Meaning you could spend years and get a network setup, then the next administration rolls in and says hey we are changing contractors because my cousin knows all about computers, please hand over the keys.
As you say, contracts can stop this. IEEE's magazine Spectrum had an article about a group of communities in northeast Utah who were creating a "A Broadband Utopia" to be owned by them. It's speed will be capable of 50 Mbps, it can even be 100Mps. Though the infrastructure is owned by local governments, it is open, meaning anyone who wants to and has the capabilities can offer services using the infrastructure. These services be any combination of internet access, phone service, tv, or other services that come up.
and eventually thrive. Sounds like you've already gotten thru the worst. Good luck.
Thanks. In a sense some say I was thriving, after going through my medical records the docs and therapists I saw said it was amazing I was doing so well. However most things are a struggle for me.
One example does not prove Apple charges double for everything. And as the post I replied to says, they do: "Apple charges double for everything it sells".
why iPods are typically 70-90% more expensive than comparable models from other manufacturers.
I neither own any mpg3 music players nor follow the industry so I can't say how the prices of iPods compare to others. And I don't plan on getting any, the next music player I may get is a turntable for playing vinyl.
So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.
The problem with this though is that MS pulling out of Office for Macs will drive more people to OO and therefore OO will gain capabilities faster. If MS really wanted to harm OO they would release MS Office for Linux and make it affordable. The only reason a person would then use OO is because they won't use MS products.
I'd be supprised if Apple were to release OSX for commodity PCs, though I would like to see it. Apple is as much a hardward as a software company and they've already found out that if they allow Mac clones they will loose hardware sales. For a few years, while Jobs was gone, Apple did license clones. But when Jobs was brought back he ended that as Apple was loosing money because of it.
Aperture isn't a dropin replacement for Photoshop, it's not meant to be a thorough photo editor. What Aperture comes closest to in regards to Adobe software is Lightroom, which Adobe is just releasing version 1.0 from beta. If you're going to do any in depth photoediting you'll still need Photoshop.
Can you back up this statement? The last price comparison I saw between equivilently equiped Macs and Windows PCs Macs edged out Windows on a price/feature basis.
Mac software incurs the SAME expenses as word but has an order of magnitude less avenues for sales. It *HAS* to be less profitable.
Actually the nature of the beast is that the efforts of making a Mac version of software can help the Windows version thus save some money. As TFA says Mac users were to be the guinea pig. Any mistakes made would be in Mac software and the Windows developers could learn from the mistakes the Mac unit made thus lowering costs for the Windows version as well as avoiding lost sales for the Windows unit because Windows users decided to forgo the mistakes by not upgrading. As long as you're willing to loose some in a small or less profitable unit it can help avoid mistakes in bigger units. That's the smart thing to do.
I'd think a true independent, who'd even temporarily join parties just to promote individual candidates, would have heard if their candidate were suing for a recount.
I don't pay as much attention as I should I admit. Right now I'm just trying to live day by day, it's been a struggle for me since I survived a terrible accident which left me with a diability. While I was in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived but I'd argue with them now.
I don't know what ACMENEWSLLC means so I can't say whether I am or am not.
But I am curious. Were you a registered Republican in 2004? Did you vote in the primaries? For whom?
Since the first tyme I registered to vote I've registered as independent or no party affiliation. I prefer to do my own thinking and not what some party wants. I've voted for candidates from 5 different parties, Democrats, Green, Libertarian, Reform, and Republican. And as I've only been registered in two states and both require party affiliation to vote in primaries I've never voted in them. However if come next year Ron Paul is in the Republican primary I will change my affliation to Republican just to vote for him, of course afterwards I'll change it back to no party affiliation. I've already voted for him once, in 1988 he ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate and voted for him then. Actually it during that election that I heard of and learned about the LP, and been a supporter since.
Did you support Badnarik's lawsuit challenging the Ohio results?
I don't ever recall hearing about a lawsuit Badnarik filed. I would support such a lawsuit though, especially after Deibold's CEO pledged to deliver Ohio's vote to Bush after the state bought Deibold voting machines.
it shows that Sibel Edmunds may finally be able to testify by simply connecting the dots between known info.
Maybe I missed it but I went up to the top and didn't see a link about Sibel Edmunds, except the one I posted, which says this. Maybe someone else posted another one.
Gads, I hope it is true.
I'd love to see Sibel being able to speak out without a sword hanging over her head.
