"Camouflage is the "art of concealment." It involves disguising an object, in plain sight, in order to hide it from something or someone. We generally think of camouflage as being used during war. Soldiers often wear special camouflage clothing and smear mud on their faces at night to become less visible. But, camouflage exists in many other forms in the natural world. A chameleon, for instance, changes color to blend in with its environment. A white polar bear is hard to see on an ice fole as is a striped zebra in the African bush.
Animals basically use one of two methods to conceal themselves in nature: general resemblance and special resemblance. With general resemblance, animals use color to blend in with their habitat so that they're almost invisible. Besides chameleons, other animals that use color to match their surroundings include hares, tree frogs, flounder fish, grasshoppers, and lizards.
With special resemblance, animals use a combination of color, shape and behavior to help them appear like something in their habitat. They are simply mistaken for something else. The walking stick is a great example. This insect becomes almost invisible due to the shape of its body, its coloration and its slow movement. It looks and acts just like a twig on a bush or tree.
Some animals have special markings that help to disguise their shapes. The zebra, for instance, has markings that run off its edges into the background. This feature allows the zebra to fade into the background so successfully its difficult to see its overall shape. Just imagine how confusing a herd of zebras must be to a predator.
Other animals that use special resemblance to conceal themselves include giraffes, leopards, praying manatees, snakes, butterflies and moths, caterpillars, and spiders." And then there's animals on the www - hmm.. how do they conceal things!?
"Doesn't annoy the eye" - That menas that all STOP signs at road intersections should be "Sky Bue" instead of RED. Eh!! The only reason for camouflage is deception:
Animals and people hide things for various reasons. Animals in nature hide their young to protect them from predators. Pirates hide stolen treasure to protect it from being stolen yet again. One of the most effective ways to hide something is by camouflaging it. Camouflage is the "art of concealment." It involves disguising an object, in plain sight, in order to hide it from something or someone.
I type "shit" into Google to see which paid advertisements would show up on the search results page . Here it is:
Cheap Auto Insurance
Put Hundreds of Dollars Back
In Your Pockets. Takes 3 min.
www.KnowledgeDirectory.org
Yes... yes.... Google shouldn't change the header from Sponsor to Paid Advertising - to explain that a business is paying to get it's advertisement listed on the search results page. Why? It will cost 6 tor 9 millions of dollars to get someone to go in to delete "Sponsor" and type in "Paid Advertisment". And it will cost another 6 to 9 million dollars to change the color of the header from blue to red. And another 6 or 9 million to mention that the search results on every page includes paid advertisements. Wow! That's 20-30 million! Even I could make the changes for Google for one dollar. The only real question to ask is : "why doesn't Goooogle do full disclosure?"
I always find it interesting when "Group X, Y, or Z" puts out media releases about the "The Sky Is Falling" - in regards to one thing or another. It's all about creating fear - in regards to one thing or another. Why? Money! Create enough fear and the money starts to roll in - first from donations - then grants from tax money. And when the donations and/or grants start to dry up - another flury of media releases about "The Sky Is Even Falling More". Unfortunately the media just repeat the lastest the media release on X,Y or Z without any investigative reporting on the issue. If they spent three seconds thinking about it - the media would realize that it would be unlikely that any one "thing" could cause (lets assume that these "things" are even happening) - for example "Global Warming", or "Climate Change" or "Ozone Depletion". There is a notion that while "we" pay attention (and money) to these "Sky Is Falling Notions" - "we" miss the real issues/dangers - like being hit by an asteroid. Which apparantly has a high probability. Of course so-called "environmentalists" don't know squat about dealing with asteroids - therefore don't put about media releases about that issue - because they can't get donations or grants for that issue. It's good to see some of the people in white coats coming out with more info to destroy this notion of one "thing" causing anything. Oh I forgot the earth is the centre of the Universe.;^)
Since 60% of web users - using search engines don't know that paid advertising exists on Google and other search engines - obviously Google and other search engines needs to change - it's that simple. Clear languaged, easily found disclosure statements are needed. Why doesn't Google do it? My allegation - they are afraid to - it doesn't mesh with the perceived branding that Google has orchestrated.
