Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Earth

Paper Manufacturer Launches "Print More" Campaign 446

Posted by kdawson
from the try-origami dept.
innocent_white_lamb writes "Domtar, a major North American paper manufacturer, has launched an advertising campaign to encourage people to print more documents on paper. Domtar CEO John Williams opposes campaigns by other companies asking employees to be responsible with what they print. 'Young people really are not printers. When was the last time your children demanded a printer?' Mr. Williams said ... 'We've got to do some work about having them believe and feel that printing isn't a sort of environmental negative.' The industry expects that, absent this campaign, paper demand will decrease by 4% annually. Williams's comments did not go down well in some environmental circles."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Paper Manufacturer Launches "Print More" Campaign

Comments Filter:
  • wait, what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thepike (1781582) on Monday April 26, 2010 @11:40PM (#31994250)

    FTA:

    'We've got to do some work about having them believe and feel that printing isn't a sort of environmental negative.'

    But it is an environmental negative.

    • Re:wait, what? (Score:5, Informative)

      by timmarhy (659436) on Monday April 26, 2010 @11:49PM (#31994376)
      is it really? why, where's your proof?

      last i checked paper was made from the waste from milling timber from sustainably managed forests as well as recycled sources.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Skreems (598317)
        May be... still uses a fuckton of bleach and other processing chemicals to get that nice shiny white color.
      • Re:wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Abcd1234 (188840) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @01:11AM (#31995068) Homepage

        last i checked paper was made from the waste from milling timber from sustainably managed forests as well as recycled sources.

        Yes, right. That's the only input to paper manufacture. Timber.

        No large volumes of energy produced from primarily non-renewable resources.
        Or large volumes of harsh chemicals.
        Or large volumes of water.

        And the only output is nice, clean paper.

        No gaseous carbon, nitrous, or sulphur dioxide.
        No water pollution.

        And, of course, there is absolutely no paper, anywhere, being manufactured from old-growth trees or anything like that. It's totally sustainable and awesome! Really!

      • Re:wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by daem0n1x (748565) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @06:28AM (#31996826)

        In the last decades, my country has been planted with millions of eucalyptus and wild pines, that are completely alien, to produce paper.

        The results: We have almost no native forest, every summer there are big wild fires all around the country, the eucalyptus suck all the water from kilometres around, ruining the few farmers and herders that still subsist.

        The planting areas that were abandoned because of fires of owner carelessness are now bare, completely exposed to soil erosion. These areas are will eventually become desert land in the next years if nothing is done.

        Of course, the government could step in and take two measures:

        1. Take over bare areas and replant with native trees.
        2. Every spring, coercively clean the neglected plantations to avoid fires, and punish the owners.

        But in these days of free-market fundamentalism, the government can't do shit because it would go against the "legitimate rights" of the land owners or something. When the whole country looks like Saudi Arabia without the oil, the land owners can stuff their legitimate rights up their asses and try to survive eating sand.

  • +5 Funny (Score:2, Funny)

    by dwarfsoft (461760)
    Ahahahahahaha! Mod article +5 Funny. I haven't laughed that much all day! BTW, you owe me a new keyboard. 'We've got to do some work about having them believe and feel that printing isn't a sort of environmental negative.' What? Cutting down trees is an environmental POSITIVE? Seriously, It isn't April 1st anymore. My sides hurt.
    • Re:+5 Funny (Score:5, Funny)

      by dwarfsoft (461760) on Monday April 26, 2010 @11:42PM (#31994286) Homepage
      Actually, he might be on to something. I just printed this article out and it's a helluva lot funnier in print.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by epiphani (254981)

      Oh, he knows its an environmental negative. But he is bound by law to do the most he can to improve sales and shareholder value, regardless of the environmental cost, social need or greater economic benefit.

      And this is why capitalism* has failed.

      * as practiced today through the legal construct of a corporation

      • Re:+5 Funny (Score:5, Insightful)

        by poopdeville (841677) on Monday April 26, 2010 @11:50PM (#31994384)

        It's not an environmental "negative". They plant three times as many trees as they harvest. Paper is a truly renewable resource, especially since it is recyclable, in many different ways.

