The lip-service paid to inconvenient forms of alternative fuel by United States Federal Government cronies is nothing more than a political ploy to obscure the facts for the benefit of our generation's robber barons.
A real alternative has always been available which can be produced by existing oil-refining equipment and which is capable of powering existing electric generators and sub-generators as well as existing gasoline and diesel engines without modification. That alternative is called biomass.
Pyrolysis, the process of destructive distillation by which crude oil is transformed into usable fuels, is also the process by which fresh plant cellulose--biomass--is converted into charcoal, gasoline, fuel oils such as diesel, and natural gas. By using fresh plant matter instead of ancient plant matter, you establish what is called a 'closed carbon cycle,' in which no new carbon dioxide is being added to the atmosphere.
The most prolific, and also the most sustainable, producer of usable biomass is the industrial hemp plant. It requires no pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, or fertilizer. Its strong, deep roots quickly break up the soil and choke out weeds, and its 3-4 month growing cycle and year-round growing season make it an ideal rotation crop. It also has no mind-altering properties.
For these reasons, several states and numerous agricultural and industrial associations have already petitioned the DEA to issue the hemp farming licenses that it has the authority to issue. In fact, the DEA has already issued pitifully small, ridiculously regulated hemp farming licenses in Hawaii for the purposes of study. The Canadian government--which put an end to hemp farming around the same time our own government did--has recently (1990s) reallowed hemp farming and has experienced no regulatory difficulties.
I therefore recommend that the United States Federal Government mandate that the DEA license and regulate sufficient acreage of hemp farming for the purposes of full biomass fuel production. Additionally, in order that the free market be further stimulated, I recommend that all federal fossil fuel-related subsidies be moved to biomass fuels, and that tax disincentives be enacted on all fossil fuel-related industry.
Unless you can personally manage to stand over every box or machine and examine every voters ID you will never get a election you will be satisfied with. Everybody put you and I can be bought, and I have my doubts about you.
Well, I think we're going to need to do a hell of a lot better than hundreds of thousands of invalid votes, hundreds of thousands of uncounted and unaccounted-for "provisional ballots", hundreds of thousands of wronglyfully disenfranchised voters.
Your attitude on this thing is strictly defeatist: it'll never be perfect, you're telling me, so we may as well just take whatever it is that they're giving us.
I agree, it never will be perfect. The question, then, is how much error are you willing to tolerate?
A tolerable margin of error is one that is statistically insignificant--that is, one which provides no possibility of changing the outcome. It appears as though Bush won by about 4 and a half million votes. Do I believe the counting errors are statistically insignificant in proportion that margin? Absolutely not.
This election proved that democracy does work, hell the popular vote even matched that of the states that make up the republic.
Hey, good for you. Way to be a biter.
Now that that's over with, here's the fact: we don't know how the popular vote turned out. We don't know how many people voted for who, because the election didn't work.
The results are flawed. There is no way to "correct" the inaccurate counts, because the election protocols that allow for proper auditing were not followed. The only way to get an accurate count of the popular vote is to do a whole new election, in which auditing protocols are followed exactly.
Of course I take it seriously, but I'm trying to get you to realize there aren't going to be any "do overs".
Are you fucking serious? No do-overs? What is this, freaking dodge-ball? We're talking about the election of the President of the most powerful country in the world. If the election doesn't work, there had sure as hell better be a "do over," or else you don't have a democracy.
You can't have a democracy unless the elections work.
Which, incidentally, if you're keeping score: we don't, right now. It's over. Democracy in this country is over, and this is precisely why. Because a bunch of idiots have somehow gotten the childish notion that there are no "do overs."
I repeat: in democratic countries, such as Germany or Venezuela, there very much are "do overs." And not because an election is some game; actually, precisely the opposite.
Who said anything about Kerry? Or about "the result I desire"?
I want a clean fucking election! Is that so goddamn much to ask?
In Germany, what do you think they'd do if there was evidence that vote-counts had been inaccurate? They'd do another election. Same thing with Venezuela. Same thing with any country that takes its democracy in any way seriously.
First, here is what I would have us do: the same thing any other free country would do in the event of a massively flawed election -- have another one.
That's right, this election didn't work. We need to scrap it and have a new one. If that one doesn't work, then we need another one beyond that.
