One key benefit would be not wasting resources on development where outside contributors could help you. If you pay your developers, then I think it's pretty clear you could save money, by having more development done for the same cost.
Where does the income come from then? As the GP says they don't want to sale "support or custom upgrades". I want to do something similar. I want to start a photography business this year, however as I'm on disability I can't afford to buy commercial software to run the business. I'd like to create my own software to do at least some of what I'll need. I figured as long as I'd spend the tyme to develop the software I'd also like to sale it to other photographers. Either I can keep it closed source or I can open source the code then risk others will take it and sale it as their own. Some have said I could sale services and support, however so could others. And I want to work as a photographer not run a software business.
Selling the binaries won't help much, as someone else will compile it and make the binaries available. But you can make supported versions available for a price, and include priority telephone/email support with a guaranteed response time. Support which guarantees the ability to speak to the original developer if necessary is a good service.
Also charge for implementing additional/customized features to those who need them.
In other words start a services business in which case you have to hire and train people. then to offer priority support you have to pay someone to be available 24X7. Of course since you're doing that you'll need to hire accountants or bookkeepers, an administrator, and sale associates. Starting a business selling software may be easy but if you're going to provide support it gets more complicated.
I meant sell as in talking something up. As in "Sell the sizzle, not the steak." or "He was sold on the idea."
So you're not really making money then. You may get hired later because of something you released into the wild, onto the net, but what's the likelihood of that? I've fasted for 3 weeks before but I wouldn't want to rely on the hope that someone will donate money or hire me because they liked what open source code I released. I know about being homeless and living on the streets, and I don't particularly want to live that way.
It won't take long for lower priced software to spread out and be available for free from many sources. If you had something that you sold for $1,000,000 to some company, they might not be so quick to give away the software in turn.
Or they may be more inclined to give it away. I heard some tyme ago about how someone ate some cookies they liked so they called the company and asked if they could have the recipe. The company said sure, it cost (seeing as how I don't recall what they are I'm making up numbers) four fifty. The person gave their credit card number to pay for it, then thinking the price was $4.50 they were shocked when they got a bill for $450. Because of the cost they person decided to run off a bunch of copies to hand out.
OTEC works wherever there's a temperature differential, so the equator is just where it is most efficient. This temperature differential can also be exploited in colder climates, where the ocean temp is higher than the air temperature.
By the same token though geothermal can be used anywhere as well.
Oil, natural gas, and coal are all very different resources that are subject to very different constraints
"The current peaking of global oil production (and subsequent decline of production), along with the peak of North American natural gas production will very likely precipitate this agricultural crisis much sooner than expected". "Crop production now relies on fertilizers to replace soil nutrients, and therefore on the oil needed to mine, manufacture, and transport these fertilizers around the world." But that all ignores the fact that oil is used to transport food. Last I read, in the US on average food travels more than 2000 from the farm to your table. What's hard to understand about that?
That's cool. Photography is a hobby of mine and one that I've often thought I'd love to turn into a business, if I didn't have a bunch of hungry mouths to feed.
Though I've never worked as a pro photographer I got started in photography in high school. I learned the basics of using a 35mm SLR camera as well as how to develop film and make prints when I took a photography class. When I was in the army because I knew these and had an SLR my commanding officer, CO, made me the unit's photographer. When he wanted some photos of the unit, such as during training, he'd get some rolling of film and give them to me. I'd shoot the photos then develop the film and make prints for people. I had some great shots from when the unit went to both Panama and Alaska. Though we were in Alaska 3 weeks I shot a bunch of rolls of film. The CO gave me 4 rolls of 24 exposure black and white and I took 5 rolls of 36 exposure colour film, all of which I burned through before we ever left Alaska. Then I took photography classes in college as well.
What kind of photography do you do? I've done a little of everything, but what I most enjoy is landscapes and candid. Individual portraiture is fun, but only when there's plenty of time, an interesting place to find shots in and no pressure. Group portraits suck and I have little interest in studio or still life photography.
I mostly do landscape and nature though I like others as well. I like from cultural to photojournalism. I've done some night photography but want to do more, both like those of running auto lights on the roads and astrophotography. I've also thought of doing some macro photography. Near by where I live there's a lake and park I like to go to. When it's warm I can shoot the windsurfers on the lake and when frozen I can shoot ice skaters as well as windsurfers. I don't particularly like portraits of people though.
