Slashdot Log In
Obama Announces for President, Boosts Broadband
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Feb 11, 2007 02:40 AM
from the ethanol-and-fat-pipes-for-all dept.
from the ethanol-and-fat-pipes-for-all dept.
Arlen writes "As many as 17,000 people (according to police estimates) watched Senator Barack Obama officially announce his candidacy for President in Springfield, Illinois today. He mentioned several things that will interest readers of Slashdot. The Senator said he wanted to free America from 'the tyranny of oil' and went on to promote alternative energy sources such as ethanol — a popular stance in the Midwest where he announced, because of all the corn farmers. He also talked about using science and technology to help those with chronic diseases, which is likely to have been an allusion to his staunch support for stem cell research. Perhaps most of interest to readers here is the following statement halfway through Obama's speech: 'Let's invest in scientific research, and let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America. We can do that.' Like nearly everything in his speech, this was met with robust applause from the crowd. You can watch a video of the entire speech at Obama's website."
Related Stories
[+]
Obama Requests Creative Commons for Presidential Debates 478 comments
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama recently submitted a letter to the DNC asking for the Presidential debates to be licensed under the Creative Commons. This move would give everyone the freedom to share, recut, and edit the debates as they wish. "I am a strong believer in the importance of copyright, especially in a digital age. But there is no reason that this particular class of content needs the protection. We have incentive enough to debate. The networks have incentive enough to broadcast those debates. Rather than restricting the product of those debates, we should instead make sure that our democracy and citizens have the chance to benefit from them in all the ways that technology makes possible."
[+]
McCain vs. Obama on Tech Issues 877 comments
eldavojohn writes "Ars is running a brief article that looks at stances from Chuck Fish of McCain's campaign and Daniel Weitzner from Obama's in regards to technical issues that may cause us geeks to vote one way or the other. From openness vs. bandwidth in the net neutrality issue to those pesky National Security Letters, there's some key differences that just might play at least a small part in your vote. You may also remember our discussions on who is best for geeks."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Obama/Biden or Osama Bid Laden? (Score:5, Funny)
If they do, will they be "cashing in" on the popular the "dyslexic terrorist" vote?
(If there's going to be a political flamewar, it may as well be my political flamewar).
Re:Obama/Biden or Osama Bid Laden? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Bill Would Extend Online Obscenity Laws to Blogs, Mailing Lists [slashdot.org]
Parent
Because Obama is Jesus Christ 2.0 (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.slate.com/id/2159502/?nav=navoa [slate.com]
Parent
Re:Because Obama is Jesus Christ 2.0 (Score:5, Informative)
For example, in 2003, Obama voted in support of SB1195, which, if passed, would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in the state. If the ban was enacted, law enforcement officials would have been authorized to forcibly enter private homes to confiscate newly banned firearms.
(copied from caosblog.com, but I verified it)
Enough to get me to vote for whoever isn't him.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazing how the people you vote for become "them" when the policies you voted for blow up in your face...
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
If he gets elected, I hope he acknowledges his debt to David Palmer.
(Seriously, though, things like that may have an effect. Never underestimate the power of the media. In this case, at least, for good.)
Parent
Good luck, ask blondes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone knows that the color of a person reflects on their intelligence. Blond hair? Room temperature IQ. It is a fact.
Well, we act like it anyway. We know it is a joke and yet, can you truly honestly say that if you are introduced to a brunette and a blond you do not instantly make an judgement on their IQ?
The problem is not as simple as racism. Well, unless you are an tv-show host. I think it is closer to a negative spiral.
Blondes are stupid, so teachers spend less time on them, so they receive less education, so they truly are more stupid. Blondes then learn that being stupid can work so pretend to be even more stupid to "fit in" wich reinforces the idea that blondes are stupid.
There are others as well. People with glasses can't be athletic. Redheads are feisty. Very simple outward apperances (remember, glasses are nowadays optional so that super athlete may have contacts or laser surgery) that nonetheless most of us use instinctevely.
Oh you can claim you are above them but you are not.
