Slashdot Mirror
Obama Announces for President, Boosts Broadband
Arlen writes "As many as 17,000 people (according to police estimates) watched Senator Barack Obama officially announce his candidacy for President in Springfield, Illinois today. He mentioned several things that will interest readers of Slashdot. The Senator said he wanted to free America from 'the tyranny of oil' and went on to promote alternative energy sources such as ethanol — a popular stance in the Midwest where he announced, because of all the corn farmers. He also talked about using science and technology to help those with chronic diseases, which is likely to have been an allusion to his staunch support for stem cell research. Perhaps most of interest to readers here is the following statement halfway through Obama's speech: 'Let's invest in scientific research, and let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America. We can do that.' Like nearly everything in his speech, this was met with robust applause from the crowd. You can watch a video of the entire speech at Obama's website."
The Democrats just might make it this time. :D
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
His staunch support of gun control and redistributive economics.
If Obama and Biden have a joint ticket, do you think they will call it obama/biden?
If they do, will they be "cashing in" on the popular the "dyslexic terrorist" vote?
(If there's going to be a political flamewar, it may as well be my political flamewar).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
And people question his ability because he's "too young..."; yet for the same reason he may be more in touch with his country than anyone could guess. Small politics indeed.
Is Slashdot going to have a story for every candidate who is running for President and discusses something having to do with energy dependence, stem cell research, and investment in science (which every candidate will have some opinion on)? Or is Obama getting his own story due to editorial preferences? I haven't seen a story for John McCain or Hillary Clinton. Why Obama?
It's also worth noting that, in addition to things like 1 million strong for Barack, his team has set up it's own social networking site where Obama supporters can share photos, messages, groups, fundraising, and events.
Dean ushered in Internet fundraising in 2004. Could Obama harness social networking?
I may not agree with his stance on every single issue, but I have to say, I don't think I've ever felt genuinely excited about the prospect of any particular candidate becoming president before this election. Usually I'm just hoping for the guy I mind the least to get in.
It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."
AC sez: "waaaaaaaaaah!"
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I go to a big Ag/Engineering school in the Midwest, Obama will be speaking at our school tomorrow. I'm lucky to live in a unique area of the US where the energy alternatives (mainly ethanol) are actually cheaper than the regular fuels because of all of the tax cuts. If he brings pricing everywhere in the US to the levels it is in my state (about $.02-.05/gallon cheaper than non-ethanol fuels) I'll be much more likely to vote for him.
Honestly, I don't even see a negative side to ethanol (other than it's still a fossil fuel). It reduces our dependance on foregin oil, and would (presumably) lower our national trade deficit and keep more money within the borders (something that conservatives are sure to be happy about).
It will be interesting to see Obama's commitment levels on the issue as we progress toward Nov, 2008.
What sorts of policies and values could one expect from an imagined Obama presidency? There is quite a bit already in Obama's short national career that has to be placed in the "never mind" category if one is to seriously to believe his claim (cautiously advanced in The Audacity of Hope) to be a "progressive" concerned with "social and economic justice" and global peace.
Never mind, for example, that Obama was recently hailed as a "Hamiltonian" believer in "limited government" and "free trade" by Republican New York Times columnist David Brooks, who praises Obama for having "a mentality formed by globalization, not the SDS." Or that he had to be shamed off the "New Democrat Directory" of the corporate-right Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) by the popular left black Internet magazine Black Commentator (Bruce Dixon, "Obama to Have Name Removed From DLC List," Black Commentator, June 26, 2003).
Never mind that Obama (consistent with Brooks's description of him) has lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and "other Wall Street Democrats" to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party (David Sirota, "Mr. Obama Goes to Washington," the Nation, June 26). Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman's ("D"-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has supported other "mainstream Democrats" fighting antiwar progressives in primary races (see Alexander Cockburn, "Obama's Game," the Nation, April 24, 2006). Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
Never mind that Obama "dismissively" referred--in a "tone laced with contempt"--to the late progressive and populist U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone as "something of a gadfly." Or that he chose the neoconservative Lieberman to be his "assigned" mentor in the U.S. Senate. Or that "he posted a long article on the liberal blog Daily Kos criticizing attacks against lawmakers who voted for right-wing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts." Or that he opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Or that he told Time magazine's Joe Klein last year that he'd never given any thought to Al Gore's widely discussed proposal to link a "carbon tax" on fossil fuels to targeted tax relief for the nation's millions of working poor (Joe Klein, "The Fresh Face," Time, October 17, 2006).
Never mind that Obama voted for a business-friendly "tort reform" bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations (Cockburn; Sirota). Or that Obama claims to oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry--at places like Kaiser and Blue Cross Blue Shield (Sirota). Does Obama support the American scourge of racially disparate mass incarceration on the grounds that it provides work for tens of thousands of prison guards? Should the U.S. maintain the illegal operation of Iraq and pour half its federal budget into "defense" because of all the soldiers and other workers that find employment in imperial wars and the military-industrial complex? Does the "progressive" senator really need to be reminded of the large number of socially useful and healthy alternatives that exist for the investment of human labor power at home and abroad--wetlands preservation, urban ecological retrofitting, drug counseling, teaching, infrastructure building and repair, safe and affordable housing construction, the building of windmills and solar power facilities, etc.?
In an interview with Klein, Obama expressed reservations about a universal health insurance plan recently enacted in Massachusetts,
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Yes, it is added in places like Brazil, but that's because they derive it from sugar and not corn like the US would have to. If they could derive ethanol from any plant cellulose, that would be something.
I am an environmentalist, but ethanol is a BAD BAD idea.
i predict that this upcoming election will have the best voter turnout of all of history.
/but at the same time/
:p
the vast majority of african-americans will vote for obama to see a black man elected president (likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
the vast majority of women will vote for hillary to see a woman elected president
(likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
then you have to consider the other side of this
how many non black people will vote for hillary to prevent a black man from taking office
(likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
verses
how many men will vote for obama to prevent a woman from taking office
(likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
african american females will have reason to be happy either way i suppose
undoubtably many people here will respond to this post as 'you idiot, those aren't the only two choices', but i disagree. america is so blatantly retarded these are in fact the only two choices, regardless of what is written on the ballot.
in 2002 at work i predicted that hillary would run in 2008, and even said 'i bet she will win, just because of the female vote' (i never would have imagined it would come down to this though, this puts a whole new spin on it) and i even made it clear i didnt want her to win. this one guy in the room got very very upset with me and heavily ostracized me for even mentioning it.
someone do some stat searching and find out how many women and how many african americans are in the usa.
More at Znet [zmag.org]
I find it doubtful that you will find a viable candidate that leans far enough to the left to garner the support of the crypto-communists over at Znet.
The Senator said he wanted to free America from 'the tyranny of oil' and went on to promote alternative energy sources such as ethanol -- a popular stance in the Midwest where he announced, because of all the corn farmers.
While I'm all for alternative energy sources (and have always been proud that I have a much smaller carbon footprint than most), is there anyone else who thinks tying our food supply to the market value of fuels isn't such a good idea?
fiberoptic or copper? vote obama, cause hillary hates violent fun, plus who wants bill clinton to be the pressidents bitch? theres something wrong there.
Oh, thank Heavens he cleared up that mystery for us. This has been the longest-telegraphed punch since...since... well, since Hillary also "announced" that she was running.
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
There's ONE reason people like Obama. He's a black guy who doesn't speak like one.
Slate currently has an "Obama Messiah Watch" column that chronicles the media's excessive praise of the would-be-president.
http://www.slate.com/id/2159502/?nav=navoa
And this interests readers of Slashdot ... how?
Latest figures I've seen say if every grain of corn was turned into ethanol that it would only represent 12% of total USA gasoline usage, and that's only gasoline, which doesn't affect other energy usage. And we'd starve Mexico in the process. It's more political fluff on the part of the this article poster, than reality. And does he want to ban alcoholic drinks as well, and pour them into cars? Furthermore, burning ethanol does nothing to significantly reduce CO2 emissions, which I thought he was also unrealistically big on.
Politician and Science -- a very bad mix.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Thats like asking not to win. Oil is the true leader of this country. What he should have done was cozied up to oil companies, then fucked them over hard core. That, would have been sweet. Now he's just going to have the full might of the oil companies after him.
Like you said, the problem is the source of the fuel, not the chemical itself. Unfortunately, your post title would lead one to believe the opposite -- you ought to be more careful about that.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
yet again the common fallacy that corn farmers = [agri]busnessmen. Ethanol is nice. Corn ethanol is stupid.
I've heard that industrial hemp would be 2x to 3x more efficient in producing Ethanol than other techniques. Can anyone here verify this?
Never mind that Obama "dismissively" referred--in a "tone laced with contempt"--to the late progressive and populist U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone as "something of a gadfly."
Well, as a Minnesotan, I can tell you that he kinda was. We're a fairly liberal state as it is, but Wellstone was pretty left-leaning even for us. Nothing against him personally, though.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
And how much does that make up for the inherent inefficiency (MPG) of ethanol (up to 33%) compared to regular gasoline? Or does the feel good quotient make up for that?
And ethanol does nothing significant for CO2 reduction, or is Global Warming not your concern?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
He himself is black! If he's not qualified to judge his own culture's issues, who is?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
He's either going to get shot or he'll conveniently lose. You can't have a black guy called Obama as president, think of the stereotypes which don't apply.
