Now what I wasn't to know is if you could find a better process to go from cellulose to electricity without ethanol or gasoline conversion first. Why use the plant as a middle man? Just make it directly from the sun!
Thank you for standing up for all the good lawyers in this country. It really troubles me that the bad ones give the other 2% a bad name.
I can't imagine what else I'd feed my pet alligators if the supply of lawyers ran out!
I hope you never get arrested for a crime you didn't commit or your kid isn't poisoned by some product made by a careless corporation.
Corporations are careless because their lawyers make them so expensive to sue, and ensure that the corporate officers are never held personally liable for unconscionable acts.
I hope you never get prosecuted or sued by the RIAA because your neighbor's son hacked your wireless router and used it to play with torrentz.
The RIAA is pretty much just a bunch of lawyers (oh - and lobbyists). Oops - most lobbyists *are* lawyers.
I hope your civil rights are never violated or that you never need the protection of bankruptcy court. Why would I need protection of a bankruptcy court? Oh, yea, because there is someone threatening to sic their LAWYERS on me.
I hope you never have a problem with your income taxes, or a dispute with your business partner or get rear-ended by a drunk driver.
Yes, because income taxes are so complicated. Lawyers certainly had *nothing* to do with that. I just hope any business partner I have can negotiate rationally and doesn't decide to... umm... sic a lawyer on me. I'd have to find a lawyer had give *him* my half of the business instead. You're right about the drunk driver, though. I'd want an ambulance chaser helping me with that because insurance companies are almost as bad as lawyers.
I hope you never have to set up a trust fund to care for a relative who is too ill to care for herself or have a dispute with your bank or have your identity stolen. Actually, I had a relative that did set up a trust fund with a lawyer that was handling most of her finances. She died penniless, of course. The last I heard they thought the lawyer had left Bermuda and they were speculating he was in France.
I hope you never get married unwisely and have to divorce from a spouse who wants to hurt you as much as possible. Because then I would have to deal with her lawyer?
I hope you never get overlooked for promotion because you are too old, or too black or too female. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. It said "My lawyer says I don't have a case".
It can be argued that lawyers do as much to protect our freedoms as the men and women in our military. Maybe more. It can also be said that lawyers are the ones working to take away our freedoms. At least the guys in the military are allowed to shoot the enemy (without subsequently dealing with more lawyers).
People who think our lives and our country would be better without lawyers are as stupid as stupid gets. I'm sure you could make a persuasive argument to that effect that a judge (still a lawyer) would agree with.
There are good lawyers out there that really do honest work and do not view themselves as God's gift to the peasants. But finding one makes you feel like Lot wandering the streets of Gomorrah. And our country might not be better off without them - but it might be better off without 95% of them.
Hey thanks for posting that link. Led me to WRIR - a radio station not afraid to play bluegrass! Very cool.
I can't really support a cry for "Democracy Now!", though - I would really prefer that we restore the Constitutional Republic that we're supposed to be. Democracy is just the tyranny of the majority (as Nieche said). (ouch I'm sure I mangled the spelling...).
The 50% efficiency is how much of the biomass energy they can convert to the "high-octane liquid". Can they get to 100%? No...you cannot extract 100% energy from something...
Ok, since I read the article (yea, I new here), let me correct you on this point. They are looking to get 100% energy efficiency out of the process - the process they are using converts organic cellulose into pure hydrocarbons - but they only get 1/2 of the cellulose converted in the process. The ideal would be to convert all of it.
Yea, they probably will never get to 100%, so your point is valid there - but it's very different from trying to produce a 100% energy efficient process.
If we were talking about energy conversion, I'd be astounded at a 50% efficiency. Damn if I could buy solar panels that were 50% efficient, I would snip the cord and live off the grid.
Oops - that should be "They are NOT looking to get 100% energy efficiency out of the process..."
The 50% efficiency is how much of the biomass energy they can convert to the "high-octane liquid". Can they get to 100%? No...you cannot extract 100% energy from something...
