SOPA and PIPA are just part of the ongoing battle between the authoritarians and the libertarians.
Its not that simple, and never has been much of an ideological battle along traditional party lines. This is a money grab, pure and simple.
The problem is the copyright laws have been extended to the breaking point, and the breaking is happening before our very eyes.
Duration of copyright for things written today is 70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first. All benefit to society has been lost.
Society is in general revolt over the current copyright law terms. The man in the street realizes the media giants have gone too far, but some how congress can't see it yet. Maybe they are just starting to see there is a problem.
But by and large most in congress won't see the real problem. They are blinded by the money. Until we convince enough people to stop voting the same clowns into office each time they stand for election. Term limits puts an end to this nonsense.
Yes, because we all know that scientists never error and always agree.
Science is not some priesthood that never has to explain to the people who pay their salaries, and need merely agree with themselves. If their explanation can't be communicated to your average college educated person than perhaps they have to rethink it.
The chemical signature of the rocks and the Martian air match
How many core samples of Mars do we have to determine the atmosphere centuries ago when these rocks were supposedly blasted from the martian surface? What the composition of the atmosphere is today has nothing to do with conditions at that time unless you assume an absolutely static planet.
Mars are more geologically active, its rocks tend to be much younger
How can you determine the age of a rock that was blasted from the surface by a meteor strike without resort to sample from the surrounding area. Such huge impacts can mimic a more recent formation as the rock is essentially melted and reformed in the ejecta.
These scientists are GUESSING, and the others come along and use their guesses as a basis for claims that can't be proven, and which is all based on the original conjecture. There isn't a single rock on earth that can be stated with absolute certainty to have come from Mars. All we have is hard to explain rocks being found in hard to explain places.
There were firm conclusion about the surface of the moon that were proven utterly false upon the return of moon rocks. The entire field of study was re-written by the return of the moon rocks. The history of Mars as we know it has been largely rewritten since the several landers have touched down. And still we are dealing with this planet at the end of a sensor stack, with no real material in hand.
There is arrogance here, but its not to be found in the common man in the street asking questions. Its in the assumptions and flat out assertions that can't be proven, the utter arrogance of denying any responsibility to offer an explanation on the grounds that scientists are some how above having to do that.
Seems to me that letting thieves continue to tear down transmission lines so that you can employ people to put them back up is a bit of the broken windows fallacy, no?
If you are a legitimate business, why are you buying two miles of fire blackened copper cable a week after the big power failure in the next county? Skill and knowledge in fencing stolen property is not a precursor to a strong economy.
Removing the market for scrap copper cable might also work. Typically this stuff flows thru metals recycling yards who are only too happy to look the other way when white-van-man shows up with a half ton of scrap copper. If these recyclers. or the smaller number of up-stream buyers, had to have paper work from licensed demolition companies or power utilities tracing the copper they buy you could stop the theft very shortly, without having to wait till every mile of copper is stolen and replaced before your deterrence sets in.
You can't escape an agenda, but a company could be run that sold services directly to customers, with a contract forbidding advertising / any sale of personal data. Their agenda could be to make money by selling you a service and not selling you out.
Actually if the idea is to make money directly from its users, that's fine and dandy. Beyond that, any plans to sell my data or even the fact that that I have data is out of the box a non-starter for me.
The fact that Drop Box can break the encryption any time they want/need is pretty much a non-starter as far as I am concerned. The fact that they lied about it initially is another black mark. At least Google tells you right up front exactly what they can and will do with the content of your email.
SpiderOak promotes zero knowledge storage. They have no way to break the encryption and couldn't do so in response to a subpoena if they wanted to. Windows, Mac, Android, Linux. And their fees are half of what Drop Box wants. In addition it can keep iterations of your data if you wish, so you can roll back those changes in your spread sheet one by one.
I just don't see what Drop Box has to offer in regard the topic of this post, Without breaking its basic promise to keep your data private, they have nothing to sell other than space. You won't get to be of Apple's size or Google's omnipresence just supplying disk space that can be had by government agencies without even going for a warrant.
If they want to convince me, change their system to a zero knowledge system in which they can't hand over the keys to anyone because they don't have them. They need to pick up the tab from the mobile carriers for data syncing mobile devices. Trying to build a cloud storage empire that gets shared with police is not likely to be all that successful in the age of data caps.