Jonathanjk.com
I for one welcome our new, internet enabled Obama Nation.
He's promising the same bullshit Bush did and we all know how well that went over, I'm not trolling for calling for flames here, but seriously, what isnt he offering that other politicians offer? oh right, nothing.
To be fairly honest, his name doesn't really scream "president" if you look at it from the view of the average american. In fact it sounds similar to someone we cant catch in the middle east. Sadly, people do think this way. You have to have a marketable name, marketable appearance, and anything beyond that is filler material. everyone knows in the back of their minds that the filler material is bullshit. we just keep hoping maybe one candidate is not bullshitting us.
Where can you at least find maybe one better candidate? (key word is maybe) is looking at the other parties out there. but most of them are jokes. But me, personally, I'd vote for the off the wall candidates to skew the results, so if I am throwing away my vote, I'm gonna throw it away on a 3rd party instead of having the guilt that my vote went towards the next corrupt president.
All in all they're all the same in my book. occasionally you get that one president who comes in with good intentions and keeps them for at least one term. The rest are already beyond repair and are already corrupted by the time they get into office just from the campaigning and ass-kissing.
The "tinyurl" version of your post is:
Obama says many things, but in the end he always votes extremely liberal.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
That he's not Hillary.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I find it doubtful that you will find a viable candidate that leans far enough to the left to garner the support of the crypto-communists over at Znet.
The editor of Zmag, Michael Albert, has been a consistent and harsh critic of Marxist-Leninism. Here he debates a representative of one of the more moderate communists parties (the ISO). Most of the people published in Zmag are social democrats, anarchists, and other non-Marxist left wing radicals. Zmag is probably less communist than The Nation, and certainly less so than the countless Trotskyist party papers. Nader is seen as the most viable third party candidate in recent years and he often writes for Zmag.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
ALL politicians make pie in the sky promises. NONE of them ever make good on them.
/. ? /. is more than large enough to run afoul of some blogging/lobbying rules.
/. please.
They talk whatever BS their handlers tell them to, to appeal to as many warm bodies as possible.
Also, WTF is politics doing on
If I want propaganda I'll watch Fox or CNN.
I am quite certain that
Let's keep propaganda and politics out of
Very true. Ethanol is viable only if produced from non-food-related products. Simple math, we don't have enough usable and fertile land to grow food crops AND fuel crops.
besides, in large urban centers and suburban areas Gun Control LOWERS crime rates, not increases them.
Would you like to cite a source on that besides your rectum?
Gun control has never been shown, at least in any respectable study that I've ever seen, and I've been following the issue for a while, to lower the crime rate, except in theoretical situations where you can magically cut urban areas off from the outside world, or where you only look at specific categories of crime and neglect the crime reduction due to civilian gun ownership.
The usual anti-gun arguments that get trotted out in these situations are Europe/USA comparisons, and those are bogus for any number of reasons (simply: there are far too many variables besides gun control that lead to Europe having a far lower violent crime rate in general than the U.S., regardless of their gun control policies).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Obama is of mixed race and is not by any means poor or working class. And yes, blacks can misjudge the cause of their problems and blame "culture" (lack of "values", rap music, religion) instead of the genuine problems of poverty and continued discrimination.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
In the end Obama votes extremely right-wing. He is not a liberal, but a reactionary or a neo-conservative. Imperialist or fascist might be appropriate labels if you don't mind giving Goodwin's law a pass.
While assuring us that he supports the troops in Iraq, he's made it quite clear he won't bring them home, and instead has pressured the White House to come up with a plan on the matter of their own. How Obama, or anyone, can possibly believe that the Bushites could come up with a worthwhile strategy for Iraq is beyond me.
On Iran Obama also serves the status-quo with the kind of hawkish zeal we are used to seeing in most Republicans. He's admitted he may favor surgical missile strikes on Iran and Pakistan if that's what it takes to fight the war on terror. And Obama even boasts that Bush hasn't taken a hard enough line on the foreign menaces.
How about Israel? Obama even embraced Israel's brutal bombings of Lebanon last summer -- the type of complicity we're sure to see continue if he's successful in his political evolution. Beyond that, Obama voted in favor of the Pentagon budget last year, with its beefy handouts to Halliburton and the rest tax and waste crooks. (Counterpunch)
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Freeing America from oil via ethanol.
8 41462
t s_for_growth/nitrogen/anhydrous_ammonia.jsp
Read this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=219742&cid=17
One ton of dry biomass = 2 barrels of oil
The USA burns about 20 million barrels of oil per day. As I incorrectly pointed out in the prior post - this is 10 million tonnes of dry biomass per day (I had a brain fart which no one picked up on and wrote 40 tonnes).
It was nicely pointed out and correctly I might add that if we were to produce the amount of ethanol required to offset the oil being burned, then we would need more than the world's production of grain.
I did a google search on "world grain production" and was impressed with the increases since the 1960's.
Since I grew up on a grain farm I have a gut feel for this. The increased production came from dwarf grains (more grain, less stalk), irrigation and fertilizer. At this point much of the north amercian farmland has been badly raped of its nutrients. As I write this a major part of the North American fertilizer industry is shut down because of a shortage of Methane. They use methane to create anhydrous ammonia.
Check here:
http://www.agrium.com/products_services/ingredien
The thing is the irrigation is not sustainable.
The dwarf grains and genetic manipulation lead to mono culture which is questionable sustainable.
The use of methane to create nitrogen fertilizers is past peak by over 5 years in North America. Its a big problem.
The short of it is that there is no way on earth we can double our grain production. We can however produce Ethanol from other than grain.
Cellulose to ethanol is a possibility with fungii like Trichoderma reeshii. But plants also contain pentosans and lignins. T. reeshii likes cellulose.
Personally I think a fungus with more potential is in the Pleurotis genus.
But that is just my guess.
The short of it is that we have a big problem - do we want to eat (grain) or do we want to drive cars.
I hope the cars lose.
As I pointed out before.... the USA would have to convert more than the whole world's supply of grain into ethanol to keep its fleet of car toys on the road.
You are free to remove it from your article listing, if you like.
Well, as a Minnesotan, I can tell you that he kinda was. We're a fairly liberal state as it is, but Wellstone was pretty left-leaning even for us.
I always thought that rural Minnesota was inhabited by moderate Lutherans who didn't really care about politics. The MN cities have a mixed range of opinion, but the Minnesotans I know who REALLY care about politics are all either anarchists or revolutionary communists. Superior, St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Winona all appear to have their fair share of radicals. I really haven't met many liberals outside of black neighborhoods (leftists and liberals have less in common than liberals and conservative). Most of the white middle class is moderate and/or apathetic. Most people who are wealthy or religious nuts are right wing reactionaries. You find a few real conservatives (who tend to lean Libertarian). I think Liberalism is slowly becoming irrelevant.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman's ("D"-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont
I stopped reading here, because it's obvious you have no concept of what the "American people" think, if you characterize Lieberman as a "neoconservative." Pro-war, perhaps, but that has more to do with his unwavering (and unapologetic) stance on Israel, which drives most of his Mid-East policy, than any real kinship with the Republican party or any real conservatives (which, to be clear, are not necessarily the same thing).
Lamont was a southern-Connecticut (NYC Suburb) carpetbagger without any real vision, who ran a negative campaign that didn't pan out in the general election (as such campaigns are wont to do). And it probably helped that Lieberman's campaign was a train wreck.
I'm not sure if this is a troll or what, but if you really think that someone like Lamont -- who couldn't get elected in one of the Bluest states in the country -- typifies what Americans want, you've been spending too much time smoking dope in Boston or L.A.; people want out of Iraq, sure, and are pretty pissed about what they perceive to be American jobs lost to outsourcing and imports, but to equate that with some wellspring of progressivism/socialism is a mistake.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Obama wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. So do the rest of us. i.e., so do I, and I'm a member of the NRA.
There is nothing wrong (i.e., against the 2nd Amendment) with enforcing gun control laws. It's gun control, not gun banning. I am not a felon (and neither are you, I assume?) so I have nothing to fear from them.
As for redistributive economics, that's another way of saying "letting government do things that it's good at."
+++ATH0
I know the reason Mr. Obama is saying all of these things: He wants to be president. That is all. And I don't say this because he is a democrat. I don't say this because he is black. I say this because he is a politician.
I heartily concur!
Can we get back to discussing Microsoft Vista, SCO, Linux on the desktop, BSD's death, and Steve Ballmer's adult diaper?
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Oh, whoop-de-do! So that disqualifies him?
One one hand that's a valid point, but on the other hand it probably also helped him get enough perspective to see the problem in the first place (as he wasn't mired in it himself).
My (multi-racial) girlfriend's brother exhibits exactly the kind of attitude problem we're talking about, and I can damn well tell you the cause is the "culture," not poverty or discrimination.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
This is just totally out of the mainstream.
70% of Americans want our involvement in Iraq to start decreasing. Did you miss that?
Everyone agrees that health care is poor-to-mediocre and getting worse. Something has to be done. Everyone agrees on energy independence.
Repeating lies over and over again doesn't make them true.
+++ATH0
What you want is like taking the Hustler from the hands of a masturbating teen.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Nothing about Obama's platform is "evil." Moreover, he has repeatedly shown an ability to work with Republicans and create great, lasting compromises.
As for "what has he done lately?", you can use Wikipedia as well as I can.
+++ATH0
You could simply have gone to your Slashdot preferences page and disabled any Slashdot section you are not interested in. You registered years ago, isn't it time you learned how to use Slashdot?