Ok, since I read the article (yea, I new here), let me correct you on this point. They are looking to get 100% energy efficiency out of the process - the process they are using converts organic cellulose into pure hydrocarbons - but they only get 1/2 of the cellulose converted in the process. The ideal would be to convert all of it.
Yea, they probably will never get to 100%, so your point is valid there - but it's very different from trying to produce a 100% energy efficient process.
If we were talking about energy conversion, I'd be astounded at a 50% efficiency. Damn if I could buy solar panels that were 50% efficient, I would snip the cord and live off the grid.
So you're saying the ultimate achievement of any technological civilization is turning the home solar system into a Matrioshka brain?
That's a pretty depressing thought. Especially considering the way our Corporate and IP laws are structure, since the autonomous corporations would eventually take over everything, and the entire civilization would end up nothing but a giant simulation of a stock market.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure that the statute is necessary to reach the desired goal. The 5th amendment prohibits the state from taking property without due compensation. It has been incorporated through the 14th Amendment to apply to State governments. If the state is taking your IP, I would think that you'd have a cause of action for a violation of the 5th. And fortunately, you don't need Congressional permission to sue your state for violating your constitutional rights.
No, that's not possible, and for good reason. IP is not considered "property" in that context, nor should it ever be. The term "Intellectual Property" is just a catch-all phrase to describe the various exclusive rights granted under Copyright, Patent, and Trademark law. It's not actual property, and if you read the decision closely, you'll see that the court recognizes that (as it must), and clearly defines the rights the plaintiffs are claiming as an exclusive right granted by copyright, having nothing to do with "property" as defined by the constitution and common law.
That's the problem with that "Intellectual Property" term. By including "property" in the term, people try to make all kinds of tortured analogies to theft, and property rights. But you can't... IP is not property.
I don't think you understand what Bear Sterns does. For the most part, they are just paid to manage *other people's* portfolios. So if they were forced into bankruptcy, not only would their own assets get frozen, so would the assets of millions of customers and their billions of dollars worth of assets.
"Hey, Bob, can you go ahead and sell that that mutual fund? The bank is breathing down my neck and I just need to liquidate some stuff to catch up."
"Oh, gee, sorry, Jim. Since we're bankrupt now, we can't do any buying and selling - have to wait for it all to get settled in court. I'm sure you'll get a letter in a few months telling you who is managing your stuff now."
The actual tax burden on the lowest income group will never drop to 0%, much less to a negative number, because the income taxes (and other taxes) of all the people involved in producing everything they consume are 100% built into the prices of those things they consume. From natural gas to a loaf of bread, everything carries a built-in tax burden.
Exactly. Corporations, ultimately, do not pay taxes. Which is why it makes sense to drastically *lower* the tax rate for corporations (currently the US has by far the highest corporate tax rate in the world). That would at least reduce the incentive for corporations to offshore and seek tax havens, increasing their investments in Americans and American infrastructure.
Of course this will never happen, because most people don't understand the concept, they'll just hew and cry "No - you must make teh wealthy corporations pay!!".
The ultimate form of revolution is tax cuts. The more you cut taxes, the more the government will collapse. That doesn't cause it to collapse - it just causes it to borrow more money from China.
Isn't that just as misleading? I think you actually mean "the positive deltas in the growth rate". Let's try to be a little more precise next time, hmmm?
There is a serious overstepping of bounds by the Congress, and the Supreme Court has let it go for far too long.
Quite right. But SCOTUS has gone beyond just "letting it go" to being complicit, and even instituting their own rules based on some ridiculous "interpretation". They are *all* guilty, not just Congress.
I mean, if you can interpret the clause that allows the Federal government to regulate "interstate commerce" to mean that they can tell you which plants you can grow in your backyard for your own use (it's not even commerce at all!). Then you can pretty much tear up the Constitution, because it seems like it won't limit *anything*.