And as for the difference between flaws and fraud: when a huge number of flaws occur apparently independant of one another, but which all seem to favor the same outcome, then I do not think it is unreasonable to suspect that that the flaws may have been intentional (that is, fraudulent).
In fact, I'm puzzled as to why everyone's so terrified to come out and say it: I suspect foul play. I have every reason to.
But no matter what, you can't win. Someone will cry foul on every side of the argument, and even though HAVA was designed to address the EXACT concerns of poor precincts in the 2000 election, now it's getting crucified for other reasons.
What the hell are you defending?
Are people supposed to just be okay with nearly a hundred thousand votes (that we know about so far) from non-existent voters being injected into their elections? Is that just peaches and fucking creamy, or what?
You're talking real loud, and you seem real keen to defend the massive, verified flaws in this election, and I'd like to know why.
Get in contact with party leadership in order to discuss funding for your campaign. That's right: I think you should run.
You obviously have the idea that you know what sorts of policies would improve your life and the lives of people like you, so run, win, and implement those policies.
American politics needs a healthier supply of non-career politicians.
Actually, the hemp plant is the single most prolific and sustainable producer of cellulose on this planet.
Wood is comprised of about 60% percent cellulose, on average, whereas hemp stalks ring in at about 77%.
Hemp is also extremely fast-growing, weed & pest resistant, and easy on the soil. Its deep roots break up the soil quickly, it grows all year round, and only takes 3-4 months to reach maturity. These factors add up to it being an excellent rotation crop.
So, would you like to discuss some of its uses?
Its high cellulose content makes it an excellent crop for the production of biomass fuels. Pyrolysis, the process whereby ancient plant matter (crude oil) is turned into gasoline & diesel fuels, among other things, is also the process used to convert fresh plant matter into those things. That's right, an efficient, high-cellulose crop effectively replace gasoline, diesel fuel, and natural gas, all using existing equipment with little or no modification. Bye bye, oil dependancy. Bye bye, Saudi royals. Bye bye, oil-protection wars. Pyrolysis is also what you do to cellulose when you want it to become charcoal that you can burn in existing coal-powered electric generators. Bye bye, acid rain. Bye bye, mercury-contaminated streams and fishes.
One effect of growing hemp plants for cellulose is that you get hemp seeds for free, as a byproduct. I'm sure I don't need to tell you hemp seed is one of the most nutritious vegetable foods known to man, as there is already a market for hemp-based foods.
So what's the problem then, regulating the damn things?
Well, back in the 1930s when the US put an end to hemp farming, Canada did the same thing. Recently (1990s), they've reconsidered their position and have completely reallowed it, so we have a pretty good model of what sorts of modern regulatory difficulties we'll run into: none.
I think Linux is just peaches and fucking creamy, personally, and I'm delighted to be using it and following along in the drama of its community. It's fun.
I could give a fuck less whether it dominates the global market, or whether anyone else in particular is using it.
What the involvement of the big corporations means to me is that it isn't going to go away any time soon, and I think that's all just dandelions and gravy, baby! Also, it means that stuff will probably get done a lot faster than it would have otherwise. Some of it will be way groovy and some of it will be pinstripe stiff, but if anything gets thrown in the mix that I don't like, the odds are pretty good some other people won't like it either. Then maybe we'll start a new branch together.
It still doesn't make any sense that there is as much spam as there is: these people are out to make money, right? It's not just to annoy people, is it?
But nobody even reads this shit, do they? Much less buy whatever it is they're selling... do people actually give money to these fuckers?
I know low-power FM broadcasts are legal without a license (such as an mp3 player that broadcasts to your car radio,) but would current regulations have anything to say about a network of such transmitters spread out over an area larger than an individual transmitter is allowed to broadcast?
Slashdot Mirror
The U.S. economy would collapse if all victimless activities (otherwise known as freedoms) were made legal.
r g.html
http://www.prisonactivist.org/crisis/evans-goldbe
Ultrasound for diagnosis? Jesus, what are you, still carting around VHS tapes and vinyl records?
64-slice CT technology is, like, all the rage this season.
mmm... scary but beautiful...
budumchhhhhhh.
Thanks, I'll be here all week.
