What we need more of [Science dummy]

Hacksaw · April 2009

Druhim wrote: »

also I was wrong earlier when I said we get ethanol from the cellulose, it's from the sugar stored in the corn

which brings up the fact that sugar cane is easier to raise, and easier to extract sugar from for producing ethanol than corn is

corn is estimated (and it's considered a generous estimate, many claim it's under 1.0) that the energy returned on energy invested is only 1.34 for corn, but 8 for sugar cane (in other words, best case corn returns 34% more energy when used to produce ethanol, sugar cane produces 700% more)

Brazil also produces a large amount of ethanol for mixing into their gasoline, only they grow sugar cane for their ethanol because they don't have a bloated corn lobby protecting their interests

Too bad the corn lobby is stronger.

Khavall · April 2009

Druhim wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

Druhim wrote: »

why would corn be that much more profitable than anything else we could grow? the hypothetical situation you've presented makes no sense

If we already have Corn crops being grown like crazy I can't imagine we could just switch over for free... the sunk costs of changing crops would need to be considered if we're going to put forwards better crops.

I mean, what's the corn lobby fighting for even if it's more profitable, and better for the environment to grow other things as fuel, as long as enough farmers grow corn for the HFCS demand?

what? are you fucking high?

that makes no goddamn sense

sure, different crops have different requirements but you're just being absurd here acting like there's some massive corn infrastructure that would need to be torn up to allow farmers to grow something else

you do realize that many farmers change crops from time to time, right?

So it wouldn't be a problem?

There's a way to just answer the question... Yeah, I don't understand anything about farming.

I'm wondering if it would be a problem. I guess there wouldn't be. So what is the corn lobby's argument against alternate crops? I'm just trying to understand the situation here. If there are better solution, why aren't we subsidizing them? If there's a problem switching to them... that'd make sense.

I understand the idea of lobbyists going for causes that may not be in the best interest of everyone and the country because they have their own personal agenda, but I'm just trying to understand the situation here.

Druhim · April 2009

Khavall wrote: »

Druhim wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

Druhim wrote: »

why would corn be that much more profitable than anything else we could grow? the hypothetical situation you've presented makes no sense

If we already have Corn crops being grown like crazy I can't imagine we could just switch over for free... the sunk costs of changing crops would need to be considered if we're going to put forwards better crops.

I mean, what's the corn lobby fighting for even if it's more profitable, and better for the environment to grow other things as fuel, as long as enough farmers grow corn for the HFCS demand?

what? are you fucking high?

that makes no goddamn sense

sure, different crops have different requirements but you're just being absurd here acting like there's some massive corn infrastructure that would need to be torn up to allow farmers to grow something else

you do realize that many farmers change crops from time to time, right?

So it wouldn't be a problem?

There's a way to just answer the question... Yeah, I don't understand anything about farming.

I'm wondering if it would be a problem. I guess there wouldn't be. So what is the corn lobby's argument against alternate crops? I'm just trying to understand the situation here. If there are better solution, why aren't we subsidizing them? If there's a problem switching to them... that'd make sense.

I understand the idea of lobbyists going for causes that may not be in the best interest of everyone and the country because they have their own personal agenda, but I'm just trying to understand the situation here.

BECAUSE OTHER CROPS AREN'T CORN AND DON'T LINE THEIR POCKETS WITH SOLID GOLD COCAINE

duh

MrMonroe · April 2009

Khavall wrote: »

Druhim wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

Druhim wrote: »

why would corn be that much more profitable than anything else we could grow? the hypothetical situation you've presented makes no sense

If we already have Corn crops being grown like crazy I can't imagine we could just switch over for free... the sunk costs of changing crops would need to be considered if we're going to put forwards better crops.

I mean, what's the corn lobby fighting for even if it's more profitable, and better for the environment to grow other things as fuel, as long as enough farmers grow corn for the HFCS demand?

what? are you fucking high?

that makes no goddamn sense

sure, different crops have different requirements but you're just being absurd here acting like there's some massive corn infrastructure that would need to be torn up to allow farmers to grow something else

you do realize that many farmers change crops from time to time, right?

So it wouldn't be a problem?

There's a way to just answer the question... Yeah, I don't understand anything about farming.

