I was helping a security install at Stranraer, up in Scotland, where they had these cameras set up to catch stolen cars (as well as suspeced IRA members). I remember thinking it was a great example of safety at the expense of privacy.
While I was there, a guy was nailed because of his currently-in-the-process-of-divorcing-him wife had reported the care stolen. Pretty major inconvenience, I'd say, ripe for abuse in these cases.
Fuel stations do sell biodeisel.
on
239 MPG Car
·
· Score: 1
Hey, apparently no one went to Biodiesel.org -- there is a list of fuel stations that sell biodiesel. There are a whole bunch of 'em, nationwide.
As for ethanol, since CA has to use it now (no more MTBE), I expect to see demand jump up for that too. I know all the midwestern states have required it to be blended into the gasoline sold there.
I have my facts straight. My family currently operates a 2000 acre farm in western Indiana. Yep, I've even detasseled. Good, sweaty, fun work.
1. Name a 'cool' dry place in the middle of the Prarie that doesn't involve a bulldozer and a couple of hundred tons of cement. The winters are very wet in the plains and midwest, and getting that grain out of the aluminum storage bin (with a good profit from the market) is priority number one for any farmer interested in making a buck.
2. Farmers don't replant what they grow because it COSTS TOO MUCH MONEY TO KEEP IT with the current storage technique of gas drying and the humidity east of the Rocky's. It's a function of climate, technology, opportunity cost (will the market go up or down), and *yes* genetics that prevent farmers from storing seed crop.
Your point about genetics is accurate and a very good addition to my original point, but your attack on my 'knowledge' base is, frankly, unfounded.
Yeah, it turns out Rudolf Deisel produced an engine designed for vegetable oil originally. Check out http://www.veggievan.org
I guess that in the day, veggie oil was too expensive (and petrolium was cheap). Not to be cynical, I'm sure the petrolium industry is doing their best to cause problems converting to biodeisel anyway, but....
You are aware that GM foods have existed since the early 40's, right? They used to just bombard the seed with radiation until they got one that had the desired trait via mutation, then try to breed out the undesired ones. Now it is just done via genetic science.
Yeah, but a farmer sells every scrap of produce he grows anyway.
Let me climb up to my soapbox here:
2 (essentially) types of corn grown on the US side of the sea:
1. Corn grown to feed the varmits (cattle, horses, swine, etc). This is the majority of where the grain produced on US farms goes -- livestock, either domestically or internationally.
2. 'Sweet' corn. Not grown for the above, but actually used for human consumption. That's your canned cream corn, etc.
Now -- here's the part that is generally misconcieved: Very few (under 1 percent) of farmers store grain for next years crop from what they planted. That hasn't really been done since the turn of the century. Why? They have bins with propane dryers on them to keep the seeds from getting moist (and going bad, or sprouting in storage). It costs too much to run that year round.
Essentially: If a farmer keeps grain he's guaranteeing that he's going to loose money on it. Better to leave that to the people who are in the business of supplying seed yearly. They do it more efficiently (and cheaply) than any one farming corp could (unless its a very BIG farming corporation).
Also -- Monsanto IS satan in the agriculture business. Farmers have been bitching about that company for years (why, for instance, do they sell their product to Argentinan farmers for a third what they sell here? Nothing against Argentina, but the descrepency is annoying). It is essentially a monopoly (they are more or less the MS of agriculture).
I never said I didn't like the *services* the police provide. I don't mind paying them (I just don't like it being mandatory -- it gives me no leverage if they perform their jobs poorly).
Government? Well....I would suspect you probably can find some very strong arguments that the gov't has been both a white knight and a villan with my money. I would just as soon put it where I wanted to, though. Even a popular direct vote for fund allocation would be better than the murk and mire that currently exists. I want to know where it *goes.* It is my property being used in my name, after all.
Oh, and yes, I think a private contractor with his job on the line can do a better job with the roads around here.
I make my own way, thank you. If I choose to stand on some people's shoulders, then fine, that's my choice. I don't have to.
Morally wrong? You can't possibly be approaching that from the standpoint of morality. I see your hand in my pocket, taking the money that is *mine*, not the society's, and giving it away. That is criminal. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.
