| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
   |
Posted - 2009.01.18 18:40:00 -
[31]
We need a global monorail! Did someone say monorail?! |
7shining7one7
Gallente
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 19:37:00 -
[32]
Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 18/01/2009 19:40:43
whilst it's important for the environment not to overly pollute, mars and jupiter heating up has little to do with carbon emissions, you ought to think about that.
yes we are being lied to about a great many things, and we have some problems ahead that needs solving, but carbon emissions is the least of our worries atm. it's just yet another way for the elite to tax the people with the carbon footprint talk, and for pitching people against eachother in a debate weither to condone "preventive meassures for over population" that some of them look at with glee.
shouldn't we rather focus on developing non polluting propulsion mechanisms rather than fight and destroy homes in order to attempt to accomodate a method of propulsion and energy that will inevitably fail in the long run?
yes i know we are being lied to and that the technology is there but is not publicly available nor do people know it exists..
but nonetheless we should pursue the invention of it on our own, because the solution is not to defend something which ultimately will fail, but instead to discover something new that will solve the problems by itself..
please stop bickering about which way is best to urinate in our collective pants to stay warm..  it saddens me to see you guys being so angry with eachother.
it's a downward spiral, the more you take from the people the less ability they have to develope real solutions when they are being taxed far up their behind at every step in order to maintain a crumbling method of operation.
humans aren't the problem, the technology is what is the problem, fix the energy technology and the propulsion methods rather than finding new ways to hurting the people  |
Deviana Sevidon
Gallente
Panta-Rhei
United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 20:06:00 -
[33]
Consider yourself lucky, the situation in Germany is far worse.
We have people here that are against everything and have spent all their free time protesting against it.
Practically every infrastructure project can be stalled for decades, because a minority protests against it. Even when a Kindergarten is being build, some people do everything to stop it, or shut it down, once the Kindergarten has opened and often Judges decide in their favor.
|
kor anon
Amarr
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 20:08:00 -
[34]
teargas, the perfect solution |
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 20:36:00 -
[35]
Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 18/01/2009 20:44:20
I'd sure hate to live in London.
Awful accents, terrible traffic, loud. Everything paved in concrete.
Grimey chewing gum stained paths that smell faintly of old urine.
...oh wait, that's every city centre in Britain.
(and yes I am English)
At least for Americans, they have the luxury of landspace to waste and when they stick their mega airports down or their mega marts, so they are usually a large distance away.
You know what?
I've travelled all over Britain and it's bloody boring.
Every city centre looks exactly the same, Mcdonalds, Next, W H Smith, yadda yadda yadda.
Then I went to States once. Even worse!
All the roads were straight, everywhere you could go... Circuit City, Mcdonalds, Macy's, KFC, Best Buy, Circuit City, Wendys, Macys, KFC, Best Buy, Mcdonalds, Macys, repeat 1000 times.
We suck at using land anyway, we dedicate our whole life, our whole environment on providing the best access and paths for motor cars and consumerism, it's pretty depressing to me.
I loved it when I get to visit some of the old countries in eastern europe that haven't been remoulded to server the wheel of capitalism of whatever system you want to blame, and it's pretty enjoyable if you can ignore the poverty of the locals and the corrupt local russian crime gangs.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 20:45:00 -
[36]
Serves you right for only looking at cities.
♥ Yorkshire Dales ♥ |
Doctor Penguin
Amarr
Shadow Command
Tenth Legion
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 20:49:00 -
[37]
Bets:
1) OP reads The Daily Mail.
2) The OP votes Conservative.
3) THe OP hasn't got a flipping clue what he's talking about. |
kor anon
Amarr
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 20:59:00 -
[38]
 Originally by: Doctor Penguin
Bets:
1) OP reads The Daily Mail.
2) The OP votes Conservative.
3) THe OP hasn't got a flipping clue what he's talking about.
bets
1) your a tit
2) your a tit
3) i think you know whats coming next
Instead of just insulting why dont you explain why you think he is wrong?
|
Stitcher
Caldari
legion of qui
Southern Connection
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 21:24:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Stitcher on 18/01/2009 21:26:19
Originally by: Doctor Penguin
Bets:
1) OP reads The Daily Mail.
2) The OP votes Conservative.
3) THe OP hasn't got a flipping clue what he's talking about.
1: Wrong: I prefer the BBC news website and think that the DM are an even bigger bunch of opinionated pricks than Greenpeace are.