I know you are not. You refer to American black people. Think you are PC? Well actually it is a horrible genetic slur against millions of americans. The "half-breeds". Simple fact is that millions of so-called blacks are in fact the result of interbreeding between different genetic races. If one parent is black and the other white why is their offspring called black? Is one gene superior to the other or something? In theory, since a popular racist theory is that "blacks" are strong and "whites" are smart, then at least some "greys" should be the combination of the best qualities of both and be superior to either. That is afterall how farmers create new animals/crops, mixing the best of two breeds to create a new superior animal/crop.
And why would a grey need black rolemodels at all? Why wouldn't a white rolemodel be just as good?
For that matter what is wrong with a yellow rolemodel, or a red one or a light brown one? Can I only have a rolemodel with extreme freckles?
By the very fact that you claim blacks need black rolemodels you are a racist yourselve. You are saying a rolemodel should be chosen based on their race and that is the essence of racism, to judge a person by their race in ANYWAY.
Can you only admire a person of your own race, surely not, do you then suggest that blacks are not capable of admiring a person of another race?
Lovely thing racism, isn't it?
Parent
Obama's Social Networking Site (Score:5, Interesting)
Dean ushered in Internet fundraising in 2004. Could Obama harness social networking?
A new feeling (Score:4, Interesting)
Feels like Cult of Personality (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama is an excellent speaker and is very charismatic. On top of that, there is a media love fest that is just oozing over the fellow. This is where the warm and fuzzy feelings for him come from.
While the ability to speak is a big bonus (though apparently not required - see GWB), it doesn't make a good president on its own. Obama has done an excellent job saying nothing other then warm fuzzy shit that people want to hear.
He talks endlessly about compromise and understanding, but he has yet to spit out an actual innovative proposal on an issue that puts his 'philosophy' into practice. As far as I can tell from few things he actually has a REAL position on, they are straight across the board moderate democratic party line proposals.
Obama is a great speaker, but I don't trust someone who speaks of warm and fuzzy things yet refuses to take an actual stand. It is still early though. I don't discount Obama. He still has plenty of time to make some actual proposals with meat on them. I just think that the big media orgy and public love festival surrounding Obama is horrifically premature. See if you still like the guy after he actually takes a stand on an issue.
Parent
Ethanol NOT Superior to Oil (Score:4, Insightful)
I am an environmentalist, but ethanol is a BAD BAD idea.
^ FROM CORN (Score:5, Insightful)
Like you said, the problem is the source of the fuel, not the chemical itself. Unfortunately, your post title would lead one to believe the opposite -- you ought to be more careful about that.
Parent
Not enough fertile land... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
2nd stoopid idea on slashdot today (Score:5, Informative)
Read this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=219742&cid=17
One ton of dry biomass = 2 barrels of oil
The USA burns about 20 million barrels of oil per day. As I incorrectly pointed out in the prior post - this is 10 million tonnes of dry biomass per day (I had a brain fart which no one picked up on and wrote 40 tonnes).
It was nicely pointed out and correctly I might add that if we were to produce the amount of ethanol required to offset the oil being burned, then we would need more than the world's production of grain.
I did a google search on "world grain production" and was impressed with the increases since the 1960's.
Since I grew up on a grain farm I have a gut feel for this. The increased production came from dwarf grains (more grain, less stalk), irrigation and fertilizer. At this point much of the north amercian farmland has been badly raped of its nutrients. As I write this a major part of the North American fertilizer industry is shut down because of a shortage of Methane. They use methane to create anhydrous ammonia.
Check here:
http://www.agrium.com/products_services/ingredien
The thing is the irrigation is not sustainable.
The dwarf grains and genetic manipulation lead to mono culture which is questionable sustainable.
The use of methane to create nitrogen fertilizers is past peak by over 5 years in North America. Its a big problem.
The short of it is that there is no way on earth we can double our grain production. We can however produce Ethanol from other than grain.
Cellulose to ethanol is a possibility with fungii like Trichoderma reeshii. But plants also contain pentosans and lignins. T. reeshii likes cellulose.
Personally I think a fungus with more potential is in the Pleurotis genus.
But that is just my guess.
The short of it is that we have a big problem - do we want to eat (grain) or do we want to drive cars.