I'm wondering if it would be a problem. I guess there wouldn't be. So what is the corn lobby's argument against alternate crops? I'm just trying to understand the situation here. If there are better solution, why aren't we subsidizing them? If there's a problem switching to them... that'd make sense.

I understand the idea of lobbyists going for causes that may not be in the best interest of everyone and the country because they have their own personal agenda, but I'm just trying to understand the situation here.

We use HFCS in soda in America because it we are the only place in the world where it is cheaper to grow corn than sugar.

Switching to a new crop and maintaining profitability would mean ditching your corn subsidies and getting congress to make new ones for another plant, which is difficult and risky, not to mention there are some places where you just plain can't grow the sugar and the people who own that land aren't giving up the subsidies no matter what.

Plus it's makin us all fatties

Lost Salient · April 2009

Druhim wrote: »

Lost Salient wrote: »

What on earth is a corn cozy?

ok, you know that thing between your legs that bleeds roughly once a month?

Khavall · April 2009

MrMonroe wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

Druhim wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

Druhim wrote: »

why would corn be that much more profitable than anything else we could grow? the hypothetical situation you've presented makes no sense

If we already have Corn crops being grown like crazy I can't imagine we could just switch over for free... the sunk costs of changing crops would need to be considered if we're going to put forwards better crops.

I mean, what's the corn lobby fighting for even if it's more profitable, and better for the environment to grow other things as fuel, as long as enough farmers grow corn for the HFCS demand?

what? are you fucking high?

that makes no goddamn sense

sure, different crops have different requirements but you're just being absurd here acting like there's some massive corn infrastructure that would need to be torn up to allow farmers to grow something else

you do realize that many farmers change crops from time to time, right?

So it wouldn't be a problem?

There's a way to just answer the question... Yeah, I don't understand anything about farming.

I'm wondering if it would be a problem. I guess there wouldn't be. So what is the corn lobby's argument against alternate crops? I'm just trying to understand the situation here. If there are better solution, why aren't we subsidizing them? If there's a problem switching to them... that'd make sense.

I understand the idea of lobbyists going for causes that may not be in the best interest of everyone and the country because they have their own personal agenda, but I'm just trying to understand the situation here.

We use HFCS in soda in America because it we are the only place in the world where it is cheaper to grow corn than sugar.

Switching to a new crop and maintaining profitability would mean ditching your corn subsidies and getting congress to make new ones for another plant, which is difficult and risky, not to mention there are some places where you just plain can't grow the sugar and the people who own that land aren't giving up the subsidies no matter what.

Plus it's makin us all fatties

So, and correct me if I've got it wrong, but we subsidize corn because we already subsidize corn, despite the fact that there are biofuels that could be better served with another crop, and many corn farmers could switch over to sugar instead of HFCS's stupid monopoly on being in everything, but we would *gasp* need to pass something through congress to fix the retarded situation?

The fuck is wrong with everyone.

BusterK · April 2009

Also everyone is getting paid mad dollar bills to make a lot of useless corn

Butler · April 2009

MrMonroe wrote: »

so Amazon.com hates the gays, apparently

they claim it is a "glitch" in the listing system which is being fixed as we speak

so they have birthed an artificial intelligence within their site code, and it's a bigot

Hey Monroe

You know why everyone jumped down your throat for this post?

Because leaping to an outlandish conclusion based on little to no evidence is the exact opposite of science.

See?

The Far Side · April 2009

mexican soda owns qtiyd

Khavall · April 2009

Butler wrote: »

MrMonroe wrote: »

so Amazon.com hates the gays, apparently

they claim it is a "glitch" in the listing system which is being fixed as we speak

so they have birthed an artificial intelligence within their site code, and it's a bigot

Hey Monroe

You know why everyone jumped down your throat for this post?

Because leaping to an outlandish conclusion based on little to no evidence is the exact opposite of science.

See?

Except that proves that it wasn't a random "glitch" like Amazon claimed and instead a specific and deliberate removal of LGBT books... it's just that the responsible agency was misplaced.