Lately I've become very interested in firearms, and I'm trying to find ways to combine those hobbies.
They both involve shooting. One thing I say about photography is that I have a happen trigger finger. Though I don't when on the shooting range, I was certified an expert in the army. I can burn through roll after roll of film if not for the expense of developing the film though it wouldn't be so bad if I access to a darkroom. Hopefully I'll get access to one soon, there's a photography association here that's open for membership to photographers whether amateur or professional. There they have darkrooms members can use. But anyway in a way I did combine both types of shooting, cameras and firearms. As I said above when I was in the Army my CO made me the company's photographer. And both I and my unit was infantry.
Why not adapt some FOSS software? Because you want/need the copyright to "protect" you? Is it not better to cooperate with other photographers to develop the software - in that way you might not only get better software, but also get more time to photograph, which seemingly is the point of the whole software thing.
I have thought of that, I specifically thought about using software with one of the BSD type licenses.
I've contributed quite a lot of code to GPL'ed software, most of it "owned" by commercial vendors.
Oh I have thought about contributing to GPL'ed software. There's one program that I'll specifically thought of, HTTrack. I have frequently downloaded, ripped, websites for research and when I've used Linux I used HTTrack or WinTrack on Windows. Now I'm using OS X and though it runs in OS X it requires X11, so I'd like to port it the run natively on OS X.
Putting a price on everything is not necessarily the best solution. Don't you ever work together with your neighbours to fix the playground?
I don't know any neighbors, so no I haven't worked with any of them. I used to volunteer though. As a full tyme student in college even though I was majoring in Computer Engineering I volunteered frequently for the Student Affairs Coordinator, the stage dancing program, and theatre program. I even took a class in ASL, American Sign Language, so I could talk with hearing impairs students which eventually led to a job working for handicapped services.
You should also be aware that if you GPL the "old" versions you have, some other people will likely improve on your software and start using it. As your "newest" version is NOT GPL'ed, you cannot apply their patches. So, you will most likely end up with a competing, non-free version. If your program is any good, you will end up with the most expensive and likely worst of the two.
Which is why I'd rather use a BSD style license for any software I'd want to sale.
But when they can't get a copyright or patent they don't have much reason to create and if they do then share what they create, other than ego.
History shows that this isn't true.
Ah but artists made a living in different ways throughout history. For instance in ancient Athens government subsidized theatre. More recently, classical composers had wealthy benefactors. Mozart had the wealthy pay to watch him perform, and or to write a composition for them. If you look at both the expressionists and impressionists painters, many of them barely were able to make a living. It was only after death when they became famous. Hemingway was able to make a living by working as a reporter. He wrote reports on the Spanish Civil War, between the Republicans and Loyalists if I recall right.
Some open source programmers may be able to do the same but I seriously doubt that many programmers working for CA, EA, MS, and others would be able to make a living writing software if the code had to be open source, they didn't have copyrights. Hey, I support open source, the way it is now it's purely voluntary. But the only option if there's no copyrights is either to have a wealthy benefactor or not program for a living.
Most creations and, indeed, the best creations come about because the creator loves creating. The founders fully realized this when they wrote the constitution (which was not the first copyright law, but it was one of the first that had the good of society as its primary focus, as opposed to the good of the government).
At first Thomas Jefferson was against copyrights and patents, however his friend James Madison convinced him that they could encourage progress. TJ even was awarded a patent himself, for a mill he invented for the hemp he grew on his farm. Actually if not for cotton, cotton overtook hemp for clothing, his patent could have helped him as he was often broke. Anyway after he was convinced copyrights and patents could help using actuarial tables he calculated how long the terms should last, 14 years. And like the Founding Fathers I too believe copyrights can help progress society. I'm not so sure able patents though. But at a minimum I believe they shouldn't last more than those 14 years. Maybe even less.
Fast forward to the present. We now have a situation where publication is cheaper than it has ever been. In fact, on-line publication is essentially free. This means that the #1 reason for society to support copyright is nearly non-existent.
It's only cheaper to publish, not to create. If anything it's more expensive to create now. Seeing as how copyrights are granted to encourage creation to be released, the purpose of copyrights is still very much valid.
We also have a situation where copyright lasts longer and grants a larger monopoly than ever before.
See where I address this above.