I hope the cars lose.
As I pointed out before.... the USA would have to convert more than the whole world's supply of grain into ethanol to keep its fleet of car toys on the road.
Re:2nd stoopid idea on slashdot today (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
He's not THAT "staunch" about it (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong (i.e., against the 2nd Amendment) with enforcing gun control laws. It's gun control, not gun banning. I am not a felon (and neither are you, I assume?) so I have nothing to fear from them.
As for redistributive economics, that's another way of saying "letting government do things that it's good at."
Parent
Re:I notice he didn't mention... (Score:5, Insightful)
When the results of global warming release natures fury, you can shoot at the ocean as it trespasses on your property in Texas.
I'm being a little silly but there are more important things than gun control. I hope no one basis their vote on that single issue. There is so much more at stake in our daily lives. If you live for guns and guns alone you have a problem. I beleive in the right to self defend yourself, own a gun etc... but there really are other important issues and we only get two fucking choices unfortunately. Hopefully no one actually does vote based on a single issue... but this country is certainly full of people that do.
Parent
Re:I notice he didn't mention... (Score:5, Informative)
You mean like in Washington D.C.? [disastercenter.com]
Or maybe you mean Chicago [cityrating.com]
Both cities have what is considered to be fairly draconian gun control laws by US standards. Both have violent crime rates well in excess of the national average.
Parent
Re:I notice he didn't mention... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I notice he didn't mention... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I notice he didn't mention... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it cost $2 billion to set-up. And a very large part of this cost was to accommodate people who were trying to circumvent (or simply avoid) registering in the first place.
Gun registration has never been about crime reduction, and more than the fact that the Province makes me register my car reduces traffic accidents. The idea of gun registration is about investigating gun crime, and in this regard the gun registry has been a major boon for law enforcement officials (note that every time the Conservatives start making noise about scrapping it, the police unions step up and plead their case that the registry routinely aids in their ability to investigate gun crimes).
Maybe we should just make the registry a system that needs to pay for itself, and we can increase the registration fee by $500 per gun owner. Then there will be no operating cost to the average non-gun-owning taxpayer.
Yaz.
Parent
Re:I notice he didn't mention... (Score:5, Interesting)
As it's the wee hours of the morning, and I'm hoping to go to bed, I'll have to find a specific reference for you later (assuming I remember to do so, of course), however at one point the gun registry started a programme where they sent registration representatives all across the country, to rural, remote, and Native Canadian community areas to personally register people due to very low compliance levels.
Hiring, training, and flying hundreds of people around the country to help people fill out forms doesn't come cheap. Now I won't disagree that the overall start-up cost wasn't outrageous, and that there wasn't any waste -- but the same can be said of pretty much anything run by humans. The Government of the day, however, bent over backwards to make sure they weren't making criminals out of gun-owning Canadians. Registration deadlines were pushed back, people were hired to fill in forms for people who should have just picked them up from their local post office or community centre and mailed them in, and all sorts of allowances were made to try to prevent creating criminals out of tens of thousands of citizens. And let's not forget the advertising budget -- the Government didn't sneak this legislation in and then send the cops to peoples doors -- to try to encourage registration complience, they had several major advertising campaigns, including to-the-door pamphlet mailings, 1-800 numbers for asking questions about the registry, etc.
People seem to think that such services come for free. They don't. The Government could have taken a hard-line stance, and as soon as the original registration deadline came and went start sending the police to peoples homes, but instead they extended deadlines, had further advertising and educational campaigns, and sent staff to peoples homes to fill in the forms for them. Such services weren't budgeted for, as the Government of the day failed to anticipate how much of a backlash they would see from instituting the registry.
(FWIW, I know a number of gun owners, my father included, who were 100% FOR the registry, and who registered early and on-time).
As for long guns and crime, it happens way more often than you might think. That police woman killed in Montreal two or three years ago was killed by a long gun. The gunman who went on the rampage at Dawson College in Montreal last September was using a long gun. The gunman who killed 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal used a long gun. The Taber, Alberta school shooting was committed with a long gun. These were all very, very high-profile crimes here in Canada, and each and every one of them was committed with a long gun. Long guns play a very significant role in crime. Methinks that all too many long gun owners here in Canada have a very short memory when it comes to the crimes committed here using them.
