Can Organic Farming Feed the World?
http://berkshiregrown.blogspot.com/2008/09/can-organic-farming-feed-world.html
This article contends that, despite its critics, organic farming can feed the world, and feed it in a healthier, natural way.
As the article points out, “Organic food is often portrayed by its critics as a low-yielding farming method that undercuts the main goal of food production – feeding the world.”
However, Ivette Perfecto, a professor at University of Michigan's School of Natural Resources and Environment points out that "My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that you can’t produce enough food through organic agriculture,"
Organic farming was once the territory of hippie farmers or older traditional farmers. It was looked at as freakish and certainly not economically viable in this world.
Today, even mainstream corporations like Wal-Mart have embraced organic goods. If a company such as Wal-Mart is involved, then other companies will follow. I’ve noticed in my local grocery stores (I don’t shop at Wal-Mart, I still feel they have poor labor practices), a dramatic drop in prices for organic goods.
According to Wal-Mart:
Wal-Mart’s first green initiatives began “as a marketing campaign and nothing more,” according to Mark Hughes, director of the Martin Agency, Wal-Mart’s ad firm. However, Hughes told Advertising Age that in his observation, “Wal-Mart has become a true believer in sustainability.”
The main article references a study with the following results:
Over eight years of data, here's the average corn yield in the various methods:
* Conventional corn, soybeans rotation, 160 bushels per acre of corn
* Organic corn, soybean, oats mixed with alfalfa rotation, 150-1/4 bushels/acre corn
* Organic corn, soybean, oats mixed with alfalfa, alfalfa rotation, 160-1/4 bushels/acre corn
My personal feelings are that organic farming is the wave of the future. It is good for the planet and good for our health
References:
Organic Agriculture Wrongly Accused As Prominent Cause Of Heavy Metal Accumulation In Soil
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/organic-agriculture-heavy-metals.php
Are Wal-Mart’s Changes Enough to Quiet Critics?
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/business/October-08/Are-Wal-Mart-s-Changes-Enough-to-Quiet-Critics--.html
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Blog 8: Beware new malfunction in Diebold voting machines
Beware new malfunction in Diebold voting machines
http://www.kentucky.com/216/story/551106.html
In the spirit (and fear) of the upcoming election, I bring you this article on the Diebold voting machines. I do not know the status of the current CEO of Diebold, but the former CEO (Walden O'Dell) was quoted as being "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year". (this quote was from 2003) A dark cloud has been cast over Diebold ever since. Walden O'Dell was forced to resign after this controversy arose.
As my focus article indicates, Diebold is still operating in a suspicious manner. From the article:
"In the case of Diebold, votes are being dropped when they are transferred from individual machines to the central server in a county's election headquarters. When an election worker inserts the memory card from a machine into the server, a green arrow is supposed to light up after all of the votes have been uploaded and added to the county's totals. In some cases, the green arrow is wrong, and none of the votes have been added."
Electronic voting is a big plus on a technological level. Votes are tabulated much more quickly. There are a lot of benefits. But, the system is not foolproof and can be easily hacked.
One can only recall the controversy of the 2000 election, which many people still contend was "stolen" by the Republicans with the aid of conservative Supreme Court justices.
The point has been made that Diebold provides many of the ATM machines currently in use. IF they can secure the ATM machines, they should be able to secure voting machines. This is true, the technology is in place. But there are still too many flaws in the process.
I am usually gung ho for the latest in technology, but when it comes to such an important election as the one coming up, I much prefer using the old technology - even if it takes "forever" to count the votes.
http://www.kentucky.com/216/story/551106.html
In the spirit (and fear) of the upcoming election, I bring you this article on the Diebold voting machines. I do not know the status of the current CEO of Diebold, but the former CEO (Walden O'Dell) was quoted as being "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year". (this quote was from 2003) A dark cloud has been cast over Diebold ever since. Walden O'Dell was forced to resign after this controversy arose.