Er, I mean - like you see in every newspaper and magazine - whenever an advertisement appears that looks like a "story" - a distinct tag above the advertisement - "Paid Advertising". It's done to alert/warn the reader. The TAG is in each and every copy that day for a newspaper. In each copy for the month for the magazine. Again using the word "Sponsor" doesn't really ring a bell in the users mind - doesn't create the same alert - the same warning - but "Paid Advertisement" definitely does. Nothing like full disclosure.
1) The paying advertisers list that appear on the right side of a Google page - is absolutely the result of the search. And again most www users searching don't know a link on the right side of a Google page is advertising.
2) Many other search engines use Google - often paying Google advertisers web sites show up directly in the search results of these other search engines. Is this news to Google?
There needs to be a "Paid Advertising" tag attached to each and every advertisement - which follows the add no matter which search engine lists it. Enough smoke and mirrors.
One has to question the business ethics of Google and Firefox. According to Consumer Reports web site - 60% of www users using search engines don't realize that businesses are paying money to show up on the search page results. Google now makes 250 million profit per year from advertising. Yet nowhere on a Google search page result - does Google explain that Google accepts advertising money from businesses - enable those business web sites to show up in the search page results. Nor does Google explain that showing up first in a search - doesn't mean best. Nor does Google explain how the results happen. If you do a search with Google you will notice has just one vague word to tell the user that businesses are paying advertising fees - "sponsor". You will also notice that the layout and text colour is the same for the advertisers as the those web sites in the search results to the left. And just a faint blue - grey line separates the advertisers from the other results.Why is Google doing this? My allegation is that Google wants to pretend that searching on the web is just like going into an encyclopedia. But it is not. Google needs to: a) have a clear full disclosure statement on every page about the advertising b) have a clear disclosure statement about how the results appear - and that first doesn't mean best. c) that the "Sponsored Links" label be changed to "Paid Advertising" (just like newspapers and magazines). d) that the paid advertisers be in a red lined box. e) that all paid advertisers be shown in red text. f) disclose that other search engines use Google to place advertisers directly in the search results. Naturally Firefox needs to have a clear disclosure statement built into the header - explaining the relationship between Firefox and Google - with a link to a page that goes into the financial details between Google and Firefox. Here is a web page with a study that covers it all http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/search-rep ort-disclosure-abstract.cfm
"Tradeskills" are the intuitive business skills acquired by growing up and being involved in a family business before age 18 (including the corner variety store). Or by working in various jobs (before age 18) close enough to successful business people (they have Tradeskills) to absorb the little details as well as the big details - of how to succeed . Or by running own business for 7 to 10 years before age 18. The business survival skills learnt in this 7 to 10 year period simply can't be gained in school (of any kind). On the other hand 'Tradeskills" could be gained by apprenticing for a 7 to 10 period directly under someone who has "Tradeskills" (this approach is often used in Europe).
A simple example of "Tradeskills" is having a contact telephone number prominently displayed on the home page of a business web site. Then - having of one the best people in the business answering the telephone. I am amazed by the number of business web sites that don't have any telephone number or bury it somewhere. The average retail sale in a store takes 16 interactions between the seller and the buyer. But you wouldn't know that by 98% of the web businesses. 30% don't even answer email!! Etc.
A person running a business has a prime responsibility of branding the business (some people call this marketing or publicity) without spending a penny. And no advertising needed! No sales - no company. The person running the business is essentially selling himself or herself.
One assumes the person running the business has carved out a unique market niche for the unique service or unique product. The idea is not to compete (legal or otherwise).
Most everthing else is "nuts and bolts".
The term "Tradeskills" was coined by Michael Philips and/or Paul Hawken. Tradeskills referrs to a set of skills that successful business operators have by age 18. And one can't get these "Tradeskills" by taking an MBA.