        Printing pages pointlessly is a negative, because you waste energy in the paper production, for no good reason. And you waste your own money. But using paper "responsibly" -- for things you want to keep hard copies of -- is entirely appropriate, and not wasteful.

        • Carbon Sequestration (Score:3, Interesting)

          by paulthomas (685756)

          I present Trevor Blackwell's theory on how printing and then putting the paper in landfills may actually stop global warming:

          http://www.tlb.org/faq.html [tlb.org] (scroll to the bottom)

        • Re:+5 Funny (Score:4, Funny)

          by Fex303 (557896) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @12:55AM (#31994964)

          It's not an environmental "negative". They plant three times as many trees as they harvest.

          If this is allowed to continue then we'll soon be crowded out by exponentially renewing pines! We have to stop this process now!

        • Re:+5 Funny (Score:4, Interesting)

          by mellon (7048) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @12:59AM (#31994996) Homepage

          Suppose you harvest an acre of hundred-year-old trees, and you plant three acres of trees. Next year, you harvest a second acre of hundred-year-old trees, and plant three more. In thirty-three years, you will have cut down 3,300 acre-years of growth. You will have replaced it with 1680 acre-years of growth. Not even counting the fact that you've destroyed 33 acres of quality second-growth forest and replaced it with 99 acres of farmed forest.

          So when you hear "we plant three for every one we cut," just bear in mind that the person saying this to you is definitely trying to deceive you. There is no other possible motivation for that statement, because what they cut is in no way comparable to what they put in its place. They are mining the forest, and leaving you with the tailings.

          If they were planting real second-growth forest, and if they were going to be around for a hundred years, then we could talk about environmental improvements, but that's not at all what this guy is talking about. Or if they were planting barren fields and harvesting the trees years later when they'd grown enough, you could say that they'd planted a crop and harvested it. But that's not what they said, and it's not even close to what they're doing.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Shin-LaC (1333529)

            Suppose you harvest an acre of hundred-year-old trees, and you plant three acres of trees. Next year, you harvest a second acre of hundred-year-old trees, and plant three more.

            That's not how the paper industry works. They use tree farms of quick-growth species (another poster suggested that they can grow a usable tree in as little as 5 years). Hundred-year-old wood is too expensive to use for making paper, anyway.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by mellon (7048)

              Cut trees are used for whatever brings the most profit. You talk about the paper industry like it's a single monolith, but it's actually a lot of little companies and big companies, each of which has their own practices. So what you say is probably true about some company or set of companies that you've had personal experience with, but it's not universally true.

              And whether what you say is true for this particular paper company or not, making that nice paper you can put into your laser printer is nontri

      • by timmarhy (659436)
        huh, capitalism has failed? i musted have missed that memo
      • Re:+5 Funny (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @12:10AM (#31994604)

        But he is bound by law to do the most he can to improve sales and shareholder value, regardless of the environmental cost, social need or greater economic benefit.

        In what jurisdiction? Cite, please.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          But he is bound by law to do the most he can to improve sales and shareholder value, regardless of the environmental cost, social need or greater economic benefit.

          In what jurisdiction? Cite, please.

          Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668 (1919).

          It is perhaps not the best citation (it's almost 100 years old and has been superseded somewhat). But it is so famous even I heard of it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ckaminski (82854)
        For fucks sake: THERE IS NO SUCH LAW!

        If that were so, every dot-com era CEO would be in steel cages right now. And that is demonstrably NOT so.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Jeremi (14640)

        But he is bound by law to do the most he can to improve sales and shareholder value, regardless of the environmental cost, social need or greater economic benefit.

        It's a lovely excuse, but legally unenforceable and a bit silly. How many executives have you seen dragged into court for not being ruthless enough? How would a judge even be able to determine whether an executive had "done the most he could", or not? The truth is, executives have pretty wide latitude to do what they want, and as long as they a

    • by dudpixel (1429789)

      man, you need to learn some more jokes if you laughed that hard over this...

      funny? maybe, but not side-splitting funny...

  • It's made from fast growing wood that is grown on farms for the express purpose of making paper, so it's not like they're not chopping down old growth forests. And offices around the country routinely recycle their paper, which make a whiter pulp that requires even less bleach than raw wood.