I'm not sure if this is a troll or what, but if you really think that someone like Lamont -- who couldn't get elected in one of the Bluest states in the country -- typifies what Americans want, you've been spending too much time smoking dope in Boston or L.A.; people want out of Iraq, sure, and are pretty pissed about what they perceive to be American jobs lost to outsourcing and imports, but to equate that with some wellspring of progressivism/socialism is a mistake.
I live in a precinct and county that consistently vote Republican. My congressional district is "represented" by Dennis Hastart, who was until recently the most powerful Republican in the House. My town is basically trying to kick non-whites out through a series of nationally reported racist ordinances. I do not live in Boston or LA, but smack in the middle of the Midwest. I won't comment on my personal habits, but I've only been around people who were using pot once in the past year or so. The American people don't support the left on the wedge issues of immigration, gay marriage, evolution, etc. However, when it comes to economics, they are vastly more left wing than the Democratic party. Most Americans want more regulation of corporations, higher taxes on the rich, lower taxes on the working, and single payer nationalized healthcare. Socialism really is in the best interests of working America and that's why the first openly socialist member of the senate was just elected.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Oh.. bummer!
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
You could not be more right.
Algal biodiesel is *the* way forward to an oil-free, carbon-neutral energy cycle. Now if we can just get the industry to support it.
I'm in favor of incentives to car companies, as opposed to legislating "you MUST produce x number of BD-powered cars."
+++ATH0
The inefficiency is only true for gas engines converted to run on booze. When you design an engine that cannot run on gasoline but runs well on alcohol, you design it to use much, MUCH higher compression ratios that would be impossible to use in a gas engine, and efficiency actually surpasses that of gasoline.
+++ATH0
And how much does that make up for the inherent inefficiency (MPG) of ethanol (up to 33%) compared to regular gasoline? Or does the feel good quotient make up for that?
Imported energy sources have hidden costs.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
is almost certainly PART of the problem. It is not the whole problem; poverty and discrimination certainly DO play a part in the disenfranchisement of blacks. But when a black kid who likes to read and works hard in school is considered by his peers to be "acting white," that is an enormous problem.
+++ATH0
He may have good chances. It appears (32% approval, etc.) the electorate is tired of a president that is not articulate nor prone to careful thought and analysis.
They just might go for the opposite.
The energy for ruminants like cows ( 4 stomaches) comes from micro-organisms that digest the complex sugar polymers in herbacious plant material.
Humans cannot digest this stuff. Cows can.
Fungii can digest pretty much everything. I'm talking about the whole kingdom here... the 5th kingdom and I personally think they got it wrong because its the 1st kingdom. IE. Fungii (the 5th kingdom) had to be on earth as life evolved. Without fungii, the earth would be full of garbage.
Your question: Can we make ethanol from other than grain? Ans: yes. We can do it from cellulose using fungii like T. reeshii. But T. Reeshii is a cellulose digester and makes our Stone washed blue jeans. There is some piddling going on in the genome. IE genetic modification.
My short answer? I do not see a solution other than undertaking a massive constuction project for nuclear power plants and in the alternative, the vast majority park their cars and take public transportation (ie - the bus).
This country is not yet ready for a black prez, particularly the one whose father is from a predominantly Muslim country and who has the last name that rhymes with Osama. If he goes on ballot, Republicans will win again by unleashing a horrific misinformation campaign right before the election. Sadly, in order to win presidency in this country one needs to be a white, Christian-god-fearing male. I'd love to be wrong about this, though.
For the record, I'm a left-wing Democrat.
And you, my friend, are a lunatic! Either that or you are intentionally taking Obama's statements out of context.
He does support the troops, not the least in the way that he supports veterans' benefits. He WILL bring them home, he is for phased withdrawal. If Iran started waving nuclear weapons around and was immune to diplomacy, and started threatening neighboring countries, you think it would be a BAD idea to hit them with surgical missile strikes? He's not saying it's GOING to come to that, he's saying there is a small chance that it might.
He did not "embrace Israel's brutal bombings of Lebanon." Where are you getting this batshit insane stuff from?
+++ATH0
A tiny issue to be sure, but I'm appreciative of the website linked for providing a video link that's easy to use, even in Linux.
Addressing the larger scheme of things, I'd just like to say it's sad how politics seems to eventually run into centrism, especially for the presidential elections, due to the "winner takes all" approach. I was really rooting for Dean during the last primaries, but it seems like the Dems preferred a more bland candidate. Oh well. Here's to hoping that people have wised up since '04.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
Biodiesel. With the exception that current commuter cars don't run on it, but that's not terribly hard to fix.
+++ATH0
Being human doesn't mean you "speak just like anyone else."
Overwhelmingly, black culture in America entails a certain, less-educated-sounding way of speaking. This doesn't have to be true, but it is. From what I understand from friends overseas, the same does not apply in places like the United Kingdom.
+++ATH0
I agree with you 100%.
You made the same conclusion I did and I'm probably older than you.
As I see it the short of it is there is little reason for an uraban population to use cars.
Without cars, the USA might start to look more like India.
Instead of 6 lanes of cars in lock-grid traffic - perhaps 6 lanes of rickshaws? or bicycles? Maybe we could have 60 lanes of bicylces... and healthier people?
long before the ideas I just posted come to pass... we'll be building nuclear power plants. We have enough uranium already mined to power the nuclear industry for between 6,000 and 60,000 years.
So which future? I don't know. You tell me.
Hussein Obama has said publicly that he believes in the Wahhabbi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims.
No. He hasn't. What the hell are you talking about? Do you follow the Karl Rove doctrine that if you repeat a lie often enough, people think it's the truth?
+++ATH0
You left out yet another reason industrial hemp is DOA: the textile industry, which knows that hemp is a miracle plant and doesn't want to have to spend millions upon billions of dollars re-engineering their businesses to grow it instead of cotton.
;)
Shame on you.
+++ATH0
I agree with you. And yes, I remember the Brady Bill.
However, I think Obama's priorities are far, far away from making the possession of firearms unilaterally a crime. This would also be an excellent example of something he'd be willing to compromise on. How about enforcing laws on the books to make sure that only licensed gun owners can purchase guns rather than passing new and pointlessly restrictive laws?
+++ATH0
"you insensitve clod", etc etc
The problem is not the dependence of the USA to oil, but the fact the USA is destroying the environment and the whole world with it. 30% of the CO2 comes from the USA, that's just not right. In stead of building more defense, the USA should invest in uclear fusion, windmills, solar power, whatever. The USA could create a nuclear bomb in a few years, until this day the one thing that has the most destructive power, it's about time they're doing something nice with that same atoms: nuclear fusion. If the stake is high, and it is high, this should be done in a few years, just as 65 years ago.
My photo's.
I think the fact that you think "compromise" is a dirty word says it all.
+++ATH0
As long as Barack Obama's healthcare plan isn't as bad as Hillary's "I'll throw you in jail if you hire your own doctor" plan.. wait a minute why would Americans want socialized healthcare? The only thing politicians are doing now are posturing, throwing their ideals away to gain power, and whoever can bullshit the best will probably get voted in. I can only hope that Clinton gets thrown out in the primaries, she is a scary woman. I can only imagine the effect she'll have on our economy when she starts redistributing income. (Gingrich ftw, bring back the sensible Republicans) Also, the last thing we need is another extremist president, but that'll never happen.
It's great to see Liberty lovers fighting the good fight against this human mascot. What a piece of socialist scum.
"My first order of business will be do take money from all people to provide for free health care - even people who don't WANT to use their money to support free health care, and who could donate to free health care charities if they did. Then I'm going to get your guns."
Monkey, I'd like you to meet "the Midwest" and "the South". Midwest and South, Monkey.
Whooo all this canidate is about: touchy-feely hippie leftist double-talk about reducing dependance on foreign oil. None of the alternative energy sources truely warrant federal subsidy or real consideration, either hydrogen fuel cells or ethanol. I like net neutrality. I hate gun control. I really don't care for most of his far right posturing and far left voting history. The good seems to cancel out the bad with this canidate. I for one, am voting Clinton or Nader.
But as you note, this can be engineered around. We sort of do the same thing these days with summer gas and winter gas (though the chemical components are completely different and done for different reasons, the principle of different blends is the same).
+++ATH0
actually, often it is culture. Cultures that favor education tend to do better everywhere and in all social groups. Ones that do not tend ot fail.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Hey, instead of arguing about methanol and oil, how about just consuming less? Use energy efficient products, and shop wisely. All of you. Do you really need all your cars?
But look closely. Where does it say exactly what he's going to do? He hasn't signed on to any of the resolutions disapproving of Bush sending more troops. He does have a bill (S. 433) with regards to Iraq, but Thomas doesn't have it up yet, so we'll have to see how he wishes to "end the war". Anyone can say they are for "Improving Our Schools" and for "Creating a Healthcare System that Works". What is his specific plan to do so?
His bills on Thomas are generally good, but as of yet, I've not seen him do much more than use "everyman" politics in order to get people to like him. When you think about it, elections are about getting the least informed people to like you better than the other guy. Until he starts putting actions behind his words, I could care less about him.
this is the 2nd post in this post already where you just pull bullshit out of your ass expect people to believe it, and been called out on it.
either way, the democrat race is between two grammy award winning artists... bet that's a first
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
nt
Obama, Clinton, McCain, etc, all of them make me want to never vote again.