Maybe not but at least one USSC ruled Habeas Corpus is a right and that denying it is unconstitutional:
1861: Abraham Lincoln detains thousands, ignores court
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus, arresting anyone who expresses sympathy with the South and holding them without presenting evidence against them or giving them a trial. Hundreds of draft resisters are imprisoned, along with newspaper editors, judges, lawyers, and legislators. By some estimates, more than 13,000 people are arrested overall. When Chief Justice Roger Taney declares the president's actions unconstitutional, Lincoln blatantly ignores the ruling. He also shuts down newspapers that express pro-South views.
Nor the right to privacy.
Again, at least one USSC ruling affirmed privacy is a Constitutional right. I don't have a handy link but in the early 1800s the USSC ruled that the right to anonymity is an important part of the freedom of speech, if people couldn't remain anonymous then they weren't able to enjoy political speech freely, that if they had to give up anonymity what they say could be used against them they couldn't enjoy free speech.
We could make sure no 'normal' person, in the world, emails pictures of their kids, gets a bit to 'extreme' in their home made porn, or wears the wrong colour tie in photos.
Remindes me of a case that came up a few years ago while taking a photography class in college. Some parent took photos of their child(ren) whiile in the bathtub. They dropped off the film and went to pick up up later. When they claimed the photos they were arrested for child pornography. I find this sad, growing up it was common for a parent to take a photo like this and no one thought bad of it. Years ago I used to be a member of a naturalist, also called nudist, group and with the way things are today I wonder what would happen if parents who were members of such a group brought their child(ren) to meetings or get togethers.
Look, congress will do nothing just because you wrote a letter. If they were really wanting to clean up, then they would doing such things as push to have Sibel Edmonds ungagged.
It would be nice if Sibel Edmonds were ungagged however as with many other dreams I've had I doubt it will ever happen. If people knew just how bad things were in the FBI's translation unit they'd loose all belief in the FBI. Not having read or heard about her for some months I went ahead and News Googled her and there was all of five results, and what was the first one? Narconew's Narcosphere, besides/. one of my fav websites.
When you get down to it, if I have to name the nation's most Corrupt Administration off the top of my head, I'd say Andrew Jackson.
Agreed! When Jackson forced the Cherokee living in the Carolinas, and northern Georgia, west on the Trail Of Tears he was sued in the USSC. When the Justices ruled against him Jackson said he was the commander in chief and if they wanted to stop him then they'd have to get their own army.
Mr. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" Jackson.
Yeap! That's what he said.
Abraham Lincoln, yo. Writ of habeus what now?
The Justices ruled against him too. It may be ironic, in that he was a slave owner, but Thomas Jefferson was against slavery and may of tried to do the most for liberty. In early drafts of the DOI, Declaration of Independence Jefferson wrote everybody including slaves and women had the same rights. However because some who believed in slavery eventually signed the DIO this was taken out.
On the contrary. Short-sightedness consists in the assumption that future generations won't have a use or a need for all the weird stuff we toss out right now. For example, think of all the effort that people went through to compost their food and yard waste. Composting is simply ultra-low-speed bacteria-assisted combustion, releasing all the carbon back into the air (much of it as greenhouse-causing methane). Whereas now we have landfill-powered generating stations that harness the bacteria-produced methane and generate power from it. The composting movement was wasteful because it was stupidly premature.
BS! Composting is not only not waste but actually returns nutrients to soil. I love to garden and I always compost, I even compost food scraps. Living soil" is not only needed for healthy vegetation but also eliminates the need for added inputs whether they be fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides. And get what is used to make each of these? Petroleum. When all the petroleum is used up what will replace these chemical inputs? Organic compost. The so called Green Revolution was only possible by mechanization and the use of petroleum and it led to the depletion of nutrients in the soil, some of which were replaced by petrochemical based fertilizers. However using said fartilizers don't replace all of the trace minerals plants need, such as selenium which is toxic in large amounts. Heck even humans need trace amount of selenium to properly utilize vitamin E. Fact is is composting reuses and recycles nutrients needed for life. And it does not release all of the carbon into the atmosphere, all that organic matter left after composting is rich in carbon.
That particular problem has been solved.
Can you prove this? Fact is is potable water is not safe in many parts of the world. Even in the US there has been E Coli in water causing outbreaks. Compleatly, thoroughly, composting though destroys E Coli. Then there's other toxins to deal with. Arsenic, though found in most water in South Asia in also found in US drinking water.