I'm a fan of copyright, but I think we need to seriously rethink its implementation. Copyright terms should be slashed, publishers that make use of DRM that is more restrictive than copyright law should not be granted copyright protection, software that does not publish source code should not be granted copyright protection, and performance art, such as music and movies, should either have extremely short copyrights, or else non-commercial sharing should be explicitly legalized. Finally, copyrights owned or controlled (via contract) by corporations should have significant annual registration fees.
This I agree with as I've stated above dealing with some of your points.
Corn is pretty bad for ethanol but because a lot of corn is grown and it also gets large subsidies the corn industry is pretty powerful. Sugarcane is better however it only grows in a few places in the US. I've heard it's grown in three states, I know it grows in Florida and Hawaii but I don't know the other state. However if the US really wanted to use sugarcane for ethanol, 90 miles from Florida there's Cuba and Cuba can produce as much cane as the US will take. But if somehow that's not enough Brazil also produces a lot of it. However though not as powerful as the corn industry the sugarcane industry still has some power. It's partially because of them that the US embargo against Cuba hasn't ended. It is also responsible for high tariffs on Brazilian sugar cane.
According the the article, you're right, it takes about four times more invested energy (usually in the form of oil, not counting the sun) to make ethanol from corn than you get out.
No, TFA says "roughly 25 percent more energy returned by corn-based ethanol according to the most optimistic studies." You start out with the 100% energy and when corn ethanol is used you have 125% of energy to burn.
You 'make' nitrogen with energy, using the Haber-Bosch process. When oil is the cheapest way to acquire energy (as used to be the case) people will make it with oil.
The cheapest way to make nitrogen is to drink and piss. Urea is high in nitrogen. A good way to see this in action, so to speak, is to piss in one spot on grass. Within a few days a brown spot will appear there, that brown spot is a nitrogen burn. If you garden mix 1 part urine with 10 parts water and use it to water your plants. They'll love you for it. Of course you can't do that if you want organics as organics prohibits it.
Show me a large-scale ethanol process, sunlight-to-tank, that doesn't take petroleum as an input and then I'll be much more impressed. So far I haven't seen one that seems practical.
Check out Brazil. Most of Brazil's vehicular fuel is ethanol. Brazil's ruling military junta started the country on using ethanol when the 1973 oil crisis took place. Brazil is closer to becoming energy independent than just about any industrialized nation. And Brazil uses sugarcane not switchgrass which is better for ethanol production.
I don't think *anyone* is arguing that corn subsidies increase the price of corn. That is completely nonsensical.
Actually corn prices are higher, it's because of the subsidies make it seem as corn doesn't cost as much. Subsidies are really a hidden cost spread out so everyone who pays taxes pays, even those who don't eat corn.
that's interesting and all, but locally, i remember paying $1 for 12 ears of sweet corn to cook. last year, it was about $1/ear - that's 100% increase in about 3 years. what's going on with my local farms? are they not subsidized?
The fact that the agribusiness industry has to spend that much money and they barely have anything to show for it just shows how little influence they have. Corn-based ethanol subsidies are basically the only thing I can think of that they have ever done to help the corn market. Looking at one recent success and saying it means they are powerful is not a very good call.
I looked it up and you are correct -- I'm happy to see I was behind the times on my opinion of the AMA regarding cannabis use.
Hemp is a pretty big interest of mine. There are many things hemp can do used for, hemp is probably the most industrially useful plants there is. It can be used for clothing, fiber, food, fuel, medicine, and plastic among other uses. Throughout much of history hemp has been put to use by society. Heck even artists have used hemp. The canvas painters used to paint on comes from hemp, "canvas" comes from "cannabis". The only reason hemp was made illegal, by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, was because it posed a threat to some rich and powerful people. Plastic was originally made from plants with hemp being one of the sources for Bioplastic. The camera company Kodak made plastic, such as used for film, from plants. However in the mid '30s DuPont was granted a patent on making plastic from petroleum oil. Henry Ford built a vehicle on his Iron Mountain Estate not only with plastic made from hemp but was also powered by ethanol made from hemp. Hemp he grew on the estate. Using hemp to make fuel was a threat to Rockefeller of Standard Oil. Also in the mid '30s MIT published a study showing an acre of hemp made more pulp for paper than an acre of forest. Because he owned thousands of acres of forest he used for making paper, Newspaperman William Randolph Hearst saw hemp as a threat. What I find ironic about this is that the January 1938 issue of "Popular Mechanics" published an article calling hemp the "New Billion Dollar Crop", and Hearst's publishing company owns PM.
