"Chinese language" is a term on a par with "Romance language" or "Germanic language". "Chinese" is about a dozen closely-related languages. Calling them all "Chinese" is a lot like calling French, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and Romanian all just "Latin".
True, it's only been recently, the past 100 or so years, that there has been "1" unified language in either China or the European countries. In Germany it's called High German, or it was, but the German that's spoken colloquially in northern Germany is different than that spoken in southern Germany. In France different regions or provences have their own dialects if not different languages. For instance the Celtic language Breton is spoken in Brittany and Loire-Atlantique. Towards the south, around the Pyrenees the Basque language Euskera is used.
And while Japanese has one spoken language, it has at least two written systems, though I don't recall what they are now.
Actually, they have four: Kanji, Hirogana, Katakana, and Romaji. And they mix them all together in the same sentence or on the same sign.;-)
I though there was three but I wasn't sure of the third one. Kanji is the, for lack of a better word, "normal" or common isn't it? And Hirogana was created in the 11th/12th century for women who wanted to write? Another is based on the Chinese ideograms isn't it? As for the Ainu of Japan, I don't know what is their language. I have heard from some Native American Indians though that it resembles a language of the Inuits of northern Canada.
Thoughts and opinions can only be expressed openly if done in private?
Though I hate to admit it I have to agree with this. As early as the early 1800s the USSC, US Supreme Court, has ruled freedom of speech especially political speech, can only be possible when speakers can remain anonymous. If a person can't remain anonymous then they are not able to fully speak as what they say can be used against them. During the American Revolutionary War many pamphlets written in support of independence were written anonymously. One of the few who signed his writing was Thomas Paine, who wrote the line "These are the times that try men's souls". He wrote it while serving in the war under Gen Washington's command.
This is the same argument used by the White House in justifying its refusal to release the names of VP Cheney's energy task force attendees. Any third-grader--no offense to third graders-- would know it's just self-serving bull.
Oh, I agree. As I see it there's a difference between the two. The first makes it easier for democracy whereas the second shuts out democracy.
English did make it a bit confusing by also using in- as a negative. The two in- prefixes have different etymologies.
Not that this helps much. Pity the poor foreigner trying to learn
our insane language.;-)
English, as such a Crazy Language, may be the hardest language for nonspeakers to learn. Afterall if the pural of "tooth" is "teeth" then why isn't the plural of "booth" "beeth"? Then again Chinese is pretty difficult as well, as is Japanese. Written Chinese has more than 66,000 ideograms representing words. Then there are 3 major methods of Romanizatization, writing Chinese with the Roman alphabet, Pinyin, Wade Giles, and Yale. And that's just for written Chinese, spoken is totally different. There isn't 1 spoke Chinese. There are a number of different ones, the two most common are Mandarin and Cantonese, with Mandarin the official spoken language in China and Formosa, often called Tiawan. And while Japanese has one spoken language, it has at least two written systems, though I don't recall what they are now.
Falcon
Oh, in going back to English some have noticed my spelling of "time" as "tyme", this spelling is an Old English spelling.
people would rather have the government make restrictions for what everyone watches or listens to for fear that their precious children might hear a dirty word or see a tit.
Unfortunately this is all too true. Also there's a vocal minority who want a nanny state. This fits right in with some religious people's idea of how government should be, like people who follow Christian Reconstructionism, also known as Dominion Theology. These people are basically Christian Talibans and want to stone people to death for many of the things the Taliban beheaded people for such as having sex with someone who's not their spouse, evenif they aren't married. They don't care if people have the same believes, they just want to tell people how to live.
When I was a kid if my parents didn't like me watching certain programming they either changed the channel or turned off the television. I was told to go read a book or do something else constructive. The concept isn't a hard one to figure out. IMHO I think a lot of these censorship happy people are just lazy parents.
I didn't have it like that myself that I can recall. I don't recall not being able to watch anything I wanted. However I still read a lot. Because I was an insomniac, and still am, I could spend half of the night reading in bed, either by moonlight or if it wasn't bright enough by flashlight.
Though, if supply and demand are the only factors, then the small percentage of americans now farming may very well be priced out of the farming market and may enter other fields.
How so? If, as it has been opined by many replying to this article say, there's competition between crops for food or fuel prices will go up. This means more people will want to take advantage of the increase in price by becoming farmers. As it is now, people are being drivien off farms in the US, especially smaller farmers and their children, because they can make more money elsewhere. But if prices go up they will have a reason to stay on the farms. If the price of farm produce goes up so does the income farms generate.
As long as all other countries in the world can meet our food and energy needs, that's not a problem.. we get cheaper food/energy, our farmers presumably go into other fields (um, no pun intended) and make more money than farmers do.
But what happens if someone decides to cut us off? If we don't have active farms, that could be quite some time before we have our own agriculture ramped back up to feed ourselves.
I seriously doubt this will ever happen unless climate change deprives farms of water. As it is the US exports a lot of food. And agribusinesses get government subsidies doing it. If crops were suddenly grown for fuel then those exports will be cut so the US will still be able to produce enough food. However because of cuts in exports third world farmers will be able to stay on farms and earn a living.
So some of the regulations may be there simply to make sure we STILL HAVE FARMERS.
Why would the US not have farmers unless they aren't being paid enough the stay and work on farms? Growing crops for fuel will mean food crops will raise in price thus increasing the pay on farms.
Where in a free market, we very well might not have farmers, if our people decide not to work for the wages that other people in other countries are willing to work for.
Either farms can pay what the going rate is or they can try to pay less. If they pay less than people are willing to work for the farms will not have workers and without them the farms have nothing to sale. However some yuppies are giving up city life to start organic farms now. One of the fastest grocery store chains is Whole Foods Market, which sales organic food.
But FOOD and ENERGY are pretty important things.. maybe, just maybe, we want to make sure that the market doesn't leave us exposed to that kind of a risk!
If crops are grown for fuel, the price of food will rise, and thus it will become economically feasible to farm. I therefore see no problem of a conflict between food and fuel.
Even.. shudder.. some subsidies. Maybe not as many as we have now... but some? Maybe?
Maybe, if they were applied to sustainably farming I might agree with subsidizing them. However I ask why subsidize them at all. Where does the money come from? Taxpayers, that's where. Subsidies steal from some to give to others. I have no problem buying from and paying a local farmer, I am a member of two coops that support local farmers, thus helping him or her earn a living but I don't support government giving Archer Daniels Midland or Cargill billions. As the CATO Institute said, "'ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period.'" This from one of those Libertarian, freemmarket, groups it seems you don't like.
I am saying that we should be thinking more about how to create fair
If some wealthy nation needs more energy and is willing to pay more than the impoverished can pay for food.. or more than wealthy donors would pay for food... then food does not get grown.
And who works on these farms, whether for food or fuel? Most farm hands are poor themself. However working they have an income. That income they then spend in the area they live in which creates more jobs for the area. And with more jobs wages go up. So the poor win too.
To end hunger in the third world more farms in these nations are needed, instead of driving farmers off the farms. A good way to do this is by first world contries, the EU, US, and Japan ending the massive subsidies these governments give to big agribusinesses. If you live in the US you've probably heard of the "millions" of illegal aliens from Mexico and other Latin American countries, afterall there's the big debate by politicians on reforming immigration and maybe even constructing a wall on the border with Mexico. Now why do you think their taking their lives in hand to cross the border? Many of them are farmers who have been driven off their farms because of the subsidies the US gives and NAFTA. Because if these agribusiness is able to export food from the US to Mexico cheaper than Mexicans can grow food. Zimbabwe is another example of politics messing up farms.
I don't see a way around that without regulation, do you? The market maximizes profit without regard for human cost. So how can "the market" fix that conundrum?
Yes I see a way, get government out of the market. Get rid of those subsidies for one. As for a market, free market, it needs buyers. If people can't afford to buy businesses can't sale. How and why does it seem too many people can't understand that? Fact is is a free market does not maximize profits at all costs.
When all the petroleum is gone, it's the end of the world as we know it.