If a business operator (CEO or whatever) has both "Tradeskills" and the technical background - then he can likely run the IT company successfully. If the business operator knows the IT end - but lacks "Tradeskills" - the business will likely fail. The latter operator needs to find a partner or employee or consultant. Obviously Steve Jobs had/has the Tradeskills - Wozniak had the IT down pat.
Sometimes someone who has "Tradeskills" appears slimey, cut throat - because of their aggressive focus - especially when dealing with someone who lacks "Tradeskills".
Anyone with a computer, scanner and inkjet printer (or go to the libray or Kinko - can re-produce anyone's standard photo I.D.
Anyone with an hand held anti-tank rocket launcher can take down an airliner (likely done in New York post 9-11.)
There are a million or more ways to do nasty things.
What's the point of this ID bull? Fear and control which is what the BOYS are really all about.
Its amazing how the USA's Facist unperpinnings show through the "smoke and mirrors" now and then. The BOYS have been working on this for years. At first they wanted to own the internet and when that failed - they then started to give the elected BOYS enough money and BJ's to stop others (meaning those dirty masses-us) from ensuring that the internet will always be a place for free expression of ideas. Yesterday the USA courts ruled that during elections candidates cannot attack corporations for pollution and other destructive behaviour!!
Since so little research has been done on strawbale walls - why not do some?
1) Find out if there are moisture problems within the strawbales or on the exterior or interior surface after the strawbales are sealed in. Why? Mositure will cause dryrot of the straw and only a 2% mositure level in the straw will reduce the insulative ability of the straw - in other words double your heating bills!Install transducers in the strawbales wired to some black boxes wired to your computer. Contact USDA's Forest Products Laboratory on how to do it http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/
At the same time you should understand that strawbale construction is likely the least "Green" building material on this planet because of embodied energy - it is a good example of "Green Washing". Embodied energy is the grand sum total of all the energy going into a product or process. So if one includes the cost of water diversion projects to divert water from the Great Lakes into the USA midwest, the cost of oil for fertilizer and deisel to run equipment - naturally has to include the cost of the Iraq war (80 billion? Etc. -- in other words all cost have to be factored in. "There is no free lunch".
In the case of straw - one has to remember that only 1% of the plant is used for food - the rest is waste.
I am almost getting the feeling that a large proportion of people responding here missed out on grade nine science. The assumption is that if some in a "white lab coat" says something - then it must be "real".
One of the biggest "urban myths" coming from the "white coats" was that - having a glass (or more) of wine a day was "good for you" - that is, you were healthier in one way or another. Finally a study was done to evaluate the validity of all the "studies" (500 studies I think) of "wine is good for you". The conclusion? People who can afford daily wine use are wealthier than the average - can also affortd the best medical care. That these people are"healthier" because of their wealth enabled better health care - not because of the wine! How could the wine myth last for 30 years or more? There are thouands of similar "scientific urban myths" - or just examples of really bad science that wouldn't get a passing grade in a grade nine science class.
I am almost getting the feeling that a large proportion of people responding here missed out on grade nine science. The assumption is that if some in a "white lab coat" says something - then it must be "real".
One of the biggest "urban myths" coming from the "white coats" was that having a glass (or more) of wine a day was "good for you" - that is, you were healthier in one way or another. Finally a study was done to evaluate the validity of all the "studies" (500 studies I think) of "wine is good for you". The conclusion? People who can afford daily wine use are wealthier than the average - can also affortd the best medical care. That these people are"healthier" because of their wealth enabled better health care - not because of the wine! How could the wine myth last for 30 years or more?
Two totally different issues/subjects. Everyone would like to choose the poisons/toxins that they expose themselves to - or poisons/toxins that other people decide to expose other people to. Unfortunately its the same people in white lab coats that are protecting corporations who are exposing us to a hundreds (thousands) of known poisons/toxins (carcinogens, mutants and so on). Whether its the lead coming about of submersible household water pumps (700% about the legal level) or cancer causing VOC's (lurea formaldyhyde et al) off gasing from all carpets, interior plywood, paricle board etc.