I've always voted for third parties, since I refuse to buy into the belief that a vote on principles is a wasted vote, but I think we need a new option on ballots:
"Throw the bastards out."
If this wins the majority, the candidates for the parties are legally prohibited from ever running for office again, and we start over with new primaries.
It'd be nice if we could go so far that if this option wins, the candidates and all their cronies get exiled to some godforsaken rock in the Pacific.
Yeah, it'll never happen. Let me dream please.
It's as if you're talking about the US Government after reading the constitution in your History book. In truth, the Imperial President sets the Agenda in American politics. The power of a single congressmen varies from congressmen to congressmen because the power of a congressmen is not his vote. His power is his ability to persuade the votes of others. The president has this same ability, in both the house and the Senate. And he has the trump card of the American people.
In truth, the president of the United States is the single most powerful "legislator" in Washington, and the fact that he cannot introduce or vote on bills is entirely incidental.
Not that I disagree with your idea, though. I live about 1 mile away from my work place, and once it gets warm enough I'll start walking to work.
(p -> q) -> (q -> p) is a fallacy
those farmers deserve the same quality of internet porn as what slashdotters enjoy every night.
Dey took urrrrr Jaaaaaaahhhhhhbs!
Listen p*ssy. I'm sure your the same homo that posted earlier about alf's boner and you just want to remain anonymous fo
After everything we've been through as a country I really feel that a great potential candidate is going to be torn down by the politics in Washington. The race for the presidency hasn't even begun, but the political assassinations seem to be underway....
okinawa japan
I was at a presentation where a member of our agricultural research group presented the result of a feasibility study for bioenergy in Scandinavia and the Baltic countries. Basically, the conclusion was that if we converted the entire food production, and the entire production from forestry into equivalents of oil, it would cover 40% of our current oil consumption.
The situation is probably better in the US, but I think it is a healthy exercise to see what the potential is before investing too much in that energy source.
Something also worth considering is that, baring any huge catastrophes, simple demographics tell us that the Earth population will reach 12 billion people in our lifetime, even if the average number of children per women fall to the low number of Japan and Europe and life expectancy stay put. The more realistic scenarios top around 20 billion people.
It finding other purposes for our agriculture than food really what we want to do, even considering that there currently is a world surplus of 2% in the food production?
News for nerds, stuff that matters.
Where?
Is there someone to offer a sensible opinion as to whether or not there is any chance of a black US president in 2008?
ouch, that's gotta hurt
Jimmy Carter was a huge corn-fuel advocate and all he did was bring us the worst energy crisis in U.S. History. I live in England, so don't get me started on the "benefits" of nationalized health care.
That one was gone by the time Barack was 2 years old. Chances are, the guy doesn't remember him at all. His stepfather, though, was from Indonesia. 88% of Indonesia population is Muslim.
Red state citizen? realise this could force millions more poor Mexicans to head north
Re Broadband, It's important, but the carving-up of of our common public culture into so-called intellectual property which must be paid for again and again is much more significant for poor towns, as we've seen in history.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
This guy sounds like he makes a lot of sense, however firstly I'm wondering if it's just because he's next to Bush and that is skewing my perception, but secondly if he's for real, I wonder how long it will be before someone tries to assassinate him. Seems to be how America treats people who talk sense.
Easy with the "everyone" comments. I live in England, and lived in Germany. I've seen Canadian health care first hand. The US health care system is better than all three of these systems combined.
"many American black people don't consider Obama black as it turns out."
Nonsense. Obama is the "great black hope". Black people are going out of their way to attack anyone who suggest Obama isn't the best choice. I have no idea if he is, but his platform seems one of seeing what he can spend money on, rather than fundamental restructuring or change. Thus, he will turn off a large part of the voters not because he's black, but because his rhetoric is the typical politican's response of "Oh yes, I'll spend money on you too!"
Hahaha.. you gotta be fucking shitting me.... /. post ever. C'mon.
This has to be the most retarded
If we want a fair and honest government then we must educate*1*2 our fellow citizens as to the actual tradeoffs involved. The more power you give a government and the more security you demand from them the less fair and honest it will be inherently. We need some Common Sense again.
*1 Thomas Jefferson *2 Thomas Jefferson
Everyone knows that the color of a person reflects on their intelligence. Blond hair? Room temperature IQ. It is a fact.
Well, we act like it anyway. We know it is a joke and yet, can you truly honestly say that if you are introduced to a brunette and a blond you do not instantly make an judgement on their IQ?
The problem is not as simple as racism. Well, unless you are an tv-show host. I think it is closer to a negative spiral.
Blondes are stupid, so teachers spend less time on them, so they receive less education, so they truly are more stupid. Blondes then learn that being stupid can work so pretend to be even more stupid to "fit in" wich reinforces the idea that blondes are stupid.
There are others as well. People with glasses can't be athletic. Redheads are feisty. Very simple outward apperances (remember, glasses are nowadays optional so that super athlete may have contacts or laser surgery) that nonetheless most of us use instinctevely.
Oh you can claim you are above them but you are not.
I know you are not. You refer to American black people. Think you are PC? Well actually it is a horrible genetic slur against millions of americans. The "half-breeds". Simple fact is that millions of so-called blacks are in fact the result of interbreeding between different genetic races. If one parent is black and the other white why is their offspring called black? Is one gene superior to the other or something? In theory, since a popular racist theory is that "blacks" are strong and "whites" are smart, then at least some "greys" should be the combination of the best qualities of both and be superior to either. That is afterall how farmers create new animals/crops, mixing the best of two breeds to create a new superior animal/crop.
And why would a grey need black rolemodels at all? Why wouldn't a white rolemodel be just as good?
For that matter what is wrong with a yellow rolemodel, or a red one or a light brown one? Can I only have a rolemodel with extreme freckles?
By the very fact that you claim blacks need black rolemodels you are a racist yourselve. You are saying a rolemodel should be chosen based on their race and that is the essence of racism, to judge a person by their race in ANYWAY.
Can you only admire a person of your own race, surely not, do you then suggest that blacks are not capable of admiring a person of another race?
Lovely thing racism, isn't it?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
He is both black and white. Why would the race of anyone mean anything about his capabilities as a leader? All we care about is that we have someone who is smart enough to lead the country. We've been stuck with a moron for the past 6 years. It would be very refreshing to have someone who is intelligent for a change.
What if I don't want to pay for Obama's ideas? Will he respect my freedom?
...you will get exactly what you deserve.
You people who believe in the political system, and believe in leaders...
This guy is a tyrant.
Nobody, whether it be Democrat or Republican, gets into office unless they are fundamentally a sock puppet that can be controlled by the genuine powers that be. Democratic supporters in particular have a tendency to be horrifically childlike and naive in their desperate need to believe that the American political system is still genuinely functional. It isn't.
The proverbial man behind the curtain is who is genuinely in power, and he never gets voted out. With the Presidency, the only person you're really voting for is the guy who has to take the blame on the frequent occasions when the man behind the curtain screws up.
Who's this 'we' shit, and who pays for it? Sounds like Universal Service Fee part II. I'm not interested in spending $25,000 per person to connect a bunch of people who choose to live in the Bayou. Broadband access is not critical to life, and I'm not interested in subsidizing it.
Obama has a lot of great ideas with no funding.
You mean "extremely right-wing in almost every developed country but the US".
My new blog
An Obama/Biden ticket would be a loser ticket. It would be stupid of the part of Obama to take Biden as his running mate. Biden like a majority of republican is a property of the banking industry. He has lost touch with the American workers and side for the banking industry during the passage of the new bankrupty law. A large majority of those who file for bankrupty have either been in debt because of mariage breakup, lost of their job or sickness. It has become easier for companies to screw their employees in a bankrupty and harder for the average American to recover from bad luck. The bankrupty bill has been written by the bank industry with Biden and Hilary Clinton has strong backer.
I would never vote for Biden or Hilary Clinton unless I have to choose between them and a republican neocon where I would have to choose the lesser of two evils.
The ideal tickets would be Edwards/Obama , Obama/Edwards, Richardson/Obama, Obama/Richardson, Richardson/Edwards or EdWards/Richardson
Acceptable tickets would be Obama/Clinton, Edwards/Clinton, Obama/Biden, Richardson/Clinton, Richardson/Biden if enough democratic senators are elected so the vote of the vice president would become irrelevant.
Exactly. That's the main reason I think Kerry failed. He ran on the 'I'm not Bush' platform, but never actually explained what he wanted to do. When pushed for any real answer he fell back to 'I'm not Bush'.
I hear all these politicians saying they are against the war b/c it's the popular thing to do now, so please tell me how you plan to end it. Health care costs are out of control, tell me how you plan to fix it. Education is bad and going downhill, tell me how you plan to fix it. The first part of any of these answers also better not be give X dollars...
you forgot to mention that he coincided with internet's discovery and appointed a liberal on its regulatory board, and allowed it to progress freely and expansively making it what we know today. if reps were there back then, internet would be a corporate tool. now, here we are, together, free ...
if this is not a 'difference' by your standards, i wonder what is.
Read radical news here
You are demonstrably and provably wrong about the guy at the college. Or maybe you just can't diiferentiate between a 9mm carbine and a long gun.
This guy is way out there
The two candidates you mentioned are presently experiencing technical difficulties that make it difficult to run story about their position on issues such as stem cell research, network neutrality, etc. With a very few exceptions (McCain support escalating the war in Iraq even more than Bush, Clinton is opposed to flag burning) neither of them seem able to come up with a single clear and consistent position on an issue.