That's fine with me, in one sense. Though I love technology, and was a Computer Engineering major before an accident ended that, I also have other interests. I love to bike ride, the accident happened while I was riding my bike after classes, and used to ride 100+ miles a week. I also love to garden, organically. I'm growing blueberries, brocolli, cauliflower, three different peppers, strawberries, three different tomatos, and tomatilos now. I'd grow more but I don't have the space to grow everything I want. And as for more "primitive" living, I love The Society for Creative Anachronism, SCA. Though it's been a long tyme since I have I used to go into nature; Everglades, forests, and swamps where I could survive off of what I collect or trap.
the wikipedia page you linked to refers to a Cornell study which claims that using switchgrass for ethanol production is even less efficient than using corn
I don't see a study by Cornell though it does mention UC Berkeley professor Tad Patzek as saying "switchgrass has a negative ethanol fuel energy balance". I missed that when I first read the article, just scanned it really. However a professor at Auburn University, David Bransby, disagrees. He says that for "every unit of energy input, switchgrass yields four units out." Put one unit of petro in and you get 4 units out. Those 4 out can then be used as input so you then have 16 units out on the second generation. This would slow down depletion of petro not speed it up.
Sundance is owned by Showtime/CBS, Universal/NBC and Robert Redford. IFC is owned by Cablevision.
Thanks, though I knew Robert Redford started Sundance I didn't know the others you mention also owned Sundance. As for IFC, I though Mark Cuban owned it. Looking at a wiki article though I see Cablevision does own it.
The point being that it should be set to a lower threshold and allow the viewer to raise it to whatever level they are comfortable with.
No I didn't. I don't think the V-chip should be set period to an initial setting. The parent, or viewer, should set it the first tyme the tv is turned on. At the same tyme the security code should be changed from default.
And alas, it's not true that we can just grow more food stocks when we need more. Sure, to some degree we can increase it -- but there is a limit to the available arable land, a limit to growing seasons, etc. And to grow more food despite those constraints requires more energy, so you reach a point of diminishing returns quickly in growing food for energy.
The best crop, or one of the best, for biofuels, ethanol, is switchgrass, which is not a food crop. And what do you think will happen when all the petroleum is gone? There goes a lot of food as well. Besides the petro needed to fuel the farm equipment the chemical inputs for farms, pesticides and herbicides, are petro based as well. So when the last drop of petro goes there goes western "conventional" farming as well.
Ok, so people with money get food and energy, and people without get neither?
Is that seriously what you are proposing? I get it, this is a back door attempt to address energy AND overpopulation, right?
No, the market would come up with a way for people to both eat and fuel their vehicles. For instance a better source of starch, sugar, for ethanol production than corn is sugarcane. If the US were to allow Brazil to export sugarcane or ethanol itself into the US they could provide a lot. Brazil gets a lot of fuel from sugarcane. Cuba could also provide a lot. However sugarcane farmers aroung Lake Okeechobee, FL would go apeshit, they don't want a freemarket.
However even better than sugarcane in making ethanol is switchgrass. There are other initiatives for producing biofuels. The Billionair Richard Branson is investing in biofuels as have Paul Allen and others. And what they are doing isn't an "either or", fuel or food, situation.
Where has this writer been? Under a rock? Before plastic was ever made from oil, it was made from plants. The original plastic wrap was cellophane, made from Cellulose. Hemp was an ideal plant for cellulose. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, making hemp illegal, ended the use of hemp for plastics. And about the same tyme Du Pont received a patent of making plastic from petroleum. Here's a webpage on an Eastman Kodak, yes the camera company, process: The Process of Making Trees into Plastic dated 13 May 2001.
I think it should have been enabled by default and set to the G rating. That way, if you wish to enable anything above that rating, you must enable it yourself. That is the only way you can put the choice and responsibility in the hands of the viewer.
It's the viewer's responsibility to set the tv's v-chip to G if they only want that.
Why is it they are only picking on cable? Why cant this law apply to Satelite providers
According to the article it does apply to satellite:
"Moving beyond à la carte and family tiers, the legislation would extend indecent programming restrictions that are currently applied to terrestrial TV to cable and satellite networks."
Regarding "decency" laws: what is it about certain people that they feel the need to force their pattern for living upon everyone else?
People like this don't have enough confidence in their own stance to allow others to choose otherwise. And because they aren't confident they have to dictate to others.
I still don't understand how/why they bundle fundementally different concepts into one bill.