Exactly who is speculating here? You assert that people "figure out the force they need" shortly after beginning to use the screen, but you have absolutely no way of knowing if that's true. You've never measured the force of fingers on the screen. People can be pressing too hard without visible "mashing" their fingers against the screen.
And your assertion that hovering a finger can't induce RSI because "there is no stress involved" shows just how clueless you are. Try pointing a finger roughly horizontal to the ground and holding that position for five minutes and tell me no stress is involved. My finger started aching after three minutes.
And how on earth does point to contradict point one? Pushing too hard on something can hurt you, hovering your finger too long can hurt you. Do you believe it is impossible to freeze to death, given that one can burn to death? There is total ignorance on display here, but it is not on the part of the authors.
Oh, so you don't have a tablet either.
If you did you wouldn't make silly assertions about people pushing too hard on a hand held device, or holding your finger horizontal for 5 minutes.
Please post back after you actually have a tablet or smart phone and have used it for more than an hour.
Service ceiling of a Britten-Norman Islander is 13,000 feet according to Wiki., but this plane has a zillion uses, including aerial photography. It was as likely working for the City mapping department as anyone else. Not a drone.
Also, operations at 15,000 feet is not unusual over airports, because commercial aircraft are usually lower than that by the time they are on approach. Depending on the size of the airport, you might not even be in controlled airspace at that altitude.
If that were as above board as you suggest, why would they not simply SAY that?
There must be a clear legal issue keeping them from putting any information out, something they are worried about from a legal perspective, or an evidence admissibility standpoint.
After all, if the Taliban can't spot these things when their life depends on it, it seems the casual drug runner in unlikely to see them either when they don't have to worry about a missile strike. Drug organizations know they are being watched. Simply stating that the FBI or DEA is authorized should not be that hard.
If you bothered to read instead of immediately jumping to prove how much smarter you are, you would see that their claim is that touchscreens are worse than normal interfaces for two primary reasons:
1) Lack of tactile feedback causes users to push against the screen with several times the force used on a keyboard, without even realizing it. 2) The fact that even the lightest touch can cause something to happen forces users to hover their fingers over the keyboard when thinking, whereas with a normal keyboard you can rest your fingers on the keys without accidentally pressing one.
These two factors increase the likely hood of developing an RSI through touchscreen use as compared to keyboard use. The only real flaw with the article is that they don't really give any suggestions as to how to get around these problems, except to use a bluetooth keyboard, which isn't much of a solution.
I read the entire article. None of it is believable.
Re their point 1: Utterly Stupid. People figure out the force they need in the first 45 seconds of use. Who do you ever see mashing their touch screen? Re Point 2: hovering a finger will not induce RSI, because there is no stress involved, and the hover is not held for that long. Besides, point two directly contradicts point one. The article is internally inconsistent, which is indicative of speculation rather than actual testing and observation.
In short these people sound like they don't even use a touch pad, because they display total ignorance of what people really do with them.
But doesn't that also mean people can hold the devices in more natural positions, making them far safer than PCs or laptops? Also the same argument could be made that books are dangerous because they can be accessed almost anywhere and in any position.
Exactly. The remedy is built into the device.
No one is forced to sit in front of a tablet all day typing as was the case with desktop computers. Even those that do find a way to do hours of writing on a tablet have long since given up on the touch screen and have added keyboards. These are casual use devices.
You can walk around with a tablet, you move it when you become uncomfortable, you can easily seek the best lighting angle, and if your eyes bother you, you hold it at a different distance, angle, adjust the brightness, change the font size, wipe the finger prints off the screen. All of this is done naturally.
The article should be touting the tablet as the solution rather than suggesting it is the problem.
Seems to be simply latching onto the current fad toy and trying to saddle it with the same things they have been attributing to computers since the 80's. There is nothing new in the article, simply attributing the same (largely imaginary) "diseases" to a different activity. But by mentioning touch screens they grab the headlines. Nothing about a touch screen forces you into the same position, viewing distance, or hand movements, in fact a tablet is probably the remedy for such complaints more than the cause.
But they trot out the same stuff they were crying about with desktop computers: Repeated motion injuries, Posture, Eyestrain.
Where did you acquire this lunatic idea that the purpose of government was to watch over every citizen every hour of the day? Try this link. You may find it was something you slept through in the 6th grade.
The issue here is that WHO these are operated by appears to be a government secret. The Government should not have a secret about which government agencies are operating in the US.