Yaz.
Yaz.
Parent
Re:Put that back where it came from. (Score:5, Funny)
* Promise things you will never deliver,
* Side with devil A or devil B,
* Take over a massive company or many companies.
And no, this post is not offtopic, you insensitive clod(s)!
Parent
Yeah. Right. (Score:4, Informative)
70% of Americans want our involvement in Iraq to start decreasing. Did you miss that?
Everyone agrees that health care is poor-to-mediocre and getting worse. Something has to be done. Everyone agrees on energy independence.
Repeating lies over and over again doesn't make them true.
Parent
Re:I notice he didn't mention... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyhow, he's running for President, not dictator. Consensus-building is much more important than having the right positions on the issues -- after all, it's Congress that's doing the lawmaking. What we need right now is a President who isn't going to go power-mad overboard again and who can foster a less poisonous political environment. I think Obama is the person to do precisely that.
Parent
Re:I notice he didn't mention... (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you miss the last 4 years. I am a canadian and we noticed in the last 4 years you've changed a lot. You went from a mostly harmless slightly loud giant with too much money to an antogonistic bully who doesn't have the sense not to spend himself into massive debt. I don't think you've been paying much attention.
Parent
Re:I notice he didn't mention... (Score:5, Insightful)
It was never this admins focus. There was an increase. That was a good step.
As for the bullying, we removed the Taliban and finished the Gulf War that Bush and Clinton had not finished.
This one is now wandering into "fox news is my only news source" terroritory. Removing the taliban had as much effect on global terrorism as Clinton had on teen abstinance. The Iraq war has eroded away not only your prestige in the global theatre but also eroded your economy by inducing a massive debt, your cohesion as it's divided your nation, and your security because every orphan you make today is a guy with a backpack bomb tommorow. Security was not the focus. I understand that in order for the american empire to persist you need to control the oil. Not just have oil but keep it away from the 1.3 billion strong chinese. This unspoken but obvious goal of the Iraq war is unethical however I would support it. But the Admin botched it. They are inciting a civil war, shattering their beachhead and they borrowed from their biggest threat to do it. They also weren't paying attention when China secured moderate amoutns of oil from America's much underestimated nothern neighbor.
Do you think we should wait for Canada to keep the terrorists at bay? With what? Snowballs?
You seem to be doing a great job at promoting terrorism with bullets. Snowballs would be just as effective as what yoru doing now. Your liberties are at a all time low as well. The US has never been so hated abroad as now. The US dollar has been at an all time low. The US now expends 2 mil everytime someone yells "bomb". I think the "terrorists have won" and it's gee dubya that did most fo the work. Who are we kidding, it was really cheny ruinning the show. Cheny won one for the terrorist. Good job Cheny.
As for Canada are you aware that Canada fought the US to a "draw" in 1812, Canada did as much or more in WWI, Canada also did the same in the european theatre of WWII. Did you know that your Secret Services as well as britians are partly the creation of a Canadian? Canada has it's own problems and lately a beligerent US is one of them. From protectionist tarrifs to the attitudes of the "average" american. America is seriously trying to alienate it's largest trade partner.
Parent
Re:Midwest (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Midwest (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Midwest (Score:5, Interesting)
Ethanol is supposed to be a more efficient way of using oil. The oil is used to produce corn and refine the corn into ethanol, which produces slightly more energy than just burning the oil directly. The corn captured some energy from the sun that ends up in the ethanol. You can think of ethanol as hybrid oil+solar energy. In the case of corn, it's 90% oil and 10% solar, if that. Sugar cane is much better, but needs to be grown closer to the equator where there is more sunlight. Only Hawaii and the southern parts of Florida, Louisiana and Texas can grow sugar cane in the US.
Parent
Re:Midwest (Score:5, Insightful)
Me too, I live in Ames, Iowa. And judging by your mention of Obama visiting, you at least live near if not here. Iowa is full of corn, and now full of ethanol production. Scary thing is, we've all be sold on ethanol, but it really isn't a good viable solution in its current form. Let me preface my remarks by saying, I'm all for ethanol as part of our Energy Portfolio. 10% ethanol blends are much better than the former required additives and increases the market for corn, while slightly.