The batery contains toxic materials. Most likley large amounts of lead. The acid would likly fix itself if it didn't kill anything in the process. And then there are sulfates in the battery too.
I'm not aware that these dangers are present in a modern day PC or electronic device. If there are dangers like this,I could see a core charge for it. If there isn't, I see this as just one more encroachment the government is masquerading on order to lay a tax on us. We have spoken pretty loud about not wanting more taxes and they need to cover them up to ensure they are not screwing the pooch come election time.
Computers and other electronic equipment may not only have lead and or mercury in them but they also have other toxins and deathly things. One such deathly thing found in electronic equipment, especially cellphones, is coltan. Conflicts, fightings, and war is being fought in the Congo for the money mining for coltan raises. Substitute "coltan" for "diamonds" in the new movie out about blood diamonds and you'll be close to reality.
Meh. This is a problem; but please, not another tax. How about a deposit instead?
A deposit, even if only partially refunded, is much better than another tax. What's even better would be to have a place to drop off old equipment that can then evaluate the equipment and if any parts are usable they are saved so reconditioned equipment can be built, then given or donated to those who can use it but can't afford a new one. Such an organization could even give out receipts for tax deductions.
We have it here. It costs something like $6 a month extra if we do it.
Here, you can't avoid paying for it, the "cost" of recycling is added to your tax bill when you get your property tax statement. It really pisses me off, what people used to get pay for doing, they now have to pay to do.
Manufacturers won't pay, the consumer will. Any costs will get passed on in higher prices.
And when the manufacturers' sale drop because of higher prices they will find a way to lower their costs. As it now consumers as well as nonconsumers pay. When someone drinks water contaminated by the lead that was leaked from the crt someone else tossed in the trash where it was hauled off to the dump, it's that person who has to pay. The person who tossed it doesn't pay directly, unless of course s/he's the one who tossed it. However the cost will be passed on, if the person has insurance their insurance costs along with everyone else's will raise. If they don't have insurance governmment is sattled with the cost or the person doesn't get treatment. Then there's the cost of the raw material, there isn't a limitless supply of material so as more stuff ends up in dumps mining will get more expensive until the resource is exhausted. And if the resource is coltan this it's those in the Congowho pay with thier lifes. Any way it goes people will pay more.
I see you know it but many people don't know plastic was originally made from plants. I wonder how many remember or have heard of cellophane plastic wraps for sandwiches and such. The "cello" comes from "cellulose" which comes from trees and other plants. Eastman Kodak, the camera company, has a webpage on this: The Process of Making Trees into Plastic. Part of the reason people don't know is because of people and companies like Du Pont, in the 1930s Du Pont was awarded a patent on making plastic from petroleum after which they started pushing to have hemp, aka marijuana, outlawed. Hemp was a good source for making plastic. Henry Ford even built a car on his Iron Mountain Estate using hemp for some of the material used. The car was also powered by hemp, Ford made the fuel from hemp. Hemp is also a better source of fiber for paper than trees, one acre of hemp will produce more paper than an acre of forest.
- Well isn't that the point of these changes? Right now it costs you to choose to recycle it. Now you'll have to pay recycling fees up front so it's no longer financially beneficial to not recycle it.
Short term it doesn't cost you anything to just trash it either, unless where you live has a law outlawing it and you get catch. Better would be to pay a deposit when you buy then when you turn it in for recycling you get at least some of the deposit back. Maybe it can be made so that if when you buy you bring what you're replacing the deposit will be waived. Say you buy a computer and when you do you bring in an old one, turning in the old one means you don't have to pay a deposit. Some places already do this with things like car batteries and tires.
Until such time as recycling processes are actually profitable, it's better to bury the junk in a landfill. There it will stay until an engineered bacteria or nanobot or digester robot or whatever gets invented to reprocess it cheaply.
That's short sighted. By dumping toxic stuff in the dump all you're doing is passing the cost of cleanup onto others, either those who don't produce or use it or to future generations. And that's discounting the risk of drinking water being contaminated along with other stuff such as the distruction mining causes.
Slashdot Mirror
Meaning you could spend years and get a network setup, then the next administration rolls in and says hey we are changing contractors because my cousin knows all about computers, please hand over the keys.