    It's just not that big of a deal to me if it gets the point across better.

    I certainly don't print just to print, but I don't feel like I have to stop and pity the poor trees that gave their lives for my TPS cover sheets

    • Unfortunately some parts of the world [wikipedia.org] are only too happy to cut down their old growth forests for wood chips.

    • by yali (209015) on Monday April 26, 2010 @11:58PM (#31994484)

      From a 2006 NYT article [nytimes.com]:

      ...The paper industry is not without its impact. Because of its consumption of energy, the industry -- which includes magazines, newspapers, catalogs and writing paper -- emits the fourth-highest level of carbon dioxide among manufacturers, according to a 2002 study by the Energy Information Administration, a division of the Department of Energy. The paper industry follows the chemical, petroleum and coal products, and primary metals industries.

      . . .

      The most harmful part of the process is paper production. Breaking down wood fiber to make paper consumes a lot of energy, which in many cases comes from coal plants.

    • Printing is a HASSLE (Score:4, Informative)

      by mcrbids (148650) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @01:32AM (#31995192) Journal

      Printing requires a certain overhead cost. Once that overhead cost is met, the cost of printing drops dramatically. But for many years my printing threshold has been far below that overhead cost.

      See, to print, you have to have a printer. I'm often mobile; I sure don't want to carry another 15 pound device plus supplies. And printing is unreliable. Ink cartridges are expensive, and prone to drying out and frequent replacement and the associated trip to the office supplies store. Printing is SLOW. You have to set up drivers, you have to plug stuff in, you have to dicker with drivers and print queues when paper doesn't feed properly. Printing over a network is a pain. You have to have drivers for the network printer, and you have to spend anywhere from 10 to 45 minutes setting it all up in the first place.

      And then, when you are done, you have a document in your hand. You can't instantly send it *anywhere* save by digitizing it. (EG: faxing, or scan/email) Sure, you might need a signature on it, but once it's digitized, a signature is easily pasted on the document in its original (soft copy) format anyway.

      So, why did you do all that, again?

      And then there's quality! When I print, it's highly likely to be because I'm making a presentation. To produce *nice* high quality prints, you need a nice, high quality printer, preferably color. For somebody for whom a ream lasts for at least a year, it's hard to justify spending hundreds of dollars in order to print on $5 of paper. So I find that it's easier and cheaper to print to PDF and then email it that to the local Kinko's or other store. I get the best quality prints in color, on demand, without dickering with drivers, and just having to drive about 1/4 mile to get it, on the one or two days in a quarter I might need it. Queue it up around lunch, and it's a quick stop on the way back with my sammich.

      I could go on with faxes - receiving faxes with a "fax machine" has a slew of problems. If your paper jams, your fax is hosed. Since the fax may well be a contract worth many thousands of dollars, this is a non-starter. Also, paper faxes can be lost. They can't be reprinted without the original. They aren't automatically archived for later review. They can't be easily viewed in a remote office without being faxed again, along with the problems of quality degradation, etc.

      But soft-copy faxes carry NONE of these problems. Done right, a soft-copy fax system is redundant, multi-point, and accessible from anywhere with proper security authentication. We made this switch years ago, and never looked back!

      Printing sucks. I do everything I can to eliminate paper!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 26, 2010 @11:42PM (#31994278)

    If ANYONE in power had balls and brains, we'd be using hemp paper instead of wood-based pulp paper. That is all.

    The continued government assisted prop-up of industries unwilling to evolve with technology, or environmental social concerns, is why we have half the problems we do. Why must this behavior persist?

    • by skam240 (789197) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @12:08AM (#31994584)

      DAMN IT. I've had mod points rewarded to me twice in a row over the last week or so and I finally find a post with a poor mod rating that I'd like to mod up. The increased efficiency in terms of land and resources used for hemp paper versus tree paper is huge. On top of that, for all you puritans out there, it is well within our means today to grow strands that contain virtually almost no THC making the worry over individuals getting high off the crop non existent.

    • FYI (Score:5, Funny)

      by Leuf (918654) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @12:28AM (#31994758)

      After you write "That is all." you are supposed to stop writing. That is all.

