dead people in Iraq are an april fools joke too!

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    11. Re:Paranoid by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Maybe your mom thought you were an April Fool's prank when you were born? :)

      I was born on Halloween so I get things like "well are you a trick or are you a treat". And my birthday parties turn into Halloween parties where nobody brings presents and expect me to give them candy. (or they don't bother coming because they are out trick-or-treating).

      I think there should be some hard set social standard on precedence for holidays to avoid conflicts and lame people thinking they are funny. :)

      btw- Happy Birthday

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    12. Re:Paranoid by Eccles · · Score: 1

      The story is certainly full of shit

      No it isn't, although it is pretty offal...

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    13. Re:Paranoid by jkeyes · · Score: 1

      damnit you're on to us! We were trying to hide that the Iraqi government is right we're not really having a war we're out in Nevada faking it all. With a $30 billion budget we'll beat any of those fakeass hollywood movies!

    14. Re:Paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best Slashdot comment EVER!!!

    15. Re:Paranoid by norton_I · · Score: 1

      The trick is to nip this thing in the bud and decide that your birthday is (say) April 4 or November 2. Make sure you choose a day a few days after so when your friends take you out drinking on your 21st birthday you can get into the bar (assuming you don't want to forge a birth certificate).

    16. Re:Paranoid by shfted! · · Score: 1

      Me too, my friend, me too. Bleh. But thankfully, people tend to be nice to me.

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    17. Re:Paranoid by SoulDrift · · Score: 1

      Did you ever consider the possibility that your parents told you April 1st was your birthday as an April fools joke?

      Some parents can make childhood cruelty as pure as a science :-)

    18. Re:Paranoid by spirality · · Score: 1

      one eye on CNN

      Man.... watch Fox.

    19. Re:Paranoid by Trogre · · Score: 3, Funny

      yeah, I remember this one time I sent my kid along to his friends April 1 birthday party.

      The birthday boy was such a good friend that we decided to buy him two royal $700 decorative soaps, hand carved by an Italian designer, as a special investment gift, but wrap it in a great big cardboard box to make it look like a television set or something. (just for a little 1 April prank).

      Turned out the prick of a birthday boy actually beat my kid up, so badly he needeed stitches. Last I heard the soaps were never seen again.

      Hey wait a sec... where do you live?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    20. Re:Paranoid by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Fox is a hideous Republican-biased POS news station. Watch BBC.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    21. Re:Paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh yes very amusing, because we would all believe a child would appreciate expensive soap.

    22. Re:Paranoid by c4tp's+friend · · Score: 1

      How true, how very true. Although I do not have any horror stories such as your's, it is a pain in the ass to prove that my birthday is on Apr 1. I mean can't people believe me? Oh well, I should forge my birth certificates, burn all of the traces of my existance and become Jose.

      --
      I dont like it when people think about what I think (say). Rather I try to make them think like I think.
    23. Re:Paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      <Simpsons>Goodbye Lionel Hutz; hello Miguel Sanchez!</Simpsons>

    24. Re:Paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, a government owned news station is much better.

  8. I am speechless! by Kwelstr · · Score: 1, Funny

    I am without speech! Get out!!!

    (Seinfield impression)

    --


    ~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s :-/
  9. Anti-joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be funny if the most outragous story posted on April 1st was real?

    1. Re:Anti-joke? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Even funnier if it was 5 months old.

    2. Re:Anti-joke? by silicon_synapse · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but this one is only 4 months old. (Dec. 4, 2002)

    3. Re:Anti-joke? by insanecarbonbasedlif · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but this one is only 4 months old. (Dec. 4, 2002)

      Nit-pickers aren't welcome on slashdot...
      If we wanted to be corrected all the time, we'd surround ourselves with bored know it all geeks -

      Oh.

      Um. Back to the drawing board.

      --
      Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
  10. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Turkey joins the "Axis of Evil".

    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bit of a problem.

  11. Turkey Guts Huh? by DalTech · · Score: 1

    Just think what we could do with recycled roadkill!

    1. Re:Turkey Guts Huh? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 0, Troll

      you could have sex with it?

      just like normal?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    2. Re:Turkey Guts Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget what we could do with it. What do we do with it now? Taco Bell burrito filler?

  12. Why bother? by dmuth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why bother with a plant for this? I can already turn chili into ah, "natural gas". :-)

    1. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But have you been able to bottle it?

    2. Re:Why bother? by warpSpeed · · Score: 4, Funny
      Why bother with a plant for this? I can already turn chili into ah, "natural gas"

      Add some beer or whisky, and you get "natual gas" under high pressure...

      *bada ching!* I'm here all week, and watch the open flames.

    3. Re:Why bother? by Britt+Wanabe · · Score: 1

      A few years back I knew a guy who signed up to participate in a study at some research university. They were trying to determine which genetically engineered soy beans produced the least gas. apparently they had to carry around these 'fart pans' all day for several days, trapping there farts and keeping a fart journal (I think they called it something a bit more uhhh. scientific). I am not makeing this up. Pretty funny if you ask me.

      --
      britt@newmail.net
      The Britt Wanabe
    4. Re:Why bother? by takotech · · Score: 1

      No but I made an oven out of it once. It was Dutch if I recall correctly.

  13. Rapacious need for oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    First we take Iraq...next Turkey!

    -AC

    1. Re:Rapacious need for oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True fact: there are no turkeys in Turkey!

  14. Not Apr fools joke? by langedb · · Score: 4, Funny

    The date on the article was Dec. 4, 2002, so I think this one is legit.

    1. Re:Not Apr fools joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you on that, but why has it taken so long to get here?!

    2. Re:Not Apr fools joke? by bluesky74656 · · Score: 1

      The article did appear in the latest Discover magazine. A quick google search brought up this website, which says that Discover quit running an April fools article in 1998. I believe this one is legit.

      --
      This page was generated by a Flock of Attack Kittens for you.
    3. Re:Not Apr fools joke? by Mr.Intel · · Score: 1

      You believe everything you read don't you?

      --
      ASCII tastes bad dude.
      Binary it is then.
    4. Re:Not Apr fools joke? by hatrisc · · Score: 1

      it's a ruse. that date is there for trickery purposes only.... and obviously it's working!

      --
      I write code.
    5. Re:Not Apr fools joke? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      That was the first thing I saw when I went to the link, and so I thought the same thing. So who the heck moderated it as funny? Insightful is the closest thing I can come up with, other than "observant," which most others her aren't. Hell, they don't even read the article.

    6. Re:Not Apr fools joke? by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      The article did appear in the latest Discover magazine. A quick google search brought up this [discover.com] website, which says that Discover quit running an April fools article in 1998. I believe this one is legit.

      Right after their article about the little critters that melt their way through ice at 30 mph and eat penguins got picked up by the mainstream press :)

      I remember thinking that it was bogus because unless it was powered by cold fusion, the energy would be prohibitive ;-)

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  15. This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Rayonic · · Score: 5, Funny

    So does it mean we'll have to invade Kentucky next?

    1. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Kentucky isn't in Turkey!

    2. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since we get a very negligible amount of oil from Iraq, invasion would be Venezuela, Canada or Russia.

      And Im sure 2 of those three would be an easier cakewalk than Iraq...

    3. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      give me a break. I love how simple minded the world is regarding this Iraq thing.

    4. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by jhigh · · Score: 0

      Think about, genius. If this was really about oil, we would just go in guns blazing and take the damn oil. We wouldn't have spent months trying to appease the UN, we wouldn't be being so cautious about killing innocents, and we sure wouldn't be making it abundantly clear that we DO NOT intend to occupy Iraq after the war. We would go in, blow Iraq to pieces, and claim their oil for ourselves. And there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could do about. Try to think before you speak there, slick.

      --
      Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
    5. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by spruce · · Score: 0, Troll

      From the BBC

      Is the war with Iraq about oil when all is said and done? The anti-war movement seems to think so. I am not so sure.
      Unless the peace movement has discovered telepathy, I doubt that it's in any better position to divine the hidden thoughts or secret motivations of George Bush and Tony Blair than I am. Arguing about unstated motives, therefore, is a waste of time - claims cannot be proven or disproven.

      Is it so difficult to imagine that both Bush and Blair sincerely believe - rightly or wrongly - that a well-armed Iraq poses an intolerable danger to the civilized world? If access to oil were of concern to them, one might have expected members of their administrations to hint as much. After all, the Thatcher and Bush "senior" administrations were quite open about the role that oil played in justifying the first go-around in Kuwait. Polls in the United States revealed at the time, moreover, that the public responded favourably to the argument. Why the supposed reticence now?

      Regardless, it's difficult to know exactly what's being alleged when one is confronted by the slogan "No Blood for Oil!"

      If the argument is that war is primarily being executed to ensure global access to Iraqi oil reserves, then it flounders upon misunderstanding. The only thing preventing Iraqi oil from entering the world market in force is the partial U.N. embargo on Iraqi exports. Surely if access to Iraqi oil were the issue, it would have occurred to Bush and Blair that removing the embargo is about 100 billion dollars cheaper - and less politically risky - than going to war.

      If the argument is that war is being undertaken to grab Iraqi reserves, flood the market with oil, bust the OPEC cartel, and provide cheap energy to western consumers, then war would be a dagger pointed at the heart of big oil companies. That's because low prices equal low profits. But if the market were flooded with cheap Iraqi oil, it would also wipe out the small-time producers in Texas, Oklahoma, and the American Southwest that President Bush has long considered his best political friends.

      Accordingly, it's impossible to square this story with the allegation that President Bush is a puppet of the oil industry. If oil company "fat cats" were calling the shots - as is often alleged by the protesters - President Bush would almost certainly not go to war. He would instead embrace the Franco-German-Russian plan of muscular but indefinite inspections. Because keeping the world on the precipice of uncertainty regarding conflict is the best guarantee that oil prices, (and thus, oil profits,) will remain at current levels.

      If the argument is that "Big Oil" is less interested in high prices than it is with outright ownership of the Iraqi reserves, then how can we account for Secretary of State Colin Powell's repeated promise that the oil reserves will be transferred to the Iraqi government after a new leadership is established? Do the protestors think that this high-profile public commitment is a bald-faced lie? If outright ownership of oil is the real goal of this war, then I'm forced to wonder why the U.S. didn't seize the Kuwaiti fields more than 10 years ago.

      If the argument is that this war is aimed at installing a pro-American regime more inclined to grant oil contracts to American and British rather than French and Russian oil firms, then it invites a similar charge that France and Russia are against war, primarily to protect their cosy economic relationships with the existing Iraqi regime. Regardless, only one or two American or British firms in this scenario would "win" economically while the rest would lose because increased production would lower global oil prices and thus profits. Because no one knows who would win the post-war contract "lottery," it makes little sense for the oil industry (or the politicians who supposedly cater to them) to support war.

      Moreover, the profit opportunities afforded by Iraqi development

    6. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has vehemently opposed the setting up of the International Criminal Court, fearing its soldiers and diplomats could be brought before the court which will hear cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    7. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i used to think that too, untill bush told the iraqi people in his speech not to burn their oil wells, and then handed a contract to hallibuton(cheneys old company) for the reconstruction, drilling etc in iraq after the war

    8. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Russia's in shambles, and Venezuela can be taken over at naptime with no bloodshed. Canada however has 90% of its population on the border, and control over U.S. nukes, and those crazy bastards would use them in an instant!

    9. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by jhigh · · Score: 0

      yeah, considering that almost every country in europe is more dependent on Iraqi oil than we are, I would say that Bush's concern about oil wells being burned borderlines on a humanitarian cause.

      --
      Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
    10. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by renehollan · · Score: 1
      Canada however has 90% of its population on the border, and control over U.S. nukes, and those crazy bastards would use them in an instant!

      Control over U.S. nukes? I kinda doubt it.

      Crazy bastards? Perhaps, but Canadians are so worried about offending outsiders that they're frozen in inactivity when it comes to cleaning up the world's garbage. It offends me (as someone unfortunate enough to be born in Canada instead of the U.S.A., and carrying the stigma of wishy-washy Canadian citizenship) to no end that our government condems the U.S. while happily enjoying the fact that they benefit when the U.S. goes and does the dirty work that needs doing.

      You got the 90% living by the U.S. border right, though. Plow on in, and round'm up. An attack from the rear, er, north, and a defensive position on your own soil might do it.

      Lemme know. I'll be the first to turn on this communist hell of a government and it's supporters when the U.S. invades.

      Like many Canadians, I spent quite a few years legally working in the U.S., under NAFTA, and liked it there: an American middle class life is pure luxery to a Canadian middle class life which is abject poverty by comparison. Many of us detest the way things are done here, and with a little nudge, might be able to get rid of the socialist slimeballs before their commie ideas infect the U.S. any more than they have.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    11. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by tfoss · · Score: 1
      And about damn time.

      -Ted

      --
      -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
    12. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by istartedi · · Score: 1

      We invaded Kentucky about 140 years ago.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    13. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Moonshine forever!

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    14. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by SlaterSan · · Score: 1

      yeah... yeah...
      and monkeys aren't donkeys

    15. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off and die liberal moron. Bush won. Get over it!!!!

    16. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >For you anti-war wackos [slashdot.org]

      Yeah, you`re a tough guy...like these dudes...
      http://cryptome.org/us-blackout/us-black out.htm

    17. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you havent been watching the news, but Saddam has ordered his troops to use biochem WMD when U.S. troops cross into Bagdad. They werent suposed to have those weapons so we were justified afterall.

      I hope to hell our troops make it out alive

    18. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 1

      Don't believe that bullshit "fried chicken" story for a second. Their secret blend of eleven herbs and spices is really a recipe for mustard gas.

      --
      Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
    19. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Cplus · · Score: 1

      That's a bit much...apparently you've picked up on American habits like not thinking before acting or talking.

      As for Canada's inaction in the current situation, we, as with the majority of the world, stated that we would wait until all other courses of action had failed before rushing into war. The proof is in the pudding and if Saddam had so many weapons of mass destruction.......wouldn't he be using them on the invaders of his country right now? Looks like he doesn't have anything and "y'all" were wrong eh?

      As far as standard of living:

      "Canada ranks sixth in the world in standard of living (measured according to gross domestic product per capita), behind only the U.S., Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany and Japan."

      That's pretty good thinking that we accomplish it without violence. I like the fact that we maintain only a minimal amount of armed forces, not wasting billions of dollars on squabbles that will end up meaningless.

      --
      "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
    20. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Cplus · · Score: 1

      ...Or it may have something to do with the Euro's strength in the oil trading market and taking control back towards the American side....nothing's black and white, well except oil and innocence.

      --
      "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
    21. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by renehollan · · Score: 1
      As for Canada's inaction in the current situation, we, as with the majority of the world, stated that we would wait until all other courses of action had failed before rushing into war.

