EVE Search - This is the most beautiful and terrifying portrait of earth IÆve seen

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

This is the most beautiful and terrifying portrait of earth IÆve seen

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.09 03:04:00 - [31] Originally by: Jno Aubrey Farming technology has improved drastically (thank you, private enterprise!) and we no longer have that problem in developed countries - however in the third world this is an ongoing problem. Improved third-world economies will result in their being able to afford to use more advanced techniques. As can be seen in this extremely critical view of the Dust Bowl narrative or in this more liberal narrative put forth here, you will find nothing about private enterprise being responsible for the return of the farm lands after the droughts of the 30's. Originally by: Jno Aubrey I disagree with you here. You seem to believe that people, unregulated, will naturally foul their own back yards. I think that by and large most people will look for ways to improve their surroundings and that overbearing regulation just slows things down. True, most people will not foul their backyards, but most industrialists do not run their operations in their backyards. They run them in the backyards of the poorest people or down stream of their main residences. Originally by: Jno Aubrey It depends on too many factors to give a single answer. One must consider the cost, the benefit, and the ownership rights involved. Do not forget the potential effects on the individuals that live down river and the rights of those that make a living off of fishing species that can be negatively effected by large river deviations. Add in the fact that most large running water systems fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game, so ownership rights are typically moot points anyway. Originally by: Jno Aubrey If I own the property, then I should be able to control who or what is present on my property. That doesn't mean I have the right to go on YOUR property and kill your fuzzy little critters. Nor may I ignore laws regarding animal cruelty, the discharge of firearms in city limits, etc. You do not sound like a hunter. By the way this "hippy tree hugger" is an avid hunter. Most hunting occurs on land owned by the State and Federal government. Yes, hunting regulations still exist on private property but there are, in some States, farmer hunting licensees that give farmers a little more leverage to deal with troublesome critters. As the above is off the topic of my original post as most species that have been hunted or fished to extinction was done so on non-private land and fisheries. Originally by: Slade Trillgon Do you think that every industrialist should be allowed to dump their waste directly into the local river bed? Originally by: Jno Aubrey Of course not, I am not advocating anarchy. Well guess what they did for decades before the government forced them to stop? /redundant question Also, lets not forget the near destructive effect the pesticide DDT had on the birds of the world. Not that I really care about the species more then any other, but I am sure the nationalists out there might, but the Bald Eagle was saved by regulations that eliminated the use of DDT and a few other nasty pesticides. Regulations that are, in the grand scheme of things, new. Would you say that it is fine now to take those regulations off of the books? cont... :Signature Temporarily Disabled:
Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.09 03:06:00 - [32] Originally by: Jno Aubrey Everyone acts in his own self interest, and punishing someone for doing so is lunacy (or communism - same thing). I put my financial (and general) well-being above yours because I don't know you from Adam - does that make me evil? Should I criticize my neighbor because he puts the welfare of his 3-year-old son above mine? We already have umpteen-bazillion laws and regulations covering every aspect of our lives and livelihoods. We need less, not more. Please note that less <> none. First off I never called you evil and if I remember correctly it was you the resorted to passive aggressive name calling in the beginning. So lets just say that my stance is one that circles around no religious stance on good and evil. I do believe that man has a responsibility to preserve as much of the world for as long as possible for a multitude of reasons that have nothing to do with good and evil. So as I dance this dance with you we have come back to the same ending I come to when I have this discussion with others. You are willing to say that some regulation is needed, so please start listing the regulations that should be eliminated and, considering that these regulations typically come from some perceived wrong, what should the punishments be if one then wrongs someone else in their return to doing things as they were done in the past. One of the main problems that is always at the forefront of society is how do apply justice equally no matter the size of the wallets involved. In the US the "ruling class" (if we want to bring "class" into it) do not really want to suffer the consequences of their actions when a court of law finds them guilty. The "Old money" in this country created a system of regulation and fines that saves their wallets money in the end when they screw up, as opposed to the punishments they would incur if we operated under Common Law and judged each case on its merits. Unfortunately, your ilk typically also have a tremendous distaste for lawyers and their theoretical pracice Slade :Signature Temporarily Disabled:
Vogue Short Bus Pole Dancers	Posted - 2011.02.09 11:56:00 - [33] Edited by: Vogue on 09/02/2011 12:01:46 Look at the old USSR for examples of industrial environmental fallout that were caused by the lack of oversight of an environmental protection agency. There were many causes of toxic waste causing damage. Western economies have lost most of their old metal bashing heavy industries to economies such as China who have low costs. So in turn we have exported carbon emissions to these types of countries. Though the USA has many high tech industries it is worth noting that they have an overall trade surplus with agriculture. This is strategic so the USA is self reliant for food products. U.S. Agricultural Trade Totals For November 2010 Exports: $12,917,824,252.00 Imports: $7,101,063,241.00 Trade Balance: $5,816,761,011.00 In the future with food shortages, energy shortages, water shortages the countries that are self sufficient in these areas will ride the economic shocks from this far better. .................................................. One man with courage is a majority