Yes, well, Canadians seem reluctant to control every aspect of everybody's life, compared to the US nationalists. Drug laws don't seem to be any more restrictive there than the international anti-drug treaties require of them. They even have people running around up there being openly gay and marrying people of the same sex! None of that in the US - maybe it'll even be banned in the Constitution like it is in many of the state constitutions.
So the Canadians could justify it if they wanted to - some in the US seem very interested but unable to justify most of it (yet). Canadians can drink alcohol at the tender age of 18 or 19.
The intention was always for the Constitution to be a living document, its meaning adapting to the times. Bullshit! That's wrong. It's a common lie perpetuated by the Nationalists that just don't want to follow the rules.
Changes to the Constitution are allow through the amendment process. That's important because it requires the right level of debate to go on before changing the laws the keep the government in check. If there is really a cultural or technological change that justifies a change in the Constitution, it should be no problem getting all the states to agree to it.
It's not okay to alter the Constitutional laws by debating how the meaning of the word "is" should be interpreted.
What's "right" and "wrong" in regards to what I do to my own body has nothing to do with society. It's nobody's business but my own. Not when it affects those in society. Ie, if you overdose and cannot afford health insurance, are rushed to the ER and tax payer money pays for your treatment and recovery, then it is our business. Which is why we desperately need universal health care in the US. Because then we can justify every intrusive nanny-state law we can think of "because it will reduce health care costs that everyone pays." We can introduce smoking bans, alcohol bans, mandatory exercise programs, urine screenings for everyone at any time, numerous food bans and nutritional requirements for every restaurant and grocery store, strict limitations on exposure to chemicals, plants, sunlight, and other carcinogens or suspected carcinogens, etc., etc., etc.
And that's just the beginning. Imagine all the control we could impose based on "stress reduction" in the name of the almighty health care dollar.
People need to move away from the mindset where media pompously and wrongly attributes polar positions such as "right and wrong" and "use and abuse" to be a 100% lexical replacement for "legal and illegal." Anyone with any sense at all knows better than that. A significant number of the laws on the books in the country I live in (the USA) are inherently wrong, outright un- or anti-constitutional, or something even worse. Using them to define what is "right" leads directly to behaviors that are despicable — or worse.
This is "your opinion". What is right and wrong will always be a subjective and philosophical definition. Laws are made when a majority who are elected, hold the same philosophical beliefs create and vote for them. If you don't like the laws, participate in the voting and hope your candidate of choice wins. That is what society is. That's a pretty idealistic view of how the US legislature actually works. Most laws are passed because they forward the agenda of some minority. The rest vote it through either because it's bundled with something that's needed, or because they never bothered to read the details and understand the issues, or because they agreed to vote for it in exchange for somebody else's support for their own agenda.
I can't check the link at work, and I am not an expert on the subject though I have been making beer and Meade for about 2 years now. I start a 5 gallon batch every 1-2 weeks. That having been said:
I get my barley for about $2 a pound, regardless of the variety/malt.
I get my hops for about $2.5/ounce, in pellet form. It's available as cones, but they are more expensive. Yea, I generally pay about the same. The hops on the NB site, though, were running $7/once for high-alpha varieties (Magnum, Centennial).
it takes between 5-10 pounds of barley for a 5-gallon batch of beer and about 2 ounces of hops (more or less to taste, the hops have 3 functions, they add a spicy flavor, a bitter flavor, and they help preserve the beer. some beers I have seen take 4 OZ of hops, some only require.5 OZ) One of my favorites is a clone of Stone's Ruination IPA. Very bitter beer with at about 100 IBUs. Takes 5-6 oz. of high-alpha hops.
The yeast sachets are about $2 each for beer yeast and about $.60 each for wine yeast. What kind of yeast are you using? I guess I'm using the pricey stuff - White Labs liquid yeast, either WPL001 or WPL008 runs me about $8 per vial. But it produces a lot better beer than the dry stuff I was using before.