As you say, contracts can stop this. IEEE's magazine Spectrum had an article about a group of communities in northeast Utah who were creating a "A Broadband Utopia" to be owned by them. It's speed will be capable of 50 Mbps, it can even be 100Mps. Though the infrastructure is owned by local governments, it is open, meaning anyone who wants to and has the capabilities can offer services using the infrastructure. These services be any combination of internet access, phone service, tv, or other services that come up.
Falconand eventually thrive. Sounds like you've already gotten thru the worst. Good luck.
Thanks. In a sense some say I was thriving, after going through my medical records the docs and therapists I saw said it was amazing I was doing so well. However most things are a struggle for me.
FalconFine, then. MP3 players.
One example does not prove Apple charges double for everything. And as the post I replied to says, they do: "Apple charges double for everything it sells".
why iPods are typically 70-90% more expensive than comparable models from other manufacturers.
I neither own any mpg3 music players nor follow the industry so I can't say how the prices of iPods compare to others. And I don't plan on getting any, the next music player I may get is a turntable for playing vinyl.
FalconSo no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.
The problem with this though is that MS pulling out of Office for Macs will drive more people to OO and therefore OO will gain capabilities faster. If MS really wanted to harm OO they would release MS Office for Linux and make it affordable. The only reason a person would then use OO is because they won't use MS products.
FalconI'd be supprised if Apple were to release OSX for commodity PCs, though I would like to see it. Apple is as much a hardward as a software company and they've already found out that if they allow Mac clones they will loose hardware sales. For a few years, while Jobs was gone, Apple did license clones. But when Jobs was brought back he ended that as Apple was loosing money because of it.
FalconAperture isn't a dropin replacement for Photoshop, it's not meant to be a thorough photo editor. What Aperture comes closest to in regards to Adobe software is Lightroom, which Adobe is just releasing version 1.0 from beta. If you're going to do any in depth photoediting you'll still need Photoshop.
FalconApple charges double for everything it sells.
Can you back up this statement? The last price comparison I saw between equivilently equiped Macs and Windows PCs Macs edged out Windows on a price/feature basis.
FalconMac software incurs the SAME expenses as word but has an order of magnitude less avenues for sales. It *HAS* to be less profitable.
Actually the nature of the beast is that the efforts of making a Mac version of software can help the Windows version thus save some money. As TFA says Mac users were to be the guinea pig. Any mistakes made would be in Mac software and the Windows developers could learn from the mistakes the Mac unit made thus lowering costs for the Windows version as well as avoiding lost sales for the Windows unit because Windows users decided to forgo the mistakes by not upgrading. As long as you're willing to loose some in a small or less profitable unit it can help avoid mistakes in bigger units. That's the smart thing to do.
FalconI'd think a true independent, who'd even temporarily join parties just to promote individual candidates, would have heard if their candidate were suing for a recount.
I don't pay as much attention as I should I admit. Right now I'm just trying to live day by day, it's been a struggle for me since I survived a terrible accident which left me with a diability. While I was in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived but I'd argue with them now.
FalconI don't know what ACMENEWSLLC means so I can't say whether I am or am not.
But I am curious. Were you a registered Republican in 2004? Did you vote in the primaries? For whom?
Since the first tyme I registered to vote I've registered as independent or no party affiliation. I prefer to do my own thinking and not what some party wants. I've voted for candidates from 5 different parties, Democrats, Green, Libertarian, Reform, and Republican. And as I've only been registered in two states and both require party affiliation to vote in primaries I've never voted in them. However if come next year Ron Paul is in the Republican primary I will change my affliation to Republican just to vote for him, of course afterwards I'll change it back to no party affiliation. I've already voted for him once, in 1988 he ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate and voted for him then. Actually it during that election that I heard of and learned about the LP, and been a supporter since.
Did you support Badnarik's lawsuit challenging the Ohio results?
I don't ever recall hearing about a lawsuit Badnarik filed. I would support such a lawsuit though, especially after Deibold's CEO pledged to deliver Ohio's vote to Bush after the state bought Deibold voting machines.
Falconit shows that Sibel Edmunds may finally be able to testify by simply connecting the dots between known info.
Maybe I missed it but I went up to the top and didn't see a link about Sibel Edmunds, except the one I posted, which says this. Maybe someone else posted another one.
Gads, I hope it is true.
I'd love to see Sibel being able to speak out without a sword hanging over her head.
FalconMichael Badnarik.