In general Clinton can't seem to take a stand on either side of an issue, and McCain can't seem to refrain from taking a stand on both.
Maybe the best solution would be to run a story on their positions ("Clinton and McCain collectively support and oppose stem cell research, a guest worker program, the great wall of Arizona, soft money, torture, and a prohibition on the gratuitous use of the word 'Belgium' in video games") and them let them wait until their focus groups have decided what they should think before getting into which of them took which position.
--MarkusQ
It's an HTTP URL for an .asx file which in turn point to a .wmv file served over the mms:// protocol. Not exactly what I call an open standard.
Sure, providing a link it's better than the usual windows-only non-standard <object> tag, and I don't expect to find anytime soon an honest ogg (theora+vorbis) file served over an open protocol, but at least the Clinton announcement site offered a .mov file (with H.264 video) over HTTP.
Disclaimer: this is only a technical remark, no political criticism implied here.
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
Speaking as a European, I really hope this guy gets in, he would do wonders for the global image of the United States. I'm not sure even the quite-worldly Slashdot crowd realise what damage Bush has wrought upon America's relationship with the rest of the planet. As previous posters have commented though, I'm not sure middle America is ready for him. Like many Europeans, I have enormous respect for the America ideal and I know that your government doesn't really represent you. But on the other hand, literally, it does. Good luck guys! Don't let the oil companies rig it. Unintentional pun, honest
As many as 17,000 people (according to police estimates) watched Senator Barack Obama officially announce his candidacy for President in Springfield, Illinois today.
Obama was quoted as saying:
"NOBODY ROCKS LIKE... [quick glance at post-it note on back of guitar]... SPRINGFIELD!"
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Blacks are discriminated against by certain people. No doubt.
But so are Koreans, Japanese (internment camps? Hello???), Chinese... all face major discrimination. Greater than, or equal to the discrimination faced by blacks. And yet despite that, they thrive.
Economics plays a part in it, but it's mainly the idea that popular black culture favors the rap lifestyle. Now the truth is that middle class blacks as a whole are extremely conservative, but the message blaring out to black youth is hip-hop/gangsta. It's as if you start making the life of hookers and pimps the predominant "cool" culture for white people and then act surprised when the boys beat women and the girls and a bunch of whores.
It *is* the culture. It's not the white devil holding black people down. Its internal attitudes. Yeah, people don't like you, but get over it. That's why Asian people succeed. They don't give a crap if you don't like them.
We have 20 months to go, during which time I have every confidence that golden-child Obama will end up like previous golden-child Howard Dean.
Something about this guy just doesn't seem trustworthy. Maybe it's that he's the typical sweep-it-under-the-rug politician.
Jizzle for everyone!
Thankyou for that insight, I truely had never thought of that before.
At the last elections morons voted for a moron. They obviously were not attracted by a smart man so they voted for Bush.
In Springfield, shouldn't that person be Mayor Quimby?
The problem is that the the best technology doesn't get adopted in society. We had battery powered cars in the 30's. The technology we should apodt should be the most efficent one. Getting off oil shouldn't mean we adopt an inferior technology such as ethonal, when pond scum biodiesel is good for the enviroment. I wonder how much alternative energy IP has been bought up by the oil interest, which never makes it too market;-( ?? I mean there was the 100mpg carbuerator back before they toughted fuel injection as the next greatest thing. What role can government play instituting new technological standards? Ecspecially, when the executive branch filters out what our lawmakers see such as scientist reports concerning global warming; stuck on oil status quo?
Nader is seen as the most viable third party candidate in recent years and he often writes for Zmag.
The best Nader ever did was 2.74% of the popular vote. Ross Perot got 18.9%. And that's why I get all my political news here.
I have been in Chicago multiple times and have never seen border guards checking cars for illegal imports.
Hurray for corporate welfare and self-destructive policy.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Though this is only partially related to the whole ethanol discussion going on here, I thought everyone would find it interesting:
http://pesn.com/2005/08/02/9600142_IAUS_Solar/
(Be sure to check the part about methanol production)
>>I want a black, gay, muslim woman for president!
I'm a white straight Christian man, you insensitive clod!
I haven't been this excited since Al Gore was running as Vice pres after writing "The Earth in Balance". How'd that work out in the end? He did vote for the Kyoto protocol didn't he? Clean air act? I'm sorry, what?!??
Look, I want to be as excited as anybody that there is one political candidate talking actual sense (broadband, in particular, I really don't see the point of ethanol, methanol, or any other of the "methadone" alternatives to our oil addiction. We have solar and laptop batteries right? Remember the EV-1!?!?), but what are the chances that anyone in either major political party is actually going to do ANYTHING not totally in line with the corporate greed and corruption that rules our nation today?
Call me when we actually have elections again, or call me when you're handing out guns.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Does this mean that if elected President, he will provide hundreds of billions of dollars worth subsidies to telephone companies to roll out fiber to every address in America, with the end result being the telephone companies' accepting the subsidies but not delivering to suburban or rural areas because "it's not cost effective" to do so?
Wait, hasn't this happened before? Or is it just deja vu?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Just so long as he does not compare his compaign with Lincoln. That would really anger many of those of us in the South whose families suffered horribly because of his policies of war and destruction. Families, black and white suffered for 100 years or more because of the war and its aftermath, all fueled by Mr. Lincoln. Some in Ala, Miss, etc. STILL suffer.
He is a nigger and not just that but a muslim nigger. You think its bad under a chirstian dumb ass gets in there just wait this fuck rolls into office. Point is simple, niggers can't be in charge of anything. Look at places where niggers have taken over. Just about any American city that has a nigger staff running the place. Detroit, Birmingham, just to name a few. Hell, look at africa. Name one workiing politial system in that hell hole run by niggers? Then there is haiti. Nigger run, and looks like it. The UN, 10 years of nigger rule look at it now.
Then he is a muslim. Muslims are trying to take over the world and people are prepaired to hand this sand nigger keys to the most powerful military in the world. Yes, muslims are trying to take over, they want to impose islamic law on everyone. If you think they are not then you are a fool. islam is not a religion of peace, it is a religion of oppression.
Doesn't matter who is running against him, as long as they are not muslim or a nigger that is who to vote for.
Interviewer: So, Mr. Obama, What experience do you have that would qualify you to be CEO of a Fortune 100 company. ...
Obama: Well, I'm currently a project manager in charge of a team of six people. Oh, and I spent several years as a team lead
Of course, George W didn't have a lot of prior experience when he became President (though more than Obama). And we all know how THAT worked out.
[Insert pithy quote here]
thats about all I can respond with.
yeah right.
.
near. No dag nabbit, I said the senator is a N...BONG! Seriously, I guess no one asked how he was going to PAY for all this "good will"...perhaps tax increases on "the rich", yeah, that always works....NOT. Go to the treasury and see what happens when liberals "punish" the rich. More of the money they would have INVESTED, gets shipped off shore to some non taxable account. People still don't get it. Tax cuts have ALWAYS increased the money going INTO the treasury.
Stem cell - Spend
Broadband - Spend
As a caution to Mr Obama, unaffiliated centrists like me are often turned off of the democratic platform because we hear "increase funding for..." If you want to increase funding for these worthy(?) pursuits that's great. Where does the money come from?
Then again, the "fiscal conservatives" have been blowing money on a scale that was unimaginable a few years ago.
Ugh, the evil of two lessers...
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Don't forget ... the best candidate and president in the world is DO NOTHING if the Conress is DO NOTHING.
If you want your vote to mean something, don't forget the other candidates in other races.
The only reason for them not providing real bandwidth everywhere in the country is because they
will see less profit from it than with the urban areas. It's not that they won't make money
rolling out broadband in rural areas- far from it. It's that they can clear 3-5 times as much
or more from someone in a major city than in a farm town or on the farm.
They don't need subsidies. They never really did. What they need to get told to do is if it's
not a dead loss, of which they need to honestly prove without magic bookkeeping, they have to provide
service in the less lucrative areas- period.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
He is articulate.
I really do. I just had an odd sub-thought to toss out there. The NFL (which is far less important than the presidency... ... ...right???)
;)
has a policy that states when a team is hiring a new head coach, they *MUST* interview at least one minority candidate. The reason for this policy is that they want the percentage of coaches of "color" to fit more in line with the percentage of players. I guess that makes sense. I get frustrated by coaches being interviewed just to "fill the requirement" even though they've made up their minds, and several current head coaches have spoken up in the past about the policy, but I digress...
It would seem natural that the percentage of people "in power" line up with similar percentage of the population when it comes to racial lines. The problem is that most people don't vote. Period. I'm as guilty as everyone else too - last election was the first time I got out and voted. That holds true - then it's the white straight christian men that all go out and vote, and your inner city black gay muslim women aren't getting out and voting enough.
(Not racist....honest!)
I've actually pondered how it is that highly urban areas don't wind up with "Gangsta Jones" for mayor. The math would certainly be there...
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Corn producers (often huge agribusinesses) are massively subsidized by the federal government, more than big oil. Cheap Brazilian ethanol is denied import. Ethanol is a shitty fuel. It is water soluble. It has lower power density than gasoline. Ethanol will have its place, but it is hardly the panacea you describe.