These are local prices in Stafford, VA. northern brewers tends to be cheaper. Sounds like your costs are comparable to mine here in my part of VA.
So, we are looking at $17 minimum for a batch of beer, more if you add the malt extracts (barley sugar) as it tends to be about $4/pound or you can use more grain. It is technically possible to use corn sugar (about $1/pound) to increase the alcohol content, but that tends to give a thin-feeling beer.
Pure beer (accourding to the germans) cannot contain anything but barley, hops, water and yeast.
A 5-gallon batch of imperial stout uses about 10 pounds of grain and 3 ounces of hops.
The cost of barley has gone up for me in the last 2 years, I used to get it for $1.30/pound
and the hops has drastically jumped from $1.30 to $2.50/ OZ.
A minor note on hop growing, it takes 2-3 years for your hops to reach production levels. It's best to leave them alone while they attain that stage of growth. The hop farmers have noticed the high demand and planted more acres, that does not help now, but will in a few years.
Just my 2 cents or so... My hops are going to be in their 3rd year this year, and I'm definitely planning to harvest and cure them this year. I'm still skeptical I'll get enough to brew more than 2-3 batches, but maybe they'll do better than I think. Wish me luck!
I wouldn't waste any more bandwidth here, if I were you. I think the two of you are trying to solve 2 very different problems. While you may be interested in solutions to global warming, I'm pretty convinced that MrNaz is trying to solve the problem that humans on the planet are living at a technological level above hunter-gatherer.
Can you please describe your plan for repatriating all polluting corporations and banning all uses of fossil fuels and heavy metals? I'm also interested in your plan for a monetary system that provides for a lifestyle above the poverty level for all citizens. Or would it involve a sacrifice of some portion of the population?
Grow your own hops. It's not that tough and is easily grown in most places.
Besides, prices don't seem that high. A little high, sure, but not overwhelming: http://www.northernbrewer.com/hop-pellets.html You're kidding, right? By my calculations, that comes out to about $35 for a 5-gallon batch of homebrew *just for the hops*. Add grain and yeast and you're looking at about $65 for 2 cases of beer. Sure, it'll be good beer, but still...
Bah! Sites can exist to make a profit and still be responsible and respectful to their users. In fact, sometimes for-profit sites can be better and attracting and maintaining communities than non-profits, simply because they can attract good, full-time talent to dedicate to the site.
We're on a for-profit site right now, and I wouldn't equate the behavior of the site operators here with that of the AFF folks. I can think of a lot of non-profits that treat their users a lot worse than some for-profit sites.
Don't think that non-profit means there's nobody putting money in their pocket. And don't think that every for-profit is irresponsible with their spending. That's the real lie.
Interesting. I didn't know that. Makes sense, though. My point that they should have specified "Copyright" instead of the nebulous "IP" still stands.
But I think this would be slightly different. The assumption with a photo in a profile like that is that the person is the one IN the photograph, not necessarily the maker of the picture. I can take my own picture using a self-timer or a remote control, but I don't think that is a requirement with most sites, just that the person featured in the profile has a license to use the picture. You're right - "IP" needs to disappear from the lexicon - it's confusing the issue.
But I think the deal with using another person's name and likeness for profit falls more under the trademark rules. There's no explicit right that protects your likeness from being used for publicity, but there is a lot of case law surrounding it, and I believe there are some states (no doubt California is one) that protect the "publicity" rights of individuals.
It's strictly related to profit, though. If I post a picture of my car on the Internet "Check out my new car", and you're sitting on your ass in front of it, that's pretty much incidental and you probably have no recourse. But... If I set up a gay brothel in Las Vegas and advertise with a picture of you holding my penis that says "Hey - corsec67 *Really Likes* my hefty pleasure stick!", then you can for infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
How exactly is this offtopic. It directly addresses one of the primary causes for the broadband issues.
Corporations are careless because their lawyers make them so expensive to sue, and ensure that the corporate officers are never held personally liable for unconscionable acts.