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.09 13:47:00 - [34] Slade that's a big challenge - what to eliminate? There is so much. Forgive me if I take a US-centric view since I am most familiar with the burden of law in this country. Just for starters, I'd eliminate the endangered species act - at least any part of it that infringes on personal property rights. Allow evolution to take its course. I would cut funding for the EPA by 50% immediately. That agency is out of control. Example: EPA has decided that because milk contains oil, that dairy farmers must now create a plan to deal with milk spills, build containment facilities, and train "first responders" in the event of such a spill. Since you mentioned it, I would lift the ban on DDT for use in non-food agriculture and especially for control of mosquitos in developing countries. More people have died because of the DDT ban (1-2 million a year from malaria transmitted by mosquitos) than were killed by ****** in WWII. I would get rid of the minimum wage laws that kill jobs. I would eliminate the new healthcare act and also get rid of any law that prevents insurance companies from selling policies across state lines in order to stop stifling competition while reforming tort laws to that doctors don't have to pay half their salaries for malpractice insurance. Bring the US into line with the rest of the world, where the loser in a court battle has to pay the costs. I would encourage more offshore drilling for oil, eliminate all barriers to fracing for natural gas, open up ANWR for oil drilling, and get rid of all the red tape that has stopped this country from building any new oil refineries for years. I would allow, nay encourage, more clean-coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants to be built. That's for starters. PS. No I am not a hunter - never cared for it. But the hunters I know are mostly avid conservationists and have a much better appreciation for the realities of animal husbandry than your average bureaucrat. Fake edit: LOL at word filter eliminating the name of former German Chancellor. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Vogue Short Bus Pole Dancers	Posted - 2011.02.09 14:01:00 - [35] If push comes to shove the USA will exploit the oil reserves in Alaska. I think the USA is keeping this in reserve when peak oil is realised and affects economic market sentiment. The environmental foot print of drilling would be negligible. .................................................. One man with courage is a majority
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2011.02.09 14:32:00 - [36] Originally by: Vogue If push comes to shove the USA will exploit the oil reserves in Alaska. I think the USA is keeping this in reserve when peak oil is realised and affects economic market sentiment. The environmental foot print of drilling would be negligible. Did you miss that memo? Oil is not the future commodity, rare metals are and China is monopolizing the market while the US still crusade for oil. Delenda est achura.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.09 14:42:00 - [37] Originally by: Wendat Huron Originally by: Vogue If push comes to shove the USA will exploit the oil reserves in Alaska. I think the USA is keeping this in reserve when peak oil is realised and affects economic market sentiment. The environmental foot print of drilling would be negligible. Did you miss that memo? Oil is not the future commodity, rare metals are and China is monopolizing the market while the US still crusade for oil. Oil is the engine of our economy and will be until we find a cost-effective alternative. Its hard to mine for rare earth elements (or anything else for that matter) if you cannot produce or afford the power to do it. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2011.02.09 14:56:00 - [38] Originally by: Jno Aubrey Originally by: Wendat Huron Originally by: Vogue If push comes to shove the USA will exploit the oil reserves in Alaska. I think the USA is keeping this in reserve when peak oil is realised and affects economic market sentiment. The environmental foot print of drilling would be negligible. Did you miss that memo? Oil is not the future commodity, rare metals are and China is monopolizing the market while the US still crusade for oil. Oil is the engine of our economy and will be until we find a cost-effective alternative. Its hard to mine for rare earth elements (or anything else for that matter) if you cannot produce or afford the power to do it. Oil can be replaced today, it's a matter of choice not to by those who benefit from the current system. Oil going missing will be a non-issue for the sake of fuel. For producing plastics on the other hand... Delenda est achura.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.09 15:05:00 - [39] Originally by: Wendat Huron Oil can be replaced today, it's a matter of choice not to by those who benefit from the current system. Oil going missing will be a non-issue for the sake of fuel. For producing plastics on the other hand... What an interesting point of view. Perhaps you could tell us how we can replace oil today? Seriously, the entire planet is waiting with baited breath on your revelation. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2011.02.09 15:16:00 - [40] Originally by: Jno Aubrey Originally by: Wendat Huron Oil can be replaced today, it's a matter of choice not to by those who benefit from the current system. Oil going missing will be a non-issue for the sake of fuel. For producing plastics on the other hand... What an interesting point of view. Perhaps you could tell us how we can replace oil today? Seriously, the entire planet is waiting with baited breath on your revelation. Stop being an idiot, you know full well electricity can and will replace oil but the political will behind it is lacking. Delenda est achura.