      Yes, typical, hiding beind the skirt of inaction.

      Funny how when an individual goes around killing people, we hold him accountable, but when the leader of a nation does it, we let it pass, and hope things improve.

      The proof is in the pudding and if Saddam had so many weapons of mass destruction.......wouldn't he be using them on the invaders of his country right now? Looks like he doesn't have anything and "y'all" were wrong eh?

      Irrelevent whether he does or doesn't. He signed his death warrant the second he acted with force against his neighbours. Payback may have been a bit late (and the U.S. abandonment of Iraqi rebels at the end of the Gulf war, leaving them to be slaughtered by the regime was reprehensable) but it is certainly deserved.

      What, you think you can use innocent people has hostages against retaliation? Putting up with that has seen some 2,000,000 of them killed by their leadership. Iraqis have died and would continue to die with or without this war. Perhaps less will die in the period after the war is over. Yeah, life's a bitch.

      As far as standard of living:

      "Canada ranks sixth in the world in standard of living (measured according to gross domestic product per capita), behind only the U.S., Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany and Japan." [itercanada.com]

      That's pretty good thinking that we accomplish it without violence.

      Without violence my ass. We steal money from our own people presumably to provide social services to them, and then let them die when our medical technology is too expensive or too inferior to world class to save their lives. To take so much as a penny from someone without their concent on the ruse that it is for their on care, and then to not return at least what was taken when such care is desperately needed, is murder. Yes, I have personal experience with family members being literally taxed to death. Socialists play God in this way, chosing who lives or dies, and while agnostic, if there is indeed a God, surely there must be a Hell for such deity-usurpers that makes Dante's ninth level a pleasant summer breeze by comparison.

      Americans may let their people die for lack of the means to provide for their own medical care (actually they don't -- essential care is free to anyone), but they don't actively kill them by stealing from them the means to care for themselves.

      Canadians do, and are "proud" of their health-care system, definately third-world when compared to that available (yes, for a price) in the U.S. Any elected politician who supports socialized medicine is a murderer and anyone who supports such a politician or the notion is, in my mind an accessory to murder. Only my respect for law stays my hand and retrains me from killing most Canadians I see spouting off their "kinder and gentler" communist bullshit (that, and the fact that I could not kill as many as I'd like) -- tit for tat, as it were. Make no mistake, when "Canadian" means "socialist", I hate it with all my fibre. And no, I have not renewed my health care status, and continue to purchase health care and insurance myself -- I will not bloody my hands with monies stolen from people who might well die because of it, even as such funds are also stolen from me -- I spit on, and reject with utter contempt, the entire system.

      I like the fact that we maintain only a minimal amount of armed forces, not wasting billions of dollars on squabbles that will end up meaningless.

      Nice living in the shadow of the powerful U.S., isn't it?

      A warning: Americans are generous, but they tire quickly of freeloaders.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    22. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Cplus · · Score: 1

      Wow, I can't even be bothered.

      --
      "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
    23. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, when you're as dependent on the U.S. as Rene is you kind of HAVE to put the rose colored glasses on to live with yourself.

      Seems like rene has dick envy for American and thinks our needless agression is a 'sad business' but admirable.

    24. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by renehollan · · Score: 1
      Oh, I don't like everything about the U.S., but if push came to shove and I could choose freely, I know how I'd chose to live....

      ...and my choices are very close to the typical American lifestyle.

      What irks me is that of all those who criticize the U.S. and the "atrocities" it comits, should look in their own back yard.

      Americans, at least their government, have the guts to act when alternatives clearly lead nowhere.

      Now, to be fair, they will face the world's scorn for their blunders, but also reap the bounty of their successes. Other nations do nothing by comparison, and become envious of American progress.

      They may come off as a crude bunch, by the standards of many, but those standards of "higher moral ground" are based on a notion of a facade of civilization whose veneer is thin, indeed. As is clear, I prefer an honest brute to a silver-tongued liar.

      The interesting thing, is that as vile and disgusting as I find Canadian life, so too do some Americans look north and see "the promised land". Why we can't just trade places, (assuming economic productivity equity), I dunno.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    25. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      I don't normally respond to my own posts, but it looks like I sparked a little flame war!

      To anyone who cares: It was really just a joke, and does not reflect my views on the current Iraq conflict.

      No need to mark me as a Foe (yet :-).

    26. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      It's not directly about oil. Oil factors into it, but we aren't there to take it from Iraq. We don't need it as many others have pointed out.

      The war is about war. The war is about reconstruction. Both of these things require a lot of money to be spent -- money that will be spent to pay US firms that are friendly to the Bush administration. When the cruise missles and other military supplies that we had in stock are used up, will we sit back and not build more? No. We'll spend taxpayer money on replinishing our supplies "for our defense." This taxpayer money will go to enrich the owners of various military contract companies which have always been in good with conservative politicians. However, you can only spend so much taxpayer money if you want to champion the cause of cutting taxes.

      The real cash cow is in Iraq's reconstruction. Look at how the administration is already talking about awarding Haliburton (Cheney's oil company) with the contract to repair Iraq's oil fields and how Congressmen are talking about forcing Qualcomm's CDMA cell phone standard on Iraq instead of the worldwide standard of GSM which is backed by non-US companies. This is where all the real money is. There's a lot of work to do to rebuild Iraq after two US-led wars and a decade of UN sanctions. What companies will get all the contracts to do so? Coallition companies, of course, with US companies taking the lion's share.

      The workers who do all the work will be Iraqis, but the management at the top and the shareholders will be largely Americans. How will Iraq pay for all of this reconstruction? Why with the oil that we have many times said "belongs to the Iraqi people." We don't really care who they sell it to afterwards -- we're well-supplied by the rest of the world. However, all the money that comes from selling that oil will go into rebuilding Iraq. After all, they need supplies to rebuild and who better can offer these goods and services to the new government that we install? We're already awarding contracts to US companies to get started doing all this with taxpayer money. Once we're in place we'll be the natural choices for the new goverment to stick with and to pay for with oil.

      So, no -- this isn't about going in and taking their oil. While oil isn't the reason we're doing this, oil is what allows us to do this. This will be a shot in the arm to the US economy and to the wealthy heads of companies that members of Bush's administration are so friendly with. Without oil, we wouldn't be talking already about what companies to send in there. Just look at Afghanistan. We could've done the exact same thing there, except that Afghanistan has few readily available natural resources to exploit to foot the bill. Here's pretty much all they've got, and it's not that impressive when you look at the fossil fuel capacity of its neighbors.

      Of course, this war is about power too. This war is America's first chance to test the waters in its neoconservative thinkers' agenda of Pax Americana. If we can bring Iraq and the rest of the world to heel, we'll have taken our next step as the world's only remaining superpower to cement our position when China (and maybe India) rise to the world stage next. We're locking down our control of world politics before the Chinese get strong enough to rival and maybe surpass us industrially. While I don't agree with neoconservative politics like that of the Bush administration, I have to admit that it's a ruthlessly pragmatic and logical decision. If we play the "nice guy" on the world stage, we may find ourselves in the #2 position in 20-30 years.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    27. Re:This will drive up the price of Thanksgiving! by Jazu · · Score: 1

      As an american, I say please don't come here.

      --
      My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
  16. I though ... by Lolaine · · Score: 1

    that E 1.0 was the funniest... but this is by far more funny!

    Now lets see if Bush stops war on Irak after reading /.

    --
    ------- The last Sig. got fired.
    1. Re:I though ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm kuite certain that your K key is broken, otherwise you'd have spelled Irak correctly.

  17. 4/1/03 by b0bd0bbs · · Score: 1

    Uhm, Discovery has an april fool's joke like this every year.

    1. Re:4/1/03 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original article is dated Dec 4,2002 and this technique has been used to produce fuel from hemp-seeds and sawdust.

    2. Re:4/1/03 by vrmlknight · · Score: 1

      actually they stated in 1998 that they were going to stop (some people can't take a joke)

      --
      This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
    3. Re:4/1/03 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This article appears in the May issue, not April.

  18. Re:First Post! by mechugena · · Score: 1

    I already do. It eventually gets fed to the fish in the ocean

  19. bathtub gin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in my day, we made everything out of turkey guys:
    water, oil, hair gel, and gin.

    nothing like a turkey martini to get the day started.

    1. Re:bathtub gin by jhigh · · Score: 0

      we're all in this together...and we LOVE TO TAKE A BATH!

      --
      Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
  20. Strangely... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Funny
    This does not look like an April Fool's joke. Thereby leaving everybody who expected the headline involving turning turkey guts into fuel oil to be a joke thoroughly stumped for clever things to say.


    My guess is that the Slashdot eds thought it _was_ an April Fool's joke or they wouldn't have posted it today. If they repost it a second time within the next two hours though, we'll know it must be true.

    1. Re:Strangely... by Roguelazer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, because reposting the "Evil Bit" every 2 hours made that true, didn't it?

    2. Re:Strangely... by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Dang it after the second story I figured it must be true, since I read it on the internet, and just finished reprograming all of my routing tables, now I have to do it again? My boss is gonna kill me.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    3. Re:Strangely... by Micah · · Score: 1

      Actually, in previous years, Slashdot ran a evening and a morning (GMT-8) full of April Fools "jokes" and starting mid-afternoon, "real" stories start coming in for the day.

  21. Or outlaw it like hemp by TheViffer · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    -- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
    1. Re:Or outlaw it like hemp by ip_vjl · · Score: 5, Funny
      From the "Hemp for fuel" site:

      When burned in a diesel engine, biodiesel replaces the exhaust odor of petroleum diesel with the pleasant smell of hemp, popcorn or french fries.


      Wow. Back in college, I didn't realize so many of the guys in my dorm had biodiesel engines in their room.

    2. Re:Or outlaw it like hemp by The+Zody · · Score: 3, Funny

      i am now going to commend the pizza man on his care for the enviorment! i always wondered why he smelled so odd...

    3. Re:Or outlaw it like hemp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, that is exactly what it was, biodiesel engines.

      I bet you were the guy that called the RA. If you just had kept to yourself we could have had this invention years ago. I was really working at it alot in college.

      B)

    4. Re:Or outlaw it like hemp by nursedave · · Score: 2, Funny

      That was me!! I had a really good working model in my room, and I put the plans... Um... I forgot....
      Screw it, lets order a pizza, 'k?

      --

      The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!

    5. Re:Or outlaw it like hemp by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      [Hemp for fuel]

      I'm in support of legalized cannabis for recreational use, textiles, etc., but I am not convinced that the energy you get out of a hemp-fuel system is greater than the energy you put into it. Any agricultural product is going to require a great deal of energy to produce on a commercial scale. Imagining that you can get more energy out of your crop as a fuel than it takes to grow, irrigate, harvest, transport, and process that crop, seems like a fallacy.

      Instead of wishful thinking by all the "hemp this, hemp that" people, I wish the movement would just spell out what it really wants: Recreational marijuana in the United States.

      The people are given an opportunity to make that happen at the ballot box, and they do not avail themselves of the opportunity.

      Hiding the true desires under a patina of "hemp for energy" grates on my nerves. I know damned well what the people pushing the hemp agenda really want, and I would be able to voice much more support if they were honest about it.

      Textiles and Biodiesel might be viable as a by-product of the marijuana industry, but I have doubts that they can be THE product. Well, maybe textiles -- but don't kid me that the hemp textile industry provides it's own energy!

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    6. Re:Or outlaw it like hemp by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Apparently you smoked too much of that hemp, because you can't spell 'too'.

      --
      What?
    7. Re:Or outlaw it like hemp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to do a point-by-point response, but then I realized you're either terribly misinformed or this is an elaborate troll.

      Please do a little research, and definitely stop assuming everyone just wants a safe and legal high.

    8. Re:Or outlaw it like hemp by Threni · · Score: 1

      "I am not convinced that the energy you get out of a hemp-fuel system is greater than the energy you put into it"

      Well duh!! You'll never get more out of a system than you put in!

    9. Re:Or outlaw it like hemp by norton_I · · Score: 1

      Hemp will grow in just about any soil with almost no maintenence. I have looked up the estimated net energy value for a bunch of biomass fuels, and From what I remember (can't find the link right now) hemp is not the best, but it is much better than 1 (ie, you get out as much energy as you put in) and closer to 10 (you get 10 times as much energy out as you put in). Other plants can be as high as 20, while corn runs somewhere right around 1. Yet, thanks to consistent lobbying, corn and ethanol get all the attention.

    10. Re:Or outlaw it like hemp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in support of legalized cannabis for recreational use, textiles, etc., but I am not convinced that the energy you get out of a hemp-fuel system is greater than the energy you put into it. Any agricultural product is going to require a great deal of energy to produce on a commercial scale. Imagining that you can get more energy out of your crop as a fuel than it takes to grow, irrigate, harvest, transport, and process that crop, seems like a fallacy.

      Any product, including oil, is going to require energy to get it to a usable state. Hemp doesn't require much effort compared to other plants like corn; it can practically grow itself. (It's called weed for a reason!)

      If you're looking at it in terms of the law of conservation of energy, you're forgetting that not all energy going into the plant comes from humans, in fact very little of it does, most of it comes from the sun... so it's kind of an indirect way of utilizing solar energy. (Off the top of my head I don't know if the photosynthesis in plants is more efficient or less efficient than human-constructed solar cells, but plants have the added advantage of already storing the energy without a battery.)

    11. Re:Or outlaw it like hemp by mi · · Score: 1

      You had a model in your room, and she was working?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    12. Re:Or outlaw it like hemp by Suidae · · Score: 1

      been there, done that. Got lost in a town with a population of 1000. Uh, was I supposed to turn left or right. Wait, where am I going? ... Where am I? Damn that pizza smells good...

    13. Re:Or outlaw it like hemp by mpe · · Score: 1

      Any product, including oil, is going to require energy to get it to a usable state.

      Or even to get it where it is needed. An obvious advantage of fuel from plants if you can simply choose an appropriate plant species for wherever the fuel is needed. As opposed to shipping stuff half way around the planet.

      Hemp doesn't require much effort compared to other plants like corn; it can practically grow itself. (It's called weed for a reason!)

      Can you make paper, fabric or drugs from corn?

  22. April Fools by Phoenix823 · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is just a plan to let President Bush take care of all those PETA wackos. You see, by making oil from turkeys, he'll surely upset any self-righteous PETA member. They'll boycott the new oil and continue to use oil from the middle East, and consequently they'll be supporting terrorism. Thankfully, the Patriot Act will allow the government to lock up these proponents of terrorism for an indefinite amount of time at an undisclosed location.

    Now finally, we may all eat meat without fearing harrassment.

    1. Re:April Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And because they're not prisoners of war, they can torture the fuck out of them!


      ...unless they're white.

    2. Re:April Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be the only American thing to do!

    3. Re:April Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you're missing the point of the article. They should've been gutted and then made into oil.