I hope you never get prosecuted or sued by the RIAA because your neighbor's son hacked your wireless router and used it to play with torrentz.The RIAA is pretty much just a bunch of lawyers (oh - and lobbyists). Oops - most lobbyists *are* lawyers.
I hope your civil rights are never violated or that you never need the protection of bankruptcy court.Why would I need protection of a bankruptcy court? Oh, yea, because there is someone threatening to sic their LAWYERS on me. I hope you never have a problem with your income taxes, or a dispute with your business partner or get rear-ended by a drunk driver.
Yes, because income taxes are so complicated. Lawyers certainly had *nothing* to do with that. I just hope any business partner I have can negotiate rationally and doesn't decide to ... umm... sic a lawyer on me. I'd have to find a lawyer had give *him* my half of the business instead. You're right about the drunk driver, though. I'd want an ambulance chaser helping me with that because insurance companies are almost as bad as lawyers.
I hope you never have to set up a trust fund to care for a relative who is too ill to care for herself or have a dispute with your bank or have your identity stolen.Actually, I had a relative that did set up a trust fund with a lawyer that was handling most of her finances. She died penniless, of course. The last I heard they thought the lawyer had left Bermuda and they were speculating he was in France. I hope you never get married unwisely and have to divorce from a spouse who wants to hurt you as much as possible.
Because then I would have to deal with her lawyer? I hope you never get overlooked for promotion because you are too old, or too black or too female.
Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. It said "My lawyer says I don't have a case". It can be argued that lawyers do as much to protect our freedoms as the men and women in our military. Maybe more.
It can also be said that lawyers are the ones working to take away our freedoms. At least the guys in the military are allowed to shoot the enemy (without subsequently dealing with more lawyers). People who think our lives and our country would be better without lawyers are as stupid as stupid gets. I'm sure you could make a persuasive argument to that effect that a judge (still a lawyer) would agree with.
There are good lawyers out there that really do honest work and do not view themselves as God's gift to the peasants. But finding one makes you feel like Lot wandering the streets of Gomorrah. And our country might not be better off without them - but it might be better off without 95% of them.
I can't really support a cry for "Democracy Now!", though - I would really prefer that we restore the Constitutional Republic that we're supposed to be. Democracy is just the tyranny of the majority (as Nieche said). (ouch I'm sure I mangled the spelling...).
Don't forget 2004: Bush was popularly elected...
Ok, since I read the article (yea, I new here), let me correct you on this point. They are looking to get 100% energy efficiency out of the process - the process they are using converts organic cellulose into pure hydrocarbons - but they only get 1/2 of the cellulose converted in the process. The ideal would be to convert all of it.
Yea, they probably will never get to 100%, so your point is valid there - but it's very different from trying to produce a 100% energy efficient process.
If we were talking about energy conversion, I'd be astounded at a 50% efficiency. Damn if I could buy solar panels that were 50% efficient, I would snip the cord and live off the grid.
Oops - that should be "They are NOT looking to get 100% energy efficiency out of the process..."Ok, since I read the article (yea, I new here), let me correct you on this point. They are looking to get 100% energy efficiency out of the process - the process they are using converts organic cellulose into pure hydrocarbons - but they only get 1/2 of the cellulose converted in the process. The ideal would be to convert all of it.
Yea, they probably will never get to 100%, so your point is valid there - but it's very different from trying to produce a 100% energy efficient process.
If we were talking about energy conversion, I'd be astounded at a 50% efficiency. Damn if I could buy solar panels that were 50% efficient, I would snip the cord and live off the grid.
It's $0.18 for the federal tax. State taxes vary from state to state, the average being about $0.23.
That's a pretty depressing thought. Especially considering the way our Corporate and IP laws are structure, since the autonomous corporations would eventually take over everything, and the entire civilization would end up nothing but a giant simulation of a stock market.