You can't get a stop sign at the end of your street unless you also vote for new garbage bins for the courthouse...what??
One item is piggybacked onto another item because that's the only way it would be approved, and congress knows this.
The indy channels disappeared a long time ago. What you think of as "indy" channels are just the media monopolies doing odd stuff to try to capture niche audiences.
Funny, I didn't know IFC and the Sundance channel was part of the media monopoly.
I don't care if someone is focused on this quarter or not, that's up to them and their company investors. It makes no difference to anyone else.
It should matter to everyone, afterall it can potentially affect everyone. Don't think so? It's in a company's short term interest to not clean up toxic waste. But it's in others' interest for it to be cleaned up. What if the company isn't going to survive because of short term interests? It's in the interest for the employees to try to correct what's bad so they can keep their jobs. However if they do lose their jobs then there will be more competition between those with jobs and those without, those without may depress wages.
Simply it's in shareholders, some of whom are also workers, interest as well as most everyone else's interest to think about the long term. Only those who don't care about the future don't need to be concerned.
But if they're achieving financial goals by shortchanging security or maintenance, then that's a problem for people OUTSIDE the company -- it has nothing to do with finances,
I'm guessing you don't understand what I previously stated, it is possible for a comany to have a lawsuit filed again them which could cost more than taking corrective actions, ie only thinking about the short term. That being so I see no reason to keep up with conserving with you, you seem to keep disregarding what I have said or twistingh it around.
Slashdot Mirror
"Chinese language" is a term on a par with "Romance language" or "Germanic language". "Chinese" is about a dozen closely-related languages. Calling them all "Chinese" is a lot like calling French, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and Romanian all just "Latin".
True, it's only been recently, the past 100 or so years, that there has been "1" unified language in either China or the European countries. In Germany it's called High German, or it was, but the German that's spoken colloquially in northern Germany is different than that spoken in southern Germany. In France different regions or provences have their own dialects if not different languages. For instance the Celtic language Breton is spoken in Brittany and Loire-Atlantique. Towards the south, around the Pyrenees the Basque language Euskera is used.
And while Japanese has one spoken language, it has at least two written systems, though I don't recall what they are now.
Actually, they have four: Kanji, Hirogana, Katakana, and Romaji. And they mix them all together in the same sentence or on the same sign. ;-)
I though there was three but I wasn't sure of the third one. Kanji is the, for lack of a better word, "normal" or common isn't it? And Hirogana was created in the 11th/12th century for women who wanted to write? Another is based on the Chinese ideograms isn't it? As for the Ainu of Japan, I don't know what is their language. I have heard from some Native American Indians though that it resembles a language of the Inuits of northern Canada.
FalconWhat is the point of working towards the next set of standards if no one is currently up to or following the ones already in place?
Perhape they can use the tyme to push more for companies and developers to follow web standards.
FalconThoughts and opinions can only be expressed openly if done in private?
Though I hate to admit it I have to agree with this. As early as the early 1800s the USSC, US Supreme Court, has ruled freedom of speech especially political speech, can only be possible when speakers can remain anonymous. If a person can't remain anonymous then they are not able to fully speak as what they say can be used against them. During the American Revolutionary War many pamphlets written in support of independence were written anonymously. One of the few who signed his writing was Thomas Paine, who wrote the line "These are the times that try men's souls". He wrote it while serving in the war under Gen Washington's command.
This is the same argument used by the White House in justifying its refusal to release the names of VP Cheney's energy task force attendees. Any third-grader--no offense to third graders-- would know it's just self-serving bull.
Oh, I agree. As I see it there's a difference between the two. The first makes it easier for democracy whereas the second shuts out democracy.
FalconEnglish did make it a bit confusing by also using in- as a negative. The two in- prefixes have different etymologies.
Not that this helps much. Pity the poor foreigner trying to learn our insane language. ;-)
English, as such a Crazy Language, may be the hardest language for nonspeakers to learn. Afterall if the pural of "tooth" is "teeth" then why isn't the plural of "booth" "beeth"? Then again Chinese is pretty difficult as well, as is Japanese. Written Chinese has more than 66,000 ideograms representing words. Then there are 3 major methods of Romanizatization, writing Chinese with the Roman alphabet, Pinyin, Wade Giles, and Yale. And that's just for written Chinese, spoken is totally different. There isn't 1 spoke Chinese. There are a number of different ones, the two most common are Mandarin and Cantonese, with Mandarin the official spoken language in China and Formosa, often called Tiawan. And while Japanese has one spoken language, it has at least two written systems, though I don't recall what they are now.