    4. Re:April Fools by override11 · · Score: 1

      'eye-witnesses' - umm, and you were one of those, eh?

      'Baby Bush' - dude, you are a re-tard. The USA is doing what everyone 12 years ago decided to do, only the USA has the balls to enforce it. OK, 12 years ago Saddam agree's to disarm. Everyone is happy, pats themselves on the back, and goes home. 12 years go by, and saddam is laughing his ass off as he builds up a weapons stockpile. Now the USA is calling on the UN to come back in and get the job done that EVERYONE decided on 12 years ago, and everyone is being pussies and sitting on their asses.

      Well, you know what, the USA will do the worlds dirty work. Because we believe in freedom, and you know what else?? Those are MY friends and MY co-workers out there risking their lives to protect SORRY ASSES like YOU from getting bombed in your sleep.

      So dont give me any shit about prisoners of war being mistreated while your sitting safe at home because of GW Bush and the americans fighting in Iraq.

      --
      No I didnt spell check this post...
    5. Re:April Fools by nursedave · · Score: 1

      Since this in no way happened, I guess that makes you the April Fool year-round.
      Let me guess, it was the Jews behind this, right?

      --

      The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!

    6. Re:April Fools by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      This is just a plan to let President Bush take care of all those PETA wackos. You see, by making oil from turkeys, he'll surely upset any self-righteous PETA member. They'll boycott the new oil and continue to use oil from the middle East, and consequently they'll be supporting terrorism.

      PETA is already known to support domestic terrorist groups...there's really no need to work in a Middle East angle when dealing with them.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    7. Re:April Fools by why-is-it · · Score: 1

      risking their lives to protect SORRY ASSES like YOU from getting bombed in your sleep.

      FWIW, I didn't ask anyone to "protect" my sorry ass. Nor do I believe that any sane individual really believes that the government of Iraq poses a threat to anyone who does not live in Iraq. In case you missed it, almost all of the Al Queda people who attacked the US on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian. NONE of them were from Iraq.

      So spare us the FUD...

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    8. Re:April Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck? I don't care about you. Show me proof of this stockpile you're talking about and I'll think differently and maybe forgive you for bombing the shit out of another country.

      Fuck you.

    9. Re:April Fools by vandan · · Score: 1

      The US does nothing for the rest of the world. All it's actions are to further its own economic and military supremacy. Who exactly determined that the US may have the largest stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction (tm) in the world, closely followed by Israel, an illegitimate state, and that Iraq is allowed none?
      And where is the proof that they have these WOMD anyway? Even after weeks of invading, no proof has been forthcoming.
      If you co-workers are risking their lives then that is their problem. My ass doesn't need or want your 'protection'. It is not in danger - or was not until you pig-headed Americans made more terrorists than there ever have been by illegally invading Iraq.
      Hopefully the rest of the world will wake up to the atrocities that the US has and is committing and get Baby and Big Bush in the international criminal courts where they belong.

    10. Re:April Fools by vandan · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't surprise me.
      But no I wasn't suggesting they were directly related to this incident.
      This was just good old US military tradition.

    11. Re:April Fools by nursedave · · Score: 1

      You can suggest all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that this is bullshit, stoner. Go back to your rally and fondle your wooden beads, and let those who know how to distinguish reality from leftist make-believe get back to what we were doing.

      --

      The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!

  23. Springfield??? by molarmass192 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This wouldn't happen to be an expansion of the "Little Lisa Slurry Factory" would it?

    --

    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
  24. Re:Again? by Pii · · Score: 1
    That's not important...

    What is important is the fact that this story was supposed to be related to the IP "Evil-bit" RFC, and it's not.

    Shame on you Slashdot... Shame on you for not having the guts to stick with the routine in the face of a complaining readership. If you don't think the joke is good enough to beat into the ground, then you shouldn't have begun it.

    --
    For those that would die defending it, Freedom
    has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
  25. too good to be true? by Lxy · · Score: 1

    It sounds too good to be true, it sounds like one of those fly-by-night-in-the-face-of-the-second-law deals

    If something is too good to be true, check the calendar.

    Out of all the stories posted today, this is the only one that actually looks like news. Nice work, /. team!

    --

    There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
    :wq
  26. Old article... by TopShelf · · Score: 1

    The newspaper article is from Dec. 4, 2002... why the posting today???

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    1. Re:Old article... by Psiolent · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because it just now made it into Discover. I assume that prompted the submitter to seek out another article somewhere discussing the same thing.

    2. Re:Old article... by vrmlknight · · Score: 1

      Yer new here arnt ya?

      --
      This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
  27. Tastes like Chicken. by GreenJeepMan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Great, now every highway will smell like KFC.

  28. THIS IS NOT AN APRIL'S FOOLS DAY STORY by Timmeh · · Score: 1

    Yeah, just so you know, I read it in the latest Discover I got in the mail. I mean, the process could be, and they're taking Discover for a ride (haven't read the article yet), but I doubt it was posted in jest.

    1. Re:THIS IS NOT AN APRIL'S FOOLS DAY STORY by nanojath · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's not an April Fool's day story, and it isn't exactly new news - it's another process for converting biomass (the use of turkey as the prime example is unfortunate because it promotes the hoax claim, but given the article was originally published early December it was probably a post-Thanksgiving kind of novel angle thing.


      There are a lot of biomass reduction techniques going on to produce combustible fuels. As the article states they all run into the same problem - economics. Nature did all the heavy work on crude oil for us - so naturally from the perspective of in the ground to a watt or a mile or whatever, the price of oil is hard to beat, particularly given its enormous infrastructure advantage. Even if you're using "free" feedstocks (i.e. wastes) the processing cost can be a killer.


      So, for these fuels to make any impact, they generally need to be subsidized somehow. The article makes it clear that the economics of this fuel source are far from proven.


      There are little startups like this all over the place. So far none of the techniques developed have made a serious impact on our use of oil. Without real public and government support for changing our energy base, this one probably won't either.

      --

      It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

    2. Re:THIS IS NOT AN APRIL'S FOOLS DAY STORY by evenprime · · Score: 1
      Yeah, just so you know, I read it in the latest Discover I got in the mail. I mean, the process could be, and they're taking Discover for a ride (haven't read the article yet), but I doubt it was posted in jest.
      I hope you are correct (i.e. that this is true) but the fact that discover printed it doesn't necessarily make it true. They have perpetuated their own April fool's day hoaxes in the past. Remember how the April 1995 issue of Discover talked about the newly discovered hot-headed ice borers, a critter they later admitted they made up for the amusement of readers. The tip off that it was a hoax (other than the fact that real discoveries of this type are announced in the Journal of Mammalogy, not Discover) was the name of the biologist who discovered them - "Dr. Aprile Pazzo".

      Amusing side note: I'm guessing that one of the readers had their own laugh at the expense of the editors. One of the letters about this "discovery" that got reprinted in the next issue purported to be from "Shigatsu Baka" of the San Francisco Small Mammal Zoo and Discovery Center

      --

      "Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
      I think that goes for OS's too
    3. Re:THIS IS NOT AN APRIL'S FOOLS DAY STORY by blamanj · · Score: 1

      I read it in the latest Discover

      That doesn't prevent it from being a joke. In its April 1985 issue Discover Magazine announced that the highly respected wildlife biologist Dr. Aprile Pazzo had discovered a new species in Antarctica: the hotheaded naked ice borer. These fascinating creatures had bony plates on their heads that, fed by numerous blood vessels, could become burning hot, allowing the animals to bore through ice at high speeds. They used this ability to hunt penguins, melting the ice beneath the penguins and causing them to sink downwards into the resulting slush where the hotheads consumed them. After much research, Dr. Pazzo theorized that the hotheads might have been responsible for the mysterious disappearance of noted Antarctic explorer Philippe Poisson in 1837. "To the ice borers, he would have looked like a penguin," the article quoted her as saying. Discover received more mail in response to this article than they had received for any other article in their history.

      Text above stolen from http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/top100.html

    4. Re:THIS IS NOT AN APRIL'S FOOLS DAY STORY by mohaine · · Score: 1

      Actually the 'use of turkey' is because the first and currently only full scale plant is built next to a Butterball plant and designed to process turkey parts.

      --
      (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  29. typo by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

    that's "fowl."

    1. Re:typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      petro products stunk... I bet this smells much more foul... ;)

      that's "fowl." --- and this stinks.

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

      Did we really need his joke closed captioned for the stupid? It's sad enough that you repeated his punchline with obvious tags. It's a travesty that the moderators are just as moronic.

  30. depolymerization? by silicon_synapse · · Score: 1

    The system, developed by Changing World Technologies uses thermal depolymerization

    I may be mistaken, but I don't know of too many lifeforms with an abundance of polymers in their makeup.

    1. Re:depolymerization? by silicon_synapse · · Score: 1

      On second thought, I suppose fats could be considered polymers. What do I know? I'm just an IT Grunt.

    2. Re:depolymerization? by barakn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Biological polymers--protein, complex carbs (glycogen, starches, cellulose, etc.), DNA, RNA. After you remove the water, most of it seems to be polymer.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    3. Re:depolymerization? by curiousir · · Score: 1

      the article doesn't go into detail, but if the process can depolymerize cellulose, surely this could be a potentially world changing technology, removing our dependence from the mineral oil industry once and for all?

      --
      *serving suggestion
    4. Re:depolymerization? by mohaine · · Score: 1

      Yes this is a potentially world changing technology.

      The Discover article does go into this, but downplays it becaues the plant isn't online yet.

      The question is, does it work as good as they say it does?

      --
      (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    5. Re:depolymerization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we can already depolymerize polycarbons.
      it's called burning.

  31. Hang on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What happens to the evil bits? Oh no... wait, it's IP packets, not turkeys that have evil bits right? Perhaps someone will remind me?

    1. Re:Hang on... by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      Maybe we'll use them instead of carrier pigeons and use the newly implemented evil-bits in the process...

      And then again, maybe not.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
  32. Not April Fool's by Taral · · Score: 1

    For those who are concerned that this is a joke, check the date on the article. It's not new.

    --
    Taral

    WARN_(accel)("msg null; should hang here to be win compatible\n");
    -- WINE source code

  33. Thats it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since someone here is having fun with turning off and on the reply links, why not for the next hour you just disable the reply button?

    Better yet, only allow the trolls at -1 to reply.

  34. Whoa??? by Rudy+Rodarte · · Score: 1

    I think they got me. Is this for real?

    If so, it will change a lot of things. I mean, I have some turkey in the fridge right now. And it so happens, I need some gas for the truck. Oh, what to do...

  35. Bush adds Turkey to Axis of Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citing Turkey's refusal to allow U.S. troops on their soil, Bush has declared Turkey a part of the Axis of Evil. Also included on W's updated Axis of Evil list are Germany, France, Russia, China and any American citizens who disagree with his policies as supreme dictator of the known universe.

  36. Does this mean.... by ljfrench · · Score: 1

    Does this mean we can now *gobble* our gas? ;-)

    L

  37. I suppose... by vandan · · Score: 0, Troll

    ... the US will be getting the fuck out of Iraq now they have their own source of Energy...

    1. Re:I suppose... by athakur999 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, just instead of raiding their oil supply we'll steal all their fowl.

      --
      "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    2. Re:I suppose... by Christianfreak · · Score: 1

      Good grief people, do some research. US could get plenty of oil from Iraq by simply lifting sanctions. In fact only about 20% of our oil now comes from the Middle East.

      I'm not 100% certain of the government's motives in this area but it is not oil. But I will say that getting rid of Saadaam is a good thing, (just ask the people he's tortured and killed over the last 12 years) IN FACT the reason that Europe is so opposed is because they do get most of their oil from that area, and do not want their prices to go up. France was owed money and Russia had just signed a lucrative oil deal with them. Funny that they were the loudest in opposing the war. I wonder why that was.

      Come on! I'm not taking a side in this war, I think the whole thing should have been avoided by getting rid of Sadaam in 91 but the knee jerk reactions are just stupid. BOTH sides of the argument are putting out uninformed propoganda and people on BOTH sides of the big pond are simply believing what their government tells them to.

      I feel better now, moderators please mod me offtopic and the above as troll.

  38. First Post! by mthed · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    April Fools ;)

    --
    "There's a madness to my method." -mthed
  39. Just like the Matrix, but different by kisrael · · Score: 1

    Assuming this isn't just a Fool's gag (and given that the link was from a December article, I'm likely to give it the benefit of the doubt)...well, this seems like a more practical version of "the robots use the humans as batteries" in the Matrix...they don't use our 'bioelectricity', but they need us for oil! Greasy acne-ridden geeks especially.

    Though, as with the hydrogen as fuel issue, you have to make sure that the process to turn turkey remains into fuel doesn't take too much energy itself...in which case, you've only won half your battles.

    Heh...if this takes off I see a market for "VEGAN ENERGY"...animal-friendly fuel generation.

    --
    SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    1. Re:Just like the Matrix, but different by RV.eq.VFG · · Score: 1
      ...they need us for oil! Greasy acne-ridden geeks especially.


      That reminds me of the Lard of the dance simpsons epsode where Homer drools over the grease farming potential of the youth working at Krusty Burger

    2. Re:Just like the Matrix, but different by Dastardly · · Score: 1

      It is 85% efficient. It only uses 15% of the extracted energy to run the process.

  40. Re:First Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah the ironic thing is I make a joke about having to recycle my turkey. Which is also on topic if you consider the article. But I guess some moderator is having an aweful day...

  41. Bad day for a good story... by ObligatoryUserName · · Score: 4, Informative
    I wonder how many people will write this off as an April Fools joke. I've only skimmed The Discover article, but it is an extremely optimistic piece, and the writer seems chagrinned that he couldn't present a more skeptical case. If this technology was widely deployed it could almost eliminate foreign oil dependence.

    The article also talked about no increases in carbon in the environment because oil isn't pulled up from underground, it's created from biological waste (carbon already in the environment). I believe there was a quote in there along the lines of "every living thing becomes a little carbon sink".

    Warren Buffett is an investor (via ConAgra) and the field tests should be done by 2005.

    1. Re:Bad day for a good story... by digital+bath · · Score: 1

      For those of you that still believe this to be an april fools joke, check out these links:

      www.joplinglobe.com/archives/2001/010729/regional/ story1.html
      www.changingworldtech.com/mfceo.html

      The process is not only designed for turkey waste; it can also be applied to other carbon-based materials. The Discovery article gives examples like tires and plastic bottles, amongst other things.