Most effective drone technology is still in government hands. (Yes there are some private drones available for anyone with the money to spare, but these are expensive and unlikely to be deployed on anything that is secret, and would more likely be used for forest management, crop evaluation, mapping, etc.)
That leaves two principal areas of sponsorship. Law Enforcement (DEA, ICE, etc), or Military. Military training over military training areas seems perfectly permitted. Military assistance watching the boarders or off shore seems well within the military mandate.
But military operating inland, over cities to spy on citizens is on pretty shaky grounds, and when doing so is a government secret the ground are not only shake they are slippery. You get tangled up with the Possee Comitatus act when you start using Air Force drones for non-defense purposes or to aid Law enforcement without a formal orders to do so, that must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.
So if the drones are flown by CIA, or Air Force there is a problem.
If the government comes out and says they are flown by DEA, fine.
But refusing to say seems pretty short sighted for an administration that promised open government.
But really - have you ever used a tablet, really, for any length of time? I post to facebook, answer email, and post to slashdot all the time (although there's something seriously wrong with slashdot's html that makes the posting box seriously buggy), with and without using the keyboard dock. Works great.
I have two tablets. Use them both. But for anything of any length I will delay doing much typing till I get to something with a keyboard. I'd probably benefit from a Transformer. Maybe next tablet.
Using Swiftkey, I probably use way fewer keystrokes than you, because it predicts what I am going to say before I even tap a single letter. But still, posting to a page on the net with a boat load of javascript is a pain in the rear. The worst part is cursor positioning to correct an error.
That's where I miss the mouse. Touch screen keyboard and pocket size bluetooth mouse. That combo works ok, sort of.
Planting trees doesn't remove the CO2, it jsut hold it temperarly. Half of the CO2 gathered during the day is released at night, the other half id given up when it rots.
They said the same thing about storing Carbon in Coal. Its just temporary.
Forests do not all give up half the CO2 gathered at night. In fact Trees sequester about 70+ pounds per tree per year. They make it into wood. The tree eventually dies. 50 to 200 years later. The wood rots 5 to 30 years later. But the forest keeps growing. New trees feed off of the old rotting trees. The carbon is sequestered for as long as the Forest stands.
You can't look at one tree and shrug it off as a zero sum game. The living trees, the dead trees, the leaf litter on the ground, the humus of the soil hold ton upon tons of CO2.
Weigh the forest, living dead, and 10 feet of humus. Put it all on the scale. The whole damn thing. Divide by 3. That's roughly the weight of the carbon sequestered by the forest. Forever, as long as you let it grow.
Well, my point here was simply to point out that just recovering C02 is just the first step in the whole carbon sequestration process that some believe is essential to (and I quote TFA) "stave off catastrophic climate change".
Once you have CO2 isolated, you have to so something with it that does not immediately put it back into the atmosphere. Great amounts of the carbon in CO2 were previously bound up in in oil, gas, and coal. Its pretty hard to get it back into that state and make it stay there. Several have suggested forests a the engine of choice to do this, even though forests don't do a perfect job, they do it on a massive scale. Trees sequester 73 pounds of Co2 per year on average. Dying trees fall and rot and new trees grow at a rate that ends up keeping the total carbon content of the rotting trees and forest floor humus as well as the living trees in permanent sequestration pattern.
Burning the CO2 after separating it into its component parts does none of this, and, there being no free lunch, probably is a net energy waste, which invariably generates more CO2.
The not insignificant task of finding a long term storage for the carbon was what I was alluding to. Not so much the immediate industrial use of CO2.
Slashdot Mirror
Crop failures all over the world are worth worrying about if you ask me.
Maybe you should read up on 1800 and froze to death.
3000 AD?
Best estimates are a mini ice age within 10 years. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/
SOPA and PIPA are just part of the ongoing battle between the authoritarians and the libertarians.
Its not that simple, and never has been much of an ideological battle along traditional party lines. This is a money grab, pure and simple.
The problem is the copyright laws have been extended to the breaking point, and the breaking is happening before our very eyes.
Duration of copyright for things written today is 70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first. All benefit to society has been lost.
Society is in general revolt over the current copyright law terms. The man in the street realizes the media giants have gone too far, but some how congress can't see it yet. Maybe they are just starting to see there is a problem.