It was Harry J Anslinger, as head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, who pushed to make hemp illegal. And Anslinger was the nephew-in-law of Andrew W. Mellon, who was the Treasury Secretary under Roosevelt as well as the Mellon from Mellon Bank. And DuPont's biggest financial backer, banker, was Mellon. So in the end hemp was made illegal strictly because some wealthy people saw it as a threat.
True. The creator has every right to keep it to himself. Society can't demand that he publish it. You're starting to get just a hint of the rationale underlying copyright law. Keep following that thread.
Sure someone can keep what they create for themselves however that doesn't improve society. Society itself is improved when progress is available to society. But when they can't get a copyright or patent they don't have much reason to create and if they do then share what they create, other than ego. With FOSS programmers have the choice as to what they do, as long as they create software on their own that is. If they want they can keep it closed or make the code open source. I'm on disability now however this year I want to start working as a photographer. I've been thinking about writing some software that will make it easier to run the business, I'm poor and can't afford to buy commercial software for a photo business. However if I spend much tyme programming then I'll want the option to sell the software to other photographers yet prevent them from being able to turn around and sell the software themselves. However as I improve the software I'd like to open the source of older versions.
Do you have a source for that?:-) I actually have an interest in traditional inks and writing, but cannot find any source for the material of the Constitution. As far as I know it was written on parchment (skin) like many legal documents of the time. I have a friend who makes paper the (really) old fashioned way out of linen rags in the style of Europe, but I know that hemp was a popular fiber here.
Perhaps I misspoke. When I answered I was thinking of the "Declaration of Independence". Thomas Jefferson wrote drafts of the DOI on hemp paper. Here's are links for that. However the Jefferson Monticello says more than likely the paper was made from flax or linen rags.
Richard Stallman has a document on his website that says the USA Constitution was written on hemp paper. Another link says the drafts of the Constitution were written on it. There's one simple way to tell what paper was used for both the DOI and the Constitution, simply test them. However I can easily imagine the government not wanting to test them because if they are written on hemp paper then that would stengthen the hands of those who want to legalize hemp.
College education is absurdly expensive right now, for any field, let alone going all the way to a medical degree. You might *think* that subsidizing such educations might be considered a good idea, something society should "invest" in, but apparently not...
Actually education is one area I do believe in subsidizing, just not how things are now. How I'd do it would be using public services. The military is a good example, but even then I'd still change the way it works. The way it is now someone enlisting has to sign up for Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) and have money deducted from their pay while in the military. What I'd do is for every year a person serviced, they'd have one year of college paid for. A person could enlist and serve one year then they could attend college one year, serve 4 years and get their bachelor's degree. Simply apply this to many other areas. Go to policy academy and work as a police officer one year then have a year of college paid for. Same for firemen. Another person could work as a teacher's assistant then have a year paid for.
And too bad about africa and the brain drain, perhaps they should work on rational nationalism and pride in nation and so on first.
That would be very difficult as African nations are artificially created lines on maps. Take Algeria. Algeria has two main groups, Arabs and Berbers. However there are different ethnic groups of Berbers, each with it's own customs. Or Nigeria. Nigeria is oil rich but out of different ethnic groups only a couple control the government and reap the benefits of the oil. In Botswana the Kalahari Bushmen have been forced off their ancestral homeland so diamonds could be mined.
This is just a beginning of an explanation of the problems in Africa, much of which comes from colonialism.
I honestly don't understand why people don't want to try and work and make their own nations/areas better, it is an alien concept to me.
Some do stay but it can be a real struggle for others to stay.
Slashdot Mirror
One key benefit would be not wasting resources on development where outside contributors could help you. If you pay your developers, then I think it's pretty clear you could save money, by having more development done for the same cost.
Where does the income come from then? As the GP says they don't want to sale "support or custom upgrades". I want to do something similar. I want to start a photography business this year, however as I'm on disability I can't afford to buy commercial software to run the business. I'd like to create my own software to do at least some of what I'll need. I figured as long as I'd spend the tyme to develop the software I'd also like to sale it to other photographers. Either I can keep it closed source or I can open source the code then risk others will take it and sale it as their own. Some have said I could sale services and support, however so could others. And I want to work as a photographer not run a software business.