Vogue Short Bus Pole Dancers	Posted - 2011.02.09 15:16:00 - [41] Oil cannot be replaced easily though it is itself an organic derivative - biofuel. Likewise various agricultural crops can replace oil. But the environmental effect required of huge scale agricultural bio-fuel crop production is massive. There is the food v fuel issue, soil erosion, water needs. But it could help the third world out of poverty (not that western strategic thinkers give a hoot about this). Chart of carbon emissions for bio-fuels and extracted ready to go fuels .................................................. One man with courage is a majority
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.09 16:06:00 - [42] Originally by: Wendat Huron Stop being an idiot, you know full well electricity can and will replace oil but the political will behind it is lacking. There is currently (no pun intended) no viable way to replace oil with electricity. Electric-powered trucks to move goods from San Francisco to Kansas City? Electric trains to haul from coast to coast? Electric freighter ships? Commercial / freight / military aircraft? Let me guess - you live in Europe and have no clue of the logistics and infrastructure issues of a very BIG country? These things will all come to pass eventually, but not in my lifetime. Biofuels are not the answer - look what happened to food prices and availability when we started using corn for fuel instead of food. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2011.02.09 16:43:00 - [43] Originally by: Jno Aubrey Originally by: Wendat Huron Stop being an idiot, you know full well electricity can and will replace oil but the political will behind it is lacking. There is currently (no pun intended) no viable way to replace oil with electricity. Electric-powered trucks to move goods from San Francisco to Kansas City? Electric trains to haul from coast to coast? Electric freighter ships? Commercial / freight / military aircraft? Let me guess - you live in Europe and have no clue of the logistics and infrastructure issues of a very BIG country? These things will all come to pass eventually, but not in my lifetime. Biofuels are not the answer - look what happened to food prices and availability when we started using corn for fuel instead of food. There is currently non because... Delenda est achura.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.09 18:09:00 - [44] Originally by: Wendat Huron There is currently non because... Because current technologies are not economically feasible. Because we don't have the electrical infrastructure to deliver it to where it is needed even if it were available. Because oil, coal, and natural gas are cheaper, more efficient, more available, more transportable. Believe me, if i could buy one of these at Wal-Mart I'd be first in line! __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
digitalwanderer Gallente DF0 incorporated	Posted - 2011.02.10 00:06:00 - [45] Originally by: Jno Aubrey Originally by: Wendat Huron There is currently non because... Because current technologies are not economically feasible. Because we don't have the electrical infrastructure to deliver it to where it is needed even if it were available. Because oil, coal, and natural gas are cheaper, more efficient, more available, more transportable. Believe me, if i could buy one of these at Wal-Mart I'd be first in line! So techniques like solar panel farms,wind turbines,geo thermal energy,or water turbines aren't available? How about modernized coal power plants that inject the carbon dioxide emissions back under the earth,wich is where they come from initially...The technology is there for it.
Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.10 01:56:00 - [46] Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 10/02/2011 02:09:21 Originally by: Jno Aubrey Just for starters, I'd eliminate the endangered species act - at least any part of it that infringes on personal property rights. Allow evolution to take its course. Just be aware that every species that we lose, the advancement of science is impeded that much more. Originally by: Jno Aubrey I would cut funding for the EPA by 50% immediately. That agency is out of control. Example: EPA has decided that because milk contains oil, that dairy farmers must now create a plan to deal with milk spills, build containment facilities, and train "first responders" in the event of such a spill. I do not disagree with this Originally by: Jno Aubrey Since you mentioned it, I would lift the ban on DDT for use in non-food agriculture and especially for control of mosquitos in developing countries. More people have died because of the DDT ban (1-2 million a year from malaria transmitted by mosquitos) than were killed by **** in WWII. What is sad is that proper shelters would have eliminated most of those deaths without toxic chemicals. Originally by:** Jno Aubrey I would get rid of the minimum wage laws that kill jobs. It would be interesting to see how the US economy reacts when the buying power of a large portion of the countries spenders is removed. Originally by: Jno Aubrey I would eliminate the new healthcare act and also get rid of any law that prevents insurance companies from selling policies across state lines in order to stop stifling competition while reforming tort laws to that doctors don't have to pay half their salaries for malpractice insurance. Bring the US into line with the rest of the world, where the loser in a court battle has to pay the costs. I am for anything that supports doctors. I will sway away from the health-care topic as I am too vested in it and have not formed my opinions on what I believe the changes to be. However, I will say that I do get fed up with people driving up the cost of my necessary health-care because they are too lazy and self involved to actually give a rats ass about their own health, which blows my mind. The ironic part with this is that I dedicate myself to trying to help as many unhealthy people reverse their behaviors Originally by: Jno Aubrey I would encourage more offshore drilling for oil, eliminate all barriers to fracing for natural gas, open up ANWR for oil drilling, and get rid of all the red tape that has stopped this country from building any new oil refineries for years. I support this on the condition that the companies are held liable for any and all malfeasance. Give the journalists something to work on. Originally by: Jno Aubrey I would allow, nay encourage, more clean-coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants to be built. I agree. Originally by: Jno Aubrey PS. No I am not a hunter - never cared for it. But the hunters I know are mostly avid conservationists and have a much better appreciation for the realities of animal husbandry than your average bureaucrat. Some are also the worst offenders of poaching laws. Unbiased reason is always good to have when looking to regulate or deregulate. EDIT: grammar and punctuation Slade :Signature Temporarily Disabled:
digitalwanderer Gallente DF0 incorporated	Posted - 2011.02.10 02:42:00 - [47] I think the main point comes down to just 1 thing, wich most choose to ignore it....Basically that we're delusional enough to believe that this planet is ours, and that any steps we take to save it actually make a difference in the earth's own survival, wich has been around for 4+ billion years, and has survived plenty of mass extinctions, massive volcanic activity, continental plate movements to create the landscape we have now, magnetic pole shifts and getting hit with asteroids repeatedly, and climate changes in the past over these billions of years of it's existance, surviving disasters far worse that human kind could ever inflict upon it... So with that in mind,trying to "Save" earth is mostly in context to humans remaining the top species on the planet, and not becoming extinct like it's happened to thousands of species over millions of years...The earth itself doesn't care either way as it'll still be here anyway, so it's our own greed,stupidity and self interest that will eventually kill us as a species, even though we have the means to change things no matter how painfull or expensive the changes are. We're screwed...
Enraged Stoat	Posted - 2011.02.10 12:37:00 - [48] Originally by: digitalwanderer We're screwed... This. Cool stories. If you liked that film you might also like BARAKA. Epic cinematography, go find a bluray of it today. And sequel on its way (finally after 19 years).
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2011.02.10 14:59:00 - [49] Originally by: Jno Aubrey Originally by: Wendat Huron There is currently non because... Because current technologies are not economically feasible. Because we don't have the electrical infrastructure to deliver it to where it is needed even if it were available. Because oil, coal, and natural gas are cheaper, more efficient, more available, more transportable. Believe me, if i could buy one of these at Wal-Mart I'd be first in line! Because the political will who is in bed with big corporations won't make it so. Simple as. Instead of moving ahead to the next step we know is there they're hellbent on depleting the existing finite resources. It's not them waking up tomorrow to find out a new and interesting technique to do something, if only we had some oil left to do it with... Delenda est achura.