But by and large most in congress won't see the real problem. They are blinded by the money. Until we convince enough people to stop voting the same clowns into office each time they stand for election. Term limits puts an end to this nonsense.
Yes, because we all know that scientists never error and always agree.
Science is not some priesthood that never has to explain to the people who pay their salaries, and need merely agree with themselves. If their explanation can't be communicated to your average college educated person than perhaps they have to rethink it.
The chemical signature of the rocks and the Martian air match
How many core samples of Mars do we have to determine the atmosphere centuries ago when these rocks were supposedly blasted from the martian surface? What the composition of the atmosphere is today has nothing to do with conditions at that time unless you assume an absolutely static planet.
Mars are more geologically active, its rocks tend to be much younger
How can you determine the age of a rock that was blasted from the surface by a meteor strike without resort to sample from the surrounding area. Such huge impacts can mimic a more recent formation as the rock is essentially melted and reformed in the ejecta.
These scientists are GUESSING, and the others come along and use their guesses as a basis for claims that can't be proven, and which is all based on the original conjecture. There isn't a single rock on earth that can be stated with absolute certainty to have come from Mars. All we have is hard to explain rocks being found in hard to explain places.
There were firm conclusion about the surface of the moon that were proven utterly false upon the return of moon rocks. The entire field of study was re-written by the return of the moon rocks. The history of Mars as we know it has been largely rewritten since the several landers have touched down. And still we are dealing with this planet at the end of a sensor stack, with no real material in hand.
There is arrogance here, but its not to be found in the common man in the street asking questions. Its in the assumptions and flat out assertions that can't be proven, the utter arrogance of denying any responsibility to offer an explanation on the grounds that scientists are some how above having to do that.
Seems to me that letting thieves continue to tear down transmission lines so that you can employ people to put them back up is a bit of the broken windows fallacy, no?
If you are a legitimate business, why are you buying two miles of fire blackened copper cable a week after the big power failure in the next county?
Skill and knowledge in fencing stolen property is not a precursor to a strong economy.
Removing the market for scrap copper cable might also work. Typically this stuff flows thru metals recycling yards who are only too happy to look the other way when white-van-man shows up with a half ton of scrap copper. If these recyclers. or the smaller number of up-stream buyers, had to have paper work from licensed demolition companies or power utilities tracing the copper they buy you could stop the theft very shortly, without having to wait till every mile of copper is stolen and replaced before your deterrence sets in.
You can't escape an agenda, but a company could be run that sold services directly to customers, with a contract forbidding advertising / any sale of personal data. Their agenda could be to make money by selling you a service and not selling you out.
Actually if the idea is to make money directly from its users, that's fine and dandy. Beyond that, any plans to sell my data or even the fact that that I have data is out of the box a non-starter for me.
The fact that Drop Box can break the encryption any time they want/need is pretty much a non-starter as far as I am concerned. The fact that they lied about it initially is another black mark. At least Google tells you right up front exactly what they can and will do with the content of your email.
SpiderOak promotes zero knowledge storage. They have no way to break the encryption and couldn't do so in response to a subpoena if they wanted to. Windows, Mac, Android, Linux. And their fees are half of what Drop Box wants. In addition it can keep iterations of your data if you wish, so you can roll back those changes in your spread sheet one by one.
I just don't see what Drop Box has to offer in regard the topic of this post, Without breaking its basic promise to keep your data private, they have nothing to sell other than space. You won't get to be of Apple's size or Google's omnipresence just supplying disk space that can be had by government agencies without even going for a warrant.
If they want to convince me, change their system to a zero knowledge system in which they can't hand over the keys to anyone because they don't have them. They need to pick up the tab from the mobile carriers for data syncing mobile devices. Trying to build a cloud storage empire that gets shared with police is not likely to be all that successful in the age of data caps.
Exactly who is speculating here? You assert that people "figure out the force they need" shortly after beginning to use the screen, but you have absolutely no way of knowing if that's true. You've never measured the force of fingers on the screen. People can be pressing too hard without visible "mashing" their fingers against the screen.
And your assertion that hovering a finger can't induce RSI because "there is no stress involved" shows just how clueless you are. Try pointing a finger roughly horizontal to the ground and holding that position for five minutes and tell me no stress is involved. My finger started aching after three minutes.
And how on earth does point to contradict point one? Pushing too hard on something can hurt you, hovering your finger too long can hurt you. Do you believe it is impossible to freeze to death, given that one can burn to death? There is total ignorance on display here, but it is not on the part of the authors.