      --
      find / -name "*.sig" | xargs rm
    2. Re:Bad day for a good story... by stj · · Score: 1

      I wonder that too. How about this: http://www.changingworldtech.com/newsfr.htm This news post from CWT is from July 28, 2001 and announces exactly the same thing as that article posted on /. That's why most searches on Google point to summer 2001. So, did they make up the whole CWT webpage? stj

      --
      iThink iHate iMod
    3. Re:Bad day for a good story... by robslimo · · Score: 1

      None of the related articles I've read address what I assume is the largest hindrance to this process being economically viable: the laws of thermodynamics.

      I've not been able to find scientific data regarding the efficiency of the process... it wouldn't be terribly effective if you had to burn 1 unit of fossil fuels to gain 2 units of 'accelerated fossil' fuels.

    4. Re:Bad day for a good story... by harrkev · · Score: 1
      I wonder how many people will write this off as an April Fools joke. I've only skimmed The Discover article, but it is an extremely optimistic piece, and the writer seems chagrinned that he couldn't present a more skeptical case. If this technology was widely deployed it could almost eliminate foreign oil dependence.

      I gathered that something equivalent to heating oil was produced. This stuff might be OK for power plants and possibly making plastics, but I am not sure that you can turn this stuff into gasoline. We would still need dinosaur guts for cars. Please correct me if I am wrong.

      Even if what I said above IS true, it would still revolutionize the American economy (and eventually the world).

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    5. Re:Bad day for a good story... by digital+bath · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, for every 15 BTU's that are put into the process, 100 are taken out in the form of oil and gas. And that is just for turkey waste - those figures would be higher if the material used was plastic bottles, for example.
      The test facility that is up and running right now is powered by the gasoline that it produces, in fact.

      --
      find / -name "*.sig" | xargs rm
    6. Re:Bad day for a good story... by Elentar · · Score: 1

      It's Howard Buffet, Warren Buffet's son, that is the ConAgra representative.

      -Elentar

      --
      The wheel it turns, around and around, with an ancient rumbling sound.
  42. So after liberating Irak by kilroy_hau · · Score: 1

    Bush will have to invade Turkey

    --


    Kilroy was here!
    1. Re:So after liberating Irak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      awww...anti-war rhetoric how cute. If you morons were actually about peace and less about anti-establishment then I would respect you.

    2. Re:So after liberating Irak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no turkeys in Turkey!! That's a fact!

  43. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) The US war effort has been renamed:

    Operation
    Iraqi
    Liberation

    2) M$oft has announced it is buying Mandrake and will use this a the foundation for their own release of linux to be named WindowsLX.

    3) The French have surrendered to Iraq.

  44. Slashdotted.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's the google chache.

  45. From Baby Seals to Fuel Oil by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Funny

    (1) Club baby seal
    (2) ?
    (3) Oil!

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    1. Re:From Baby Seals to Fuel Oil by IronChef · · Score: 1

      At long last, we can fill in the missing step in this old Idealab! business plan.

      1) Gut turkeys
      2) ???
      3) Profit!

    2. Re:From Baby Seals to Fuel Oil by Dolohov · · Score: 1
      (2) Gut baby seal and feed its intestines into a handy little machine.

      Didn't you read the article? ;)

  46. Why it took so long? by NorthDude · · Score: 3, Funny

    why has it taken so long to get here?!

    We call this a tradition, this is in the Slashdot culture...
    You are new here, aren't you?

    --


    I'd rather be sailing...
  47. this one is real by evilWurst · · Score: 1

    This is non-April-related. I read the Discover article yesterday. Neat stuff.

    For the conspiracy theorists out there, this one is NOT likely to get squashed by some secretive oil cartel - the process already works, and the oil guys are actually interested in it too, because it can handle the byproducts of current refineries and turn *them* into oil too, thus making them more product and therefore more money.

    The inventor's been given money by both the US government and private investors.

    1. Re:this one is real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is from the MAY 2003 issue of Discover, page 50.

      Apparently the technology is real. The only thing I am unsure about is the numbers - how economical is it? Do they charge 'disposal fees' to companies whose waste they use, and are they figuring that into their $15 per barrel estimate?

  48. Not solving the real problem by barcarolle · · Score: 0, Troll

    Cutting down on oil imports won't eliminate the real evil, American oil and energy corporations and the evil cowards who run them.

    1. Re:Not solving the real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh get off your high horse. All you do on these boards is whine whine whine.

      You've got more posts modded as flamebait and trolling than anything intelligent.

      Follow mommys advice, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything.

  49. george's friends will not like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as it is not drilling holes
    in an artic wildlife refuge.

  50. Not a Joke. by blunte · · Score: 5, Informative

    A friend reported this story to me in detail 2 or 3 days ago in great detail.

    There are two plants either in operation now, or just starting up. One is right next to a Butterball Turkey factory.

    The process breaks organic materials down thru some process of super-hydration, 500 degree heat, some moderate amount of pressure, and then results in various oils and water (clean enough to go into normal treatment plants).

    Also, oil companies reportedly support this because the novel approach is actually easier and cleaner for processing crude oils than existing refineries. So they stand to gain from this as well.

    There's a lot of good info on this, so don't discount it just because /. posted it today.

    I hope it's a huge success.

    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
    1. Re:Not a Joke. by craenor · · Score: 1

      The process breaks organic materials down thru some process of super-hydration, 500 degree heat, some moderate amount of pressure

      Funny, that's how my wife cooks her Turkey too.

      Craenor

    2. Re:Not a Joke. by dcmeserve · · Score: 1
      As I read through the postings here, I am increasingly convinced it is a joke. The only people to say they've seen corroborating sources all say that it was in Discover. Which, as has been noted many times, has a history of April Fool's jokes. That page that said the last one was in '98 may even be part of it -- or out of date. :)

      Furthermore, that term ... "thermal depolymerization" ... isn't that another term for "burning"??

      Another line of thought: A good fraction of crude oil is benzyne, right? That's what becomes gasoline, anyways. If the process is only one of depolymerization, that would imply that the benzene molecules already exist in the turkey guts, etc, and this process just breaks them out from larger polymer chains. Considering benzene is considered a carcinogen, I don't think it would naturally occur in meat products in any great abundance.

      Well, it'd be cool if this was real, but right now I'm leaning more towards the "unreal" side. I mean, you'd think there'd be quite a few articles talking about it, including Scientific American, major newspapers, etc. Especially if that article was really all the way back from Dec. 4.

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    3. Re:Not a Joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is also really good news for the mafia. One more way to dispose of the body without any evidence...

  51. 4 million barrels? by krygny · · Score: 1

    I think the US imports more than 4 million barrels per year. Last I heard, the US consumes about 20 million barrels per day.

    --
    Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
    1. Re:4 million barrels? by 0tim0 · · Score: 1

      That's billion, with a 'B'.

      --t

    2. Re:4 million barrels? by barakn · · Score: 1

      It said 4 billion.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    3. Re:4 million barrels? by ragnard2 · · Score: 1

      the US consumes about 20 million / day imports a little over 10 million do a google on "US Statistical Abstract"

  52. DUPE! by kennedy · · Score: 1

    This is a dup.... err... nevermind. heh

  53. PETTG Protest! by Misch · · Score: 1

    Of course, the members of PETTG (People for the Ethical Treatment of Turkey Gibblets) will be holding a protest in Washington DC this weekend.

    --

    --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
  54. Hey, it's Mr. Fusion! by ClippyHater · · Score: 1, Troll

    Ya just gotta love April Fools :) Billions of barrels a year, lol... I just hope the oil industry doesn't think this is real and people start to mysteriously disappear!

  55. More info by lub · · Score: 4, Informative
  56. Economics of disposal/recycling by jonbrewer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But [James Stoffer] added that while the plant may be a "tough go" economically, it's worth the investment because of what it promises for the environment.

    If such companies actually paid fines for breaking environmental laws by polluting with livestock wastes, they would not find reprocessing a "tough go" economically. Unfortunately, the EPA doesn't have the balls to go after even the most blatant of violators, and thus the food-processors get away with murder.

    When Con-Agra rolls out such zero-emissions factories everywhere (As William McDonough writes of in Cradle to Cradle) I will happily invest in their stock and buy their products.

    1. Re:Economics of disposal/recycling by Da+VinMan · · Score: 1

      When Con-Agra rolls out such zero-emissions factories everywhere (As William McDonough writes of in Cradle to Cradle [slashdot.org]) I will happily invest in their stock and buy their products.

      Umm... why? Seriously, I'm not trolling. Are you against the company for what its current actions are, or are you against them because they hold values that are incompatible with your own which produce actions with which you don't agree?

      If the former, then you better be prepared to monitor them and ensure that they stay in line by your standard. Then, when they (inevitably) get on your bad side, be prepared to find an alternative. Also, don't assume that because their current actions agree with you, that you're going to find these people to be agreeable. It just doesn't follow.

      If the latter, then congratulations! You get it! But on that note, just because they change their actions (by using zero-emissions technology), you shouldn't assume that they now hold values compatible with your own. It's just luck that the market is supporting renewable fuel sources.

      I guess the point I'm making here is that people in general seem to hold things against companies at a personal level and they assume that "the company" will care and respond, like another human being would. But, by and large, they usually don't care. They're not even listening most of the time.

      Unless you've got the skill to get a large boycott underway, the clout to get a bill into the legislature and get funding for it, or the private enterprise contacts to get corporate change introduced, you're just wasting your time and energy.

      The best way to change the world is to get with the program, get embedded into organizations, and effect change by using the system. It's the long term view, it can suck, and it doesn't produce results overnight. However, it does work.

      Hmm... I just looked. Looks like you already work for the man. Good going!

      --
      Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
    2. Re:Economics of disposal/recycling by jonbrewer · · Score: 1

      Umm... why? Seriously, I'm not trolling. Are you against the company for what its current actions are, or are you against them because they hold values that are incompatible with your own which produce actions with which you don't agree?

      It's not that I'm against Con-Agra in particular; looking at their list of brands, I see that I've probably given them a good $50 throughout my lifetime. I really don't buy prepared foods in general though, and a large part of the reason for that is because of what such corps do to the environment and how they treat their labor. (Always having lived within walking distance of Co-Ops or Whole Foods type stores has helped too.)

      It's more that I'm picky about who I invest in. Almost every major company has few pilot projects aimed at improving the environment. They look good in annual reports and give the company newsletter something happy and morale-building to write about. If, however, ConAgra decides that recycling their waste is a good idea for all their facilities, I'll take it as a sign that they are changing their business to prepare for a future of scarce natural resources and stricter environmental controls.

      Such a move on their part, regardless of their motives (cheaper energy, decreased liability insurance, tax incentives, care for environment) would seriously prompt me to invest in them. Since reading "Cradle to Cradle," I've actually considered buying stock in Ford. I've certainly been reading everything I can about them and "F" is on my watch list.

      And such a move might prompt me to pick up a package of Hebrew National Hot Dogs. ("We Answer to a Higher Calling") I haven't had a hot dog in ages...

      PS. The Man fired me in January

  57. Yea... by MoeMoe · · Score: 1

    And chicken guts produce gold, or is it food? I forget...

    --
    Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
    A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
  58. Just like the slug-killing robot by fobbman · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    This story reminded me of the slug-killing robot that runs off of decomposing slug corpses. Gross, yet cool.

  59. Ashes to ... um ... by basho3 · · Score: 1

    Cool, I'm changing my will. Just don't put me in a Pontiac Xterra.

    1. Re:Ashes to ... um ... by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      Cool, I'm changing my will. Just don't put me in a Pontiac Xterra.

      Your choice:

      • s/Xterra/Aztek/
      • s/Pontiac/Nissan/

      (They're both butt-ugly vehicles, but you need to keep your names straight.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  60. Bad day to be a turkey... by phorm · · Score: 1

    If this technology was widely deployed it could almost eliminate foreign oil dependence.

    The problem being though... where are you going to get enough Turkeys (or carbon source of choice) to make enough for a whole country? I mean... animal rights activists will be going nuts!

    Personally... I want one that attaches to my car. Just stop off at the nearest farm, grab a few turkeys... toss in a garborator, and extract fuel. With all the feathers that fly out, maybe I could make a nice window shade or something?

    1. Re:Bad day to be a turkey... by jhigh · · Score: 0

      Well, if we can already make oil out of turkey parts, surely it won't be long until we can make oil out of animal rights activist's parts.

      --
      Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
    2. Re:Bad day to be a turkey... by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the animal rights activists will volunteer to take the place of some of the turkeys. If that is the case then I think I might need to buy me an SUV.

    3. Re:Bad day to be a turkey... by Dexx · · Score: 2, Funny

      Auto fuel.. is... PEOPLE!!

      k.. maybe it was funnier in my head..

      --
      Feel the fear and do it anyway.
    4. Re:Bad day to be a turkey... by caferace · · Score: 1
      The problem being though... where are you going to get enough Turkeys (or carbon source of choice) to make enough for a whole country?

      "Soylent Green is Peeeeeople!!!"

      I'm just sayin'.

    5. Re:Bad day to be a turkey... by phorm · · Score: 1

      that's a scary thought though... but not an entirely impossible one. Was that from a movie or book? I think I remember seeing it as a TV show.

    6. Re:Bad day to be a turkey... by Dr.+Smeegee · · Score: 1

      Nope. Pretty funny out loud too.

      (cleans cola off of keyboard)

    7. Re:Bad day to be a turkey... by kinnell · · Score: 1
      Personally... I want one that attaches to my car. Just stop off at the nearest farm, grab a few turkeys... toss in a garborator, and extract fuel.

      Better still you could mount an industrial strength combined scoop/blender on the front of your bonnet to mash up the organic matter and pump it into the garborator. Then, whenever you got low on fuel, you could just drive through the nearest turkey field/protest march/whatever to fill up.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    8. Re:Bad day to be a turkey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perhaps the animal rights activists will volunteer to take the place of some of the turkeys.

      Or maybe Bush can volunteer some Iraqis to take the place of some of the turkeys? An even better reason to buy a SUV!

    9. Re:Bad day to be a turkey... by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      The problem being though... where are you going to get enough Turkeys (or carbon source of choice) to make enough for a whole country?

      Iraq?

      [/sick humor]

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    10. Re:Bad day to be a turkey... by betis70 · · Score: 1

      >> where are you going to get enough Turkeys (or carbon source of choice) to make enough for a whole country?

      You do sit on the can and release carbon waste into your local septic system, don't you?

      --
      I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
  61. For that, I will *pun*ish you... by insanecarbonbasedlif · · Score: 1

    Why, you greasy little chicken, posting AC... You just haven't got the guts to insult me in person, do you?!

    --
    Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
  62. old news by constantnormal · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... if you do the following google: "(waste OR trash) into oil"

    you will find similar articles, mostly from the summer of 2001 ?!!?. (Google cached story from Kansas City Tribune)

    Either the people involved are doing a series of pilot plants in scaling this up, or somebody's dragging their feet. Or maybe it's just a case parallel developments utilizing similar technology -- but it sure sounds like the same thing.