No one (except some folks in white lab coats) would oppose fighting these polluters when p[roven health risks are shown. But that's different from making claims that some pollution is changing the climate of this planet.
As I mentioned before - cows account for a large proportion of the gases that supposedly cause global warming - I don't see these people in white lab coats telling us to stop eating beef, cheese and drinking milk.
The notion of how to check whether something is "scientific" - that is, the research is submitted to a scholarly scientific journal with peer review - is a very old standardized method of deciding what is or isn't scientific. At least it's a first step.
At the same time, there is an old and often used practice in the North America and other places - that is, to lie. We have all seen this in the corporate world (Enron et al, Viox), in politics - (lets bomb Iraq because of their weapons of mass destruction), educational/research organizations (HIV=AIDS) and so on.
I was attending a conference of college administrators. I witnessed a group of administrators writing up a report designed to hide the fact that that the majority of the colleges attending were in fact breaking the law. Every now and then one or more of the report writers would chime together - "bullshit baffles brains"!
Obviously some people use fear to suck tax money out of the system - its easy to run around and claim the "sky is falling". And bullshiting is definitely the standard approach
1. Why don't you point out all of the Perth Group's errors (full of holes). By the way Nobel Laureate for Chemistry, Dr. Kary Mullis states in his book "Dancing Through The Mind Felds" and in many of his public appearances including NPR - that there not one scientific study published in a scholarly journal with peer review that shows that "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS".
Dr. Mullis earned a Ph.D. degree in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley later became a postdoctoral fellow in pediatric cardiology at the University of Kansas Medical School, with emphasis in the areas of angiotensin and pulmonary vascular physiology - followed by two years of postdoctoral work in pharmaceutical chemistry at the University of California. Does Dr. Mullis trump your almost PhD.;)
2. What is Truth? Is that a value held highly?
a) Is it true that 50% of all master theses are cooked?
b) Is it true that the NIH gives $300,000 hunks of tax money to people who state that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. (How many people lie for less money?)
c) How many CEOS do you know who haven't lied - in order to make big bucks?
d) What have you learned about corporate lying (ENRON, WORLDCOM and hundreds (thousands?)
e) How often do scientists lie about problems related to the drug industry?
f) and so on..............
Here's a place to get a better "picture" of the notion of HIV=AIDS. It's presented by the Perth Group at the Royal Perth Hospital at http://www.theperthgroup.com/FAQ/question3.html
"The Perth Group of was formed in 1981 at the Royal Perth Hospital, a public teaching hospital affiliated with the University of Western Australia. The three original members are the leader, biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, emergency physician Valendar F Turner and Professor of Pathology John Papadimitriou. Over the years several other scientists have contributed to or joined the Group. These are physicists Bruce Hedland-Thomas, David Causer and Barry Page, Florida USA biochemist Todd Miller and Colombian physician/medical researcher Helman Alfonso. The Perth Group has published scientific papers and letters in peer reviewed medical journalsas well as in the popular press. Two of the group are invited members of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel and have presented our material in various forums including the Presidential Panel and via satellite at the Geneva International AIDS Conference. "
I suppose you are not retarded - because you can read. So here's a web page below with many links about HIV=AIDS.
Here's some quotes ferom that page:
"Alex Russel is offering £10,000 Reward for the first person who can prove that HIV exists." (Apr.2 02)
"During the past 20 years HIV-AIDS research has shown to a line of critical scientists again and again that the existence of HIV has not been proven without doubt, and that both from a aetiological (causal), and a epidemiological view, it can not be responsible for the immunodeficiency AIDS. In view of the general accepted HIV/AIDS hypothesis this appeared to me so unbelievable that I decided to investigate it myself. After three years of intensive and, above all, critical studies of the relevant original literature, as an experienced virologist and molecular biologist I came to the following surprising conclusion: Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/award.htm
Slashdot Mirror
How many shares of google do you own ;^? Hope you aren't designing web sites or designing software. Apparantly Usability is not on your radar.