Obama's pandering to ethanol is hardly unique amongst presidential candidates these days.
an ill wind that blows no good
GP says Obama is for gun control and redistributive economics and gets modded troll.
Parent disparages single issue voters (despite GP mentioning TWO issues), and gets modded +5 insightful.
No bias here, move along...
And ethanol from corn is plain stupid, since it is already causing riots in Mexico since the price of tortillas has tripled. From cellulose maybe, but we're not there yet, unless he is going to fund the science for it instead of being anti-science like Bush.
Mind you if I was american I couldn't bring myself to vote for Hillary either, since she thinks that video games are the root of all evil (and I write (Disneyesque) games myself).
Heh. You mean you RTFS (read the effing site). GASP! How not-slashdot!
I noticed the same thing you did. His platform is vacuuous. All platitudes and generalities.
C//
Your pixelated donkey icon needs to be redone.
Here's a new one I made for you (thanks to Wikipedia for having an svg version).
http://i5.tinypic.com/4hvcknq.gif
The key problem with Obama is that his platform, or lack thereof, consists of nebulous hopes wrapped up in positive wordplay. He isn't actually proposing a plan to enhance broadband accessibility or promising to do anything to help it. He's just hoping someone will do it and saying he thinks it would be a good thing if someone does. You can see a dramatic illustration of this in the difficulty the poster in the summary (pretty obviously a shill) is having concretely describing this in a way that would appeal to the Slashdot crowd:
* "Boost broadband? - This is a meaningless statement. How do you "boost broadband?" Did broadband access increase overnight? Did he actually propose a way to increase broadband access?
* " Like nearly everything in his speech, this was met with robust applause from the crowd" - Exactly, because they aren't listening to the what he is saying, they are just listening to the words and audience cues built into his speech through pauses and wordplay. I suspect that actual neurological activity in the average crowd member would be around that of watching television - they are just being entertained. Also, the shill is trying to use social proofing to make you think, hey, everyone else was cheering this, I should to. Unfortunately, it invalidates the salience of the boost broadband comment used as the lead to capture the interest of Slashdot readers because, if they were cheering for everything, then their cheering for broadband is meaningless.
But that is entirely moot because we don't want to live fully documented and fully accountable lives so that Big Brother can keep everyone in line.
The gun registry is by far the worst offender on that front. Some day the government will decide the people don't need a say in who is elected, that they can't be trusted to look after themselves, that the government must assume total power 'for the greatest good.' And the first order of business will be to pull out that handy list of honest citizens with firearms and confiscate them.
Maybe we should just make the registry a system that needs to pay for itself, and we can increase the registration fee by $500 per gun owner. Then there will be no operating cost to the average non-gun-owning taxpayer. If I may ask, exactly how many of the ne'er do well criminal types are you expecting to not only register their murder weapons, but all pay $500 to the government on top of that?When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
frickin' discordians... totally got me on that one
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I don't usually make posts like this, but he does have sources. Argue with those, AC.
And no, this post is not offtopic, you insensitive clod(s)!
So a guy mentions one sentence about broadband and it's front page Slashdot? And what he said makes about as much sense as the Chewbacca defense: I mean, I can see rural areas not having broadband, but "lay down broadband lines through the heard of inner cities?" It's 2007 Obama, this isn't a problem... If it's an American city, they have broadband already... Why is this here?
!newsfornerds, politics, wtf
Whether American black people consider him one of them or not, his election would still be enormously positive for them--because American whites do consider him black. Therefore, if they vote for him anyway, an election of Barack Obama in 2008 would prove that blacks can win elections--however they choose to define that category.
I can see their point, however. American Black is a distinct and strong culture, and he's not from there. (He's not from Africa either, in any real sense. Born in Hawaii, educated in Jakarta and Hawaii. His dad being Kenyan does not make him "from Africa".) And most of all, he's been in a well-to-do family his whole life. Like it or not, the American Black culture is strongly linked to the poverty faced by a disproportionate number of blacks in this country, and he ain't poor.
However, his wife is from south-side, working-class Chicago so he has a strong touchstone to that culture (again, however you choose to define it). His kids and his wife have faced and will face racism in our culture, and so has he. The very debate about whether Barack Obama is black enough represents a fight he's facing against racism. The debate about whether a black man can become president represents a fight he's facing against racism!
I hope he wins. My wife and I have already volunteered for his campaign.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
No, Chicago sent Obama to the Senate. Check your numbers in the rest of Illinois.
He's a Democrat. Same thing happens for all the white democrats Illinois sends to the Senate.
paintball
I agree wholeheartedly that, thus far, where he stands and his plan on issues is extremely light on details. It is kind of reminiscent of Walter Mondale (Where's the beef?). That being said, we should remember that it is February 2007. After all, the primaries aren't for another year and the general election isn't for another year and nine months.
Right now, I only know some details about where one person wants to go with regard to issues (Ron Paul) and, unfortunately, there is no way he is going to win the Republican nomination.
I'll have to wait and see about Obama.
Obama supporters are idiots.
Wait, WHAT?
Ethanol is good for the fact that it can be produced locally, but that is all that can be said for it. Have you made any effort to look into the land needed to produce a large amount of ethanol? Many in the midwest are for it because it will bring in a huge amount of money to local farmers. If you bother to look at the actual facts, you would know that it is in NO WAY a solution.
I sometimes wonder if a bunch of CNN reporters were sitting around having coffee one day, joking about how powerful they are. Then one guy was like, "I bet we could take a junior senator and turn him into a presidential candidate". Wager donuts for breakfast. OK! You're on. Loser has to sit next to cologne-soaked Carl on the next flight out to a location shot.
Oh, and it's fine to take surplus grain that's no longer fit for human consumption and use it as a reserve fuel; but it will never get us off oil. Reduce sprawl and improve battery life for electrics. Switching fuels is easier at the power plant than it is at the pump. With electicity as the fuel-neutral choice, we can shift from oil/coal/nuclear/natgas/bio/wind at will, based on the relative cost and availablity of any particular fuel. Oil spiking while natgas priced reasonably? Shut down generator 2 that burns oil, and fire up generator 4 that runs natgas. With electricity as the mediator, cars will always be fueled by the most affordable technology, and if any new tech comes online it will be incorporated with no fuss at the consumer level.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Global warming is a concern, but so is the economics of the US. Right now corn farmers in my state get tons of money, more than the tax cuts of 2-5 cents/gallon are worth on all the ethanol sold in my state. We import a lot of oil, and we run at a very high trade deficit. If we can make a product that is nearly the same ourselves, why wouldn't we?
Also for the record, if I change my driving habits (i.e. not floor it every time I accellerate... coast more and use the breaks less), I make a significant change in the amount of fuel I use compared to what I might lose burning ethanol.
I don't know how you quantified "better", but all studies with actual data and metrics suggest exactly the opposite: in the US we pay the most and receive the least.
a tch.html
One quote I found with a 30s Google search:
"By all the usual measures of health-life expectancy, infant mortality, childhood immunization rate- we do worse than most Western countries. The only plausible explanation is how health care is financed and delivered. The American health care system is staggeringly wasteful and inflationary. The United States is unique in treating health care as a market commodity distributed according to the ability to pay instead of as a social good distributed according to medical need."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/Health_w
That site includes links to other articles, etc.
No President since Regan in 84 has had more than a modicum of a mandate from the people
Unless, of course, they are given one by the media.
Do you not recall how with the victory he barely eked out over John Kerry (questionable all by itself), news outlets everywhere were talking about how he had a mandate?
+++ATH0
I've lived in NYC too and I remember the draconian restrictions you're talking about very well. But the president isn't responsible for things like that -- mayors and city councils are.
I would love to watch crime numbers drop even further than they already have in NYC if concealed carry was liberalized a bit -- and by "liberalized" I mean "given to people who submit to background checks, ffs," but I don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon. Too many knee-jerk liberals in city council.
+++ATH0
They said that there was no option for "fully automatic," so they picked the one for semi-automatic. Don't know what his ACTUAL position on it is, but that's what they said.
+++ATH0
Summarizing the article summary:
Obama is running for president and will boost broadband! You are nerds, so here are a bunch of other reasons that I, kdawson, think you should vote for Obama and forget that Hillary is far ahead in the polls and that everybody knows 2008 will be Giuliani versus Hillary. Hey, he talks about something that might be stem cell research! You guys are for that, right? I know it hasn't given us any results like adult and cord cells have, but let's stick it to those mean conservatives by opposing them for the sake of it. Oh, and he mentions ethanol! Isn't that wonderful? Nobody else has ever mentioned ethanol, including Bush! And the mere fact he mentions ethanol means the dream will come true. And laying down broadband lines in every city! Wow, nobody in any city ever has thought of doing that before! Google who? *orgasm*
---
To me, Obama is just another Howard Dean. A guy who gets all hyped up by liberals in the media who love charismatic people with no substance but goes onto fail on the national stage. I mean, Obama fans keep telling me Obama represents a "new direction" and a "change in politics," but none of them will actually describe what that means or what he will actually change. They're caught up in pre-election hype.
Hillary will get the nomination, Giuliani will get his, and I'll be voting for Giuliani because he's economically conservative but socially liberal, more like a libertarian. Plus, Giuliani goes into an interview and flat-out answers any questions you throw at him and clearly defines his position. Hillary retreats from direct interviews and lives in Kerry's ambiguous world, where you can claim you voted to go to war because you knew Saddam was dangerous and your husband's experience with the U.N. told you they wouldn't do anything about it, then the polls shift and suddenly you're against the war and Bush "tricked" you. Puh-leeze.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I sense that you are young, healthy, single and male?