Vogue Short Bus Pole Dancers	Posted - 2011.02.10 15:10:00 - [50] The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. Thomas Sowel 'Democracies' are poor at handling paradigm shifts. The global financial crisis was one of them. It is even more scary when some countries don't recalibrate after such shocks. .................................................. One man with courage is a majority

Riedle Minmatar Paradox Collective Black Legion.	Posted - 2011.02.10 15:47:00 - [51] Originally by: Jno Aubrey Originally by: yani dumyat Want to talk about cost-benefit? The cost of not cleaning up our act is potential extinction for the human race, the benefit is that we get to be lard arses driving SUV's and eating huge quantities of meat. The cost of cleaning up our planet is changing our patterns of consumption slightly and the benefit is that we give future generations a better chance of survival. If you weren't trolling and honestly believe that environmentalism has no cost-benefit then just wow, I don't even know what to say. My point was that your typical enviro type does not care how much it costs to gain even the tinyest benefit, or even a non-existent "benefit" that nevertheless makes him feel good about himself. Example: after the Gulf oil spill, the US has stopped offshore drilling to protect the environment. Good idea right? Well, um, it seems that the vast majority of oil that is spilled comes from oil tanker incidents. And what is the result of stopping offshore drilling? That's right - we are importing more oil using oil tankers and thus have increased the probability of future spills! Please don't misunderstand me - I want to live in a clean, healthy, green, pleasant environment myself. Here in the USA we have had the luxury of being wealthy enough to throw money at the environment to reduce emissions, improve efficiencies, etc. That is beginning to change, and in the wrong direction, as our economy melts down. The likely effect of this in the long term will be a lower priority to environmental concerns. Wait for it. Societies have to be able to look beyond the day-to-day scramble for survival before they can afford to consider the environment around them. When your one and only priority is putting food on the table you are not going to care about whether some snail in your backyard is the last of its species. My belief is that the ultimate answer is to increase wealth and living conditions across the entire planet so that we can all afford to deal with these things. And the best way to do that is through capitalism, economic freedom, personal freedom, and private enterprise. Its a proven system and while it has many flaws its still better than anything else we've tried. very well said. It just doesn't fit in with the modern leftist environmentalist. White Guilt has been replaced by 'human guilt'. Also, the wealthier the country tyhe less it's population grows
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.10 16:07:00 - [52] Originally by: Wendat Huron Because the political will who is in bed with big corporations won't make it so. Simple as. Instead of moving ahead to the next step we know is there they're hellbent on depleting the existing finite resources. It's not them waking up tomorrow to find out a new and interesting technique to do something, if only we had some oil left to do it with... I don't deny that there is truth in what you say, but it is more complicated than that. We simply don't have an effective replacement for oil today, and whether that is caused by "vested interests" suppressing research, not enough money invested in research, or just that we've hit a brick wall, the fact remains that we need oil for the forseeable future. You may complain about corporations protecting their profits and not taking the long term view, but the answer surely is not government. Governments (well, democratic ones at least) do NOT take a long-term view. Here in the US your typical politician has a view that lasts 2, 4, or 6 years depending on which office he holds. I expect that the solution to the problem will come from private industry, and most likely the energy sector where the incentive to do so, i.e. the profit motive, is the greatest. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.10 16:14:00 - [53] Originally by: Vogue The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. Thomas Sowell 'Democracies' are poor at handling paradigm shifts. The global financial crisis was one of them. It is even more scary when some countries don't recalibrate after such shocks. I love that quote (and how true it is). Thomas Sowell is a brilliant man - I would recommend any of his writings on economics along with anything written by his friend and peer, Walter Williams. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Vogue Short Bus Pole Dancers	Posted - 2011.02.10 16:26:00 - [54] The UK is particularly prone to food, gas and oil price supply and demand fluctuations. The charlatans in London have made our country the most open for free trade. This is good for inwards investment but we are screwed as far as energy and food strategic independence goes. Well at least we have lots of coal left .................................................. One man with courage is a majority
T'arho Sukri Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.10 23:10:00 - [55] IT doesn't seem like it was mentioned yet but there was another movie that came out like 20+ years ago called Koyaanisqatsi which is quite similar in showing how humanity has changed the planet. It is filmed in a very similar manner and has such things as beauty and terror about it. You can watch it here on youtube as well. koyaanisqatsi Originally by: Schwa88 Edited by: Schwa88 on 04/11/2010 04:50:53 This thread has made my head asplode.