FalconSelling the binaries won't help much, as someone else will compile it and make the binaries available. But you can make supported versions available for a price, and include priority telephone/email support with a guaranteed response time. Support which guarantees the ability to speak to the original developer if necessary is a good service.
Also charge for implementing additional/customized features to those who need them.
In other words start a services business in which case you have to hire and train people. then to offer priority support you have to pay someone to be available 24X7. Of course since you're doing that you'll need to hire accountants or bookkeepers, an administrator, and sale associates. Starting a business selling software may be easy but if you're going to provide support it gets more complicated.
Falconwon't someone just compile it and then give the .EXE for free?
Sure they will, however those willing to pay $20 will never find it. Time == Money.
They may not find your's either.
FalconI meant sell as in talking something up. As in "Sell the sizzle, not the steak." or "He was sold on the idea."
So you're not really making money then. You may get hired later because of something you released into the wild, onto the net, but what's the likelihood of that? I've fasted for 3 weeks before but I wouldn't want to rely on the hope that someone will donate money or hire me because they liked what open source code I released. I know about being homeless and living on the streets, and I don't particularly want to live that way.
FslconIt won't take long for lower priced software to spread out and be available for free from many sources. If you had something that you sold for $1,000,000 to some company, they might not be so quick to give away the software in turn.
Or they may be more inclined to give it away. I heard some tyme ago about how someone ate some cookies they liked so they called the company and asked if they could have the recipe. The company said sure, it cost (seeing as how I don't recall what they are I'm making up numbers) four fifty. The person gave their credit card number to pay for it, then thinking the price was $4.50 they were shocked when they got a bill for $450. Because of the cost they person decided to run off a bunch of copies to hand out.
Falcon1) Give it away, and sell its advantages strongly far and wide
If you're giving it away, exactly what is it you're selling?
FalconOTEC works wherever there's a temperature differential, so the equator is just where it is most efficient. This temperature differential can also be exploited in colder climates, where the ocean temp is higher than the air temperature.
By the same token though geothermal can be used anywhere as well.
FalconOil, natural gas, and coal are all very different resources that are subject to very different constraints
"The current peaking of global oil production (and subsequent decline of production), along with the peak of North American natural gas production will very likely precipitate this agricultural crisis much sooner than expected". "Crop production now relies on fertilizers to replace soil nutrients, and therefore on the oil needed to mine, manufacture, and transport these fertilizers around the world." But that all ignores the fact that oil is used to transport food. Last I read, in the US on average food travels more than 2000 from the farm to your table. What's hard to understand about that?
FalconThat's cool. Photography is a hobby of mine and one that I've often thought I'd love to turn into a business, if I didn't have a bunch of hungry mouths to feed.
Though I've never worked as a pro photographer I got started in photography in high school. I learned the basics of using a 35mm SLR camera as well as how to develop film and make prints when I took a photography class. When I was in the army because I knew these and had an SLR my commanding officer, CO, made me the unit's photographer. When he wanted some photos of the unit, such as during training, he'd get some rolling of film and give them to me. I'd shoot the photos then develop the film and make prints for people. I had some great shots from when the unit went to both Panama and Alaska. Though we were in Alaska 3 weeks I shot a bunch of rolls of film. The CO gave me 4 rolls of 24 exposure black and white and I took 5 rolls of 36 exposure colour film, all of which I burned through before we ever left Alaska. Then I took photography classes in college as well.
What kind of photography do you do? I've done a little of everything, but what I most enjoy is landscapes and candid. Individual portraiture is fun, but only when there's plenty of time, an interesting place to find shots in and no pressure. Group portraits suck and I have little interest in studio or still life photography.
I mostly do landscape and nature though I like others as well. I like from cultural to photojournalism. I've done some night photography but want to do more, both like those of running auto lights on the roads and astrophotography. I've also thought of doing some macro photography. Near by where I live there's a lake and park I like to go to. When it's warm I can shoot the windsurfers on the lake and when frozen I can shoot ice skaters as well as windsurfers. I don't particularly like portraits of people though.
Lately I've become very interested in firearms, and I'm trying to find ways to combine those hobbies.
They both involve shooting. One thing I say about photography is that I have a happen trigger finger. Though I don't when on the shooting range, I was certified an expert in the army. I can burn through roll after roll of film if not for the expense of developing the film though it wouldn't be so bad if I access to a darkroom. Hopefully I'll get access to one soon, there's a photography association here that's open for membership to photographers whether amateur or professional. There they have darkrooms members can use. But anyway in a way I did combine both types of shooting, cameras and firearms. As I said above when I was in the Army my CO made me the company's photographer. And both I and my unit was infantry.
