Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:Under what authority? (Score 1) 298

Under the law, no one may prevent speech "because they don't like one of the performers." In practice, though, there are many legal reasons to regulate the "time, place and manner" of "free" speech. I don't know for certain, but I suspect some variation on "preventing criminal activity" qualifies.

Remember, legal does not mean "just" or "good for society" or "morally righteous." It does, however, mean legal.

Comment Re:Incineration (Score 1) 371

You are correct that overall stocks are increasing (or were up to the latest date in the report). But it's not because any particular site is more productive, it's because of decreased harvest and more land being dedicated to growth.

Comment Re:Incineration (Score 1) 371

Nothing in the report you link refutes what I say. That report inventories stocks, but makes no statement on yield per acre per time, or growth rates over time. It does conclude that overall volume of tree stocks are growing on a per region basis, but indicates this growth is due to decreased harvest, not increased growth rates.

Comment Re:Incineration (Score 0) 371

Paper is a renewable resource

This is one of the most frustrating and pervasive narratives still circulating. Paper, and other fiber products, are not any more renewable than oil. Harvesting the cellulose source is so destructive to the growth matrix that yields per time and yields per acre have been steadily decreasing for the last 500 years, and would return to previous productivity levels only a little faster than the earth will make more oil, and that only if we left them completely alone for the duration. This is especially true of wood sources, but hemp and other sources, with greatly reduced impact, are not immune to this effect. Further, to grow sufficient volume to supply current paper needs would require a serious imposition on food growing lands, or widespread destruction of forested lands, which brings us back to that severe degradation of the growth matrix where the trees were growing and preventing erosion, and cycling nutrients, and preserving soil strata, etc.

Comment Re:Incineration (Score 3, Interesting) 371

The energy return on incineration is dubious. Most, if not all, incinerators use additional fuel (oil or natural gast) to get the thing to burn at all, and often, if not always, the energy return is so low it ends up costing more than just burning the supplemental fuel.

This is not to say that incineration is not a useful option for waste disposal in some circumstances. But it's disingenuous to promulgate the process with promises of a net energy gain.

Comment I'm not smart enough (Score 4, Interesting) 226

to know how this thing will operate. Whether there needs to be an agreement, and what needs to be in it, must be decided by some folks who have some decent idea of how these relationships operate.

The unfortunate part is that no one involved is doing anything to establish their credibility with regard to my interests. The people involved are plenty smart, but most of their words and actions seem to indicate that they have little to no consideration of my interests.

Are my interests more important than yours? Of course not. Neither are yours more important than mine. And most importantly, neither are the authors' more important than ours, collectively.

It would be nice to see some attention paid to that fact.

Comment Re:I feel proud as an American! (Score 5, Informative) 500

. . . under the dictatorship of Obama - and we will make sure that all the supporters of dictator Obama will get booted from the Capitol Hill

Wait, is this sarcasm? You're gunning for the funny mod, right?

Because, A., the PATRIOT Act (writing the word "patriot" in reference to these orwellian measures makes my stomach turn, but that's not what I'm talking about here) was promulgated by Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co., and passed under their stern, wagging fingers, and, B., Obama operates from the White House, whereas it is the Congress whose building is Capitol Hill.

I'm confused because Paragraph 2 is an accurate representation of the current state of affairs. I mean, Obama is a far sight short of his promises, much like most Democrats these days, and totally wrong on this issue, but he is way less of a totalitarian/authoritarian than CRB executive was. And, at least one or two of his policies are meant for the benefit of the Plebs.

"Love your country but never trust its government." -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania