From LO to LOL - Emphasis

From LO to LOL From LO to LOL It is 40 years ago, almost to the day, that the internet made its first connection. On 29 October 1969, a computer in the University of California connected with one several hundred miles away in the Stanford Research Institute, just long enough to receive the message LO. (It was meant to be LOGIN, but the system crashed before the G could be typed.) The rate at which the internet and related technologies have developed since that fateful day is positively dizzying: from science fiction to something tentatively toyed with by a very few, to a ubiquitous part of life for the vast majority in a few decades. Increasingly frequently this is our chosen method of communication in work and out to the point where the future of a national institution like the postal service is threatened. But could our relationship with language be threatened too? The question does keep rearing its worried head over the possibilities of the future: illiterate children? Txt spk @ work? Robot computers marking exam papers? Whats certain is that there will be an effect of some kind. After all, use of the word hello as the greeting we unthinkingly use originated when Thomas Edison declared it the clearest way of answering the telephone. Interestingly, in 2003 it was reported that traditional greetings like hello would soon become obsolete, replaced (as they often are in texts and email) with globespeak alternatives, such as hey, howdy and gday. This, if true, would effectively bring the life of hello full circle: both created for and destroyed by the rise of a new technology. Although we probably neednt sound its death knell quite yet. Then, of course, theres Microsoft: it may rule the world, but to what extent does it rule our words? We are all guilty of relying more and more heavily on Words varicoloured squiggly lines and AutoCorrect function to correct our mistakes, but we are all also probably aware that the program is far from infallible. For example, certain errors such as unnecessary initial capital letters or accidental use of homonyms may not be flagged, while words that are actually spelled accurately can be. Changes both in language and in technology are inevitable and move at a great pace, but theyre not always in step with each other. While newer words like podcast and texting have found their way into dictionaries, older versions of Word still mark them as wrong. The limitations of spellcheckers have been such that the phenomenon of them wreaking havoc with documents now has its own name: the Cupertino effect. Its so-called because Cupertino (the Californian city home to Apple Inc.) used to be the first offering to replace cooperation, back when spellcheckers only recognised the hyphenated version of the word. This meant that anyone breezily pressing accept all changes was left with such nonsensical phrases as the Cupertino with our Italian comrades proved to be very fruitful. (This is taken from an official NATO document from 2003.) Proper nouns and foreign words can also cause problems, as news service Reuters discovered when it inadvertently ended up referring to Pakistans Muttahida Quami Movement as the Muttonhead Quail Movement. Naturally, updates are being made all the time to prevent these particular blunders Microsoft Office 2010 offers a contextual speller in order to make correction suggestions more accurate. Nevertheless, other problems are quite likely to pop up and, however ingenious the algorithm behind the latest features, the ultimate responsibility is with us to check what we actually end up saying. It is also unavoidable that around periods of great change therell be those who fret over the potential consequences. The massive rise in texting has led to concern that this abbreviation-filled medium is going to destroy childrens literacy and have them including such terms as LOL (laugh out loud) and gr8 (great) in their schoolwork. Tales of such inclusions abound, but many are mere fabrication; in fact, several studies have found that the majority of children scornfully denounce the idea that theyd do such a thing. Indeed, a positive aspect could be that kids are taught the importance of writing appropriately for different contexts. We wont be able to stop the dual juggernauts of technology and language change, but we neednt necessarily fear them. The best approach is probably to stop worrying about a future filled with texted essays and automatons in charge of education, and make sure to keep a responsible eye on what we are each actually producing. After all, the future of writing if not the future of technology is largely in our hands.

The Pros and Cons of Ethanol Fuel

The Pros and Cons of Ethanol Fuel Ethanol is a relatively low-cost alternative fuel  that boasts less pollution and more availability compared to unblended gasoline, but there are a number of benefits and drawbacks to this newer form of fuel. For environmental purposes, ethanol is less harmful than unblended gasoline. Carbon monoxide production from ethanol fuel is significantly lower than that of gasoline engines, and ethanol is easier to source since it comes from processed corn. This means it also helps farms and manufacturing economies. The disadvantages of ethanol and other biofuels include the use of farmland for industrial corn and soy growth, rather than for food crops. Also, biofuels arent meant for all vehicles, especially older vehicles. There is some resistance from the automotive industry when it comes to adding biofuels to the market. However, many automakers are adapting to low-emissions vehicle standards which require vehicles to use ethanol blends rather than unblended gasoline. Ethanol Benefits for the Environment and Economy Overall, ethanol is considered to be better for the environment than gasoline. Ethanol-fueled vehicles produce lower  carbon dioxide emissions,  and the same or lower levels of hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen emissions. E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, also has fewer volatile components than gasoline, which means fewer gas emissions from evaporation. Adding ethanol to gasoline in lower percentages, such as 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline (E10), reduces carbon monoxide emissions from the gasoline and improves fuel octane. Flexible fuel vehicles that can use E85 are widely available and come in many different styles from most major auto manufacturers. E85 is also widely available at a growing number of gas stations throughout the United States. Flexible fuel vehicles have the advantage of being able to use E85, gasoline, or a combination of the two, giving drivers the flexibility to choose the fuel that is most readily available and best suited to their needs. Because ethanol is mostly a product of processed corn, ethanol production supports farmers and creates domestic jobs. And because ethanol is produced domestically, from domestically-grown crops, it reduces U.S. dependence on foreign oil and increases the nation’s energy independence. Being able to grow ethanol-producing crops reduces the pressure to drill in environmentally-sensitive places, such as the north slope of Alaska, the Arctic Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico. It can replace the necessity for environmentally-sensitive shale oil, like that coming from the Bakken Shale,  and reduces the need for the construction of new pipelines like the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Drawbacks of Ethanol Ethanol and other biofuels are often promoted as clean, low-cost alternatives to gasoline, but the production and use of ethanol are not all positive. The major debate about corn and soy-based biofuels is the amount of land it takes away from food production. Also, industrial corn and soy farming are harmful to the environment in a different way. Growing corn for ethanol involves large amounts of synthetic fertilizer and herbicide. Corn production, in general, is a frequent source of nutrient and sediment pollution. Also, the typical practices of industrial corn farmers, versus commercial and local food farmers, are considered more environmentally hazardous in general. The challenge of growing enough crops to meet the demands of ethanol and biodiesel production is significant and, some say, insurmountable. According to some authorities, producing  enough biofuels  to enable their widespread adoption could mean converting most of the world’s remaining forests and open spaces to farmland - a sacrifice few people would be willing to make. â€Å"Replacing only five percent of the nation’s diesel  consumption with biodiesel  would require diverting approximately 60 percent of today’s soy crops to  biodiesel production,† says Matthew Brown, an energy consultant and former energy program director at the National Conference of State Legislatures. In a 2005 study, Cornell University researcher David Pimental factored in the energy needed to grow crops and convert them to biofuels and concluded that producing ethanol from corn required 29 percent more energy than ethanol is capable of generating. Sources: EarthTalk staff. The Pros and Cons of Biofuels. James T. Ehler, February 2007. Susan S. Lang. Cornell ecologists study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy. Cornell Chronicle, July 5, 2005, Ithaca NY.