FalconWhy not adapt some FOSS software? Because you want/need the copyright to "protect" you? Is it not better to cooperate with other photographers to develop the software - in that way you might not only get better software, but also get more time to photograph, which seemingly is the point of the whole software thing.
I have thought of that, I specifically thought about using software with one of the BSD type licenses.
I've contributed quite a lot of code to GPL'ed software, most of it "owned" by commercial vendors.
Oh I have thought about contributing to GPL'ed software. There's one program that I'll specifically thought of, HTTrack. I have frequently downloaded, ripped, websites for research and when I've used Linux I used HTTrack or WinTrack on Windows. Now I'm using OS X and though it runs in OS X it requires X11, so I'd like to port it the run natively on OS X.
Putting a price on everything is not necessarily the best solution. Don't you ever work together with your neighbours to fix the playground?
I don't know any neighbors, so no I haven't worked with any of them. I used to volunteer though. As a full tyme student in college even though I was majoring in Computer Engineering I volunteered frequently for the Student Affairs Coordinator, the stage dancing program, and theatre program. I even took a class in ASL, American Sign Language, so I could talk with hearing impairs students which eventually led to a job working for handicapped services.
You should also be aware that if you GPL the "old" versions you have, some other people will likely improve on your software and start using it. As your "newest" version is NOT GPL'ed, you cannot apply their patches. So, you will most likely end up with a competing, non-free version. If your program is any good, you will end up with the most expensive and likely worst of the two.
Which is why I'd rather use a BSD style license for any software I'd want to sale.
FalconBut when they can't get a copyright or patent they don't have much reason to create and if they do then share what they create, other than ego.
History shows that this isn't true.
Ah but artists made a living in different ways throughout history. For instance in ancient Athens government subsidized theatre. More recently, classical composers had wealthy benefactors. Mozart had the wealthy pay to watch him perform, and or to write a composition for them. If you look at both the expressionists and impressionists painters, many of them barely were able to make a living. It was only after death when they became famous. Hemingway was able to make a living by working as a reporter. He wrote reports on the Spanish Civil War, between the Republicans and Loyalists if I recall right.
Some open source programmers may be able to do the same but I seriously doubt that many programmers working for CA, EA, MS, and others would be able to make a living writing software if the code had to be open source, they didn't have copyrights. Hey, I support open source, the way it is now it's purely voluntary. But the only option if there's no copyrights is either to have a wealthy benefactor or not program for a living.
Most creations and, indeed, the best creations come about because the creator loves creating. The founders fully realized this when they wrote the constitution (which was not the first copyright law, but it was one of the first that had the good of society as its primary focus, as opposed to the good of the government).
At first Thomas Jefferson was against copyrights and patents, however his friend James Madison convinced him that they could encourage progress. TJ even was awarded a patent himself, for a mill he invented for the hemp he grew on his farm. Actually if not for cotton, cotton overtook hemp for clothing, his patent could have helped him as he was often broke. Anyway after he was convinced copyrights and patents could help using actuarial tables he calculated how long the terms should last, 14 years. And like the Founding Fathers I too believe copyrights can help progress society. I'm not so sure able patents though. But at a minimum I believe they shouldn't last more than those 14 years. Maybe even less.
Fast forward to the present. We now have a situation where publication is cheaper than it has ever been. In fact, on-line publication is essentially free. This means that the #1 reason for society to support copyright is nearly non-existent.
It's only cheaper to publish, not to create. If anything it's more expensive to create now. Seeing as how copyrights are granted to encourage creation to be released, the purpose of copyrights is still very much valid.
We also have a situation where copyright lasts longer and grants a larger monopoly than ever before.
See where I address this above.
I'm a fan of copyright, but I think we need to seriously rethink its implementation. Copyright terms should be slashed, publishers that make use of DRM that is more restrictive than copyright law should not be granted copyright protection, software that does not publish source code should not be granted copyright protection, and performance art, such as music and movies, should either have extremely short copyrights, or else non-commercial sharing should be explicitly legalized. Finally, copyrights owned or controlled (via contract) by corporations should have significant annual registration fees.
This I agree with as I've stated above dealing with some of your points.