I'd like to see this run as a distributed computing project, as a sort of race to achieve measurable consciousnessness among the organisms.
Another unreasonable imposition.
The lip-service paid to inconvenient forms of alternative fuel by United States Federal Government cronies is nothing more than a political ploy to obscure the facts for the benefit of our generation's robber barons.
A real alternative has always been available which can be produced by existing oil-refining equipment and which is capable of powering existing electric generators and sub-generators as well as existing gasoline and diesel engines without modification. That alternative is called biomass.
Pyrolysis, the process of destructive distillation by which crude oil is transformed into usable fuels, is also the process by which fresh plant cellulose--biomass--is converted into charcoal, gasoline, fuel oils such as diesel, and natural gas. By using fresh plant matter instead of ancient plant matter, you establish what is called a 'closed carbon cycle,' in which no new carbon dioxide is being added to the atmosphere.
The most prolific, and also the most sustainable, producer of usable biomass is the industrial hemp plant. It requires no pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, or fertilizer. Its strong, deep roots quickly break up the soil and choke out weeds, and its 3-4 month growing cycle and year-round growing season make it an ideal rotation crop. It also has no mind-altering properties.
For these reasons, several states and numerous agricultural and industrial associations have already petitioned the DEA to issue the hemp farming licenses that it has the authority to issue. In fact, the DEA has already issued pitifully small, ridiculously regulated hemp farming licenses in Hawaii for the purposes of study. The Canadian government--which put an end to hemp farming around the same time our own government did--has recently (1990s) reallowed hemp farming and has experienced no regulatory difficulties.
I therefore recommend that the United States Federal Government mandate that the DEA license and regulate sufficient acreage of hemp farming for the purposes of full biomass fuel production. Additionally, in order that the free market be further stimulated, I recommend that all federal fossil fuel-related subsidies be moved to biomass fuels, and that tax disincentives be enacted on all fossil fuel-related industry.
Thank you, come again.
That reference to the number of the beast. Well put.
Well, I think we're going to need to do a hell of a lot better than hundreds of thousands of invalid votes, hundreds of thousands of uncounted and unaccounted-for "provisional ballots", hundreds of thousands of wronglyfully disenfranchised voters.
Your attitude on this thing is strictly defeatist: it'll never be perfect, you're telling me, so we may as well just take whatever it is that they're giving us.
I agree, it never will be perfect. The question, then, is how much error are you willing to tolerate?
A tolerable margin of error is one that is statistically insignificant--that is, one which provides no possibility of changing the outcome. It appears as though Bush won by about 4 and a half million votes. Do I believe the counting errors are statistically insignificant in proportion that margin? Absolutely not.
If you haven't noticed, you're still the only one talking about particular candidates. I'm talking about an election.
If we have a valid, fully auditable election and George W Bush wins, then so be it.
But if I have to hear these goons ramble on about democracy for the rest of my life, I at least want to hold them to holding real, bonafide elections.
So, yeah, I want a redo.
Besides, fuck middle-America. What'd they ever do for me?
Hey, good for you. Way to be a biter.
Now that that's over with, here's the fact: we don't know how the popular vote turned out. We don't know how many people voted for who, because the election didn't work.
The results are flawed. There is no way to "correct" the inaccurate counts, because the election protocols that allow for proper auditing were not followed. The only way to get an accurate count of the popular vote is to do a whole new election, in which auditing protocols are followed exactly.
Are you fucking serious? No do-overs? What is this, freaking dodge-ball? We're talking about the election of the President of the most powerful country in the world. If the election doesn't work, there had sure as hell better be a "do over," or else you don't have a democracy.
You can't have a democracy unless the elections work.
Which, incidentally, if you're keeping score: we don't, right now. It's over. Democracy in this country is over, and this is precisely why. Because a bunch of idiots have somehow gotten the childish notion that there are no "do overs."
I repeat: in democratic countries, such as Germany or Venezuela, there very much are "do overs." And not because an election is some game; actually, precisely the opposite.
Who said anything about Kerry? Or about "the result I desire"?
I want a clean fucking election! Is that so goddamn much to ask?
In Germany, what do you think they'd do if there was evidence that vote-counts had been inaccurate? They'd do another election. Same thing with Venezuela. Same thing with any country that takes its democracy in any way seriously.