Oh, so you don't have a tablet either.
If you did you wouldn't make silly assertions about people pushing too hard on a hand held device, or holding your finger horizontal for 5 minutes.
Please post back after you actually have a tablet or smart phone and have used it for more than an hour.
Service ceiling of a Britten-Norman Islander is 13,000 feet according to Wiki., but this plane has a zillion uses, including aerial photography. It was as likely working for the City mapping department as anyone else. Not a drone.
Also, operations at 15,000 feet is not unusual over airports, because commercial aircraft are usually lower than that by the time they are on approach. Depending on the size of the airport, you might not even be in controlled airspace at that altitude.
If that were as above board as you suggest, why would they not simply SAY that?
There must be a clear legal issue keeping them from putting any information out, something they are worried about from a legal perspective, or
an evidence admissibility standpoint.
After all, if the Taliban can't spot these things when their life depends on it, it seems the casual drug runner in unlikely to see them either when
they don't have to worry about a missile strike. Drug organizations know they are being watched.
Simply stating that the FBI or DEA is authorized should not be that hard.
If you bothered to read instead of immediately jumping to prove how much smarter you are, you would see that their claim is that touchscreens are worse than normal interfaces for two primary reasons:
1) Lack of tactile feedback causes users to push against the screen with several times the force used on a keyboard, without even realizing it.
2) The fact that even the lightest touch can cause something to happen forces users to hover their fingers over the keyboard when thinking, whereas with a normal keyboard you can rest your fingers on the keys without accidentally pressing one.
These two factors increase the likely hood of developing an RSI through touchscreen use as compared to keyboard use. The only real flaw with the article is that they don't really give any suggestions as to how to get around these problems, except to use a bluetooth keyboard, which isn't much of a solution.
I read the entire article. None of it is believable.
Re their point 1: Utterly Stupid. People figure out the force they need in the first 45 seconds of use. Who do you ever see mashing their touch screen?
Re Point 2: hovering a finger will not induce RSI, because there is no stress involved, and the hover is not held for that long. Besides, point two directly contradicts point one. The article is internally inconsistent, which is indicative of speculation rather than actual testing and observation.
In short these people sound like they don't even use a touch pad, because they display total ignorance of what people really do with them.
But doesn't that also mean people can hold the devices in more natural positions, making them far safer than PCs or laptops? Also the same argument could be made that books are dangerous because they can be accessed almost anywhere and in any position.
Exactly. The remedy is built into the device.
No one is forced to sit in front of a tablet all day typing as was the case with desktop computers. Even those that do find a way to do hours of writing on a tablet have long since given up on the touch screen and have added keyboards. These are casual use devices.
You can walk around with a tablet, you move it when you become uncomfortable, you can easily seek the best lighting angle, and if your eyes bother you, you hold it at a different distance, angle, adjust the brightness, change the font size, wipe the finger prints off the screen. All of this is done naturally.
The article should be touting the tablet as the solution rather than suggesting it is the problem.
Innocent till proven guilty. (supposedly).
More hype to sell the same tripe.
Seems to be simply latching onto the current fad toy and trying to saddle it with the same things they have been attributing to computers since the 80's.
There is nothing new in the article, simply attributing the same (largely imaginary) "diseases" to a different activity. But by mentioning touch screens they grab the headlines. Nothing about a touch screen forces you into the same position, viewing distance, or hand movements, in fact a tablet is probably the remedy for such complaints more than the cause.
But they trot out the same stuff they were crying about with desktop computers: Repeated motion injuries, Posture, Eyestrain.
I'm surprised they left off testicular heating.
Really? Touch screens?
This looks like building a case for more insurance fraud if you ask me.
You think the FAA knows the name of every pilot that flies an F-16?
Exactly what do you want to know and why? Just curious... I'm not seeing the point.
What would they possibly be hiding here?
Have you read the article? How bout the summary? No? Go back and start over.
The FAA won't even say what AGENCY is flying the drones. Why is that secret?
it's just a bunch-a old guys from the local rc-model club.
No, they would post it on YouTube, like these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=SDbQ5xvsrIU
Who owns it is not the issue. Who operates it is.
The government keeping secret who is operating it is the issue.
UAV crop dusters wouldn't be secret. You'd find them in the yellow pages.
You get more for less.