No, that's not possible, and for good reason. IP is not considered "property" in that context, nor should it ever be. The term "Intellectual Property" is just a catch-all phrase to describe the various exclusive rights granted under Copyright, Patent, and Trademark law. It's not actual property, and if you read the decision closely, you'll see that the court recognizes that (as it must), and clearly defines the rights the plaintiffs are claiming as an exclusive right granted by copyright, having nothing to do with "property" as defined by the constitution and common law.
That's the problem with that "Intellectual Property" term. By including "property" in the term, people try to make all kinds of tortured analogies to theft, and property rights. But you can't... IP is not property.
"Hey, Bob, can you go ahead and sell that that mutual fund? The bank is breathing down my neck and I just need to liquidate some stuff to catch up."
"Oh, gee, sorry, Jim. Since we're bankrupt now, we can't do any buying and selling - have to wait for it all to get settled in court. I'm sure you'll get a letter in a few months telling you who is managing your stuff now."
Exactly. Corporations, ultimately, do not pay taxes. Which is why it makes sense to drastically *lower* the tax rate for corporations (currently the US has by far the highest corporate tax rate in the world). That would at least reduce the incentive for corporations to offshore and seek tax havens, increasing their investments in Americans and American infrastructure.
Of course this will never happen, because most people don't understand the concept, they'll just hew and cry "No - you must make teh wealthy corporations pay!!".
Isn't that just as misleading? I think you actually mean "the positive deltas in the growth rate". Let's try to be a little more precise next time, hmmm?
Quite right. But SCOTUS has gone beyond just "letting it go" to being complicit, and even instituting their own rules based on some ridiculous "interpretation". They are *all* guilty, not just Congress.
I mean, if you can interpret the clause that allows the Federal government to regulate "interstate commerce" to mean that they can tell you which plants you can grow in your backyard for your own use (it's not even commerce at all!). Then you can pretty much tear up the Constitution, because it seems like it won't limit *anything*.
So the Canadians could justify it if they wanted to - some in the US seem very interested but unable to justify most of it (yet). Canadians can drink alcohol at the tender age of 18 or 19.
Probably just as well about the eggnog.
Changes to the Constitution are allow through the amendment process. That's important because it requires the right level of debate to go on before changing the laws the keep the government in check. If there is really a cultural or technological change that justifies a change in the Constitution, it should be no problem getting all the states to agree to it.
It's not okay to alter the Constitutional laws by debating how the meaning of the word "is" should be interpreted.
And that's just the beginning. Imagine all the control we could impose based on "stress reduction" in the name of the almighty health care dollar.
People need to move away from the mindset where media pompously and wrongly attributes polar positions such as "right and wrong" and "use and abuse" to be a 100% lexical replacement for "legal and illegal." Anyone with any sense at all knows better than that. A significant number of the laws on the books in the country I live in (the USA) are inherently wrong, outright un- or anti-constitutional, or something even worse. Using them to define what is "right" leads directly to behaviors that are despicable — or worse.
This is "your opinion". What is right and wrong will always be a subjective and philosophical definition. Laws are made when a majority who are elected, hold the same philosophical beliefs create and vote for them. If you don't like the laws, participate in the voting and hope your candidate of choice wins. That is what society is. That's a pretty idealistic view of how the US legislature actually works. Most laws are passed because they forward the agenda of some minority. The rest vote it through either because it's bundled with something that's needed, or because they never bothered to read the details and understand the issues, or because they agreed to vote for it in exchange for somebody else's support for their own agenda.I get my barley for about $2 a pound, regardless of the variety/malt.
I get my hops for about $2.5/ounce, in pellet form. It's available as cones, but they are more expensive.
Yea, I generally pay about the same. The hops on the NB site, though, were running $7/once for high-alpha varieties (Magnum, Centennial). it takes between 5-10 pounds of barley for a 5-gallon batch of beer and about 2 ounces of hops (more or less to taste, the hops have 3 functions, they add a spicy flavor, a bitter flavor, and they help preserve the beer. some beers I have seen take 4 OZ of hops, some only require
One of my favorites is a clone of Stone's Ruination IPA. Very bitter beer with at about 100 IBUs. Takes 5-6 oz. of high-alpha hops. The yeast sachets are about $2 each for beer yeast and about $.60 each for wine yeast.