FalconConstitution
Maybe not but at least one USSC ruled Habeas Corpus is a right and that denying it is unconstitutional:
1861: Abraham Lincoln detains thousands, ignores court
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus, arresting anyone who expresses sympathy with the South and holding them without presenting evidence against them or giving them a trial. Hundreds of draft resisters are imprisoned, along with newspaper editors, judges, lawyers, and legislators. By some estimates, more than 13,000 people are arrested overall. When Chief Justice Roger Taney declares the president's actions unconstitutional, Lincoln blatantly ignores the ruling. He also shuts down newspapers that express pro-South views.
Nor the right to privacy.
Again, at least one USSC ruling affirmed privacy is a Constitutional right. I don't have a handy link but in the early 1800s the USSC ruled that the right to anonymity is an important part of the freedom of speech, if people couldn't remain anonymous then they weren't able to enjoy political speech freely, that if they had to give up anonymity what they say could be used against them they couldn't enjoy free speech.
FalconWe could make sure no 'normal' person, in the world, emails pictures of their kids, gets a bit to 'extreme' in their home made porn, or wears the wrong colour tie in photos.
Remindes me of a case that came up a few years ago while taking a photography class in college. Some parent took photos of their child(ren) whiile in the bathtub. They dropped off the film and went to pick up up later. When they claimed the photos they were arrested for child pornography. I find this sad, growing up it was common for a parent to take a photo like this and no one thought bad of it. Years ago I used to be a member of a naturalist, also called nudist, group and with the way things are today I wonder what would happen if parents who were members of such a group brought their child(ren) to meetings or get togethers.
FalconLook, congress will do nothing just because you wrote a letter. If they were really wanting to clean up, then they would doing such things as push to have Sibel Edmonds ungagged.
It would be nice if Sibel Edmonds were ungagged however as with many other dreams I've had I doubt it will ever happen. If people knew just how bad things were in the FBI's translation unit they'd loose all belief in the FBI. Not having read or heard about her for some months I went ahead and News Googled her and there was all of five results, and what was the first one? Narconew's Narcosphere, besides /. one of my fav websites.
FalconWhen you get down to it, if I have to name the nation's most Corrupt Administration off the top of my head, I'd say Andrew Jackson.
Agreed! When Jackson forced the Cherokee living in the Carolinas, and northern Georgia, west on the Trail Of Tears he was sued in the USSC. When the Justices ruled against him Jackson said he was the commander in chief and if they wanted to stop him then they'd have to get their own army.
Mr. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" Jackson.
Yeap! That's what he said.
Abraham Lincoln, yo. Writ of habeus what now?
The Justices ruled against him too. It may be ironic, in that he was a slave owner, but Thomas Jefferson was against slavery and may of tried to do the most for liberty. In early drafts of the DOI, Declaration of Independence Jefferson wrote everybody including slaves and women had the same rights. However because some who believed in slavery eventually signed the DIO this was taken out.
FalconThere are quite a number of idiotic things people write on slashdot that piss me straight off, M$ is just one of them. Here's a short list:
"boxen"
"Boxen" is "boxes" in German. German pisses you off?
FalconOn the contrary. Short-sightedness consists in the assumption that future generations won't have a use or a need for all the weird stuff we toss out right now. For example, think of all the effort that people went through to compost their food and yard waste. Composting is simply ultra-low-speed bacteria-assisted combustion, releasing all the carbon back into the air (much of it as greenhouse-causing methane). Whereas now we have landfill-powered generating stations that harness the bacteria-produced methane and generate power from it. The composting movement was wasteful because it was stupidly premature.
BS! Composting is not only not waste but actually returns nutrients to soil. I love to garden and I always compost, I even compost food scraps. Living soil" is not only needed for healthy vegetation but also eliminates the need for added inputs whether they be fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides. And get what is used to make each of these? Petroleum. When all the petroleum is used up what will replace these chemical inputs? Organic compost. The so called Green Revolution was only possible by mechanization and the use of petroleum and it led to the depletion of nutrients in the soil, some of which were replaced by petrochemical based fertilizers. However using said fartilizers don't replace all of the trace minerals plants need, such as selenium which is toxic in large amounts. Heck even humans need trace amount of selenium to properly utilize vitamin E. Fact is is composting reuses and recycles nutrients needed for life. And it does not release all of the carbon into the atmosphere, all that organic matter left after composting is rich in carbon.
That particular problem has been solved.