"Camouflage is the "art of concealment." It involves disguising an object, in plain sight, in order to hide it from something or someone. We generally think of camouflage as being used during war. Soldiers often wear special camouflage clothing and smear mud on their faces at night to become less visible. But, camouflage exists in many other forms in the natural world. A chameleon, for instance, changes color to blend in with its environment. A white polar bear is hard to see on an ice fole as is a striped zebra in the African bush. Animals basically use one of two methods to conceal themselves in nature: general resemblance and special resemblance. With general resemblance, animals use color to blend in with their habitat so that they're almost invisible. Besides chameleons, other animals that use color to match their surroundings include hares, tree frogs, flounder fish, grasshoppers, and lizards. With special resemblance, animals use a combination of color, shape and behavior to help them appear like something in their habitat. They are simply mistaken for something else. The walking stick is a great example. This insect becomes almost invisible due to the shape of its body, its coloration and its slow movement. It looks and acts just like a twig on a bush or tree. Some animals have special markings that help to disguise their shapes. The zebra, for instance, has markings that run off its edges into the background. This feature allows the zebra to fade into the background so successfully its difficult to see its overall shape. Just imagine how confusing a herd of zebras must be to a predator. Other animals that use special resemblance to conceal themselves include giraffes, leopards, praying manatees, snakes, butterflies and moths, caterpillars, and spiders." And then there's animals on the www - hmm.. how do they conceal things!?
"Doesn't annoy the eye" - That menas that all STOP signs at road intersections should be "Sky Bue" instead of RED. Eh!! The only reason for camouflage is deception: Animals and people hide things for various reasons. Animals in nature hide their young to protect them from predators. Pirates hide stolen treasure to protect it from being stolen yet again. One of the most effective ways to hide something is by camouflaging it. Camouflage is the "art of concealment." It involves disguising an object, in plain sight, in order to hide it from something or someone.
I type "shit" into Google to see which paid advertisements would show up on the search results page . Here it is: Cheap Auto Insurance Put Hundreds of Dollars Back In Your Pockets. Takes 3 min. www.KnowledgeDirectory.org
Yes... yes.... Google shouldn't change the header from Sponsor to Paid Advertising - to explain that a business is paying to get it's advertisement listed on the search results page. Why? It will cost 6 tor 9 millions of dollars to get someone to go in to delete "Sponsor" and type in "Paid Advertisment". And it will cost another 6 to 9 million dollars to change the color of the header from blue to red. And another 6 or 9 million to mention that the search results on every page includes paid advertisements. Wow! That's 20-30 million! Even I could make the changes for Google for one dollar. The only real question to ask is : "why doesn't Goooogle do full disclosure?"
I always find it interesting when "Group X, Y, or Z" puts out media releases about the "The Sky Is Falling" - in regards to one thing or another. It's all about creating fear - in regards to one thing or another. Why? Money! Create enough fear and the money starts to roll in - first from donations - then grants from tax money. And when the donations and/or grants start to dry up - another flury of media releases about "The Sky Is Even Falling More". Unfortunately the media just repeat the lastest the media release on X,Y or Z without any investigative reporting on the issue. If they spent three seconds thinking about it - the media would realize that it would be unlikely that any one "thing" could cause (lets assume that these "things" are even happening) - for example "Global Warming", or "Climate Change" or "Ozone Depletion". There is a notion that while "we" pay attention (and money) to these "Sky Is Falling Notions" - "we" miss the real issues/dangers - like being hit by an asteroid. Which apparantly has a high probability. Of course so-called "environmentalists" don't know squat about dealing with asteroids - therefore don't put about media releases about that issue - because they can't get donations or grants for that issue. It's good to see some of the people in white coats coming out with more info to destroy this notion of one "thing" causing anything. Oh I forgot the earth is the centre of the Universe. ;^)
Since 60% of web users - using search engines don't know that paid advertising exists on Google and other search engines - obviously Google and other search engines needs to change - it's that simple. Clear languaged, easily found disclosure statements are needed. Why doesn't Google do it? My allegation - they are afraid to - it doesn't mesh with the perceived branding that Google has orchestrated.