Metzger Meister · April 2009

i wish we used actual sugar in more products in the US. :\

BusterK · April 2009

The Far Side wrote: »

mexican soda owns qtiyd

There are some cane sugar sodas in the U.S.
Hanson's for one

Druhim · April 2009

what's bizarre to me is that Coca Cola still doesn't make Coke with sucrose in the states, even though plenty of it is being imported from Mexico. You'd think that would be an incentive to produce and sell it in the states for more than the hfcs versions, but less than the Mexican Coke

The Far Side · April 2009

passover coke also uses cane sugar

Weaver · April 2009

I'm totally down with nuclear power plants everywhere and using the reprocessed remains of the spent fuel rods to power generations of NASA probes and landers.

The Far Side · April 2009

change all cities to producing beakers and just rush fusion power, hope that the egyptians don't invade

Butler · April 2009

Khavall wrote: »

Butler wrote: »

MrMonroe wrote: »

so Amazon.com hates the gays, apparently

they claim it is a "glitch" in the listing system which is being fixed as we speak

so they have birthed an artificial intelligence within their site code, and it's a bigot

Hey Monroe

You know why everyone jumped down your throat for this post?

Because leaping to an outlandish conclusion based on little to no evidence is the exact opposite of science.

See?

Except that proves that it wasn't a random "glitch" like Amazon claimed and instead a specific and deliberate removal of LGBT books... it's just that the responsible agency was misplaced.

...

Fuck.

Okay, this is true. Monroe was right to be suspicious of Amazon's "glitch" story, though it wasn't a deliberate act on their part. Attach the boulder of shame.

Weaver · April 2009

teefs pass the blunt man I'm running out of vodka here

The Far Side · April 2009

how did you know i was smoking :o

Weaver · April 2009

I could smell from all the way over here

Harrier · April 2009

Teefs aren't you always smoking these days

Metzger Meister · April 2009

The Far Side wrote: »

how did you know i was smoking :o

90% of the time, if one were to guess, you would be smoking.

The Far Side · April 2009

weaver do you want to go to bolivia and hang out with evo morales

Weaver · April 2009

Also I remain adamant that the only chance we have of colonizing another planet in our home system is to go "fuck Mars" and work on decreasing the atmospheric density of Venus by at least two-thirds and letting the massive bleed-off of core heat restart that planets dynamo effect.

Khavall · April 2009

Teefs you smoke like I drink.

Weaver · April 2009

Teefs I want to go live in a posh Swiss ski resort, bundled in rabbit, fox and wolf furs while sipping rum-spiked cocoa and having pale-skinned snow bunnies rubbing all up on me

Weaver · April 2009

by snow bunnies I mean SEXY LADIES

The Far Side · April 2009

that isn't nearly as rad as just chillin' with Evo

Weaver · April 2009

You know what's rad?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyW9864AXVk

Dead Legend · April 2009

http://www.huntingadventuresbolivia.com/

that's where i wanna go

beavotron · April 2009

canadian coke also uses cane sugar
bombs and mully explained this to me when i almost barfed after taking a sip at some diner in seattle
i thought maybe the pop machine was broken
nope, just chock full of corn syrupy disgustingness

how you guys drink that shit is beyond me.

The Far Side · April 2009

i didn't know you could time travel to 1997

also lol white landowners in Bolivia

Metzger Meister · April 2009

The Far Side wrote: »

i didn't know you could time travel to 1997

also lol white landowners in Bolivia

those... other sort of folk can't be trusted with the responsibility.

The Far Side · April 2009

no, evo has made it a point to take the land out of white european's hands and put it into the hands of the bolivians

its been working out absolutely wonderfully so far, actually

Dead Legend · April 2009

the birds that you shoot but can't eat are then given to the villagers

it's win/win

Metzger Meister · April 2009

where am i gonna go to build my dirty unsafe factories now!?

The Far Side · April 2009

also did you guys see the "top 99 most ethical corporations"

nike shows up on it

fucking nike

Metzger Meister · April 2009

man what?

The Far Side · April 2009

http://ethisphere.com/how-nike-is-changing-the-world-one-factory-at-a-time/

Although the company’s efforts are working, achieving sweeping changes is extremely difficult; it requires adjusting the mindsets of cultures that are thousands of years old.

you know the last time this rehtoric was used

do you

Metzger Meister · April 2009

no.

Penny Arcade

What we need more of [Science dummy]

Posts