    The prospect of $14/barrel high-quality oil (the cost quoted in Discover) while providing an environmental service should have the capitalists breaking down the doors. It seems like they're taking a leisurely route to large-scale exploitation -- what's going on here?

    Shouldn't we have oil companies partnering with ConAgra and building refineries adjacent to slaughterhouses? Or at least set up a pipeline to a refinery?

    1. Re:old news by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      What's going on? Short-sightedness and corporate paranoia is going on. Oil companies would love to get their hands on this sort of technology...to bury it!

      Cheap oil is bad for business. Oil that doesn't come out of the ground is bad for business. This isn't the rant of a paranoid conspiracy freak, it's how the oil industry is run. As long as there's enough oil to get through a CEO's minimum term, he won't let the company be diverted by such things as alternative sources.

      Sad but true.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    2. Re:old news by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      And as this technology grows and matures, we each migh be able to have a little oil processor in our own house. The pipeline you suggest from the slaughterhouse to refinery could be expanded into a public utility - the Offal Board, or Guts Grid maybe.

      Man, can you imagine putting a new flowerbed in your garden and accidentally hitting that line?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:old news by TenderMuffin · · Score: 1

      Or at least set up a pipeline to a refinery?

      there's a fantastic mental image for ya. 3 turkeys/second going through a large pipe. mmmmmm.... turkey...

    4. Re:old news by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      Do you know what it is they hate about the biodiesel?

      It's the smell. If there is such a thing. They feel saturated by it. They can taste it's stink...and every time they do, they fear that they've somehow been infected by it.

      --
      ...
    5. Re:old news by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      you will find similar articles, mostly from the summer of 2001 [...] Either the people involved are doing a series of pilot plants in scaling this up, or somebody's dragging their feet.

      One year to build the plant, IF all goes well. (Try getting capital for a "high-tech oil from garbage" scheme in the wake of the dotcom crash.) That takes you to summer of 2002.

      Find a customer for the output, start it up, shake it down, ramp it up, tweak the process until the product is to the customer's liking and the operating parameters are OK. That takes you, say, to winter 2002.

      Now run it for a year to acquire some operating experience. (Does the reaction eat your expensive tanks and need a lot of repair and replacement? It is prone to leaks, or explosions? What happens if the power fails while the plant is running?) Winter of 2003.

      Are you profitable for 2003? You probably have a lot of startup expense the first year. So you're not proven yet. Run it another fiscal year. Go cash-flow positive by winter of 2004. Now other people will become interested - and your stock will start to climb.

      Pro-forma profitable by winter 2005 and the me-toos will be raising money and building plants in 2006.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  63. I love it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is the perfect thing to do with all those Al Quaida corpses we're stacking up in Iraq.

    Turn them into fuel oil.

    1. Re:I love it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Bin Laden is thinking the same thing about the people who can't spell his 'gang' name right..

    2. Re:I love it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thats not even counting the civilians!

  64. Processing rate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fine, but how many tons of turkey guts can you process per day?

  65. Soylent 87 octane by mnmoore · · Score: 1

    is people!!!

  66. vegetarians/vegans? by nesneros · · Score: 3, Funny

    Will we have to start selling "vegan-friendly" fuel now?

    --
    Some men spend their entire lives trying to kill themselves for having been born. --Ross MacDonald
    1. Re:vegetarians/vegans? by kongjie · · Score: 1
      Odd that this comment would be ranked as funny.

      Although perhaps initially using waste from animals that would be slaughtered for meat, I can see that if this trend continued, one day the impetus for the slaughter would be solely to drive the machines.

      In which case, yes, we would need to have fuel labelled as to how it was produced, because some people would not be interested in furthering a system by which animals were murdered to enable someone to drive to a bowling alley.

    2. Re:vegetarians/vegans? by Grotus · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't worry too much about the possibility of raising animals solely to turn into fuel. It would be much more effective/cost less to just take the feed that you would have fed the fuel animal and turn that into fuel instead.

      The only reason that particular argument doesn't work on meat-eaters is taste. The fuel machine won't have that hang-up.

      --
      "From my cold, dead hands you damn, dirty apes!" - CH
  67. reverse process.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm just waiting for them to turn a cup of crude oil into high-quality turkey meat. mmmm.... turkey!

  68. If it's not a joke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... it's a tragedy. This clearly demonstrates that the government has plenty of money to support the development of new energy technologies. What we ought to be spending all this cash on, though, is alternative energy sources. Perhaps if we started behaving responsibly we could become an oil-independent economy. Just think: no more needless pollution, no more economic slavery to foreign powers, and no need to meddle in the middle east and piss off the rest of the world! Instead (again, if this article is legit), this technology lets us generate even more oil, and we're just going to continue polluting the atmosphere and remove all pressure for the development of cleaner energy technologies.

    -Jadrian

    1. Re:If it's not a joke... by WetCat · · Score: 1

      1. Raise chicken and send its legs to Russia
      2. Use chicken waste to get oil
      3. ...
      4. Profit!

    2. Re:If it's not a joke... by harrkev · · Score: 1
      Perhaps if we started behaving responsibly we could become an oil-independent economy.

      I think that you are missing the point...

      This WOULD make us oil-independent! In essence, you would be burning chicken guts, feathers, old tires, and all sorts of waste (that would otherwise end up in a landfill) in your car!

      It just happens to become oil at some intermediate stage -- but don't worry. The "oil" stage is only temporary!

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    3. Re:If it's not a joke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perhaps if we started behaving responsibly we could become an oil-independent economy. Just think: no more needless pollution, no more economic slavery to foreign powers, and no need to meddle in the middle east and piss off the rest of the world!

      Don't stop there!
      • No more needless transportation
      • No more slavery to household heating and cooling
      • No need to meddle with having plastics in our lives
      • Finally, we can be rid of the shackles of elctricity and all that implies

      Let's face it, getting rid of petroleum and coal, not to mention nuclear power, is the only hope we have of reverting back to the good old days of being cavemen (and cavewomen for the gender-neurotic reader). I say, let's go back to the caves!
  69. Economic? by CaffeineKills · · Score: 1

    As the article points out, this probably won't be economic; however, how much would it cost to build one of these plants? I would think a lot considering all of the hydraulics and heating involved.

    --
    "Guns don't kill people, bullets do."
  70. What evil 'bit' story? by Col.+Panic · · Score: 1

    WTF are you talking about?

    1. Re:What evil 'bit' story? by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 1

      There have been varying reports, some good, some not quite as impressive, although still +1, Informative. For your reading pleasure, I've put together some of the most promising ones:
      here,
      here,
      here,
      not here,
      and here.

      Also, you can read the RFC in various places, including:
      here,
      here,
      or here.

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
  71. It is a joke by Zathrus · · Score: 1

    Since the only source of information on this is the Springfield News article back-dated to Dec 4, 2002 (even the Carthage Chamber of Commerce doesn't have any info on this) it is a joke.

    Admittedly, the best one that's been posted to /. all day (well... I find the repeated evil bit postings funny, simply because they tweak the nose of all the whiners). It managed to sound just real enough, had nice anecdotal information (like Carthage, MI - where Butterball (a subsidiary of ConAgra) has a 7.8M turkey/year processing plant) and included references to enough "outside" sources to fool the idle. Which is what April Fool's day is all about anyway.

    Better yet, there are a few comments from users that either fell for the joke or are playing along with it.

    Bravo.

    1. Re:It is a joke by synx · · Score: 1

      I read this in Discover - it is most assuredly not a joke. And FYI, discover stopped running april fools articles in 1998. Another poster pointed this out.

      Again, your rapid fire 'judgement' is not quite correct here.

      -ryan

  72. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Pete and repeat were rowing in a boat...

    Pete jumped out...

    Who was left?

  73. Almost, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US will be getting that Saddam fuck out of Iraq.

    But good try.

  74. reminder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone send me a reminder next year, to ignore slashdot april 1st.

  75. Odd quote by TheFrood · · Score: 1

    While methane and other gases that are produced are used to power the plant, all the end products except the purified water can be sold, [Halberstadt] said.

    Yeah, because nobody needs water.

    TheFrood

    --
    If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
    1. Re:Odd quote by mgessner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I question this, too... if it's purified water, why can't it be sold? Is there some kind of federal or state regulation/legislation that prevents it?

      Couldn't they use the water for drought? (Maybe there's not enough?) Couldn't they use it in products that require water but aren't for consumption (i.e. cleaners, ice packs, swimming pools ;) or SOMETHING?)

      Maybe it's just not worth the effort to haul it around...

      --
      "Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
  76. Question by lobsterGun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have to think that the amount of energy required to heat all that organic matter up to 500 degrees is not going to be insubstancial.

    So just how energy efficient is this process?

    1. Re:Question by poisoneleven · · Score: 1

      You also have to look at it's stored energy properties. If it is easier (read cheaper) than producing batteries, fuel oils are a far better storage medium. That's what always gets me about fuel cells, they're great, but what happens when you run out in the middle no where? Fill up a porta-battery with electricity and carry it to your truck? Anyway, this could be a more effective way to store energy than batteries and hydrogen.

    2. Re:Question by DumbSwede · · Score: 1
      As an industrial process, 500 degrees (at least if it's Fahrenheit), doesn't sound all that bad. How about combining this with Geothermal?

      We get all our OIL from Yellowstone!

      More likely as pointed out by LimpGumpy in the next thread, the process is 85% efficient, so you can just use 15% of your output once you get the cycle started

      BTW, I did read the Discovery article, so as mentioned by others, not likely a hoax.

    3. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Discover article said that the plant would only need about 15% of the oil produced from the output to run the plant. So if a plant produced 1000 barrels of oil a day, it would only need to use about 150 barrels of oil as fuel to run the process.

    4. Re:Question by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      According to the Discover article (which I read in the paper version) one of the outputs of the process is a clean-burning gas, which they use to power the heating stage. So it might not use too much energy from the utilities, but it won't produce as much output as theoretically possible.

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    5. Re:Question by anubi · · Score: 1
      True, but in the process of cooling it back down after reaction, you can use that heat to warm up the incoming stream.

      Consider two concentric ( one inside the other ) pipes. Maybe 100 feet long or so. Cool product is coming in the center pipe at 80 deg F at the left end , its leaving at 500 deg F at the right end, while at the same time, hot product from the reaction tank is entering the right end of the outer pipe at 500 deg F and leaving the left end at 80 deg F. You have this whole thing thermally insulated. Only the inside pipe and the outside pipe are thermally connected. The product flows in opposite directions in each pipe, so that the hottest product leaving the reactor warms the hottest incoming product. So you end up using the "waste heat" of outgoing product to heat the incoming product. Just insulate it well and its quite efficient.

      In the vernacular, its called a heat exchanger.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    6. Re:Question by Suidae · · Score: 1

      The gas produced is expensive to store and transport, according to the article, so it makes the most sense to use it to heat the system.

      After seeing all the gas refineries flare off, that doesn't suprise me at all.

  77. You forgot the comma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You see, this is actually President Bush's next military operation: From Turkey, Guts to Fuel Oil. The idea is, we use Turkey's military buildup on the Iraqi border as a pretext for a US invasion from the Iraqi side. Hence, the Texan with "guts" gets the US cheap fuel oil.

  78. Heh, nope. by blunte · · Score: 1

    Springfield News isn't the source of this information.

    Read other people's posts. I believe someone talks specifically about reading this article in Discover Magazine.

    It's funny how you spoke with such authority when you're just making assumptions.

    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
  79. And how much energy does it take to make? by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

    Not that I've RTFA, but I would assume you can't get 100% energy efficency by processing turkey endtrails into oil. And where does the turkey-mulching power come from? Fossil fuels. It's a stupid cycle, we really need to ditch fossil fuels.
    OT - I've been wondering why the US doesn't ditch fossils as quickly as possible, to screw up the middle eastern economies. Think about where Iraq would be monitarily without it's precious reserves of crude oil.

    --
    Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    1. Re:And how much energy does it take to make? by LimpGuppy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Their process is 85% efficient. 100 BTU's of biomass input takes 15 BTU's to process.

    2. Re:And how much energy does it take to make? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, the US imports less than 1/4 of its oil from the Middle East.

      Second, Iraq will have plenty of markets for oil for the next few generations.

      Even if we developed a perfect alternative tomorrow, it would take us several years to transition automobiles. Probably a few decades to transition all of our big industry. Double or triple that time before this technology would replace oil-based technology in the poorest countries of the world. And of course, lets not forget the growing plastics industry, which relies upon oil.

    3. Re:And how much energy does it take to make? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Even if we developed a perfect alternative tomorrow, it would take us several years to transition automobiles.

      Assuming you need to do anything to transition them. The engine dosn't care where its hydrocarbons come from.

  80. Re:Again? by nucal · · Score: 1

    I think that the Evil Bits are embedded in the annoying Stewardship Ozarks logo continuously behind the text.

  81. Danger: side effects may vary... by rocjoe71 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Automobiles, upon filling the tank with turkey-petrol, tend not to be drivable and prefer to doze on the couch watching NFL football.

    --
    Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
  82. Energy in vs. energy out? by ThePyro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This process isn't going to be free in terms of energy cost. At the very least they're heating a whole bunch of stuff up, pressurizing it, and then separating what's left. I'm curious... what's the energy cost of this method compared to the energy cost of the old way of refining oil?

  83. Also *warning, nasty* by blunte · · Score: 1

    This quote may not be exact, it's second hand:

    "
    If a 175 pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end of 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterlized water.
    "

    Yum!

    --
    .sigs are for post^Hers.
    1. Re:Also *warning, nasty* by jandrese · · Score: 1
      If a 175 pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end of 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterlized water.


      Especially if he is on an all-bean diet.
      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  84. Good Eats by Fratz · · Score: 1

    It's only a matter of time before we see Alton Brown tell his viewers how to modify his grandmother's turkey soup recipe to make fuel oil.

    --
    -- Fratz, human
  85. How about Humans? by deadwood · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So, if this is true, after we burn though
    the lot of turkeys in ol' Missour'a, when
    can we expect to throw some humans into the
    ol oil extracting hopper?

    May I suggest we start with the a-hole peaceniks
    who blocked traffic so I was late for my
    monthly dialysys session.

    deadwood

  86. Ever heard of vegetable oil? by robbo · · Score: 1

    Why not run our vehicles on veggie oil, rather than animal oil? No PETA problems, and a much smaller environmental footprint, afaict. Given that the technology already exists for coverting diesel engines to run on veggie oil, and the slow adoption despite that, I don't see this animal option as some new panacea.

    --
    So long, and thanks for all the Phish
    1. Re:Ever heard of vegetable oil? by slim · · Score: 2, Informative

      Given that the technology already exists for coverting diesel engines to run on veggie oil,

      You don't even need to convert the engine. Used cooking oil (animal or vegetable) treated with a little glycerine works cleanly in an unmodified diesel car.