Look prick face - stop being a fascist apologist - and read the recommendations.
Hmm... did you read the study on the Consumers Report web site? Naturally you are much smarter than 60% of the people using the www search engines.
Er, I mean - like you see in every newspaper and magazine - whenever an advertisement appears that looks like a "story" - a distinct tag above the advertisement - "Paid Advertising". It's done to alert/warn the reader. The TAG is in each and every copy that day for a newspaper. In each copy for the month for the magazine. Again using the word "Sponsor" doesn't really ring a bell in the users mind - doesn't create the same alert - the same warning - but "Paid Advertisement" definitely does. Nothing like full disclosure.
1) The paying advertisers list that appear on the right side of a Google page - is absolutely the result of the search. And again most www users searching don't know a link on the right side of a Google page is advertising. 2) Many other search engines use Google - often paying Google advertisers web sites show up directly in the search results of these other search engines. Is this news to Google? There needs to be a "Paid Advertising" tag attached to each and every advertisement - which follows the add no matter which search engine lists it. Enough smoke and mirrors.
One has to question the business ethics of Google and Firefox. According to Consumer Reports web site - 60% of www users using search engines don't realize that businesses are paying money to show up on the search page results. Google now makes 250 million profit per year from advertising. Yet nowhere on a Google search page result - does Google explain that Google accepts advertising money from businesses - enable those business web sites to show up in the search page results. Nor does Google explain that showing up first in a search - doesn't mean best. Nor does Google explain how the results happen. If you do a search with Google you will notice has just one vague word to tell the user that businesses are paying advertising fees - "sponsor". You will also notice that the layout and text colour is the same for the advertisers as the those web sites in the search results to the left. And just a faint blue - grey line separates the advertisers from the other results.Why is Google doing this? My allegation is that Google wants to pretend that searching on the web is just like going into an encyclopedia. But it is not. Google needs to: a) have a clear full disclosure statement on every page about the advertising b) have a clear disclosure statement about how the results appear - and that first doesn't mean best. c) that the "Sponsored Links" label be changed to "Paid Advertising" (just like newspapers and magazines). d) that the paid advertisers be in a red lined box. e) that all paid advertisers be shown in red text. f) disclose that other search engines use Google to place advertisers directly in the search results. Naturally Firefox needs to have a clear disclosure statement built into the header - explaining the relationship between Firefox and Google - with a link to a page that goes into the financial details between Google and Firefox. Here is a web page with a study that covers it all http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/search-rep ort-disclosure-abstract.cfm
"Tradeskills" are the intuitive business skills acquired by growing up and being involved in a family business before age 18 (including the corner variety store). Or by working in various jobs (before age 18) close enough to successful business people (they have Tradeskills) to absorb the little details as well as the big details - of how to succeed . Or by running own business for 7 to 10 years before age 18. The business survival skills learnt in this 7 to 10 year period simply can't be gained in school (of any kind). On the other hand 'Tradeskills" could be gained by apprenticing for a 7 to 10 period directly under someone who has "Tradeskills" (this approach is often used in Europe). A simple example of "Tradeskills" is having a contact telephone number prominently displayed on the home page of a business web site. Then - having of one the best people in the business answering the telephone. I am amazed by the number of business web sites that don't have any telephone number or bury it somewhere. The average retail sale in a store takes 16 interactions between the seller and the buyer. But you wouldn't know that by 98% of the web businesses. 30% don't even answer email!! Etc.
A person running a business has a prime responsibility of branding the business (some people call this marketing or publicity) without spending a penny. And no advertising needed! No sales - no company. The person running the business is essentially selling himself or herself. One assumes the person running the business has carved out a unique market niche for the unique service or unique product. The idea is not to compete (legal or otherwise). Most everthing else is "nuts and bolts".