Falconbut the article says 540% for switchgrass
Corn is pretty bad for ethanol but because a lot of corn is grown and it also gets large subsidies the corn industry is pretty powerful. Sugarcane is better however it only grows in a few places in the US. I've heard it's grown in three states, I know it grows in Florida and Hawaii but I don't know the other state. However if the US really wanted to use sugarcane for ethanol, 90 miles from Florida there's Cuba and Cuba can produce as much cane as the US will take. But if somehow that's not enough Brazil also produces a lot of it. However though not as powerful as the corn industry the sugarcane industry still has some power. It's partially because of them that the US embargo against Cuba hasn't ended. It is also responsible for high tariffs on Brazilian sugar cane.
FalconAccording the the article, you're right, it takes about four times more invested energy (usually in the form of oil, not counting the sun) to make ethanol from corn than you get out.
No, TFA says "roughly 25 percent more energy returned by corn-based ethanol according to the most optimistic studies." You start out with the 100% energy and when corn ethanol is used you have 125% of energy to burn.
FalconYou 'make' nitrogen with energy, using the Haber-Bosch process. When oil is the cheapest way to acquire energy (as used to be the case) people will make it with oil.
The cheapest way to make nitrogen is to drink and piss. Urea is high in nitrogen. A good way to see this in action, so to speak, is to piss in one spot on grass. Within a few days a brown spot will appear there, that brown spot is a nitrogen burn. If you garden mix 1 part urine with 10 parts water and use it to water your plants. They'll love you for it. Of course you can't do that if you want organics as organics prohibits it.
FalconAbout 90% of the energy involved is for (a) fertilizer
Actually the fertilizer used in conventional western farming is a petrochemical. As are the herbicides [pdf] sprayed on crops.
FalconShow me a large-scale ethanol process, sunlight-to-tank, that doesn't take petroleum as an input and then I'll be much more impressed. So far I haven't seen one that seems practical.
Check out Brazil. Most of Brazil's vehicular fuel is ethanol. Brazil's ruling military junta started the country on using ethanol when the 1973 oil crisis took place. Brazil is closer to becoming energy independent than just about any industrialized nation. And Brazil uses sugarcane not switchgrass which is better for ethanol production.
FalconYes I understand that, but my comment was based on the statement above about Switchgrass being pwned by algae.
Okay.
FalconI don't think *anyone* is arguing that corn subsidies increase the price of corn. That is completely nonsensical.
Actually corn prices are higher, it's because of the subsidies make it seem as corn doesn't cost as much. Subsidies are really a hidden cost spread out so everyone who pays taxes pays, even those who don't eat corn.
Falconthat's interesting and all, but locally, i remember paying $1 for 12 ears of sweet corn to cook. last year, it was about $1/ear - that's 100% increase in about 3 years. what's going on with my local farms? are they not subsidized?
No, small farmers don't get much in subsidies. Big agribusinesses like Archer Damiel Midland, ADM, and Cargill get the subsidies. The Libertarian Freemarket CATO institute has a policy analysis on "Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare". And: "Largest farms and firms get subsidies; Cargill among beneficiaries, list shows."
FalconThe fact that the agribusiness industry has to spend that much money and they barely have anything to show for it just shows how little influence they have. Corn-based ethanol subsidies are basically the only thing I can think of that they have ever done to help the corn market. Looking at one recent success and saying it means they are powerful is not a very good call.
Agribusinesses don't have much influence? Please explain all the farm subsidies especially corn subsidies then. Between 1995 and 2005 corn alone got more than $50 billion.
FalconSubsidies are about keeping farmers working for cheap
Subsidies are about stuffing the pockets of corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, and Cargill. "Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare". "Largest farms and firms get subsidies; Cargill among beneficiaries, list shows". Notice how the ADM case study is from the Freemarket CATO Institute.
FalconI looked it up and you are correct -- I'm happy to see I was behind the times on my opinion of the AMA regarding cannabis use.