No. Your socialist bent isn't surprising. I assume by saying you're in some 'high' position in 'our' social structure indicates you're job is something of a governmental nature.
Fine.
I hope I didn't vote for you. It would have been irresponsible of me. If you aren't a 'public servant', then I suppose your stance is a natural result of 'working for the state' just like mine is a natural result of 'working for me.'
I would guess that there are few pragmatic arguments *for* helping people besides yourself. It's just that simple.
You're capable of feeding yourself. No one should force you to feed another, even if they are in the most destitute of states, against your will. That *is* slavery, my friend, not social responsibility.
Is it shocking that a person with 80% of my capacity is working at a job that he is perfectly competent at, while I'm doing the same?
(s)he's getting paid for it, sure, maybe not as much as me, but it may be that not as many people can do what I do. Is it a crime to raise the *value* of someone's work based on the rarity of competence to do it?
Sorry, I just don't follow your logic. It seems to be pointing at the idea that everyone can do the same things. Of course race isn't an issue in terms of personal capacity. I think that you, scalveg, agree with that. So what is the real crux of your problem, the way the hamburger statement you just posted is phrased? Who's words were those?
Man, if I lived in a place where my work, talent, and capacity weren't rewarded (and I mean with cold, hard cash, not to mention the self satisfaction of a job well done), I'd just nip off and shoot myself.
Listen, my dad's a farmer, I know all about 'all sorts of effort with little gain.' It's just not the resposibility of me, or any (wo)man to make sure everyone is doing a job that is 1. worthwhile 2. making them feel good about life 3. feeding their families (which begs the question why anyone would start a family they could not guarantee to sustain)
Frankly the logic flaws about social responsibility in general are *huge* in this day and age. It really cannot be morally correct to force a man to feed another. Ever.
Here I was ready to whip out the Aristotle, and it turns out you were dead right, though I'd have put it a little differently. Truthfully, if the *majority* of American's were selfish (the egoist version, not the 'church' version -- which is really greed) enough, then those problems of corrupt legislature and over-bearing big business would tend to be curtailed a little more: by the freedom to choose an alternative that they'd be happy with.
The problem with powerful people (calling themselves Communists, or Capitalists) is that they don't like competition.
Howsomeever (invented that one): The best argument against Communism that I've heard is most quickly summed up in this way: Theft of production from the producer results in no motivation to produce.
I guess what most people feel about capitalism is that it is totalitarianistic path most big corporations (world wide, unless they are prevented from doing so by the legislature, see 'theft' above) take: Absorb all the means of production, and prevent anyone else from competing (MS -- at least I think so, IBM, Standard Oil, the Utility companies, etc). They invent or legislate reasons for this (it's more efficient geographically, we have better technologies, etc), but bullying a potential competitor is *bad*. It is also NOT capitalism. In capitalism, the better innovator wins because (s)he is better at it.
If the argument is: America is not a very good capitalist country (just the current front-runner on our little globe), then I agree totally. If it's: capitalism is bad, then I don't.
At any rate, this 'dumb American' has to go back to work writing a device module for our video hardware. I'll catch you on the flip side. I loved the reply, though.
ps: If anyone out there's taken advantage of the bigphys patch under the 2.2 release, let me know! The 2.0 version is working great, but 2.2 is giving me all sorts of 'oops'es.
pps: Excuse the grammar -- I'm an engineer, not a lit. major.
Yeah, it'll be really interesting to see what the made-for-tv movie will be like 10 years from now, when the Open-sourcer's are part of the cast of characters.
Slashdot Mirror
...and they had to pay JVC for the VHS license too. I think JVC was even in charge of enforcing the Macrovision standards.
Absolutely. Good post.
Only for a bit. Patents don't last forever (just longer than some would like).
;)
Now, if they left it a 'trade secret', then it'd be different
I was helping a security install at Stranraer, up in Scotland, where they had these cameras set up to catch stolen cars (as well as suspeced IRA members). I remember thinking it was a great example of safety at the expense of privacy.
While I was there, a guy was nailed because of his currently-in-the-process-of-divorcing-him wife had reported the care stolen. Pretty major inconvenience, I'd say, ripe for abuse in these cases.