      Do you see how it sort of loses the effect when you keep right on going like this? Also we can pretty much tell when you're done by the period and then the lack of any more words.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mirix (1649853)

      A couple years ago, I was out at one of my relatives' farm, and noticed one of his fields was growing hemp. I wonder who they sold it to, and what it was made into.

      This was in Canada though, might be different. I'm not sure if it's becoming common here or not, or what they're purposing it for, and what sort of regulatory headache it involves.

      I thought it was interesting though. I'm all for more diverse, sustainable crops.

    • by Animats (122034) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @01:32AM (#31995188) Homepage

      hemp paper...

      Hemp paper is available, but it's more far more expensive than paper from wood pulp. ($46.50 per ream for ordinary 24 pound bond!) [thenaturalabode.com] Kenaf [visionpaper.com] is more promising. Mitsubishi makes kenaf paper for sale in Japan.

      (Somehow, the hemp enthusiasts never seem to be very interested in other long-fibre plants, like kenaf, abaca, sisal, or jute. Or even bagasse and straw, which are agricultural wastes which can be recycled. Wonder why.)

      • by blackraven14250 (902843) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @01:57AM (#31995362)

        Hemp paper is available, but it's more far more expensive than paper from wood pulp.

        When you add a boat or plane to the supply chain because it's totally illegal to grow in the USA, no shit it's more expensive

      • by vegiVamp (518171) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @08:38AM (#31997820) Homepage
        Because, I hear you think, they can then also harvest the tetrahydrocannabinol-rich flowers and smoke themselves into a stupor.

        Not so, unfortunately. First off, only the unfertilised flowers produce plenty of THC. This means you have to keep the male plants far away. Doable, there's even something called 'feminised' seeds, but still a bother.
        A bigger hurdle, however, is that the smokey stuff is Cannabis Sativa. The stuff used to make paper, rope and other hemp products, is Cannabis Indica, which doesn't make a particularly good smoke.
  • by VinylRecords (1292374) on Monday April 26, 2010 @11:43PM (#31994296)

    It's not individuals that paper companies need to worry about in my opinion. When you have major gaming companies like Ubisoft claiming that they will no longer manufacture paper game manuals then you have a the beginnings of a major problem (at least if you are in the paper industry or whatever). If large companies stop printing manuals for games, or software, or stop printing instruction manuals for home appliances, and so on, you'll probably see an even bigger impact on paper companies than the losses of individuals skimping on paper use.

    I don't print anything anymore. I don't own a printer. And I doubt that I will need one in the future. However I buy tons of video games, movies, appliances, and so on. If those things stop coming with paper manuals and books then it will make a difference.

    http://ps3.ign.com/articles/108/1084491p1.html [ign.com] [Ubisoft Removing Paper Game Manuals]

    • by vxice (1690200)
      I have to print out homework for my college classes. I don't print too much, although today was an exception. Had to write to someone in gov't who I couldn't find an email for. Actually had to lookup on line how to address an envelope.
    • by MBGMorden (803437)

      I'm in the same boat. I printed so infrequently that about 4 years ago when my printer ink dried up from lack of use I didn't bother to replace it. Literally, the only thing I was ever printing was Mapquest directions. Eventually I decided that it just wasn't worth the printer and ink cost to print 10-15 pages per year and I just started jotting the directions down in a notebook when I needed them. A bit more hassle, sure, but given the limited occurrences it was worth it. Now, portable GPS systems hav

  • Environmental? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DogDude (805747) on Monday April 26, 2010 @11:44PM (#31994300) Homepage
    Why do environmental groups get upset by paper? Paper is a very renewable resource. Trees get cut down, and grow back. When I'm done with it, it rots (I happen to compost mine). With this computer I'm typing on, rare metals had to be mined to make it, and when I'm done with it, it sits around for at least a few thousand years (or more?). I have no problem with paper.
    • by bhagwad (1426855)
      I probable reason is that when you compost your paper it releases either carbon dioxide (aerobic composting) or worse - methane (anerobic composting) into the atmosphere. Having the carbon safely locked up in trees is the best form of natural carbon sequestering.