What kind of yeast are you using? I guess I'm using the pricey stuff - White Labs liquid yeast, either WPL001 or WPL008 runs me about $8 per vial. But it produces a lot better beer than the dry stuff I was using before. These are local prices in Stafford, VA. northern brewers tends to be cheaper.
Sounds like your costs are comparable to mine here in my part of VA. So, we are looking at $17 minimum for a batch of beer, more if you add the malt extracts (barley sugar) as it tends to be about $4/pound or you can use more grain. It is technically possible to use corn sugar (about $1/pound) to increase the alcohol content, but that tends to give a thin-feeling beer.
Pure beer (accourding to the germans) cannot contain anything but barley, hops, water and yeast.
A 5-gallon batch of imperial stout uses about 10 pounds of grain and 3 ounces of hops.
The cost of barley has gone up for me in the last 2 years, I used to get it for $1.30
and the hops has drastically jumped from $1.30 to $2.50/ OZ.
A minor note on hop growing, it takes 2-3 years for your hops to reach production levels. It's best to leave them alone while they attain that stage of growth. The hop farmers have noticed the high demand and planted more acres, that does not help now, but will in a few years.
Just my 2 cents or so...
My hops are going to be in their 3rd year this year, and I'm definitely planning to harvest and cure them this year. I'm still skeptical I'll get enough to brew more than 2-3 batches, but maybe they'll do better than I think. Wish me luck!
I wouldn't waste any more bandwidth here, if I were you. I think the two of you are trying to solve 2 very different problems. While you may be interested in solutions to global warming, I'm pretty convinced that MrNaz is trying to solve the problem that humans on the planet are living at a technological level above hunter-gatherer.
Ok, can you at least tell me how I get on your list of people that will be allowed access to food and water?
Can you please describe your plan for repatriating all polluting corporations and banning all uses of fossil fuels and heavy metals? I'm also interested in your plan for a monetary system that provides for a lifestyle above the poverty level for all citizens. Or would it involve a sacrifice of some portion of the population?
Besides, prices don't seem that high. A little high, sure, but not overwhelming:
http://www.northernbrewer.com/hop-pellets.html You're kidding, right? By my calculations, that comes out to about $35 for a 5-gallon batch of homebrew *just for the hops*. Add grain and yeast and you're looking at about $65 for 2 cases of beer. Sure, it'll be good beer, but still...
We're on a for-profit site right now, and I wouldn't equate the behavior of the site operators here with that of the AFF folks. I can think of a lot of non-profits that treat their users a lot worse than some for-profit sites.
Don't think that non-profit means there's nobody putting money in their pocket. And don't think that every for-profit is irresponsible with their spending. That's the real lie.
But I think this would be slightly different. The assumption with a photo in a profile like that is that the person is the one IN the photograph, not necessarily the maker of the picture. I can take my own picture using a self-timer or a remote control, but I don't think that is a requirement with most sites, just that the person featured in the profile has a license to use the picture. You're right - "IP" needs to disappear from the lexicon - it's confusing the issue.
But I think the deal with using another person's name and likeness for profit falls more under the trademark rules. There's no explicit right that protects your likeness from being used for publicity, but there is a lot of case law surrounding it, and I believe there are some states (no doubt California is one) that protect the "publicity" rights of individuals.
It's strictly related to profit, though. If I post a picture of my car on the Internet "Check out my new car", and you're sitting on your ass in front of it, that's pretty much incidental and you probably have no recourse. But ... If I set up a gay brothel in Las Vegas and advertise with a picture of you holding my penis that says "Hey - corsec67 *Really Likes* my hefty pleasure stick!", then you can for infringement.