Most people aren't.
This is why you don't produce it with foodstocks, and instead use pools of algae grown in areas that would otherwise be completely barren.
+++ATH0
I like the idea but not if it costs alot.
The internet is flawed. The internet is already running out of capacity.
Fiber optics tech right now is not working for big video downloads with p2p.
...he sounds like just the guy we need over here to repair the damage El President Blair has done to this country.
I never quite understood this. If hemp is so great, how come third world countries haven't started growing it? Why can't they grow hemp and make clothes, fuel and what not? Seems like one could really boost the economy by doing so.
sri
You could care less? So you do care about him? You are fucking retarded. Stop using phrases that you have no idea how to use.
and McCain is a crook. Remember the Keating Five? IMHO, he should have gone to prison for that...but it works out karmically because of his POW time. He talks a good game, but he's a slimy criminal backstabber just like most any other suckup politico. He's been alternately sucking up to/backstabbing Mr. Bush throughout his presidency.
If it ends up being McCain vs Hillary, it'll be too close to call...both have shady histories that will come out. Obama looks to be pretty clean, and relatively sane, and would probably trounce whatever republican he ran against.
It is for this reason alone that the Democratic party is incapable of nominating him.
You're fucking stupid. Black culture keeps blacks down in America. Impoverished members of different ethnic cultural identities value things such as work ethic, personal responsibility, and education. That is why they succeed and blacks do not. Blacks value things like easy money, escaping work, and blaming everyone else for their problems. If they continue to do that, they will never escape their position at the bottom of the minority shit heap.
It wasn't their fault to be put there in the first place; that was a tragedy borne of slavery. It is, however, their fault that they remain there after more than a century.
Anything that isn't Bush MUST be better than what we have!!!
No, the "Midwest" did not send Obama to the U.S. Senate. Illinois sent him there. Illinois is most definitely a "blue state" these days, and that's not horribly surprising considering the huge percentage of its population that lives in a major metro area (Chicago most notably). Illinois does not have state laws, state representatives, or federal representatives who are particularly similar to those of the other midwestern states. Illinois is liberal in its social and fiscal policies, programs, laws, taxes, and costs of living. The Midwest at large is, and the non-Illinois states in particular tend to be conservative in most or all of these areas.
I know it was a glib response to a glib interjection, but it came at the expense of being disingenuous (or flat out wrong). Funny? Yeah. Accurate? Not remotely.
The English had finished off the French runt and turned their attention to the traitorous colonials.
The fact they were not able to reconquer the USA and install their own government means they lost.
Somewhat like what is happening in Iraq right now.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The military did a blind poll of Marines asking if they would fire on civilians that were refusing to turn in their guns.
More said they would join the protest then said they would fire.
Members of the military at least understand that gun ownership is the ultimate 'check and balance' on government power. They also know that someday they will again be civilians themselves.
An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.
Do I have to give you a list of democracies (sans gun rights) turned into repressive dictatorships in the 20th century? (I'm sure I can't come up with a complete list).
Do you honestly believe the civil rights protests were gun free? They were smart enough not to brandish them, but I guarantee you the protesters were in some cases armed. They would have been crazy not to be.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
See the answer below. Our addiction to oil is so huge that even using all the fertile land to produce ethanol will make up to only about 40% of our needs, without having any land left for food crops. THe problem is not the land itself. It's the water supply. After oil we are addicted to water, which has been used most of the time not in th optimal way. Chemical contamination, overuse for electrical production, reduced the amount usable, for agriculture. In addition, let's not forget the desertification of the North American continent, and of Europe. Once the land becomes desert, there is usually no way back. For this reason I strongly opposed ethanol and the huge investments regarding its use instead of crop for food. Let's spend research money to improve solar and nuclear. With a solid alternative source of energy, we could extract potable water from the sea. It's a dream, I know, but poper use of nuclear energy would allow that. So I am in favor of real alternative sources of energy, which do not rely on current primary needs, and ethanol is not one of those.
Iraq should have answered your argument if you had no knowledge of history (which I suppose is a prerequisite for making that argument).
The second amendment remains the 'national failsafe'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The super vs. turbo charger debate isn't primary here. Both can vary boost.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Which smart man? Gore and Kerry both were below average students, perhaps you mean to say less unintelligent? Ralph Nader is probably the most educated (does not always equate to smartest, but in this case, probably yes) of the bunch, and I don't think you meant him.
I'm thinking it's going to be Hillary/Obama versus McCain/Lieberman. That should make for an interesting 2008 election cycle. A couple years ago I'd be leaning toward McCain/Lieberman on that one but I've lost a lot of respect for McCain since he stuck his nose up the ass of the far right conservative groups he used to attack. I think Hillary is a little less two-faced than that and Obama's downright shiny. So I'm going to call the 2008 election now -- Hillary/Obama FTW!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
His name is Barack Hussein Obama. Vote for him and the terrorists win.
I am not a crackpot.
Corn oil, snake oil...it's all the same to me.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
People, before jumping on this one, realize it's just a parody! A pretty funny send-up of a crazed, xenophobic, deeply ignorant, and totally enraged Rush Limbaugh listener, the kind of person who never once crossed the Atlantic etc. etc.
The one slip is that I only noticed a single orthographic error. Typically, exponents of the Rush crowd can't spell English (even as they insist English be the official and only language in the US).
Good stuff.
Obama is an excellent speaker and is very charismatic. On top of that, there is a media love fest that is just oozing over the fellow. This is where the warm and fuzzy feelings for him come from.
While the ability to speak is a big bonus (though apparently not required - see GWB), it doesn't make a good president on its own. Obama has done an excellent job saying nothing other then warm fuzzy shit that people want to hear.
He talks endlessly about compromise and understanding, but he has yet to spit out an actual innovative proposal on an issue that puts his 'philosophy' into practice. As far as I can tell from few things he actually has a REAL position on, they are straight across the board moderate democratic party line proposals.
Obama is a great speaker, but I don't trust someone who speaks of warm and fuzzy things yet refuses to take an actual stand. It is still early though. I don't discount Obama. He still has plenty of time to make some actual proposals with meat on them. I just think that the big media orgy and public love festival surrounding Obama is horrifically premature. See if you still like the guy after he actually takes a stand on an issue.
No commercial production yet, but that will change as the engineering is worked out. Of course, before anyone can do the engineering they need funding.
And yes -- the biggest issue is public image.
+++ATH0
"2. You assume that "the government" is a monolithic hive-mind, rather than being an organization consisting of a few million individuals, many of whom would turn against the government if they thought it had become irretrievably corrupt."
*shrug*
Slashdot entertains the same fallacy, everytime businesses* are mentioned, be it MS or some other company. Why do you think there's going to be an exception now?
*media, organizations.
"free America from the tyranny of oil" - when he supports a military attack on Iran? And don't tell me he doesn't, either. He babbles on about Iran's "nuclear threat" - just like Hillary does - when there is absolutely NO evidence that Iran has or will have ANY nuclear weapons program whatsoever. Even assuming (and it might well be a correct assumption) that various factions in Iran WANT nuclear weapons, they HAVE NO PROGRAM. Not a scrap of evidence other than some documents which Iran has not accounted for from the A Q Khan network years ago has been uncovered that there is ANY such thing as an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
It has been ESTABLISHED that the Iranian NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH program is years, if not DECADES, away from being able to enrich sufficient quantities of uranium to the 90-95% level required for ONE nuclear weapon. Said weapon will have NO delivery system whatsoever outside of truck, container ship or camel, let alone be a threat to the estimated 100-400 nuclear weapons (including those on second-strike capable cruise missiles on submarines) that Israel possesses, let alone Europe, Russia or (gimme a break!) the United States.
Five minutes after the first US bomb drops on Iran, you will be paying $5/gallon for gas at the pump.
In a year, you'll be paying $10-20/gallon.
The oil companies have set this up for exactly that reason.
Do any of you morons remember that the Bush crime family is an OIL crime family?
Obama is a JOKE - a slick-talking Black "preacher" (okay, not officially, but he represents himself the same as one), just like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and a host of others. He will last five minutes in an election campaign, before the entire country decides he's just another smooth-talking hustler. Give me Lou Gossett instead - I KNOW he can talk the talk.
Hillary Clinton is a corrupt politician owned and operated by AIPAC and the Israeli Lobby who will immediately involve the US in a war with Iran - assuming Bush hasn't done so by then, which is a virtual certainty.
Personally, even as an anarchist, I think we need to start a political party that will run Vladimir Putin for President, with British MP George Galloway for Vice President. At least we'd have two politicians who are both smart and don't mind telling the truth (when it serves their purposes, at least)instead of being morons and lying ALL the time like ours do.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Instead of giving incentives to car companies (which already get a shit load of subsidies in the form of "free" roads for their product), how about a green house gas (GHG) cap-and-trade system. The cap-and-trade system would automatically find the cheapest way to reduce GHGs, and I really doubt that way would be by producing ethanol. Ethanol is only hot because Iowa has waaay too much influence on politics (what with the Iowa primaries and all).
i'm dead sick of these.. shall i say "old farts" running for president.
Can you explain that one?