We're tying our food supply to our energy supply, which is very dynamic, inefficient from corn, (When compared to other food products), subject to natural disasters and raises the cost of food and food products in ways that most people don't realize. Right now the big push in the US is ethanol from corn, if we converted all of our crop to ethanol and converted all of our cars to ethanol, we wouldn't come close to the actual demand. However, as we push more demand into the market the cost of corn is going to sky rocket. In the US corn syrup is used for anything sweet that is mass produced. The cost of corn syrup increases and the over all cost of foods increase. The cost of feeding chickens, pigs and cows up, which means the cost of meat and eggs go up. The cost of dairy goes up. All because we've change our food source from a food to an energy because it is being sold as the cure for oil.
At Iowa gas stations, higher ethanol blends receive subsidies and are usually cheaper than their non ethanol counter parts. Which is cool, if you ignore the subsidies cost at the state and federal level. Subsidies that place ethanol in a different tax category as gasoline and isn't subject to the same taxes as regular gasoline. There are many more negative sides and aren't just cost related.
The physics of the matter is ethanol is simply doesn't contain as much energy as gasoline and will actually require more to be burned, when compared to the same volume of gasoline.
Growing plants is hard work and is very seasonal in most of the US (like Iowa) adding to large (but seasonal) price fluctuation. Increasing the demand of ethanol also increases the amount of land needs to grow plants, increases the density required, fertilizer required and is considered by some (ironically, the same people who "care" about the environment) to be an environmental disaster in the making.
Mr. Obama is taking a rather popular (and uninformed) stand, and offering up a solution that has many problems that he doesn't know about, most americans don't know about and will probably never addressed either in a campaign or in the future, but saying "I'm all about this ethanol stuff" in Iowa is required, just ask John McCaine.
Parent
Re:Midwest (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
This is not 100% true. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Obama is far to the right of the American peopl (Score:5, Insightful)
The "tinyurl" version of your post is:
Obama says many things, but in the end he always votes extremely liberal.
Parent
Re:you know what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Bullshit. Same song and dance, different puppet (Score:4, Informative)
You are free to remove it from your article listing, if you like.
Parent
Re:Industrial Hemp (Score:5, Informative)
Yes...
...but the devil weed also makes the dirty mexicans and niggers rape white women!!11!one!
Yep, that's what all those racists claimed back in the day, which is why marijuana is illegal*, and why any discussion of "industrial hemp" is dead-on-arrival. Sorry, no miracle energy source for us!
*Technically, the federal government didn't outlaw the substance (as that would be unconstitutional); they just made it so that a permit was required to grow it (citing the Interstate Commerce Clause) and then refused to issue any permits. Fucking NAZIs, circumventing the Constitution!)
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:i'd like you to meet someone (Score:5, Funny)
I'm from the Midwest. We're the ones who sent Obama to the senate, remember?
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
How intolerant! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a white straight Christian man, you insensitive clod!
Parent
What the fuck? (Score:5, Informative)
No. He hasn't. What the hell are you talking about? Do you follow the Karl Rove doctrine that if you repeat a lie often enough, people think it's the truth?
Parent
Re:Sadly he has extremely low chances of winning (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh... Mark Twain was right, a lie really does get around the world before the truth can get its boots on.
Barack Obama is a Christian. He belongs to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ [tucc.org]. When asked about his faith, he has said that he has "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ [suntimes.com]", which, while he doesn't describe himself as born-again or evangelical, is a standard way that evangelical Christians describe their faith. In other words, he is definitely a "Christian god-fearing male".
As to his father being a Muslim. His birth father was an atheist goatherder [snopes.com] who left the family when Obama was two years old. His stepfather, who raised him through adulthood, was a non-practicing Muslim [about.com], and his father and mother educated him in secular schools, not whacko Muslim Madrassas as some of his political opponents have been claiming.
So let's stop worrying about Obama being some kind of Muslim Manchurian Candidate, k? Because it's really far from the truth.
Parent