      News item here

  87. Vegetarians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now Vegetarians

  88. In Philadelphia� by scotay · · Score: 3, Funny

    Since Changing World Technology installed their "turkey" depolymerization pilot program, we're swimming in oil. The dramatic upturn in oil revenue, combined with the sudden, unexplained drop in the number of homeless people (and now pigeons) has left the city coffers flush with funds in an economic downturn. And let me tell you, Con-Agra's Soylent Gold runs with less pinging than any of those premium over-priced gasolines.

  89. What day is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, yeah April fools

  90. Is this another April Fools? by zcollier · · Score: 1

    I'm shaking my head in disbelief at this...

    --
    $u(k 1t!!!!11!
  91. Getting rid of fossil fuels? by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 1

    APRIL FOOLS! AHAHAHAHA!

    --
    --------
    Free your mind.
    1. Re:Getting rid of fossil fuels? by harrkev · · Score: 2, Informative
      APRIL FOOLS! AHAHAHAHA!

      Ummmmmm..... nope.

      Discover magazine has been known to pull a couple of good ones come 4/1, but this is not one of them. First of all, this is in the MAY issue of the magazine (magazines usually publish a month early, remember).

      I read this story three or four days ago when the issue appeared in my snail-mail folder.

      This issue may not be on newsstands yet, but if you know somebody who has a subscription, then they probably already have it.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    2. Re:Getting rid of fossil fuels? by Lshmael · · Score: 1

      Yet another example of someone not reading the article in the post. The linked article from the Ozarks newspaper comes from December 4, 2002.

    3. Re:Getting rid of fossil fuels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh you so FUNNY. haha april fool! you really got me again.

    4. Re:Getting rid of fossil fuels? by DShard · · Score: 1

      or see this reference

    5. Re:Getting rid of fossil fuels? by saden1 · · Score: 0

      If it were true one would see Exxonmobil, BP, and company would be scrambling for dear life right about now. This story is obviously hogwash.

      --

      -----
      One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
    6. Re:Getting rid of fossil fuels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the oil companies are investing in this, as a modified version can purify coal, thereby making it more efficient and therefore cheaper to burn. The oil companies are the last things standing in the way of this thing right now.

  92. Cows, too by linuxwrangler · · Score: 1

    I first read about this in "Science Magazine" but in that article they were using cow manure and at times the farmer was making nearly as much from the electricity as from the milk. You can search on Google but here's one article

    --

    ~~~~~~~
    "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
  93. Col. Sanders by airship · · Score: 1

    The process breaks organic materials down thru some process of super-hydration, 500 degree heat, some moderate amount of pressure, and then results in various oils and water...
    Hey, isn't this the same as KFC's process? :)

    --
    Serving your airship needs since 1995.
    1. Re:Col. Sanders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be KFT then?

  94. First Hand Knowledge by Nightbane · · Score: 1

    If anyone wants any first hand knowledge about this i can probably get it. My dad is working on this project right now as one of the HVAC engineers for it.

  95. This is not a hoax by BigGar' · · Score: 1

    I've been following this for a couple of years now, the article in Discover is pretty good.

    Here's a link from The KC Star from 2001: kcstar.com

    --


    Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
  96. this company has been in the news before by LimpGuppy · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/2001/010724/bu siness/story2.html\

    Here is an article discussing the ground-breaking of the TDP plant next to the Butterball factory in 2001.

    If it is an April Fool's hoax, they went through a LOT of trouble to do it well.

  97. What about pollution?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, assuming that this is real and not an April Fool's Joke...

    Isn't this process still going to create pollution? I am all for renewable energy sources, but I was hoping those renewable energy sources would decrease the amount of pollution that we create. I loathe to think that in 50 years that we'll still be using gasoline engines that get 18 miles to the gallon.

  98. April foo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dmant.
    It's just an April foo you foo!

  99. How to be elite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /* elite-HOWTO by Twez @ EFnet */

    # How to appear as 'elite' on IRC is something tried a lot on IRC these days, but its successful by only a few individuals. This document
    # will explain how to appear as one.

    1. The way of speaking elite. (heh)

    Its all about the 'heh'. Quite easy for this one, say 'heh' for every imaginable situations. It has to be your new mantra, you have to chant it every time the occasion is presented to you (and theres a lot of situation to burst out a 'heh', belive me). Even when someone complimentsyou, say 'heh' instead of 'thanks. You will appear as a cool fuck with no education, but thats good cause thats what elites are. Like this
    exemple:

    dude, your new website is the bomb :)
    i know, heh.

    See the attitude there? Its very important to masterize the 'heh' art.

    2. The knowledge of UNIX

    DONT RUN WINDOWS!!! DONT RUN WINDOWS!!!. Extremely important there, if you run windows, you cant be elite. You have to run Linux (Slackware
    at the minimum) or better, some BSD flavour. Then the next step is to learn every UNIX command to impress people on the channels youre in.
    Tell some well-known fact like:

    X Windows is gay. Console owns.
    All GUI's are the suck. Did i said that console was elite?
    Pico (or nano) is extremely gay. vi is the elitest.
    X-Chat sucks dicks (cause it has a GUI). BitchX too (console, but too bloated). ScrollZ is elite, EPIC (plain or with a script) is fine.

    And so on.. Tell everyone that packeting is gay but dont forget to packet the asshole that juped your nick 5 minutes ago. Then tell people
    you owned him in 2 seconds and you will appear as the most elite guy in the channel, cause you run *nix and you drop people that jupe nicks
    on IRC.

    3. Don't help!

    Now that you installed a decent *nix flavour and learned all his secrets, you install an elite IRC client for elite people.. and you start
    hanging on IRC. You show your *nix knowledge with many 'heh' and then you wait, cause a reputation take some time to make you know?
    Eventually, you will encounter people that ask for help. NEVER, i repeat, NEVER help people on IRC. You will look helpfull if you do so and
    helpfull people are usually nice people. Dont forget, you elite-wannabe, that elite people arnt nice. They are cold and mean. So even if you
    are bored to death, stay far from help channels and dont answer when someone msg you for help them. But then, you'll ask me: 'What to answer to people that ask for help?'. Well, follow the exemple below and you'll appear as an elite d00d.

    hi, how do i extract blah.tar.gz?
    RTFM, asshole

    Where RTFM means 'Read The Fucking Manual'. Clearly, you tell him to follow the instructions included in the file. But hey, he comes on IRC
    to ask a mean fuck elite like you to help him cause he probably read the fucking manual, but didnt understood something. Still, you have an
    answer especially elite for that:

    well, ive read the docs but i didnt understood a thing.. its not clear
    cause you have no clue.

    Notice the '.' at the end of elite's sentence. It means its definitive and that you cant reply to that. The clue is something elites have..
    guys like someguy never have clue. Oh and dont forget to burst out a:

    heh

    To appear as a real elite.

    So all in all, being elite is all about saying 'heh' all the time, be the worst asshole on IRC and never help people. So try to follow this
    how-to and you'll be a real elite. You may ask 'Is the guy that tell me how to be an elite is one himself?' well i'll try to answer that by
    'yes and no'

    No cause: i help people, i hang on dalnet and undernet (new to undernet), i run Red Hat Linux, im on Xwindows, i like GUI's, im french, i
    dont know every UNIX commands and switches and i dont say 'heh' for everything.

    Yes cause: i use mostly console stuff, i hang on EFnet, i used vi to compose this howto.

    As you can see, theres more reasons for i am not elite than reasons i am. I dont care at all.

    If youve been insulted by this document, i dont care at all too. And fuck you. /* EOF */

  100. It'll be just like after Thanksgiving dinner by zcollier · · Score: 1

    I'll take my Turkey gasoline with cranberries, thank you.

    I just hope this doesn't make anyone sleepy on the road! =)

    --
    $u(k 1t!!!!11!
  101. Hmmmmmm..... by sirgoran · · Score: 1

    I see a new Fox network movie special. A serial killer that disposes of his victims by recycling them and then refueling his car...

    Shades of Soylent Green?

    "Hey baby. Want to go for a ride?"

    -Goran ;P

    --
    Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
  102. Not April Fools Joke by thedude13 · · Score: 1

    i actually subscribe to Discover and the article is in there. It describes how it speeds up the process and makes it more efficient than other attempts at doing this by trying not to produce just petroleum, but by creating the other natural byproducts as well. the article also states that the u.s. could produce another 4 billion barrels of oil a year (we import 4.2 billion a year right now) which would help greatly reduce the cost of importing oil. also says that it would only cost $8-$10 a barrel to produce =). also the article states that with an input of 15 units of garbage, they can get an output of 100 units of petrol, and 85% efficiency, many many times better than previously achieved. i recommend going and browsing the discover article at your local bookstore as it is quite interesting

  103. War dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great! Now we can put all the war dead to good use.

  104. Good for the Kurds! by TheMidget · · Score: 1

    Now Dubya has an excuse to invade Turkey as well!

  105. not a joke - and NOT the same as biodiesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Volkswagen" is about to open a similar plant here in Germany, primarily for testing purposes, but they said, they're confident it'll work the way it's supposed to.

    This synthetic hydrocarbon fuel is different from biodiesel by two major things: no engine adjustments necessary to run on this fuel and absolutely every organic material can be used to generate fuel.

    Sounds like a dream, eh?

    1. Re:not a joke - and NOT the same as biodiesel by valkraider · · Score: 3, Informative

      This synthetic hydrocarbon fuel is different from biodiesel by two major things: no engine adjustments necessary to run on this fuel

      No adjustments are required to run Biodiesel in any diesel engine made in the last decade or so. The problem is that Biodiesel can eat through some old types of rubber used in seals and fuel lines. Modern diesel engines do not use these types of rubber. Older engines could be retrofitted just by changing out old rubber lines, maybe needed anyway if the car is old enough! The only other thing is that biodiesel will dissolve engine deposits, since American diesel no. 2 is dirty, there can be a lot of deposits. If you have driven a while on regular diesel, biodiesel can lossen deposits, which can then clog fuel filters. Diesels have to replace the fuel filter pretty regularly - so it shouldn't be much of an issue.
      Check out Biodiesel.org or BioDieselNow.com for more info.

      Lots of Volkswagen TDI owners use Biodiesel.

      To remain on topic - there is a plant near Salt Lake City, Utah that is doing something similar to this. Smithfield Foods Inc. will be making BioMethanol from pork waste.

  106. NO BLOOD FOR TURKEY BLOOD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    N/T

  107. Squeegee! by Tremblay99 · · Score: 1

    You just gotta squeegee the seals gently. I got this from a guy in Newfoundland, so you know it can't be an April Fools.

  108. What makes it new... by mblase · · Score: 1

    The technology to do this is actually fairly old, as is the basic design. The TDP plant discussed here is new and important because instead of removing water from the second-stage waste by boiling it out, it moves it to a new chamber and rapidly depressurizes it. This keeps the carbon chains from breaking down too far to be useful.

    The potential is to be able to break down any amount of carbon-based waste into oil, sterilized water, and useful minerals with only 15% energy loss. It's far-fetched right now, but I imagine the day when people will have small versions of these plants in their basement or, at the very least, on the outskirts of their community for shared use.

  109. but.... by tx_mgm · · Score: 1

    ....wouldnt this lead to reduced profits by haliburton & co. after we've "awarded" them their contracts to rebuild iraq's oil industry? after all, if we could meet these theoretical production levels then our dependance on foreign oil just shot thru the floor. i guess they'd still have france and germany as customers, but (pardon me if im wrong, as its been awhile since my last economics class) doesnt price come down with demand?
    if this is true, how hard do you think this will be fought by our resident oil tyrants?

    --
    Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
    -Dr. Weird
    1. Re:but.... by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      wouldnt this lead to reduced profits by haliburton & co. after we've "awarded" them their contracts to rebuild iraq's oil industry?

      Put down the tinfoil hat and back away slowly...Halliburton never even submitted a bid. (What this has to do with anybody in the current administration is even more puzzling, given that their stocks are sold and the proceeds from those sales are put into a blind trust while they're in office...)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    2. Re:but.... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Except that Cheney still gets a $1M/year pension from Halliburton.

      Not to mention he's probably still got some friends there.

  110. Hey, this is a big DEAL! by Untimely+Ripp'd · · Score: 1

    Note to self: NEVER submit an article to slashdot on March 31.

    A lot of folks seem to be irked because this is "old news", but the "new" news is that the Con-Agra plant is about to go on-line, which to me moves this up out of the pie-in-the-sky category into the this-might-really-work category. And hey, I searched slashdot for "depolymerization" and came up empty.

    Which reminds me, to whomever the guy was who sneeringly suggested that turkeys aren't made of polymers -- well, I could make a stupid joke about the quality of factory-farmed food, or I could observe that proteins are polymers. In any event, one of the cool things about this tech is that it can supposedly take plastics and turn them back into petroleum.

    And, not to be whiny, but my original submission made the now-common observation that apparently even the REAL reason for the Iraqi war is invalid.

    --

    And let the angel whom thou still hast serv'd tell thee ...

  111. Oh really? by cybermace5 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Lock them up you say?

    Wouldn't it be more efficient to use them to fuel your SUV?

    Amoco/BP Green: It's People!

    (that's funny on multiple levels...think environmentalists, vegetarians, "BP" stands for British People, Soylent Green...pure comedy gold!)

    --
    ...
    1. Re:Oh really? by krir · · Score: 1
      quote:

      (that's funny on multiple levels...think environmentalists, vegetarians, "BP" stands for British People, Soylent Green...pure comedy gold!)

      /quote

      BP is short for British Petroleum, not British People...

    2. Re:Oh really? by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      You entirely missed the joke.

      --
      ...
  112. Uh, Duh by Untimely+Ripp'd · · Score: 1

    So, like, a bazillion responders are saying, hey, it only references this one old newspaper article and Discover and doncha know Discover does April Fool's articles and blah blah blah blah.

    Instead of yackety-yacking, try googling for "thermal depolymerization". You'll see quickly enough that there is plenty of other coverage. How many frickin links should I have put into the original post?

    --

    And let the angel whom thou still hast serv'd tell thee ...

  113. SILLY PEOPLE!!! APRIL FOOLS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Discover magazine puts an april fools joke in every year... One year it was about someone finding Jesus's blood on a cup, another year it was someone accidentally discovering a new Giant Element when it popped his computer monitor - it existed for only a mircosecond but somehow they got it on film blowing up the monitor - and it looks a lot like a bowling ball.

    Another group fooled! Way to go Discover mag!

    1. Re: SILLY PEOPLE!!! APRIL FOOLS! by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      So Discover magazine, a rather highly respected science magazine, makes it practice to send out 1/12 of all it's issues with a giant, enormously untrue cover story and a half dozen pages in the center of the issue devoted to a lie? That is perfectly feasible and nothing really new?