      Ideally of course, the carbon would be locked into oil and other fossil fuels deep inside the earth where it can't harm anyone. But we bring that stuff out and don't know how to put it back again.
    • Re:Environmental? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Angst Badger (8636) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @12:18AM (#31994680)

      Why do environmental groups get upset by paper? Paper is a very renewable resource. Trees get cut down, and grow back. When I'm done with it, it rots (I happen to compost mine). With this computer I'm typing on, rare metals had to be mined to make it, and when I'm done with it, it sits around for at least a few thousand years (or more?). I have no problem with paper.

      Chiefly, it's the chemicals used in processing pulp and the resulting pollution. Ever live near a paper mill? Even after the reforms thirty years ago, it's still a pretty nasty business. Secondarily, a fairly large amount of energy is involved in the harvesting, chipping, and transport of wood chips to the mills. (The mills themselves are actually very energy-efficient, deriving a significant amount of their power from burning the waste wood products, which is basically carbon-neutral.) Then there's the energy involved in transporting the paper products and toxic compounds in a lot of the inks used, as well as the highly toxic solvents used in cleaning and maintaining large-scale printing presses -- for which reason brownfield sites formerly used for printing are quite cheap, if you can afford the necessary cleanup and remediation, anyway.

      As with anything else, it is best not to be wasteful and to remember that, for practically any consumer good, a considerable amount of energy was consumed to bring it to you, along with (most likely) a non-trivial amount of pollution. Use more is almost always bad advice.

      That said, your point about the manufacture (and disposal) of electronic hardware is spot-on. The paper industry is squeaky clean by comparison.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Any Web Loco (555458)
      And then theere's the "old growth forest" issue. Sure, manageed plantations of new growth wood are sustainable & tick lots of "eco" boxes but when you start buldozing "old growth" forests - habitatbs for many, many more species than "managed plantations", you're in a differet game.
  • by vxice (1690200)
    feeling like a karma whore right now so I'll compare this to a puppy mill launching a campaign encouraging people to run over their neighbors dogs increasing the demand for puppies. /ducks
    • by h00manist (800926)
      Actually... they don't need to. most people already want to get rid of the dog when it grows up a bit. It ends up being sacrificed in some way, somewhere, quite often. People like puppies, not dogs.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by timmarhy (659436)
        agreed. the way some people treat animals is the single greatest shame i feel as a memeber of the human race.

        don't get me wrong, i know it can't be all hugs and kisses, i eat meat and i understand the reality of eating meat. I'm ok with it at long as the animals got to live a content enough life and were slaughtered in a humane manner (which most are, and i vote with my wallet getting free range meat).

        but shit like puppy mills is one of the few things that makes me truly angry. the animals suffer so much

  • They merely keep making products that make you print more. Software, mostly. HP smart web print for example, to encourage you to print webpages.
    • by Sarten-X (1102295)
      ...which is roughly 300 megabytes to download, and requires a dedicated gigabyte of memory to run.
    • Arguably, in the past decade or so, HP moved from being a major driver of printing to being a major force driving people away from printing...

      Their cheap seats aren't even worthy of execration at this point, and even their nicer stuff isn't what it used to be(Hey guys, y'know what was a great idea? Releasing a print driver that crashes the print spooler service if somebody prints a PDF...)
  • And a thousand trees cried out in agony, suddenly stilled.
  • Michelin and Goodyear are teaming up to produce a series of PSAs aimed at getting young people to increase the rate at which they burn tires. The ads will consist of "hip" actors like Freddie Prinze, Jr. and Mayim Bialik addressing kids with "rad" lingo, and talking about how awesome it is sit around the tire fire with your "buds" and drink a cold Ovaltine.
  • by stomv (80392) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @12:06AM (#31994554) Homepage

    and how that's supposedly good because the carbon is sequestered, etc. Not many posts about the chemical nasties involved in converting trees to pulp to paper, or where those nasties end up, or how much energy is required to harvest the wood, convert it, and deliver it, or how much waste is in the manufacturing of printers, ink cartridges, and ink.

    If demand for paper continues to fall, know what that land will be used for? Growing trees. Instead of using that timber for paper, it'll be used for lumber or for biomass electricity generation (which has a net zero carbon emission).

    So yeah, trust your instincts on this one... like nearly every processed item, wasting less paper is better for the environment.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jmorris42 (1458) *

      > Instead of using that timber for paper, it'll be used for lumber or for biomass electricity generation (which has a net zero carbon emission).