First, here is what I would have us do: the same thing any other free country would do in the event of a massively flawed election -- have another one.
That's right, this election didn't work. We need to scrap it and have a new one. If that one doesn't work, then we need another one beyond that.
And as for the difference between flaws and fraud: when a huge number of flaws occur apparently independant of one another, but which all seem to favor the same outcome, then I do not think it is unreasonable to suspect that that the flaws may have been intentional (that is, fraudulent).
In fact, I'm puzzled as to why everyone's so terrified to come out and say it: I suspect foul play. I have every reason to.
What the hell are you defending?
Are people supposed to just be okay with nearly a hundred thousand votes (that we know about so far) from non-existent voters being injected into their elections? Is that just peaches and fucking creamy, or what?
You're talking real loud, and you seem real keen to defend the massive, verified flaws in this election, and I'd like to know why.
So, in other words, you're saying that the facts have disproven the theory that the election was rigged.
Is that what you're saying?
Get in contact with party leadership in order to discuss funding for your campaign. That's right: I think you should run.
You obviously have the idea that you know what sorts of policies would improve your life and the lives of people like you, so run, win, and implement those policies.
American politics needs a healthier supply of non-career politicians.
You can put your weed in there.
Well, I still don't know the answer, but I'll wager I'm not the only one who bothered to try it in google calculator
...or they could just uncheck the box marked "Help us improve Google Desktop Search by sending usage data and crash reports."
Actually, the hemp plant is the single most prolific and sustainable producer of cellulose on this planet.
Wood is comprised of about 60% percent cellulose, on average, whereas hemp stalks ring in at about 77%.
Hemp is also extremely fast-growing, weed & pest resistant, and easy on the soil. Its deep roots break up the soil quickly, it grows all year round, and only takes 3-4 months to reach maturity. These factors add up to it being an excellent rotation crop.
So, would you like to discuss some of its uses?
Its high cellulose content makes it an excellent crop for the production of biomass fuels. Pyrolysis, the process whereby ancient plant matter (crude oil) is turned into gasoline & diesel fuels, among other things, is also the process used to convert fresh plant matter into those things. That's right, an efficient, high-cellulose crop effectively replace gasoline, diesel fuel, and natural gas, all using existing equipment with little or no modification. Bye bye, oil dependancy. Bye bye, Saudi royals. Bye bye, oil-protection wars. Pyrolysis is also what you do to cellulose when you want it to become charcoal that you can burn in existing coal-powered electric generators. Bye bye, acid rain. Bye bye, mercury-contaminated streams and fishes.
One effect of growing hemp plants for cellulose is that you get hemp seeds for free, as a byproduct. I'm sure I don't need to tell you hemp seed is one of the most nutritious vegetable foods known to man, as there is already a market for hemp-based foods.
So what's the problem then, regulating the damn things?
Well, back in the 1930s when the US put an end to hemp farming, Canada did the same thing. Recently (1990s), they've reconsidered their position and have completely reallowed it, so we have a pretty good model of what sorts of modern regulatory difficulties we'll run into: none.
I think Linux is just peaches and fucking creamy, personally, and I'm delighted to be using it and following along in the drama of its community. It's fun.
I could give a fuck less whether it dominates the global market, or whether anyone else in particular is using it.
What the involvement of the big corporations means to me is that it isn't going to go away any time soon, and I think that's all just dandelions and gravy, baby! Also, it means that stuff will probably get done a lot faster than it would have otherwise. Some of it will be way groovy and some of it will be pinstripe stiff, but if anything gets thrown in the mix that I don't like, the odds are pretty good some other people won't like it either. Then maybe we'll start a new branch together.
Life is like a great big happy picnic.
It still doesn't make any sense that there is as much spam as there is: these people are out to make money, right? It's not just to annoy people, is it?
But nobody even reads this shit, do they? Much less buy whatever it is they're selling... do people actually give money to these fuckers?
oh, and one more thing:
TALK HARD!
I know low-power FM broadcasts are legal without a license (such as an mp3 player that broadcasts to your car radio,) but would current regulations have anything to say about a network of such transmitters spread out over an area larger than an individual transmitter is allowed to broadcast?