Hey, apparently no one went to Biodiesel.org -- there is a list of fuel stations that sell biodiesel. There are a whole bunch of 'em, nationwide.
As for ethanol, since CA has to use it now (no more MTBE), I expect to see demand jump up for that too. I know all the midwestern states have required it to be blended into the gasoline sold there.
Go Rosie! Go!
Yeah, no kidding.
J.E.D.I., huh?
I swear -- they come up with the acronym before they determine what it stands for.
I have my facts straight. My family currently operates a 2000 acre farm in western Indiana. Yep, I've even detasseled. Good, sweaty, fun work.
1. Name a 'cool' dry place in the middle of the Prarie that doesn't involve a bulldozer and a couple of hundred tons of cement. The winters are very wet in the plains and midwest, and getting that grain out of the aluminum storage bin (with a good profit from the market) is priority number one for any farmer interested in making a buck.
2. Farmers don't replant what they grow because it COSTS TOO MUCH MONEY TO KEEP IT with the current storage technique of gas drying and the humidity east of the Rocky's. It's a function of climate, technology, opportunity cost (will the market go up or down), and *yes* genetics that prevent farmers from storing seed crop.
Your point about genetics is accurate and a very good addition to my original point, but your attack on my 'knowledge' base is, frankly, unfounded.
Yeah, it turns out Rudolf Deisel produced an engine designed for vegetable oil originally.
Check out http://www.veggievan.org
I guess that in the day, veggie oil was too expensive (and petrolium was cheap). Not to be cynical, I'm sure the petrolium industry is doing their best to cause problems converting to biodeisel anyway, but....
You are aware that GM foods have existed since the early 40's, right? They used to just bombard the seed with radiation until they got one that had the desired trait via mutation, then try to breed out the undesired ones. Now it is just done via genetic science.
Yeah, but a farmer sells every scrap of produce he grows anyway.
Let me climb up to my soapbox here:
2 (essentially) types of corn grown on the US side of the sea:
1. Corn grown to feed the varmits (cattle, horses, swine, etc). This is the majority of where the grain produced on US farms goes -- livestock, either domestically or internationally.
2. 'Sweet' corn. Not grown for the above, but actually used for human consumption. That's your canned cream corn, etc.
Now -- here's the part that is generally misconcieved:
Very few (under 1 percent) of farmers store grain for next years crop from what they planted. That hasn't really been done since the turn of the century. Why? They have bins with propane dryers on them to keep the seeds from getting moist (and going bad, or sprouting in storage). It costs too much to run that year round.
Essentially: If a farmer keeps grain he's guaranteeing that he's going to loose money on it.
Better to leave that to the people who are in the business of supplying seed yearly. They do it more efficiently (and cheaply) than any one farming corp could (unless its a very BIG farming corporation).
Also -- Monsanto IS satan in the agriculture business. Farmers have been bitching about that company for years (why, for instance, do they sell their product to Argentinan farmers for a third what they sell here? Nothing against Argentina, but the descrepency is annoying). It is essentially a monopoly (they are more or less the MS of agriculture).
AC, Hmmm?
I never said I didn't like the *services* the police provide. I don't mind paying them (I just don't like it being mandatory -- it gives me no leverage if they perform their jobs poorly).
Government? Well....I would suspect you probably can find some very strong arguments that the gov't has been both a white knight and a villan with my money. I would just as soon put it where I wanted to, though. Even a popular direct vote for fund allocation would be better than the murk and mire that currently exists. I want to know where it *goes.* It is my property being used in my name, after all.
Oh, and yes, I think a private contractor with his job on the line can do a better job with the roads around here.
Wow, that us utterly sickening...
I make my own way, thank you. If I choose to stand on some people's shoulders, then fine, that's my choice. I don't have to.
Morally wrong? You can't possibly be approaching that from the standpoint of morality. I see your hand in my pocket, taking the money that is *mine*, not the society's, and giving it away. That is criminal. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.
No. Your socialist bent isn't surprising. I assume by saying you're in some 'high' position in 'our' social structure indicates you're job is something of a governmental nature.
Fine.