We have quite enough already, thank you.
Where did you acquire this lunatic idea that the purpose of government was to watch over every citizen every hour of the day?
Try this link. You may find it was something you slept through in the 6th grade.
The issue here is that WHO these are operated by appears to be a government secret. The Government should not have a secret about which government agencies are operating in the US.
Most effective drone technology is still in government hands. (Yes there are some private drones available for anyone with the money to spare, but these are expensive and unlikely to be deployed on anything that is secret, and would more likely be used for forest management, crop evaluation, mapping, etc.)
That leaves two principal areas of sponsorship. Law Enforcement (DEA, ICE, etc), or Military. Military training over military training areas seems perfectly permitted. Military assistance watching the boarders or off shore seems well within the military mandate.
But military operating inland, over cities to spy on citizens is on pretty shaky grounds, and when doing so is a government secret the ground are not only shake they are slippery. You get tangled up with the Possee Comitatus act when you start using Air Force drones for non-defense purposes or to aid Law enforcement without a formal orders to do so, that must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.
So if the drones are flown by CIA, or Air Force there is a problem.
If the government comes out and says they are flown by DEA, fine.
But refusing to say seems pretty short sighted for an administration that promised open government.
But really - have you ever used a tablet, really, for any length of time? I post to facebook, answer email, and post to slashdot all the time (although there's something seriously wrong with slashdot's html that makes the posting box seriously buggy), with and without using the keyboard dock. Works great.
I have two tablets. Use them both. But for anything of any length I will delay doing much typing till I get to something with a keyboard.
I'd probably benefit from a Transformer. Maybe next tablet.
Using Swiftkey, I probably use way fewer keystrokes than you, because it predicts what I am going to say before I even tap a single letter.
But still, posting to a page on the net with a boat load of javascript is a pain in the rear. The worst part is cursor positioning to correct an error.
That's where I miss the mouse. Touch screen keyboard and pocket size bluetooth mouse. That combo works ok, sort of.
blah blah blah.
Planting trees doesn't remove the CO2, it jsut hold it temperarly.
Half of the CO2 gathered during the day is released at night, the other half id given up when it rots.
They said the same thing about storing Carbon in Coal. Its just temporary.
Forests do not all give up half the CO2 gathered at night. In fact Trees sequester about 70+ pounds per tree per year. They make it into wood.
The tree eventually dies. 50 to 200 years later.
The wood rots 5 to 30 years later.
But the forest keeps growing.
New trees feed off of the old rotting trees.
The carbon is sequestered for as long as the Forest stands.
You can't look at one tree and shrug it off as a zero sum game.
The living trees, the dead trees, the leaf litter on the ground, the humus of the soil hold ton upon tons of CO2.
Weigh the forest, living dead, and 10 feet of humus. Put it all on the scale. The whole damn thing.
Divide by 3. That's roughly the weight of the carbon sequestered by the forest. Forever, as long as you let it grow.
Well, my point here was simply to point out that just recovering C02 is just the first step in the whole carbon sequestration process that some believe is essential to (and I quote TFA) "stave off catastrophic climate change".
Once you have CO2 isolated, you have to so something with it that does not immediately put it back into the atmosphere. Great amounts of the carbon in CO2 were previously bound up in in oil, gas, and coal. Its pretty hard to get it back into that state and make it stay there. Several have suggested forests a the engine of choice to do this, even though forests don't do a perfect job, they do it on a massive scale. Trees sequester 73 pounds of Co2 per year on average. Dying trees fall and rot and new trees grow at a rate that ends up keeping the total carbon content of the rotting trees and forest floor humus as well as the living trees in permanent sequestration pattern.
Burning the CO2 after separating it into its component parts does none of this, and, there being no free lunch, probably is a net energy waste, which invariably generates more CO2.
The not insignificant task of finding a long term storage for the carbon was what I was alluding to. Not so much the immediate industrial use of CO2.
Its Macro. Micro is about running a business. Macro is about nations.
I said WE, all of us, pay for this.
At the dealership, the gas pump, and on our tax bill.
Reading comprehension 101 enrollment for you fella.
Where do those subsidies come from?
The tax payer.
So WE (tax payers) are already paying for this.
Better go back and start in high school economics.
Just piling on....
Research on the net seems to suggest a tree can sequester anywhere form 21 pounds to 73 pounds of CO2 per year, depending on species and size.