Falcon
Oh, in going back to English some have noticed my spelling of "time" as "tyme", this spelling is an Old English spelling.
people would rather have the government make restrictions for what everyone watches or listens to for fear that their precious children might hear a dirty word or see a tit.
Unfortunately this is all too true. Also there's a vocal minority who want a nanny state. This fits right in with some religious people's idea of how government should be, like people who follow Christian Reconstructionism, also known as Dominion Theology. These people are basically Christian Talibans and want to stone people to death for many of the things the Taliban beheaded people for such as having sex with someone who's not their spouse, evenif they aren't married. They don't care if people have the same believes, they just want to tell people how to live.
When I was a kid if my parents didn't like me watching certain programming they either changed the channel or turned off the television. I was told to go read a book or do something else constructive. The concept isn't a hard one to figure out. IMHO I think a lot of these censorship happy people are just lazy parents.
I didn't have it like that myself that I can recall. I don't recall not being able to watch anything I wanted. However I still read a lot. Because I was an insomniac, and still am, I could spend half of the night reading in bed, either by moonlight or if it wasn't bright enough by flashlight.
FalconSome businesses and people do but most don't.
Though, if supply and demand are the only factors, then the small percentage of americans now farming may very well be priced out of the farming market and may enter other fields.
How so? If, as it has been opined by many replying to this article say, there's competition between crops for food or fuel prices will go up. This means more people will want to take advantage of the increase in price by becoming farmers. As it is now, people are being drivien off farms in the US, especially smaller farmers and their children, because they can make more money elsewhere. But if prices go up they will have a reason to stay on the farms. If the price of farm produce goes up so does the income farms generate.
As long as all other countries in the world can meet our food and energy needs, that's not a problem.. we get cheaper food/energy, our farmers presumably go into other fields (um, no pun intended) and make more money than farmers do.
But what happens if someone decides to cut us off? If we don't have active farms, that could be quite some time before we have our own agriculture ramped back up to feed ourselves.
I seriously doubt this will ever happen unless climate change deprives farms of water. As it is the US exports a lot of food. And agribusinesses get government subsidies doing it. If crops were suddenly grown for fuel then those exports will be cut so the US will still be able to produce enough food. However because of cuts in exports third world farmers will be able to stay on farms and earn a living.
So some of the regulations may be there simply to make sure we STILL HAVE FARMERS.
Why would the US not have farmers unless they aren't being paid enough the stay and work on farms? Growing crops for fuel will mean food crops will raise in price thus increasing the pay on farms.
Where in a free market, we very well might not have farmers, if our people decide not to work for the wages that other people in other countries are willing to work for.
Either farms can pay what the going rate is or they can try to pay less. If they pay less than people are willing to work for the farms will not have workers and without them the farms have nothing to sale. However some yuppies are giving up city life to start organic farms now. One of the fastest grocery store chains is Whole Foods Market, which sales organic food.
But FOOD and ENERGY are pretty important things.. maybe, just maybe, we want to make sure that the market doesn't leave us exposed to that kind of a risk!
If crops are grown for fuel, the price of food will rise, and thus it will become economically feasible to farm. I therefore see no problem of a conflict between food and fuel.
Even.. shudder.. some subsidies. Maybe not as many as we have now... but some? Maybe?
Maybe, if they were applied to sustainably farming I might agree with subsidizing them. However I ask why subsidize them at all. Where does the money come from? Taxpayers, that's where. Subsidies steal from some to give to others. I have no problem buying from and paying a local farmer, I am a member of two coops that support local farmers, thus helping him or her earn a living but I don't support government giving Archer Daniels Midland or Cargill billions. As the CATO Institute said, "'ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period.'" This from one of those Libertarian, freemmarket, groups it seems you don't like.