How is this news for nerds . This matters to some, but does he really have a chance hell no , he is way too far left Even if he wins the democrat(ic) primary, he still will not win the election, not because any physical or genetic aspect , he is just too polarizing for the current state of the nation (and even in the future). I doubt that /. will be posting every announcement of a new person running for president . I just love the editors of ./ that are letting there own political opinions help select the story. I love the title too ,but the paragraph goes on to not mention at f'ing thing about broadband, and none I MEAN none of the major news outlets mention anything of the broadband crap. I so wish the editor would respond, I would like to hear their justification for this being news for nerds. ( don't even try, you have already lost)
:-(
(Tango in sight , Tango down
He's no Hillary, but he's a civil rights lightweight. He voted for the renewal of the patriot act. As far as I'm concerned, that knocks him out of the running. Only one current senator is worthy of consideration for the office, and that's Fiengold (as long as he's not some IP law fascist). He's the only one who stood up and said "no" the first time around, so to hell with all the rest. They're either gutless or evil.
What?
MPG is such a useless metric. What we need is some other metric that measures cost and pollution (net carbon is the main issue). If cars were suddenly rated in a metric that somehow combined the economics of fueling that car with the amount of net carbon output per mile, maybe we would think differently about things.
Right now people just care about what's cheaper to them at that moment with no thought of the future. The idea of greening our vehicles is farthest from most people's minds, other than casual talk about hybrids or electric cars, or some other thing--anything is okay as long as it doesn't affect me personally. All we seem to care about is horse power and convenience. If methanol can't give me the power I'm used to, then it's no good.
MPG is useless for the following reason. What if methanol gives 33% less MPG than gasoline? So if driving took 33% more ethanol but released less net carbon into the atmosphere (or no carbon ideally, if the methanol is finally produced in a carbon-neutral way), then that's really not an issue that it took more fuel. Of course that might mean we have to be willing to pay more overall for fuel. Are we willing to do that for the sake of our future? Are we willing to park the car at home right now and carpool even if it is not as convenient? Are we willing to plan our lives to avoid driving whenever possible? Are we willing to avoid accelerating rapidly off of a light? Seems to me that reducing CO2 output, reducing our dependency on fossil fuels is a matter of public will rather than technology or even tax incentives. Somehow we have to convince the collective public (all of us) that it is worth doing. That's the hard part.
Does this mean they finally caught him? And he's running for president? Sure, I guess, *anything* to be rid of Bush...
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Or view the speech and rebuttals here: here
Amazing magic tricks
The funny thing is, this was done once, in ancient Greece, the birthplace in democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
I wish they would implement this in modern democracy too...
--Coder
Everyone jump up and down because Obama is black. We aren't supposed to pay attention to color, but of course that's all we do. Don't elect the man based on his credentials. Elect him based on his color. After all, if you don't praise Obama you must be a racist KKK member, right?
For a supposed bunch of "free thinkers" you are all nothing more than a bunch of brain washed media parrots spewing the same trash you hear on TV as if it was your own thought.
How about the fact that Obama laments the lack of white guilt in the US? That's great, because I'm white Obama thinks I should feel guilty becaue of the color of my skin while at the same time complaining about being judged based on the color of his skin. Of course we won't talk about that because anyone who says anything other than Obama is great is a racist, right?
I really doesn't have anything to do with his qualifications to be president, but some will vote against him just for that.
Simple math, we don't have enough usable and fertile land to grow food crops AND fuel crops.
Algae don't grow on land.Hemp grows very quickly and efficiently without much need for fertilizer compared to other crops. It produces oils which could be used in biodiesel and a lot of fibrous mass which could be used for cellulosic ethanol should we finally get an efficient, cheap process for it.
However, hemp carries all the usual problems with marijuana, and there are several other crops that on par with hemp for quick growth of cellulose with low fertilizer use (such as kenaf, switchgras, or miscanthus), and there are much better sources of oil for biodiesel production (like algae).
Hemp is a non-starter as a result. Why bother with all the drug enforcement hassles when you can get the same benefits from other crops?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
FWIW, Obama *did* (briefly) mention it, in his speech:
VOTE!
Actually, the numbers are better than you think, but still not great. We currently get 67 gallons of fuel from one dry ton of biomass. That's a little over 2 barrels per ton, as you point out. However, that's only with current technology. The theoretical yields of most crops is around 100-120 gallons per dry ton. We'll probably never beat 80-100, so let's consider 3 barrels our most likely max.
Current crop yields using traditional crops like corn produce about 5 dry tons per acre, but better crops like kenaf or switchgrass can yield 10 tons per acre. Now we're starting to talk 30 barrels per acre.
Furthermore, only about half of the barrels of oil we consume per day is turned into gasoline. So, now we have to cover about 10 million barrels (once we account for rounding and the lesser energy density of ethanol). This will be improved by better gas mileage standards over the next couple of decades, but we'll ignore that for now.
10 million barrels per day is 1/3 million acres per day. ~120 million acres is nearly a third of the 390 million acres of farmland we have, so it's doable, but at a hideous cost. Even with today's technology and a better selection of crops, it would take 2/3 of our farmland. So, it's doable, but probably only at the cost of the entire country going vegan. <g>
I think I'm going to hold out more hope for biodiesel, especially algal biodiesel now. The most wild-eyed estimates claim 15,000 gallons per acre or about 500 barrels per acre. Even 100 bbl/acre would cover our gasoline needs in 10% of our arable farmland, though the water needs might be prohibitive without making efforts to control evaporation. On the bright side, we might be able to make use of non-arable land for this and avoid disturbing our farmland.
By the way, thanks for making me track down the numbers on this. I've changed my stance on bioethanol because of this.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
So? He attended a Catholic school while in Indonesia, was raised by an atheist mother and laid-back stepfather, and became a church-goer back in the 80s. He speaks at long length about his faith and how he came to grow into it in his book "The Audacity of Hope." You should read it sometime before spreading right-wing propaganda about him.
Besides, I'm with the AC. Who cares about the South if you're a Democrat? Increasingly, the South and the Republican Party are becoming symbiotically tied. Not only is the South no longer essential to a Democratic victory, but it's an increasingly futile gesture as it's the only place left that Republicans are making gains.
Obama should pay more attention to the Midwest and the West than the South, and I say that as a resident of Georgia.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I live in that district too. What town are you referring to?
You are not the customer.
Have the gov't lay broadband --> Extract money from citizens at gunpoint to pay for broadband.
Have the gov't fund stem cell research --> Extract money from citizens at gunpoint to pay for stem cell research.
Et cetera.
That's what it is.
Thus, I will not be voting for Obama because he is advocating mass violence against the American people.
I will be voting for Ron Paul.
It's about time a candidate appeared who could inspire people. I only hope he survives the inevitable slagging.
Already, there's been the "ZOMG he's MOOSLIM!" crowd (even though he's a devout Christian), and Faux news trying to drum up interest in the "he spent time at this fanatical muslim school with a really weird name that we'll keep saying with emphasis to ensure everyone knows it's FOREIGN!" story.
Just last week, there was someone on the Colbert Report to tell us all that yes, Obama is black, but he's not, yanno, black, he's just black. He's not an American African American, he's an African African American. So he shouldn't get the black vote, just the black vote.
So far, he's managed to stay ahead of crap like that, but as it keeps flying in, it's going to wear him down. Stories will start to stick, false but spectacular allegations will derail his attempts to stay on topic, everyone will be sure to mention he's black (but not black), and any tiny faux pas he makes will be splashed on every screen quicker than Howard Dean getting a little excited did.
But if he can keep abreast of that crap, I think he'll do well. He's an excellent orator, thoughtful, so far seems pretty unafraid to state his opinion even if it's unpopular. The way he speaks (and the way crowds respond) remind me of Dr. Martin Luther King. I'm impressed that I don't see him playing the "Vote for me, I'm black" angle. And I'm hoping he'll stick to his guns and talk about what he believes, and not what everyone else believes. I'd rather vote for a guy who is generally good, but might disagree with me on key issues, rather than a guy who agrees with me on key issues because the demographics say he should.
I also like that he's not floating specifics on his ideas. It's easy to get mired down in details... "Well, he only wants to spend 6.3B on Project X, but is he taking into account inflation? What about state taxes? Obviously he'll need 6.4B. Where's that extra 0.1B coming from? What does he intend to cut? Why is that less important than Project X?"
That's how a lot of good ideas get burned down... one small flaw, or one imperfect part, or one questionable decision, and suddenly the whole grand idea is gone. I'm happy he's staying away from that. It's time that your president was a visionary, a uniter, a powerful persona to put a positive international face on the country. I really don't care if they're black or white or purple, male or female or eunich, christian or muslim. All that matters to me, and all that should matter to americans, is whether they are the caliber of person that you want representing your ideals and dreams and country for the next 4 years. You can have healthy disagreements on issues and come to compromise decisions, but eliminating someone from contention because they disagree with you on 1 issue out of 100 is a sure way to get another president who listens more to polls than to populace.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
I'm not saying he's Muslim. I'm saying that it won't matter when Republicans unleash a smear campaign on the guy! Here's how they could play it:
1. Show Indonesians burning US flags on the streets
2. Mention Obama's stepfather is from Indonesia where they fucking hate US and he spent quite a chunk of his childhood there.
3. Profit!
Remember, we're talking about a country which sincerely believes Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and had "nucular weapons".
A. Coward here .. if Mr Obama also throws in a free Dell Latitude D620 laptop for every school kid left behind we've got a deal here. A free Wii for the underprivileged wouldn't hurt his chances of winning either.