  114. One flew over the Turkeys nest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard that there was only one person who knows how to make the process work at better than break even efficiency.

    Last week I read that the oil companies had genetically engineered 265 pound turkey that pecked a whole in his skull that left him dumb as Randolph Patrick McMurphy after his big operation.

    Its true. My neighbors cousin who knows the guy and got so mad when he learned about his friends "accidental" pecking, that he threw his sink out the window.

  115. Is This True ? Or April Fools? by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Informative

    I hate this day. Slashdot it really difficult to use. Anyways, here are some links to simular articles which makes me think that this is true:

    http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/2002/020806/ bu siness/story1.html

    http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/2001/010729/ re gional/story1.html

    http://www.springfieldnews-leader.com/projects/s te wardship/alternative072102.html

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  116. Carbon Balance and Global Warming by jonniesmokes · · Score: 1

    This relates to something I've been wondering for a while. How much carbon do we (humans) bury in the ground compared to how much we pull out of the ground in fossil fuels?

    By stipulating that 60% of our oil could be reduced by using biodiesel, it sounds like there's a lot of carbon being buried.

    Does anyone know?

    Wouldn't it be funny if thowing away your trash into a landfill was saving the earth from global warming?

  117. An online plant? by GQuon · · Score: 1

    f Discover Magazine reports that any day now a plant will go online in Carthage

    Did anybody else read this and go "oh, great, another webserver built into a silly object"?

    That would be cool. Like, a potato "battery" with a tiny webserver. Would it bake if it was slashdotted?

    I wrote "battery". Hm. Battery chickens. Turkeys.
    I have to go eat now.

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  118. Your sig... by BraveLittleHamster · · Score: 1

    I love the sig, but at least get the punch line in there! Bender: Ahhh, what an awful dream! Ones and zeroes everywhere... and I thought I saw a two! Fry: Don't worry Bender. There's no such thing as two. BLH

    1. Re:Your sig... by QuietRiot · · Score: 1

      Lest you be refering to tri-state logic...

  119. feeding the troll by why-is-it · · Score: 1

    Many of us detest the way things are done here

    How do you define "many" - you and a couple of friends?

    Tell me, mister troll, if life in Canada is so terrible, why do you continue to live there? Why not emigrate to some country that is more attuned to your (ahem) philosophy? Are you so hooked on the beer and hockey that you are willing to put up with abject poverty, socialist slimeballs and commie ideas?

    carrying the stigma of wishy-washy Canadian citizenship

    Oh, now that _is_ funny. Canadian citizenship is such a stigma that many Americans travelling abroad claim to be Canadian rather than identify themselves as Americans...

    I know that it is April Fool's Day and all, but really...

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    1. Re:feeding the troll by renehollan · · Score: 1
      How do you define "many" - you and a couple of friends?

      Lesse, more than a handful (more than 50,000 Candians emigrate to the U.S. each year, which is one reason why the Green Card lottery is closed to them), but clearly less than a voting majority of the population.

      Tell me, mister troll, if life in Canada is so terrible, why do you continue to live there? Why not emigrate to some country that is more attuned to your (ahem) philosophy?

      Believe me, I've tried! I arrived in the U.S. on a NAFTA TN1 visa in 1997, renewed it for 98, and obtained H1B sponsorship in 99, with an approved LC (supposedly "proving" that no American had my skills). that year. All I needed was the Green Card. By 2000, we had an American-born son.

      Unfortunately, I had to change jobs in 2001, losing all ground gained for the Green Card, and had to start over. Well, with 09/11/2001, INS processing slowed to a crawl. That and the economy going into the shitter meant that I had to leave and go back to Canada, when I lost my job due to the telecom bust. Unlike some unscrupulous employers who give the H1 visa a bad rap, my employer(s) always abided by the rules, giving preference to American citizens -- you don't just arrive somewhere and claim all the infrustructure -- you gotta pay some "dues". So, you can't blame me for not trying to leave.

      As for my philosophy, you'd not be surprised that I found Texas quite to my liking, with all the guns 'n all. Heinlein was right: an armed society is a polite society.

      Are you so hooked on the beer and hockey that you are willing to put up with abject poverty, socialist slimeballs and commie ideas?

      Ohh, now who's the troll?

      I'm not crazy about hockey (or cold weather for that matter), and (see above) certainly tried to leave. As for the beer, contrary to popular (Canadian) belief, the U.S. has some fine microbrews. As much as there are also things I don't like about the U.S. (corporatism being one), if I could exchange Canadian for American citizenship, I'd do so in a heartbeat.

      Canadian citizenship is such a stigma that many Americans travelling abroad claim to be Canadian rather than identify themselves as Americans...

      Yes, wishy-washy takes no stand and offends no one. Americans act, for better or worse. While their foriegn policy may be poor, at least they try to have one that has an effect on their domestic situation. Give em a hundred years or so, and they'll learn some finesse. But I guarantee they won't become atrophied to the point where they try to pass of inaction as finesse.

      What's going on in Iraq is certainly a dirty business, and nothing for the U.S. to be proud of, but it is a business that will likely improve the survival odds of the average Iraqi when it is over (Ole Saddam Hussein murdered millions of his own citizens in the "peace time" since the Gulf War). While not so naive as to think that is the U.S.'s intent, I do believe that it will likely be a pleasant outcome: they have not repeated their mistakes of instituting puppet regimes in Afghanistan, and I doubt they'd do that in Iraq, having been burned badly by that approach.

      Someone has to clean up the world's shit, and it's damn shame that most of us are happy to sit on the sidelines and jeer while at the same time being quite happy that the shit gets cleaned up (and perhaps a bit smug that we "got" the 'mericans to do it, some might say goaded).

      --
      You could've hired me.
    2. Re:feeding the troll by why-is-it · · Score: 1

      more than 50,000 Candians emigrate to the U.S. each year

      That number represents approximately .001% of the population of Canada is statistically zero and insignificant. Of course, no Americans would ever immigrate to Canada to off-set that number either, right?

      if I could exchange Canadian for American citizenship, I'd do so in a heartbeat.

      Well, I wish you all the best in your future.

      While their foriegn policy may be poor, at least they try to have one that has an effect on their domestic situation.

      Foreign policy is a means to get other countries to act in a way that is in your best interests, not necessarily their own. I agree that there is absolutely nothing noble about the war against Iraq.

      Saddam Hussein murdered millions of his own citizens in the "peace time" since the Gulf War

      Millions? Documentation? What about the innocents he murdered when he was a trusted ally of the US during the 1980's? Who do you think sold him the biological and chemical weapons that he used against the Kurds and Iran?

      Someone has to clean up the world's shit

      Some might say that those who made the mess in the first place should be responsible for cleaining it up!

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    3. Re:feeding the troll by renehollan · · Score: 1
      That number represents approximately .001% of the population of Canada is statistically zero and insignificant. Of course, no Americans would ever immigrate to Canada to off-set that number either, right?

      First, it is not statistically insignificant as an absolute number, but rather as a relative fraction. You can not say those people do not exist, merely that they have no democratic effect on the government of Canada. Interestingly, though, as it is the best and brightest that tend to leave, their economic impact is non-trivial.

      Second, Americans wanting to immigrate to Canada are welcome to. I wish it were easy for us to simply switch places, one for one.

      Well, I wish you all the best in your future.

      And I, you, as long as your future does not involve living from my taxes.

      Foreign policy is a means to get other countries to act in a way that is in your best interests, not necessarily their own. I agree that there is absolutely nothing noble about the war against Iraq.

      I never claimed it was noble. But, I do think it was necessary, and the failure to avert it must be shared by nations other than the U.S. who proposed no other alternative to remove the threat of a provably beligerent leader of a rogue nation.

      What about the innocents he murdered when he was a trusted ally of the US during the 1980's? Who do you think sold him the biological and chemical weapons that he used against the Kurds and Iran?

      Who cares? They could, they did. People kill oneanother. That's one of the things we do. Power corrupts, and the U.S. is certainly powerful. In the context of that bleak truth, foreign policy mistakes will be painful and costly, and cleaning them up will be messy.

      Wringing our hands at the U.S. when this happens, and taking a "holier than thou" stance, pretending to take the higher moral grounds of abstaining from violence is sheer hypcricy, since the U.S.'s error was only criticized after it blew up in their face. Obviously, the rest of the world would have been quite happy to have Saddam Hussein as a peaceful puppet ruler to counter the "evil" Iran of the post-revolutionary 1980s.

      You can't be pleased when the U.S.'s "attrocities" serve your needs and then appalled when they blow up in their face.

      Some might say that those who made the mess in the first place should be responsible for cleaining it up!

      Well, yes, and their doing just that, no? Before the condemnations fly, who argued against the folly when the mess was created in the first place, and offered a better means of cleaning it up? No one (well, no nation, oficially), on both counts.

      I suppose it is human nature to criticize when someone fucks up, and the bigger the fuckup, the greater the criticism. But progress is made through experience, as ugly and costly in human lives as that may be, and the powerful will subdue the weak. We treat other humans as we treat beasts raised for food and burden, when we can.

      In this circumstance, the U.N. has demonstrated it's socialist impotence by (a) not censuring the U.S. when it placed the puppet regime in place, and (b) not offering a better means of removing it. It is a failed, irrelevant, organization, much like its League of Nations predecessor. What a waste of time, effort, and money.

      Canada, mirror and puppet of this borg-like collective, also remains paralized and frozen in the status quo.

      Sixth best standard of living in the world? Like I said, "third world backwater". Number one or nothing, regardless of what it takes.

      As painful and harsh a driving force as that may be, it is honestly human. Peace on earth will be achieved when the strong eliminate the weak, and all exist as equals: a cold-war like stalemate, if you will.

      The sad and infuriating fact is that we are mired in pseudo-allegience to the nations in which we were born, and not the nations who's ideals and principles we echo. Clearly my views are unCanadian, and I make no attempt to hide that fact.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    4. Re:feeding the troll by why-is-it · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, though, as it is the best and brightest that tend to leave, their economic impact is non-trivial.

      I don't suppose you could provide some references to validate that belief? Otherwise it is just FUD.

      And I, you, as long as your future does not involve living from my taxes.

      Whatever...

      the failure to avert it must be shared by nations other than the U.S. who proposed no other alternative to remove the threat of a provably beligerent leader of a rogue nation.

      Where to begin... From what I observed, it appeared as though the UN inspectors were doing their job, and there were no traces of these mythincal weapons of mass destruction that GWB was constantly going on about. A beligerant leader? Almost certainly, but one of many around the world yet hardly the most corrupt or brutal. Rogue nation? Hardly! It is a third world nation crippled by sanctions that harm the average citizen yet do nothing to inconvenience the elites.

      I suspect that there are many people on this planet who would identfy GWB as a beligerant leader of a rogue nation.

      But progress is made through experience, as ugly and costly in human lives as that may be, and the powerful will subdue the weak. We treat other humans as we treat beasts raised for food and burden, when we can.

      Unfortunately, there is no shortage of brutality out there and we in the West set a rather poor example. However, the lessons of 9/11 have not been learned. All the terrorists needed to destroy the world trade center and attack the pentagon were some box-cutters. To paraphrase Thomas Hobbes: the weakest of men can kill the strongest of men - even the strong must sleep. You seem to be arguing that the ends will justify the means, and that might==right, and I think that you will eventually learn that those simplistic notions are inadequate when applied to as complex a system as the world we live in. Unfortunately, the institutions we have created are not designed to consider what is in our long-term best interests and we only focus on immediate self-gratification. I regret that I see no end to the violence. Since we brutalize ourselves as we brutalize others, the short-term future seems rather bleak.

      the U.N. has demonstrated it's socialist impotence by (a) not censuring the U.S. when it placed the puppet regime in place, and (b) not offering a better means of removing it.

      I do not see any obvious connection between the two non-actions you have listed and socialism. Care to elaborate?

      As for your two points, let me offer the following:
      1) While most informed observers knew full well what was going on, the US and the Iraqi regime were not open and transparent about what was going on when the CIA assisted Saddam's ascent to power.
      2) Only security council resolutions are binding on UN signatories, and the US has used their security council veto more often than the other members combined.
      3) There were resolutions for continued weapons inspections and there is no evidence to suggest they were not working as intended.

      BTW have you ever heard of this thing called a contradiction? For example:

      Canada, mirror and puppet of this borg-like collective, also remains paralized and frozen in the status quo.

      and

      Peace on earth will be achieved when the strong eliminate the weak, and all exist as equal

      So, on one hand you argue against borg-like confirmity, and then a few sentences later you whistfully dream of borg-like confirmity. How does that stand to reason?

      Sixth best standard of living in the world? Like I said, "third world backwater". Number one or nothing, regardless of what it takes.

      Whatever floats your boat, but I don't think you would be happy there either. Last time I checked, it was those notoriously socialist Scandinavian nations that typically have the higest standard of living in the world.

      The sad and inf

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    5. Re:feeding the troll by renehollan · · Score: 1
      I don't suppose you could provide some references to validate that belief? Otherwise it is just FUD.

      Google on "Canada" and "brain drain". You'll get both points of view. A caveat: many Canadians have left for the U.S. and got "burned" because they did not research cost of living properly: lots of unscrupulous head hunters there simply translated C$ to A$ and had people accept really bad lowball offers. Do your homework.

      Where to begin... From what I observed, it appeared as though the UN inspectors were doing their job, and there were no traces of these mythincal weapons of mass destruction that GWB was constantly going on about.

      I think GWB wanted to gain support on the basis of finding something, instead of ressurrect a decade-old dispute that was never settled. Still, the beligerance of Iraq attacking and invading it's neighbours deserves to be countered. Weapons inspections do not do this. Making a big deal of such inspections was a U.S. foreign policy mistake, but it appears clear that they wanted to rekindle an old battle with fresh support. That effort backfired. However, this does not change the legitimacy of holding Saddam Hussein accountable for his past deeds. Should there be a statute of limitations on state aggression? The U.N. would appear to think so, but the U.S. (and I) don't.

      It is a third world nation crippled by sanctions that harm the average citizen yet do nothing to inconvenience the elites.

      So, a little war and collateral death wouldn't make things much worse in the short term, but hold out the prospect for improvement in the long term.

      These sanctions probably caused more harm than a swift and early war to topple the aggressive regime would. Such sanctions, BTW, were, of course a concession to the U.N. to retain post-Gulf War support. A U.S. mistake, IMHO: had they rolled on into Baghdad then, with a decimated Iraqi military, civillian deaths would not be what they are today. Of course such a move would have been unpopular then too. The "popular" and "supported" actions that transpired likely harmed Iraqis a great deal, yet, we condemn the U.N. and not the U.S. Indirect death by proxy is a common U.N. weakness.

