The Straight Dope 01/03/2003

The Straight Dope -- By Cecil Adams
http://www.straightdope.com

You are subscribed as: [[email protected]]

To unsubscribe CLICK on the URL below this line:
mailto:[email protected]
If you can't "click" above, then send a blank email to:
[email protected]
____________________________________________
THE STRAIGHT DOPE 01/03/2003

Dear Cecil:

In my high school biology class we were studying
biogeochemical cycles, including the carbon cycle.
One paragraph detailed how humans, by burning 
fossil fuels, are putting more carbon dioxide into 
the air than is being removed, causing global warming,
etc. According to my textbook, transportation accounts
for most of the carbon dioxide being added to the air
since our cars use petroleum-based fuels. The book 
also notes that trees and other green plants remove
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. How many 
houseplants, acres of grass, and trees should I
have if I want to take as much carbon dioxide out
of the atmosphere as I'm putting in? --John L. White

~~~~~~
Looking for the perfect gift for that wedding, birthday, or
bar mitzvah? Straight Dope books are the very thing! See
http://www.straightdope.com/store.html
~~~~~~

Cecil replies:

Scoffers may say: This kid's on crack. But if
he is, so is the United Nations. A controversial
trees-for-pollution trading scheme, hereafter
referred to as "T4P" (houseplants and grasses are
too short-lived to be useful), was inserted into
the UN's 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
The idea: Polluting countries can earn "forest
credits" by planting or conserving trees to remove
from the atmosphere the carbon dioxide their cars
and factories pump in. Under Bush the U.S. has
disavowed the Kyoto agreement, but even so a brisk
business in "certified tradable offsets" and such 
has sprung up--meaning, among other things, that
first world polluters can pay third world nations
to set aside forests as "carbon sinks."

Critics, however, say that while T4P addresses
a serious question, it's sure a stupid answer. 

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030103.html


STAFF REPORT

Dear Straight Dope:

Why is it that parrots, budgies, mynah birds, etc.,
can copy speech and repeat what you say but chickens
just don't seem to try? Is this because they are
naturally standoffish or just plain rude? 
--Damien Fagan, Dublin, Ireland

SDSTAFF Colibri replies:

Chickens are perfectly capable of speaking, Damien,
they just have stage fright. They don't talk 
because they're chicken.

Heh. Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.

Moving right along. In most birds, calls and
songs are innate--that is, there is no learning
involved. A young bird raised in isolation will 
produce its species' characteristic vocalizations
without ever having heard them before. The 
ability to learn vocalizations, and therefore to
imitate them, is limited to three groups of birds:
the songbirds (or passerines), which make up about
half of all birds; the parrots; and, rather 
surprisingly, the hummingbirds. Among the 
passerines there are mimics in many groups,
such as the starlings (including the mynas), 
mimic-thrushes (including the well-known
mockingbird), true thrushes, and lyrebirds. 

For more, see: 
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mtalkingbirds.html


STRAIGHT DOPE CLASSIC - 08/26/1983

Dear Cecil: 

I listen to the radio a lot and, frankly, I'm
confused. Every few years a song comes along
with a title identical to that of an earlier
song ("Truckin'," "One Man Band," and "Pillow 
Talk" are a few of the examples that come to 
mind). How does this happen? Obviously I couldn't
go out and write a book called Valley of the Dolls
or make a movie entitled Porky's (not that I 
would want to, but you get my drift). Aren't there
such things as copyright laws? Please answer 
posthaste as I'm in the midst of writing a rock 
opera with the tentative title How to Stuff a 
Wild Bikini. --V.N., Phoenix  

Dear V.:  You may be surprised to learn this, but
the team of ace legal piranhas on retainer here
at Straight Dope World HQ informs me that titles,
whether of songs, newspapers, or what have you, 
cannot be copyrighted. Ditto for short phrases. 
Titles and so on come under the general heading
of trademarks--which is to say, signs used by 
companies to distinguish their products from those
of other firms. In other words, we move from the
realm of creative genius (i.e., stuff covered by
copyright) to the world of grubby commercialism. 

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_144a.html

____________________________________________
Here's how you can get your OWN FREE Subscription:
Send a blank mailto:[email protected]
____________________________________________
Copyright 1995 - 2002 Chicago Reader, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
You may forward this document by email ONLY if you
include the entire document INCLUDING the information
at the bottom of this publication
____________________________________________
Visit our good friends at Joke A Day http://www.jokeaday.com
They're kind enough to mail THE STRAIGHT DOPE for us.
Join the World's Largest Daily Humor List and receive daily
laughs in your email by sending mailto:[email protected]