I am saying that we should be thinking more about how to create fair
If some wealthy nation needs more energy and is willing to pay more than the impoverished can pay for food.. or more than wealthy donors would pay for food... then food does not get grown.
And who works on these farms, whether for food or fuel? Most farm hands are poor themself. However working they have an income. That income they then spend in the area they live in which creates more jobs for the area. And with more jobs wages go up. So the poor win too.
To end hunger in the third world more farms in these nations are needed, instead of driving farmers off the farms. A good way to do this is by first world contries, the EU, US, and Japan ending the massive subsidies these governments give to big agribusinesses. If you live in the US you've probably heard of the "millions" of illegal aliens from Mexico and other Latin American countries, afterall there's the big debate by politicians on reforming immigration and maybe even constructing a wall on the border with Mexico. Now why do you think their taking their lives in hand to cross the border? Many of them are farmers who have been driven off their farms because of the subsidies the US gives and NAFTA. Because if these agribusiness is able to export food from the US to Mexico cheaper than Mexicans can grow food. Zimbabwe is another example of politics messing up farms.
I don't see a way around that without regulation, do you? The market maximizes profit without regard for human cost. So how can "the market" fix that conundrum?
Yes I see a way, get government out of the market. Get rid of those subsidies for one. As for a market, free market, it needs buyers. If people can't afford to buy businesses can't sale. How and why does it seem too many people can't understand that? Fact is is a free market does not maximize profits at all costs.
FalconWhen all the petroleum is gone, it's the end of the world as we know it.
That's fine with me, in one sense. Though I love technology, and was a Computer Engineering major before an accident ended that, I also have other interests. I love to bike ride, the accident happened while I was riding my bike after classes, and used to ride 100+ miles a week. I also love to garden, organically. I'm growing blueberries, brocolli, cauliflower, three different peppers, strawberries, three different tomatos, and tomatilos now. I'd grow more but I don't have the space to grow everything I want. And as for more "primitive" living, I love The Society for Creative Anachronism, SCA. Though it's been a long tyme since I have I used to go into nature; Everglades, forests, and swamps where I could survive off of what I collect or trap.
the wikipedia page you linked to refers to a Cornell study which claims that using switchgrass for ethanol production is even less efficient than using corn
I don't see a study by Cornell though it does mention UC Berkeley professor Tad Patzek as saying "switchgrass has a negative ethanol fuel energy balance". I missed that when I first read the article, just scanned it really. However a professor at Auburn University, David Bransby, disagrees. He says that for "every unit of energy input, switchgrass yields four units out." Put one unit of petro in and you get 4 units out. Those 4 out can then be used as input so you then have 16 units out on the second generation. This would slow down depletion of petro not speed it up.
FalconSundance is owned by Showtime/CBS, Universal/NBC and Robert Redford. IFC is owned by Cablevision.
Thanks, though I knew Robert Redford started Sundance I didn't know the others you mention also owned Sundance. As for IFC, I though Mark Cuban owned it. Looking at a wiki article though I see Cablevision does own it.
FalconThe point being that it should be set to a lower threshold and allow the viewer to raise it to whatever level they are comfortable with.
No I didn't. I don't think the V-chip should be set period to an initial setting. The parent, or viewer, should set it the first tyme the tv is turned on. At the same tyme the security code should be changed from default.
FalconAnd alas, it's not true that we can just grow more food stocks when we need more. Sure, to some degree we can increase it -- but there is a limit to the available arable land, a limit to growing seasons, etc. And to grow more food despite those constraints requires more energy, so you reach a point of diminishing returns quickly in growing food for energy.
The best crop, or one of the best, for biofuels, ethanol, is switchgrass, which is not a food crop. And what do you think will happen when all the petroleum is gone? There goes a lot of food as well. Besides the petro needed to fuel the farm equipment the chemical inputs for farms, pesticides and herbicides, are petro based as well. So when the last drop of petro goes there goes western "conventional" farming as well.
FalconLet the market decide?
Ok, so people with money get food and energy, and people without get neither?
Is that seriously what you are proposing? I get it, this is a back door attempt to address energy AND overpopulation, right?
