kraussvonespy

The press across the board does a terrible job of printing retractions. I know that doesn't really excuse Krebs but most errors don't get corrected and those that do generally show up in a tiny column in the middle of the paper.

If you're Brian Krebs and are writing, editing and publishing this stuff yourself, I don't know that you'd have the bandwidth to be able to monitor and correct every new development in something you've written. The New Yorker has a staff of hundreds of fact checkers, lawyers and proof readers just to keep them out of court, and they too seem to have a difficult time with publishing corrections.

I'm not excusing either party, there are issues here that need to be resolved. But the expectation that any part of the press, be it publishing a physical newspaper or running a security blog, will spend much time paying attention to old stories for corrections doesn't match up with reality.

Even this wouldn't be enough bandwidth for my clueless wifi users who complain when speedtests on their smartphone show 70mbps.

"Is there enough bandwidth to do what you need to do? Yes? Then shut up."

For the record, I just found a reference that states that ~40% of corn grown in the US gets turned into ethanol. 40%. We consume somewhere between a half a gallon and a full gallon of petroleum (between fuel for the machines, production of chemicals, etc.) for every gallon of ethanol we get out of the process. There is no justification for this other than make-work for farmers, chemical companies and the whole ethanol-industrial complex.

There are always people from the Union of Bought and Paid-for Scientists that will gladly give up on science for a well-paid gig at some bullshit think tank. Somewhere around 3% if we use climate-change numbers.

If you peel back all of the propaganda, no, there's no legitimate reason to produce ethanol. It's just a way to continue to feed money into the farming-industrial complex (farmers, chemical companies, implement companies, seed companies, ethanol manufacturers, etc.) Even if the crop that was grown to make ethanol was less stupid (sugar beets for example), it still wouldn't make much sense.

In my area of the US, a good percentage of the majority crop (corn) goes to produce alcohol to burn as fuel. So we pour poisons and fertilizer on the land and burn huge amounts of petroleum to produce a seriously inefficient crop to supplement an energy source that doesn't need supplementing. Just to give farmers something to do and to keep the CEOs of the chemical companies in yachts and private jets.

This kind of reminds me of the Soviet whaling program that almost wiped out entire species of whales for no reason other than the 5 year plan said that they needed to continue whaling.