Hemp is a pretty big interest of mine. There are many things hemp can do used for, hemp is probably the most industrially useful plants there is. It can be used for clothing, fiber, food, fuel, medicine, and plastic among other uses. Throughout much of history hemp has been put to use by society. Heck even artists have used hemp. The canvas painters used to paint on comes from hemp, "canvas" comes from "cannabis". The only reason hemp was made illegal, by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, was because it posed a threat to some rich and powerful people. Plastic was originally made from plants with hemp being one of the sources for Bioplastic. The camera company Kodak made plastic, such as used for film, from plants. However in the mid '30s DuPont was granted a patent on making plastic from petroleum oil. Henry Ford built a vehicle on his Iron Mountain Estate not only with plastic made from hemp but was also powered by ethanol made from hemp. Hemp he grew on the estate. Using hemp to make fuel was a threat to Rockefeller of Standard Oil. Also in the mid '30s MIT published a study showing an acre of hemp made more pulp for paper than an acre of forest. Because he owned thousands of acres of forest he used for making paper, Newspaperman William Randolph Hearst saw hemp as a threat. What I find ironic about this is that the January 1938 issue of "Popular Mechanics" published an article calling hemp the "New Billion Dollar Crop", and Hearst's publishing company owns PM.
It was Harry J Anslinger, as head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, who pushed to make hemp illegal. And Anslinger was the nephew-in-law of Andrew W. Mellon, who was the Treasury Secretary under Roosevelt as well as the Mellon from Mellon Bank. And DuPont's biggest financial backer, banker, was Mellon. So in the end hemp was made illegal strictly because some wealthy people saw it as a threat.
FalconTrue. The creator has every right to keep it to himself. Society can't demand that he publish it. You're starting to get just a hint of the rationale underlying copyright law. Keep following that thread.
Sure someone can keep what they create for themselves however that doesn't improve society. Society itself is improved when progress is available to society. But when they can't get a copyright or patent they don't have much reason to create and if they do then share what they create, other than ego. With FOSS programmers have the choice as to what they do, as long as they create software on their own that is. If they want they can keep it closed or make the code open source. I'm on disability now however this year I want to start working as a photographer. I've been thinking about writing some software that will make it easier to run the business, I'm poor and can't afford to buy commercial software for a photo business. However if I spend much tyme programming then I'll want the option to sell the software to other photographers yet prevent them from being able to turn around and sell the software themselves. However as I improve the software I'd like to open the source of older versions.
FalconYea, it's paper made from hemp.
Do you have a source for that? :-) I actually have an interest in traditional inks and writing, but cannot find any source for the material of the Constitution. As far as I know it was written on parchment (skin) like many legal documents of the time. I have a friend who makes paper the (really) old fashioned way out of linen rags in the style of Europe, but I know that hemp was a popular fiber here.
Perhaps I misspoke. When I answered I was thinking of the "Declaration of Independence". Thomas Jefferson wrote drafts of the DOI on hemp paper. Here's are links for that. However the Jefferson Monticello says more than likely the paper was made from flax or linen rags.
Richard Stallman has a document on his website that says the USA Constitution was written on hemp paper. Another link says the drafts of the Constitution were written on it. There's one simple way to tell what paper was used for both the DOI and the Constitution, simply test them. However I can easily imagine the government not wanting to test them because if they are written on hemp paper then that would stengthen the hands of those who want to legalize hemp.
FalconCollege education is absurdly expensive right now, for any field, let alone going all the way to a medical degree. You might *think* that subsidizing such educations might be considered a good idea, something society should "invest" in, but apparently not...
Actually education is one area I do believe in subsidizing, just not how things are now. How I'd do it would be using public services. The military is a good example, but even then I'd still change the way it works. The way it is now someone enlisting has to sign up for Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) and have money deducted from their pay while in the military. What I'd do is for every year a person serviced, they'd have one year of college paid for. A person could enlist and serve one year then they could attend college one year, serve 4 years and get their bachelor's degree. Simply apply this to many other areas. Go to policy academy and work as a police officer one year then have a year of college paid for. Same for firemen. Another person could work as a teacher's assistant then have a year paid for.
And too bad about africa and the brain drain, perhaps they should work on rational nationalism and pride in nation and so on first.
That would be very difficult as African nations are artificially created lines on maps. Take Algeria. Algeria has two main groups, Arabs and Berbers. However there are different ethnic groups of Berbers, each with it's own customs. Or Nigeria. Nigeria is oil rich but out of different ethnic groups only a couple control the government and reap the benefits of the oil. In Botswana the Kalahari Bushmen have been forced off their ancestral homeland so diamonds could be mined.
This is just a beginning of an explanation of the problems in Africa, much of which comes from colonialism.
I honestly don't understand why people don't want to try and work and make their own nations/areas better, it is an alien concept to me.
Some do stay but it can be a real struggle for others to stay.
Falcon