Can you prove this? Fact is is potable water is not safe in many parts of the world. Even in the US there has been E Coli in water causing outbreaks. Compleatly, thoroughly, composting though destroys E Coli. Then there's other toxins to deal with. Arsenic, though found in most water in South Asia in also found in US drinking water.
FalconThe batery contains toxic materials. Most likley large amounts of lead. The acid would likly fix itself if it didn't kill anything in the process. And then there are sulfates in the battery too.
I'm not aware that these dangers are present in a modern day PC or electronic device. If there are dangers like this,I could see a core charge for it. If there isn't, I see this as just one more encroachment the government is masquerading on order to lay a tax on us. We have spoken pretty loud about not wanting more taxes and they need to cover them up to ensure they are not screwing the pooch come election time.
Computers and other electronic equipment may not only have lead and or mercury in them but they also have other toxins and deathly things. One such deathly thing found in electronic equipment, especially cellphones, is coltan. Conflicts, fightings, and war is being fought in the Congo for the money mining for coltan raises. Substitute "coltan" for "diamonds" in the new movie out about blood diamonds and you'll be close to reality.
FalconMeh. This is a problem; but please, not another tax. How about a deposit instead?
A deposit, even if only partially refunded, is much better than another tax. What's even better would be to have a place to drop off old equipment that can then evaluate the equipment and if any parts are usable they are saved so reconditioned equipment can be built, then given or donated to those who can use it but can't afford a new one. Such an organization could even give out receipts for tax deductions.
FalconWe have it here. It costs something like $6 a month extra if we do it.
Here, you can't avoid paying for it, the "cost" of recycling is added to your tax bill when you get your property tax statement. It really pisses me off, what people used to get pay for doing, they now have to pay to do.
FalconManufacturers won't pay, the consumer will. Any costs will get passed on in higher prices.
And when the manufacturers' sale drop because of higher prices they will find a way to lower their costs. As it now consumers as well as nonconsumers pay. When someone drinks water contaminated by the lead that was leaked from the crt someone else tossed in the trash where it was hauled off to the dump, it's that person who has to pay. The person who tossed it doesn't pay directly, unless of course s/he's the one who tossed it. However the cost will be passed on, if the person has insurance their insurance costs along with everyone else's will raise. If they don't have insurance governmment is sattled with the cost or the person doesn't get treatment. Then there's the cost of the raw material, there isn't a limitless supply of material so as more stuff ends up in dumps mining will get more expensive until the resource is exhausted. And if the resource is coltan this it's those in the Congowho pay with thier lifes. Any way it goes people will pay more.
FalconI see you know it but many people don't know plastic was originally made from plants. I wonder how many remember or have heard of cellophane plastic wraps for sandwiches and such. The "cello" comes from "cellulose" which comes from trees and other plants. Eastman Kodak, the camera company, has a webpage on this: The Process of Making Trees into Plastic . Part of the reason people don't know is because of people and companies like Du Pont, in the 1930s Du Pont was awarded a patent on making plastic from petroleum after which they started pushing to have hemp, aka marijuana, outlawed. Hemp was a good source for making plastic. Henry Ford even built a car on his Iron Mountain Estate using hemp for some of the material used. The car was also powered by hemp, Ford made the fuel from hemp. Hemp is also a better source of fiber for paper than trees, one acre of hemp will produce more paper than an acre of forest.
Falcon
- Well isn't that the point of these changes? Right now it costs you to choose to recycle it. Now you'll have to pay recycling fees up front so it's no longer financially beneficial to not recycle it.
Short term it doesn't cost you anything to just trash it either, unless where you live has a law outlawing it and you get catch. Better would be to pay a deposit when you buy then when you turn it in for recycling you get at least some of the deposit back. Maybe it can be made so that if when you buy you bring what you're replacing the deposit will be waived. Say you buy a computer and when you do you bring in an old one, turning in the old one means you don't have to pay a deposit. Some places already do this with things like car batteries and tires.
FalconUntil such time as recycling processes are actually profitable, it's better to bury the junk in a landfill. There it will stay until an engineered bacteria or nanobot or digester robot or whatever gets invented to reprocess it cheaply.
That's short sighted. By dumping toxic stuff in the dump all you're doing is passing the cost of cleanup onto others, either those who don't produce or use it or to future generations. And that's discounting the risk of drinking water being contaminated along with other stuff such as the distruction mining causes.
Falcon