The term "Tradeskills" was coined by Michael Philips and/or Paul Hawken. Tradeskills referrs to a set of skills that successful business operators have by age 18. And one can't get these "Tradeskills" by taking an MBA. If a business operator (CEO or whatever) has both "Tradeskills" and the technical background - then he can likely run the IT company successfully. If the business operator knows the IT end - but lacks "Tradeskills" - the business will likely fail. The latter operator needs to find a partner or employee or consultant. Obviously Steve Jobs had/has the Tradeskills - Wozniak had the IT down pat. Sometimes someone who has "Tradeskills" appears slimey, cut throat - because of their aggressive focus - especially when dealing with someone who lacks "Tradeskills".
Anyone with a computer, scanner and inkjet printer (or go to the libray or Kinko - can re-produce anyone's standard photo I.D. Anyone with an hand held anti-tank rocket launcher can take down an airliner (likely done in New York post 9-11.) There are a million or more ways to do nasty things. What's the point of this ID bull? Fear and control which is what the BOYS are really all about.
Its amazing how the USA's Facist unperpinnings show through the "smoke and mirrors" now and then. The BOYS have been working on this for years. At first they wanted to own the internet and when that failed - they then started to give the elected BOYS enough money and BJ's to stop others (meaning those dirty masses-us) from ensuring that the internet will always be a place for free expression of ideas. Yesterday the USA courts ruled that during elections candidates cannot attack corporations for pollution and other destructive behaviour!!
Since so little research has been done on strawbale walls - why not do some? 1) Find out if there are moisture problems within the strawbales or on the exterior or interior surface after the strawbales are sealed in. Why? Mositure will cause dryrot of the straw and only a 2% mositure level in the straw will reduce the insulative ability of the straw - in other words double your heating bills!Install transducers in the strawbales wired to some black boxes wired to your computer. Contact USDA's Forest Products Laboratory on how to do it http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/ At the same time you should understand that strawbale construction is likely the least "Green" building material on this planet because of embodied energy - it is a good example of "Green Washing". Embodied energy is the grand sum total of all the energy going into a product or process. So if one includes the cost of water diversion projects to divert water from the Great Lakes into the USA midwest, the cost of oil for fertilizer and deisel to run equipment - naturally has to include the cost of the Iraq war (80 billion? Etc. -- in other words all cost have to be factored in. "There is no free lunch". In the case of straw - one has to remember that only 1% of the plant is used for food - the rest is waste.
I am almost getting the feeling that a large proportion of people responding here missed out on grade nine science. The assumption is that if some in a "white lab coat" says something - then it must be "real". One of the biggest "urban myths" coming from the "white coats" was that - having a glass (or more) of wine a day was "good for you" - that is, you were healthier in one way or another. Finally a study was done to evaluate the validity of all the "studies" (500 studies I think) of "wine is good for you". The conclusion? People who can afford daily wine use are wealthier than the average - can also affortd the best medical care. That these people are"healthier" because of their wealth enabled better health care - not because of the wine! How could the wine myth last for 30 years or more? There are thouands of similar "scientific urban myths" - or just examples of really bad science that wouldn't get a passing grade in a grade nine science class.
I am almost getting the feeling that a large proportion of people responding here missed out on grade nine science. The assumption is that if some in a "white lab coat" says something - then it must be "real". One of the biggest "urban myths" coming from the "white coats" was that having a glass (or more) of wine a day was "good for you" - that is, you were healthier in one way or another. Finally a study was done to evaluate the validity of all the "studies" (500 studies I think) of "wine is good for you". The conclusion? People who can afford daily wine use are wealthier than the average - can also affortd the best medical care. That these people are"healthier" because of their wealth enabled better health care - not because of the wine! How could the wine myth last for 30 years or more?