      I suspect that there are many people on this planet who would identfy GWB as a beligerant leader of a rogue nation.

      Perhaps. Had he not maintained American interests in Saudi Arabia, perhaps Osama binLaden would not have attacked the U.S. And yes, the fact that certain "American interests" may increase risk of hostilities against Americans is a notion that appears lost on the administration and population in the U.S. (i.e. are these "interests" worth the risks?). However, you do not see the U.S. lobbing missiles at its neighbours or formally making threatening statements without a defensive posture. Arrogant and nosy might be a better way of describing U.S. action on the world scene, but not beligerent.

      Unfortunately, there is no shortage of brutality out there and we in the West set a rather poor example. However, the lessons of 9/11 have not been learned. All the terrorists needed to destroy the world trade center and attack the pentagon were some box-cutters. To paraphrase Thomas Hobbes: the weakest of men can kill the strongest of men - even the strong must sleep.

      Yes, pissing people off is generally not good policy. I never claimed U.S. foreign policy wasn't clumsy and naive. However, its use of force against a forceful, aggressive foe against a backdrop of U.N. paralysis ("Oh, think of the poor civilians!") is not unreasonable. It may not be popular, but contrary to other bumbling moves, it is one of the few that is justifiable since it counters outright (albeit dated) aggression with retaliatory force.

      You seem to be arguing that the ends will justify the means, and that might==right, and I think that you will eventually learn that those simplistic notions are inadequate when applied to as complex a system as the world we live in.

      --
      You could've hired me.
  120. In Soviet Russia by Richy_T · · Score: 1
    Turkey takes oil from you.


    Or is that gonna be Iraq?


    Rich

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia we shoot people who make "in Soviet Russia" posts.

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      It's interesting how the source of America's energy is moving further west. At present a large part of oil consumption is imported from Arab countries. Now, apparently Turkey will replace that. The logical next step in a few years is to generate oil from Grease.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  121. Or perhaps the joke's on us... by StringBlade · · Score: 1
    My guess is the Slashdot eds thought it would thoroughly stump everyone expecting an entire day of joke articles to throw in a real one.

    I happen to have this issue of Discover, but haven't read the article yet. Discover strikes me as not the type of magazine to publish a fake story and mention it on the cover as one of the feature articles when the rest of the entire magazine is not a joke.

    --
    ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
    1. Re:Or perhaps the joke's on us... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      They've published April Fools articles before, but I can't remember if they hit the front cover. Back sometime in the 80s they had a story about some sort of arctic variant on the naked mole rat that was able to superheat a bulge on their forehead to melt and quickly burrow their way through ice to hunt pengiuns. A few years back, they had a story about the discovery of the "bigon" a bowling ball sized particle that was caught on a single frame of a camera when a physicist's monitor blew up in the lab that was said to be the missing link in explaining ball lightning and spontaneous human combustion.

      I don't know. This seems semi-plausable, but the representatives of the company in the story seem way too starry-eyed about what it can do. I don't see how it's supposed to handle the various toxic metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons in computer motherboards like they claim that it can handle. In fact, I can't think of a single way that this system could handle chlorinated hydrocarbons to keep them out of the mix and avoid having a toxic sludge instead of safely burnable gas.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  122. PETA will have a cow by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    First we're turning horses into glue and now we're turning animals into oil. PETA already gets pissed off at major food producers like McDonalds et al for raising animals solely to be turned into food.

    How many animals does it take to feed McDonald's customers vs powering their vehicals?

    Also you have to consider how much land and resources would be required to do this on a large scale. Is the amount of oil used to turn a cow into oil more than the amount of oil gained? How much land would it take up? Currently oil is tucked away underground.

    It's a novel idea but how feasible is it really? It may not be being adopted quickly because the cost vs benefits might not be there and the animal rights activists are going to have a field day.

    Ben

    1. Re:PETA will have a cow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail to see the point, though. The point is that we can use the biomass waste products that we already produce to power this and produce the oil with. There is no extra land or any such being used to produce more cows/turkeys/etc. to be used specifically for fuel.

  123. Good but overrated by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are some substantial differences (good and bad) relating to this method.

    1) Using biomass means that all carbon embodied in the fuel is from CO2 relatively recently removed from the atmosphere. Petrolium products when burned dump carbon into the carbon cycle (CO2->Plant Biomass -> many possible steps (optional) -> decomposition -> CO2. This is good because biomass fuels don't increase CO2 levels in our atmosphere as fossil fuels do.

    2) On the negative side, there is a lot of fuel involved in raising, the turkeys (equipment relating to feed, transport of feed, raising the turkeys, transporting them, slaughtering them, transporting the guts to the factory, etc).

    My suspician is that we will see it use less fuel than transporting the guts of the turkey to the factory, processing them, etc. and since these parts are currently unused, it will ge a good thing. However, I suspect that we will not see a net fuel gain from this process (more fuel will go into raising/transporting feed, etc. than you will get out of the turkey) and so it can only subsidize the fuel cost of raising a turkey, not completely even mitigate that.

    That being said, I am all for it. I think that if we looked at methane digesters for manure of all marge animal farms, this sort of project, etc. it would reduce our petrolium consumption and allow us to leave a smaller ecological footprint.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:Good but overrated by Bagheera · · Score: 1

      While point 1 is accurate, point 2 is almost irrelevant to the process. The system described is being used at a Turkey processing plant where the cost of transport is considerably less than trucking the byproducts to an off-site rendering facility. Ultimately, this is a form of recycling where the energy expended to "make the product" was put in for some purpose other than use as fuel. EG. Turkey's for dinner.

      The recent Discover had an extensive article on the process and the fact that it works on nearly any -organic- waste. They've used it on everything from turkey byproducts and medical waste (which is rendered sterile) to raw sewage. The proportion of chemicals in the output (oils, etc) depends on what goes in on the feed end. They burn the gasses on-site to help power the system. As I read it, they were producing a barrel of oil for something like $12 - $15 a barrel.

      I'm not sure if the full article is on-line for Discover, but this looks like a solid process. (The "breakthrough" was flashing off the water and recovering the heat)

      --
      Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
    2. Re:Good but overrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #2 is the prime reason why they are building these processing centers on-site, so there is NO added transportation costs.

    3. Re:Good but overrated by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      You still have to feed the turkeys, and this takes fuel. So my guess is you will still have a net fuel loss. But, since we are just using this stuff we would otherwise be throwing out, it is a good start towards 0-waste.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    4. Re:Good but overrated by Suidae · · Score: 1

      They also told about the results they got running through things like tires, computers and refregerators. Obviously they get less oil and more carbon, but its not just limited to organic waste.

      Several people have pointed out that there will still be a net fuel loss. Well, duh. Its waste into raw materials and fuel, not a perpetual motion machine.

    5. Re:Good but overrated by mpe · · Score: 1

      On the negative side, there is a lot of fuel involved in raising, the turkeys (equipment relating to feed, transport of feed, raising the turkeys, transporting them, slaughtering them, transporting the guts to the factory, etc).

      All this is being done anyway. The whole point of this is to turn a waste product into something useful. All that needs to be done is to install the fuel making plant near where the turkey guts would otherwise end up. You either install the waste processing near the waste source or use it instead of a waste disposal facility.

    6. Re:Good but overrated by mirko · · Score: 1

      You want to feed turkeys with oil ??? 8-/

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    7. Re:Good but overrated by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      You want to feed turkeys with oil ??? 8-/

      No but you have to feed the tractors, combines, trucks, etc. with oil ;-)

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    8. Re:Good but overrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, you HAVE to have a net fuel loss, you have no other alternative. All this process does is lessen the energy loss associated with raising turkeys :)

      SWEET!

  124. In Soviet Russia by abhisarda · · Score: 1

    turkey makes a fool out of you. ;)

  125. Re:Why bother?-Big Bang isn't a hoax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "*bada ching!* I'm here all week, and watch the open flames."

    Lends new meaning to the phrase "explosive commentary".

  126. Garbage in-Gas out (GIGO) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually this promises to kill two birds with one stone. Enviromental waste (not just animal parts), but also provide a fuel for our vehicles.

  127. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who was left?

    I'll tell you if you tell me on which side Pete jumped out.

  128. Wait a minute.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OIL IS MADE FROM HUMANS!

  129. It takes $50-$80 oil for this to be economical by mkweise · · Score: 1

    if we looked at methane digesters for manure of all marge animal farms, this sort of project, etc. it would reduce our petrolium consumption and allow us to leave a smaller ecological footprint

    Yes, but we'd need higher fossil fuel prices in order for that to be economical. I've often contemplated all the neat technologies that would be commericalized if we saw sustained crude oil prices above $50. In the long run, that would be a very good thing for everyone.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
    1. Re:It takes $50-$80 oil for this to be economical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do not need prices to be high for methane digesters to be economical. If we could fina a way to oxegenate methane to methanol, then we would be home free. And the guy that figured out how to do this cheaply would be a multi-billionair and would win the nobel prize. No doubt. Just so you know this is possible, bacteria do it all the time :)

      SWEET!

    2. Re:It takes $50-$80 oil for this to be economical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like you're confusing ethanol and methanol.

  130. Read the article by emmons · · Score: 1

    It CURRENTLY costs $8-10/bbl using their method. And that will only get cheaper.

    --
    Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
  131. Right back at you by mkweise · · Score: 1

    Not sure what article you read, but according to the one at http://www.springfieldnews-leader.com/projects/ste wardship/turkey120402.html, the first commercial-scale plant (which is still under construction) is not expected to break even, even though an EPA grant paid a good part of the construction cost.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
    1. Re:Right back at you by emmons · · Score: 1

      Sorry about that, I didn't remember the quote correctly. $8-$12 is an estimate, not current figures.

      from Discover Magazine, May 2003, p.52, paragraph 7:
      "We will be able to make oil for $8 to $12 a barrel," says Paul Baskis, the inventor of the process.

      --
      Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
    2. Re:Right back at you by mkweise · · Score: 1

      Hmm...my guess is that $8-$12 is just the process input, and doesn't include the cost of running the plant or depreciation of construction costs. Read what the online article linked from the slashdot story says under the subheading _Issue of Economics_.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
  132. Hmm... by Transcendent · · Score: 1

    Uhh... I'm waiting for the "April Fools"??

  133. Much better than the alternative by bluyonder · · Score: 1

    We seriously need this to work. What they do now with poultry waste is to turn it into a slurry and spray it onto the local pastures as "fertilizer". You can't imagine the god awful smell that produces.
    The excess nitrogen from this mess runs off into the streams and lakes causing an algae bloom which kills fish. If this works at all, they are going to make some serious money doing a very good thing.

  134. And in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iraq is said to be split up into three separate distinct sections after the war:

    Regular
    Unleaded
    and
    Premium

  135. So I guess we really didnt need to go to war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    null

  136. Prior Art... by Firewheels · · Score: 1

    This isn't new - my family's been making natural gas from turkey every november for generations.

  137. oh man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really don't hope this is a silly April Fool's Joke. This a serious matter, and if this is true (which I doubt), MY GOD! But, before I get my hopes up, even if it is true, the US won't adopt this for at least 10 years....there's surprisingly little interest in ecologically sound fuels. The idea of fuel cell tempts us, great, but there's biodiesel stations already, and few use them.

  138. This is a good thing for many reasons by rebmaster · · Score: 1

    I live just an hour south of that plant in Carthage, in McDonald county, the self-professed "Poultry Capital of the U.S." (Yeah, I know...)

    Anyway, I can say from lifelong experience that this IS a Good Thing(tm) for lots of reasons.

    1) Oil and related products at a reasonable cost, potentially a reduced cost.

    2) Turkey waste is abundant in this area - too abundant. Far too often poultry farmers around here end up spreading it on fields. Anything that produces something good from that cr*p is better than the current alternatives, as long as it isn't cost-prohibitive.

    3) As for the arguments I've seen here saying that fuel is wasted on transport... What they fail to realize is that that same waste is currently being transported ANYWAY - either to dumps for processing or to farm fields, where it eventually ends up in our otherwise crystal-clear spring waters... And hurts our canoeing industry. (Didn't I mention that we are also the self-professed "Canoe Capital of the Ozarks"??? http://www.4noel.com *grin*)

    This IS a Good Idea(tm) - I'm just waiting ot see how the greedy and ignorant powers-that-be screw it up.

  139. more URLS by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    http://www.changingworldtech.com/news.html http://www.ad-astra.net/cgi-bin/BBS/SpacePolicy/re ad/35926

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  140. and more Re:more URLS by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    http://www.solenagroup.com/html/tech/tech.asp

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  141. Used Baby Diaper Recycling! by resistant · · Score: 1

    Speaking of truly evil waste, it would be cool to set up neighborhood baby poop and organic diaper depolymerization stations. The purified water left over at the end could be used to prepare baby formula, too.

    --
    A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
  142. This is no april fool's joke... by suman28 · · Score: 1

    Do some research. You will find out that this is not a joke. They are really trying to improve the environment and make money while they are at it.

  143. I love sustainablility and renewability. by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    I loath restrictors, the ones that claim that we're too stupid to create wealth in abundance and must cut back. Cutting back on people by some unstated means or restricting the wealth to a fixed number of people. I love those who create wealth generating tech like this, it's a smack in the teeth to restrictors. We do wonders with most anything, and we've come a long way from fueling a heating fire with dried dung. We'd be farther along if we truly had a free market, vegtable oils do smell GREAT [1] when used as a diesel fuel and are, well, edible. I suppose that edible could be considered really good biodegradabilty. ;-) I didn't check but could this be used to make food ? If vegtable oils can do what diesel does why make diesel, just make the dual-use oil. [1] Check around on making one of those floating candles using olive oil. That smells so good.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  144. It's people I tell you!! by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Auto fuel.. is... PEOPLE!!

    Actually, in the Discover article, they idly mention how much oil, gas, and water would come out if an average person accidentally fell into the device. My first thought was, "Sweet! Blood for oil!"

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  145. No Benzene. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    A good fraction of crude oil is benzyne, right?

    Nope. Gasoline is mostly heptane, octane, and other simple carbohydrate chains up to C(11)H(24). Benzene is a simple carbon ring of C(6)H(6) and is very volatile. You can read more about it here. Pay close attention to the second page which talks about which simple hydrocarbon chains go into what kinds of applications. Benzene's volatility means that it wouldn't be filtered out by the refining process (which should also convert it to hexane while we're at it). This cooking process they envision should turn benzene to hexane too, if I recall my organic chemistry correctly.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  146. Not really.... by Jazu · · Score: 1

    There aren't THAT many turkey guts.

    --
    My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
  147. Correction by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Benzene's volatility means that it wouldn't be filtered out by the refining process (which should also convert it to hexane while we're at it).

    Make that "...would be filtered out..."
    Sorry for the ambiguity.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").