FunzzeR Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2011.02.11 00:59:00 - [56] Meh Koyaanisqatsi was better and had a killer soundtrack. PRAISE THE SCOTTISH FOLD!! THEIR WILL SHALL BE DONE!!
digitalwanderer Gallente DF0 incorporated	Posted - 2011.02.11 04:34:00 - [57] Originally by: Jno Aubrey I don't deny that there is truth in what you say, but it is more complicated than that. We simply don't have an effective replacement for oil today, and whether that is caused by "vested interests" suppressing research, not enough money invested in research, or just that we've hit a brick wall, the fact remains that we need oil for the forseeable future. You may complain about corporations protecting their profits and not taking the long term view, but the answer surely is not government. Governments (well, democratic ones at least) do NOT take a long-term view. Here in the US your typical politician has a view that lasts 2, 4, or 6 years depending on which office he holds. I expect that the solution to the problem will come from private industry, and most likely the energy sector where the incentive to do so, i.e. the profit motive, is the greatest. We would be much more advanced if military budgets weren't as large as they are, and invested some that money into research projects that are lagging behind mainly due to lack of funding...The private sector can't do that on it's own, that much is for sure,not when it comes to the major projects like fusion reactors, which there's some test facilities here and there,but at the current pace,we might have the first commercial fusion reactor up and running by 2040,Meaning we practically have to run out of oil, pollute the environment even more and deplete it's resources further still, before it comes online,and that's just the first one, as many more of them are needed on a worldwide scale.... It's almost like we have to be on the brink of disaster to make significant changes that will ultimately allow the human race to remain the top species on the planet, and that's just plain stupid any way you cut it, but i do agree that politicians in general are short sighted overall, keeping only their attention to issues that increase their chances of getting re-elected, and avoiding the difficult issues that just keep getting worse and worse as time goes on, and the more those are pushed back because it may cause said individual not to be re-elected, the greater the problem becomes and greater the sacrifices for future generations...Look no further than the US debt at 14 trillion dollars and climbing fast... We're screwed...
Tara Moss	Posted - 2011.02.11 08:21:00 - [58] Great video. Thanks for sharing.
Jno Aubrey Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2011.02.11 14:09:00 - [59] Originally by: digitalwanderer We would be much more advanced if military budgets weren't as large as they are, and invested some that money into research projects that are lagging behind mainly due to lack of funding...The private sector can't do that on it's own, that much is for sure,not when it comes to the major projects like fusion reactors, which there's some test facilities here and there,but at the current pace,we might have the first commercial fusion reactor up and running by 2040,Meaning we practically have to run out of oil, pollute the environment even more and deplete it's resources further still, before it comes online,and that's just the first one, as many more of them are needed on a worldwide scale.... I would love to see the USA cut back its military budget and let the rest of the planet spend its own money for its own defense. Then we'd see how their precious social programs fare under the pressure of maintaining a beefed-up standing military. Its kindof a chicken-egg thing though - we need to be self-sufficient in energy before that would be a viable policy. Originally by: digitalwanderer We're screwed... Probably, but things WILL sort themselves out one way or another. Preferably without too much violence. __________________________________________________ Name a shrub after me; something prickly and hard to eradicate.
Vogue Short Bus Pole Dancers	Posted - 2011.02.11 14:26:00 - [60] In one respect fusion reactors could be very dangerous. If you can power an entire city for 3 days from a cup of easily available hydrogen isotope then people and industry will use very cheap electricity with total abandon. But before this happens cars, homes, appliances will be connected to connected to their service provider on a internet like connection so a complete auditing can be done of power consumption. And if need be the excessive use of heat generating appliances can be regulated. .................................................. One man with courage is a majority



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.