As my focus article indicates, Diebold is still operating in a suspicious manner. From the article:
"In the case of Diebold, votes are being dropped when they are transferred from individual machines to the central server in a county's election headquarters. When an election worker inserts the memory card from a machine into the server, a green arrow is supposed to light up after all of the votes have been uploaded and added to the county's totals. In some cases, the green arrow is wrong, and none of the votes have been added."
Electronic voting is a big plus on a technological level. Votes are tabulated much more quickly. There are a lot of benefits. But, the system is not foolproof and can be easily hacked.
One can only recall the controversy of the 2000 election, which many people still contend was "stolen" by the Republicans with the aid of conservative Supreme Court justices.
The point has been made that Diebold provides many of the ATM machines currently in use. IF they can secure the ATM machines, they should be able to secure voting machines. This is true, the technology is in place. But there are still too many flaws in the process.
I am usually gung ho for the latest in technology, but when it comes to such an important election as the one coming up, I much prefer using the old technology - even if it takes "forever" to count the votes.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Blog 7: Universal Robots: The History and Workings of Robotics
Universal Robots: The History and Workings of Robotics
http://www.thetech.org/exhibits/online/robotics/universal/index.html
This article provides a brief history and future glimpses with regards to robots and robotics. It is true mankind has been fascinated with the concept of robots. Even Leonard da Vinci had plans for a mechanical robot as far back as 1495! In 1926, Westinghouse Electric Corporation created Televox, the first robot put to practical use. The first truly modern robot, that could be programmed, was the Unimate, invented by George Devol in 1954.
To some people, robots represent the ultimate in luxury, providing people with robotic maids and even used for sex (which is repulsive to me, but believe me those people are out there and wishing for the day). Some futurists contend that advances in artificial intelligence will produce robots capable of conversation and thought. I am skeptical of this idea, but do believe remarkable machines will someday be produced.
Today we have robots in the factories and small commercial versions in the home. The robotic vacuum cleaner is the best example of the latter.
And mankind does have the fear. The fear that someday these machines will take over. Perhaps people have seen the Terminator too many times, I do no know. People do fear what they do not understand.
The future will more than likely be more mundane with robots created to relieve us of household duties including cooking. The elimination or the subservience of the human race will have to remain in the minds of science fiction writers.
The Future of Robots
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-09/future-robots?page=1
Robots: The future is now
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/14/fs.roboticsprofile/
http://www.thetech.org/exhibits/online/robotics/universal/index.html
This article provides a brief history and future glimpses with regards to robots and robotics. It is true mankind has been fascinated with the concept of robots. Even Leonard da Vinci had plans for a mechanical robot as far back as 1495! In 1926, Westinghouse Electric Corporation created Televox, the first robot put to practical use. The first truly modern robot, that could be programmed, was the Unimate, invented by George Devol in 1954.
To some people, robots represent the ultimate in luxury, providing people with robotic maids and even used for sex (which is repulsive to me, but believe me those people are out there and wishing for the day). Some futurists contend that advances in artificial intelligence will produce robots capable of conversation and thought. I am skeptical of this idea, but do believe remarkable machines will someday be produced.
Today we have robots in the factories and small commercial versions in the home. The robotic vacuum cleaner is the best example of the latter.
And mankind does have the fear. The fear that someday these machines will take over. Perhaps people have seen the Terminator too many times, I do no know. People do fear what they do not understand.
The future will more than likely be more mundane with robots created to relieve us of household duties including cooking. The elimination or the subservience of the human race will have to remain in the minds of science fiction writers.