No, the market would come up with a way for people to both eat and fuel their vehicles. For instance a better source of starch, sugar, for ethanol production than corn is sugarcane. If the US were to allow Brazil to export sugarcane or ethanol itself into the US they could provide a lot. Brazil gets a lot of fuel from sugarcane. Cuba could also provide a lot. However sugarcane farmers aroung Lake Okeechobee, FL would go apeshit, they don't want a freemarket.
However even better than sugarcane in making ethanol is switchgrass. There are other initiatives for producing biofuels. The Billionair Richard Branson is investing in biofuels as have Paul Allen and others. And what they are doing isn't an "either or", fuel or food, situation.
Falconthere is some grass that yields more ethanol per acre then corn or wheat does.
Sugar cane produces more ethanol than corn does, but Switchgrass make make even more. Perhaps it's what you were thinking of.
FalconNatureWorks have been producing plastics from corn for quite a few years now.
Plastic was made from plants before it was ever made from petroleum oil.
FalconWhere has this writer been? Under a rock? Before plastic was ever made from oil, it was made from plants. The original plastic wrap was cellophane, made from Cellulose. Hemp was an ideal plant for cellulose. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, making hemp illegal, ended the use of hemp for plastics. And about the same tyme Du Pont received a patent of making plastic from petroleum. Here's a webpage on an Eastman Kodak, yes the camera company, process: The Process of Making Trees into Plastic dated 13 May 2001.
FalconI think it should have been enabled by default and set to the G rating. That way, if you wish to enable anything above that rating, you must enable it yourself. That is the only way you can put the choice and responsibility in the hands of the viewer.
It's the viewer's responsibility to set the tv's v-chip to G if they only want that.
FalconBuy a guitar or piano and learn to play music
I prefer the flute and have one by David Nighteagle. Unfortunately I haven't learned to play it yet. I'd love to learn to play it like R.Carlos Nakai.
FalconWhy is it they are only picking on cable? Why cant this law apply to Satelite providers
According to the article it does apply to satellite:
Falcon"Moving beyond à la carte and family tiers, the legislation would extend indecent programming restrictions that are currently applied to terrestrial TV to cable and satellite networks."
Not that I'm saying they *should* be regulated. But when you have Ted "the tubes" Stevens up there, anything could happen.
Are those tubes, like the bridge, going to nowhere?
FalconRegarding "decency" laws: what is it about certain people that they feel the need to force their pattern for living upon everyone else?
People like this don't have enough confidence in their own stance to allow others to choose otherwise. And because they aren't confident they have to dictate to others.
FalconIf you can get any channel you want a la carte, then why do you need to impose indecency regs on channels.
Because they are a bunch of prudes.
FalconI still don't understand how/why they bundle fundementally different concepts into one bill.
You can't get a stop sign at the end of your street unless you also vote for new garbage bins for the courthouse...what??
One item is piggybacked onto another item because that's the only way it would be approved, and congress knows this.
FalconThe indy channels disappeared a long time ago. What you think of as "indy" channels are just the media monopolies doing odd stuff to try to capture niche audiences.
Funny, I didn't know IFC and the Sundance channel was part of the media monopoly.
FalconI guess you didn't bother to read it. I'm done.
Not only did I read it but I also included the part of the post I was replying to before my reply. Bye.
FalconI don't care if someone is focused on this quarter or not, that's up to them and their company investors. It makes no difference to anyone else.
It should matter to everyone, afterall it can potentially affect everyone. Don't think so? It's in a company's short term interest to not clean up toxic waste. But it's in others' interest for it to be cleaned up. What if the company isn't going to survive because of short term interests? It's in the interest for the employees to try to correct what's bad so they can keep their jobs. However if they do lose their jobs then there will be more competition between those with jobs and those without, those without may depress wages.
Simply it's in shareholders, some of whom are also workers, interest as well as most everyone else's interest to think about the long term. Only those who don't care about the future don't need to be concerned.
But if they're achieving financial goals by shortchanging security or maintenance, then that's a problem for people OUTSIDE the company -- it has nothing to do with finances,
I'm guessing you don't understand what I previously stated, it is possible for a comany to have a lawsuit filed again them which could cost more than taking corrective actions, ie only thinking about the short term. That being so I see no reason to keep up with conserving with you, you seem to keep disregarding what I have said or twistingh it around.
Falcon