Two totally different issues/subjects. Everyone would like to choose the poisons/toxins that they expose themselves to - or poisons/toxins that other people decide to expose other people to. Unfortunately its the same people in white lab coats that are protecting corporations who are exposing us to a hundreds (thousands) of known poisons/toxins (carcinogens, mutants and so on). Whether its the lead coming about of submersible household water pumps (700% about the legal level) or cancer causing VOC's (lurea formaldyhyde et al) off gasing from all carpets, interior plywood, paricle board etc. No one (except some folks in white lab coats) would oppose fighting these polluters when p[roven health risks are shown. But that's different from making claims that some pollution is changing the climate of this planet. As I mentioned before - cows account for a large proportion of the gases that supposedly cause global warming - I don't see these people in white lab coats telling us to stop eating beef, cheese and drinking milk.
The notion of how to check whether something is "scientific" - that is, the research is submitted to a scholarly scientific journal with peer review - is a very old standardized method of deciding what is or isn't scientific. At least it's a first step. At the same time, there is an old and often used practice in the North America and other places - that is, to lie. We have all seen this in the corporate world (Enron et al, Viox), in politics - (lets bomb Iraq because of their weapons of mass destruction), educational/research organizations (HIV=AIDS) and so on. I was attending a conference of college administrators. I witnessed a group of administrators writing up a report designed to hide the fact that that the majority of the colleges attending were in fact breaking the law. Every now and then one or more of the report writers would chime together - "bullshit baffles brains"! Obviously some people use fear to suck tax money out of the system - its easy to run around and claim the "sky is falling". And bullshiting is definitely the standard approach
1. Why don't you point out all of the Perth Group's errors (full of holes). By the way Nobel Laureate for Chemistry, Dr. Kary Mullis states in his book "Dancing Through The Mind Felds" and in many of his public appearances including NPR - that there not one scientific study published in a scholarly journal with peer review that shows that "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS". Dr. Mullis earned a Ph.D. degree in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley later became a postdoctoral fellow in pediatric cardiology at the University of Kansas Medical School, with emphasis in the areas of angiotensin and pulmonary vascular physiology - followed by two years of postdoctoral work in pharmaceutical chemistry at the University of California. Does Dr. Mullis trump your almost PhD. ;)
2. What is Truth? Is that a value held highly?
a) Is it true that 50% of all master theses are cooked?
b) Is it true that the NIH gives $300,000 hunks of tax money to people who state that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. (How many people lie for less money?)
c) How many CEOS do you know who haven't lied - in order to make big bucks?
d) What have you learned about corporate lying (ENRON, WORLDCOM and hundreds (thousands?)
e) How often do scientists lie about problems related to the drug industry?
f) and so on ..............
Here's a place to get a better "picture" of the notion of HIV=AIDS. It's presented by the Perth Group at the Royal Perth Hospital at http://www.theperthgroup.com/FAQ/question3.html "The Perth Group of was formed in 1981 at the Royal Perth Hospital, a public teaching hospital affiliated with the University of Western Australia. The three original members are the leader, biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, emergency physician Valendar F Turner and Professor of Pathology John Papadimitriou. Over the years several other scientists have contributed to or joined the Group. These are physicists Bruce Hedland-Thomas, David Causer and Barry Page, Florida USA biochemist Todd Miller and Colombian physician/medical researcher Helman Alfonso. The Perth Group has published scientific papers and letters in peer reviewed medical journalsas well as in the popular press. Two of the group are invited members of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel and have presented our material in various forums including the Presidential Panel and via satellite at the Geneva International AIDS Conference. "
I suppose you are not retarded - because you can read. So here's a web page below with many links about HIV=AIDS. Here's some quotes ferom that page: "Alex Russel is offering £10,000 Reward for the first person who can prove that HIV exists." (Apr.2 02) "During the past 20 years HIV-AIDS research has shown to a line of critical scientists again and again that the existence of HIV has not been proven without doubt, and that both from a aetiological (causal), and a epidemiological view, it can not be responsible for the immunodeficiency AIDS. In view of the general accepted HIV/AIDS hypothesis this appeared to me so unbelievable that I decided to investigate it myself. After three years of intensive and, above all, critical studies of the relevant original literature, as an experienced virologist and molecular biologist I came to the following surprising conclusion: Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology." http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/award.htm