      Perhaps, perhaps not. Take your example of biomass. Think that doesn't have as much pollution as paper production? Hint: it ain't carbon neutral anymore than paper production is. To get decent land utilization you will be growing something faster growing than trees, probably with fertilizer. Then there is the energy to irrigate it, plant and harvest and ther

  • by Bob9113 (14996) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @12:15AM (#31994650) Homepage

    Mr. Williams said ... 'We've got to do some work about having them believe and feel that printing isn't a sort of environmental negative.'

    OK, well;

    1: Explain to me why "printing isn't a sort of environmental negative." Start by explaining how using energy and materials in cases where it is not worthwhile to do so is environmentally (or even economically) neutral or positive.
    2: If step 1 proves to be impossible or tortured at best, tell me why you think your customers should be misinformed.
    3: Re-read the section on free market economics about the importance of informed consumers.
    4: Apologize for being an enemy of the benevolent ideals of the free market.

    This is why people have problems with the free market. Not because an efficient free market is bad, but because oligopolist assholes like this guy work so hard to harm the free market. Even aside from whether he succeeds in damaging the free market, he is creating harmful imagery of what the free market is, which harms us all.

    Of course, it is easy to throw stones. The harder question for me is: How do you fix it?

  • How 'bout this? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 0xdeadbeef (28836) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @12:15AM (#31994652) Homepage Journal

    Paper: it's what books were made of before DRM.

  • by GWBasic (900357) <`slashdot' `at' `andrewrondeau.com'> on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @12:19AM (#31994686) Homepage
    I've realized it's no longer economical to print. Every time I print, I need to spend $50 for a new set of ink cartridges. In contrast, it's cheaper to pay to overnight concert tickets and e-file taxes. In short, there needs to be a printer that can run forever on a $10 ink cartridge in order to get me to print again.
  • Dead Forests... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anachragnome (1008495) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @12:50AM (#31994932)

    From the article, a statement from Domtar CEO...

    "No one is more interested in the well-managed forest than the paper industry."

    I live in the Pacfic Northwest and I am surrounded by "managed" clearcuts.

    The forestry industry has this odd idea that "managed" means planting one species, equally spaced for easy harvesting, and often not even a species native to the region. "Grow it fast, grow it thick" is the rule, not the exception.

    The "managed" forests out here feel "dead". There is very little diversity in flora on the floor of the forest and I can only assume that is why it feels "dead". The animal life that depended on that diversity is absent. I remember walking through a "managed" re-forested area one time and it suddenly dawned on me that I wasn't being pestered by mosquitos or gnats. Odd. It wasn't until later that I realized that the stuff they feed on was missing from the forest--no food, no bugs. The diversity had been 'managed" right out of the forest.

    "Managed" is a relative term, and open to damn near any interpretation you wish.

    I seriously doubt that a paper manufacturer and an environmentalist would agree on those interpretations, especially when a dipshit like John Williams is involved.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by adolf (21054)

      It's a managed forest plainly and openly maintained as a source of lumber, not a managed recreational nature preserve.

      Repeat that, over and over, until you get it.

      [sarcasm]In other news, I was shocked at the absolute lack of biodiversity the last time I walked through a wheat field. Imagine it: A huge field, hundreds of acres, where they've managed to grow almost nothing but wheat! What a waste.[/sarcasm]

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by NightHwk1 (172799)

        I was shocked at the absolute lack of biodiversity the last time I walked through a wheat field. Imagine it: A huge field, hundreds of acres, where they've managed to grow almost nothing but wheat! What a waste.

        It works much better without the sarcasm tags. Repeat that over and over, and perhaps you'll get it.

        There is something wrong with such a lack of biodiversity, especially when you consider that approximately 40% of the land in the US is currently cultivated like this.

  • by FrankDrebin (238464) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @02:16AM (#31995496) Homepage

    "This page intentionally left black." - sponsored by HP Toner and Ink Division.

  • by gig (78408) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @04:11AM (#31996158)

    This guy needs a new business, because an iPad has replaced my printer. Does all the same things, even uses the same USB port. There's no going back for me.

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.

Working...