The Future of Robots
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-09/future-robots?page=1
Robots: The future is now
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/14/fs.roboticsprofile/
Friday, October 3, 2008
Blog 6: Microsoft Sings a New Tune—Wants to Play Nice With Open-Source
Microsoft Sings a New Tune—Wants to Play Nice With Open-Source
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/21/microsoft-sings-a-new-tune%E2%80%94wants-to-play-nice-with-open-source/
Microsoft has been notoriously dead-set against the open source movement. Most notably, it sees Linux as a major threat to its Enterprise server business. There are also very good open source office programs that rival Microsoft Office (though, in my opinion, not yet as good).
Microsoft is not yet letting developers have access to its source code and frankly, I don't see that ever happening. But, it is embracing some of the tenets of the open source movement and that is a good start.
The article states Microsoft is declaring four principles:
(1) ensuring open connections
(2) promoting data portability
(3) enhancing support for industry standards
(4) fostering more open engagement with customers and the industry, including open source communities.
It will release documentation for all APIs of the products. Their goal is to enable developers to create more plug-ins and features for the Office products.
Red Hat, a key proponent of open source, and a major distributor of Linux is skeptical at Microsoft's announcement.
Many other open source proponents are equally skeptical. Con Zymaris, CEO of Cybersource in Melbourne, Australia says "that if Microsoft is serious about improving its interoperability with the open-source industry, it could start by publishing, in a technically and legally unencumbered format, the protocols for Exchange-Outlook interaction."
In my research, I found countless companies, organizations, blogs, etc that did not believe Microsoft was on the “up and up.” The company has a long history of exploiting developers, computer manufacturers, and distributors. I’m not a journalist, but disclosure time here. I was a Microsoft employee from 1993-2006. I lost my job due to outsourcing to India. Thanks Microsoft. I do remember attending company events where the new CEO Steve Ballmer would scream about “crushing” competitors such as Novell and Sun. Such is the mindset of Microsoft.
Overall, I find this a good first step for Microsoft if it follows through and does not try to crush competition like it has in the past.
References:
Red Hat Statement on Microsoft Announcement
http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/02/21/red-hat-statement-on-microsoft-announcement/
Skeptics Question Microsoft Interoperability Pitch
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Skeptics-Ques
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/21/microsoft-sings-a-new-tune%E2%80%94wants-to-play-nice-with-open-source/
Microsoft has been notoriously dead-set against the open source movement. Most notably, it sees Linux as a major threat to its Enterprise server business. There are also very good open source office programs that rival Microsoft Office (though, in my opinion, not yet as good).
Microsoft is not yet letting developers have access to its source code and frankly, I don't see that ever happening. But, it is embracing some of the tenets of the open source movement and that is a good start.
The article states Microsoft is declaring four principles:
(1) ensuring open connections
(2) promoting data portability
(3) enhancing support for industry standards
(4) fostering more open engagement with customers and the industry, including open source communities.
It will release documentation for all APIs of the products. Their goal is to enable developers to create more plug-ins and features for the Office products.
Red Hat, a key proponent of open source, and a major distributor of Linux is skeptical at Microsoft's announcement.
Many other open source proponents are equally skeptical. Con Zymaris, CEO of Cybersource in Melbourne, Australia says "that if Microsoft is serious about improving its interoperability with the open-source industry, it could start by publishing, in a technically and legally unencumbered format, the protocols for Exchange-Outlook interaction."
In my research, I found countless companies, organizations, blogs, etc that did not believe Microsoft was on the “up and up.” The company has a long history of exploiting developers, computer manufacturers, and distributors. I’m not a journalist, but disclosure time here. I was a Microsoft employee from 1993-2006. I lost my job due to outsourcing to India. Thanks Microsoft. I do remember attending company events where the new CEO Steve Ballmer would scream about “crushing” competitors such as Novell and Sun. Such is the mindset of Microsoft.
Overall, I find this a good first step for Microsoft if it follows through and does not try to crush competition like it has in the past.
References:
Red Hat Statement on Microsoft Announcement
http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/02/21/red-hat-statement-on-microsoft-announcement/
Skeptics Question Microsoft Interoperability Pitch
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Skeptics-Ques
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)