I hope I didn't vote for you. It would have been irresponsible of me. If you aren't a 'public servant', then I suppose your stance is a natural result of 'working for the state' just like mine is a natural result of 'working for me.'
I would guess that there are few pragmatic arguments *for* helping people besides yourself. It's just that simple.
You're capable of feeding yourself. No one should force you to feed another, even if they are in the most destitute of states, against your will. That *is* slavery, my friend, not social responsibility.
>>>It's just shocking.
Ummm...Why?
Is it shocking that a person with 80% of my capacity is working at a job that he is perfectly competent at, while I'm doing the same?
(s)he's getting paid for it, sure, maybe not as much as me, but it may be that not as many people can do what I do. Is it a crime to raise the *value* of someone's work based on the rarity of competence to do it?
Sorry, I just don't follow your logic. It seems to be pointing at the idea that everyone can do the same things. Of course race isn't an issue in terms of personal capacity. I think that you, scalveg, agree with that. So what is the real crux of your problem, the way the hamburger statement you just posted is phrased? Who's words were those?
I'm sorry, but wouldn't helping people because I enjoy it be a selfish act?
Now *that* makes some good sense to me. Thank you for putting it so clearly.
'Extra-genetic' is a perfect term. Ignorance is nearly always at fault when 'cultural pressures' occur.
Anyway, very well put.
Golley, I'm poor and white, and I still think that a man should make money, not parasitically take it from those that can and do.
I suppose it would be easier if it just took something like my skin tone to get me in a leather chair with my own secretary.
I guess I just like earning my living too much.
*yawn too*
>>>I ain't no jeenyus
Yep, that's true.
Man, if I lived in a place where my work, talent, and capacity weren't rewarded (and I mean with cold, hard cash, not to mention the self satisfaction of a job well done), I'd just nip off and shoot myself.
Listen, my dad's a farmer, I know all about 'all sorts of effort with little gain.' It's just not the resposibility of me, or any (wo)man to make sure everyone is doing a job that is
1. worthwhile
2. making them feel good about life
3. feeding their families (which begs the question why anyone would start a family they could not guarantee to sustain)
Frankly the logic flaws about social responsibility in general are *huge* in this day and age. It really cannot be morally correct to force a man to feed another. Ever.
OOhhhh! Could I have a copy of this miracle module/ or it's sourcecode?
(halejc@ori.net)
Thanks!
Wow! What a misleading title to that comment!
Here I was ready to whip out the Aristotle, and it turns out you were dead right, though I'd have put it a little differently. Truthfully, if the *majority* of American's were selfish (the egoist version, not the 'church' version -- which is really greed) enough, then those problems of corrupt legislature and over-bearing big business would tend to be curtailed a little more: by the freedom to choose an alternative that they'd be happy with.
The problem with powerful people (calling themselves Communists, or Capitalists) is that they don't like competition.
Howsomeever (invented that one):
The best argument against Communism that I've heard is most quickly summed up in this way: Theft of production from the producer results in no motivation to produce.
I guess what most people feel about capitalism is that it is totalitarianistic path most big corporations (world wide, unless they are prevented from doing so by the legislature, see 'theft' above) take: Absorb all the means of production, and prevent anyone else from competing (MS -- at least I think so, IBM, Standard Oil, the Utility companies, etc). They invent or legislate reasons for this (it's more efficient geographically, we have better technologies, etc), but bullying a potential competitor is *bad*. It is also NOT capitalism. In capitalism, the better innovator wins because (s)he is better at it.
If the argument is: America is not a very good capitalist country (just the current front-runner on our little globe), then I agree totally. If it's: capitalism is bad, then I don't.
At any rate, this 'dumb American' has to go back to work writing a device module for our video hardware. I'll catch you on the flip side. I loved the reply, though.
ps: If anyone out there's taken advantage of the bigphys patch under the 2.2 release, let me know! The 2.0 version is working great, but 2.2 is giving me all sorts of 'oops'es.
pps: Excuse the grammar -- I'm an engineer, not a lit. major.
Yeah, it'll be really interesting to see what the made-for-tv movie will be like 10 years from now, when the Open-sourcer's are part of the cast of characters.