> East wrote:

> they need to put alcohol in ________________________

That's your solution to everything, isn't it?

Um... just curious... any reason why this couldn't be put in the energy thread you made earlier... the thread that brought up the issue of fracking in the first place?

Personally, I'm kind of conflicted on this issue.

On the one hand... I really don't like the type of ranching that exists in places like California.  Specifically, the close confinement of animals to one another (and chicken farms are the #1 culprit on this) are breeding grounds for mutating flu viruses.  Remember bird flu?  Yeah... Chinese concentrated chicken farms...  This is an externality current farming doesn't take into account, and may actually be inhibited in some cases.

That being said, how would such a bill actually affect the industry?  Yeah, it would increase the cost of operation.  However, what beneficial activities would result?  I couldn't venture a guess, but because non-concentrated animal operations don't use cages in the first place, it may be possible that this would give non-concentrated animal farms a leg up against concentrated farms (one thing to remember... concentrated animal feeding operations get a ton of subsidies, both in the form of direct subsidies to pay for capital resources and cleanup efforts, and indirect subsidies in the form of subsidized corn and other crops which are used for feeding the animals).

Yeah, I like stuff that gives these farms a hard time (personally, I think we need to remove the subsidies, requiring the animal farms to legitimately compete with non-concentrated farms).  That being said, given my concerns, this isn't much of a direct address to those concerns (it's obviously primarily intended to fight animal rights abuses, obviously).  It definitely could give the farms a hard time...

And why not?

> Genesis wrote:

> Zarf, not everyone wants or cares to debate the way you do. Freedom of expression is a given right yes?

Carry on.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to argue any particular way.  My argument is that it's just inefficient, and a waste of the times of both the reader and the writer when your effort at communication fails to fulfill the very prerequisite goal communication is supposed to fulfill: conveying an intended idea from the person expressing the idea to the person receiving the idea.

Fair enough...

That being said, I hope you realize statements like the above can much easier distract people away from the real debate (and the idea you're trying to convey), instead discussing a strawman argument neither person intended, pretty much wasting everyone's time... In the future, if you have an argument... perhaps you should just say it. 

> Justinian I wrote:

> Moreover, the price manipulation of US crops has angered many of our trade partners. It's a liability on so many levels.

Hold up... the issue is larger than that...

Now, I definitely agree that the ethanol subsidy does piss off some trade partners (Brazil is definitely a good example).  However, it does help  one other market.  Specifically, the ethanol subsidy increases the general price of food globally, increasing the profitability of general agriculture... and minimizing the impact of US subsidies on agricultural goods meant for food.  So there's a tradeoff here.  That being said, personally, I prefer making food a competitive market as opposed to ethanol, mainly because food is unique in that nations which depend on agriculture for a living generally can't develop any other sort of livelihood... it's either food or die.  (Yes, I recognize that this issue would be solved if all food subsidies were removed as well...)

> Justinian I wrote:

> and foot shortages

OMG!  MY FEETZ!

I feel like the issue Flint is attempting to address is fundamentally different from the issues other people here are assuming he is attempting to address.

Flint clearly does not state that hunger doesn't exist... in fact, he specifically states that inefficiencies in distribution networks exist (he specifically mentioned dictators stealing food will impede local markets in solving the food shortages in the region).  Yet that's the way most people in this thread are addressing his post.

Rather, Flint is addressing the issue of a food shortage in the context of a Malthusian crisis, i.e., a global food shortage.  Given the need to increase the global efficiency of food supply and distribution, the world has the capacity to meet the demands of the current and future populations, not even considering future advances in food production as a result of new technology.

EDIT: Self Grammar Nazi'd

There may be an issue in the exact tick when a change in NW is realized by the NW calculation.  For example, I know that if you explore a planet, it doesn't realize that exploration until the tick after the exploration, I believe... it could be possible that the research doesn't get realized in the NW formula until the tick after the research actually takes place.

Awww, come on, guys!  I post a link explicitly showing that Herman Cain ended his "I'm dropping out of the election" speech with a quote from a pokemon movie... and you all STILL want to argue stupid politics?  It's like you guys are suddenly taking this forum seriously...

Oh... one very important note regarding this thread:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-5-2011/indecision-2012---the-sh-t-s-gettin--real

I'm sorry I didn't get the chance to say this at a primary, but... I choose you, Herman Cain!  It's really too bad, though, that he didn't get his chance to be the very best, like no one ever was...

(Yes... I'm pretty sure this post just utterly nuked my credibility on these forums, but whatever)