2: Wrong. I vote Lib Dem. (and FYI, the Tories are BACKING Greenpeace on this)
3: Should I hash out all the mathematics I did on the previous page for your benefit again? Would you like the big print version this time? or maybe somebody to hold your hand because numbers are scary? |
Atama Cardel
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 01:34:00 -
[40]
Originally by: ceaon
Edited by: ceaon on 18/01/2009 17:47:34
i support anything that **** off government and corporations
gg greenpeace
edit: damn censorship
You listen to rage against the machine don't you |
|
|
Cmdr Sy
Appetite 4 Destruction
The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 01:42:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Atama Cardel
You listen to rage against the machine don't you
The typical fan listens to them in the car on his/her way to a call centre where they sell people home contents insurance. Yeah, that's fighting the power or something...  |
Atama Cardel
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 01:49:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Cmdr Sy
Originally by: Atama Cardel
You listen to rage against the machine don't you
The typical fan listens to them in the car on his/her way to a call centre where they sell people home contents insurance. Yeah, that's fighting the power or something...
Yeah but they sell home contents insurance while listening to rage against the machine. That makes them true jaded anarchists. |
Sera Ryskin
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 05:13:00 -
[43]
Ooh, more uninformed nonsense from 7shining7one7! This will be fun.
Originally by: 7shining7one7
whilst it's important for the environment not to overly pollute, mars and jupiter heating up has little to do with carbon emissions, you ought to think about that.
Ah yes, what a wonderful un-biased source, a known nutcase "news" site. No wonder you're so insane, you get all of your "facts" from a site with articles like this beautiful bit of tinfoil-hat insanity: OBAMA WANTS TO BE KING!!!!!!
Come back when you have some peer-reviewed scientific research supporting your claim (here's a hint: you won't find it, because the 'mars is warming too!!!!' argument is, like everything else you post, pure bull****).
Quote:
yes we are being lied to about a great many things, and we have some problems ahead that needs solving, but carbon emissions is the least of our worries atm. it's just yet another way for the elite to tax the people with the carbon footprint talk, and for pitching people against eachother in a debate weither to condone "preventive meassures for over population" that some of them look at with glee.
Clearly you haven't even looked at the projections if you think carbon emissions are "the least of our worries".
Oh, and how the hell do you think it's an excuse for the elites to tax the rest of us when most of the proposals put the heaviest burden on guess who: the rich industrialized nations.
Quote:
shouldn't we rather focus on developing non polluting propulsion mechanisms rather than fight and destroy homes in order to attempt to accomodate a method of propulsion and energy that will inevitably fail in the long run?
Here's a hint for the clueless: a runway works just fine no matter what powers the planes that use it. Completely sustainable bio-fuels can power jet engines just fine. While the carbon emissions may still be there, the coming oil problems will not end air travel.
Quote:
yes i know we are being lied to and that the technology is there but is not publicly available nor do people know it exists..
So if nobody knows it exists, how do YOU know it exists? Exactly which technology are you referring to?
Hint: nuclear and other options are solutions that are opposed for stupid reasons, but they don't have to do with nobody knowing it exists.
but nonetheless we should pursue the invention of it on our own, because the solution is not to defend something which ultimately will fail, but instead to discover something new that will solve the problems by itself..
Quote:
humans aren't the problem, the technology is what is the problem, fix the energy technology and the propulsion methods rather than finding new ways to hurting the people
Yes, the energy problem does need to be fixed, but there will still be a need for airports.
As for the OP, if I were king of the world, I would have a very simple solution: if you protest my airport plans, I add another 1000' for each protest letter. Over 50,000' (long enough to do multiple touch-and-gos in my 747), and I simply continue the process by adding another runway, starting at a modest 5,000'. Protest enough, and you'll have everything in a 25-mile radius paved over (plus parking and stuff, of course).
Now, if the governments had any sense, they would do exactly that. As a pilot, I fully support the introduction of an awesome airport like that.
And I don't know what people are whining about, if I had the chance to live next to an airport where the big jets flew that low overhead, I would be very happy about it.
==========
Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
|
MAJ ML
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 05:56:00 -
[44]
I totally agree i cant stand them except for the efforts in stopping the chiness "Scientific Resurch of Whales".
By stopping the expansion going ahead you are stressing an already stressed airport which could have a very bad ending.
Tell you what green peace if you want to stop pollution eat a cow. LOL
Dose anyone get that? |
ceaon
Gallente
Porandor
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 06:45:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Atama Cardel
Originally by: ceaon
Edited by: ceaon on 18/01/2009 17:47:34
i support anything that **** off government and corporations
gg greenpeace
edit: damn censorship
You listen to rage against the machine don't you
i heard about them but atm dont come in my mind any song 
Cmdr Sy i dont have a car
. . .
|
Reven Cordelle
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 09:28:00 -
[46]
BE GREEN OMG.
Apparently I'm destroying the planet and I should be paying more tax because my car has a 4.6 Litre V8 that gets about 12 to the gallon.
Oh right so uh.. the fact I drive the ol' girl no more than ONCE A WEEK to the store, which is about.. I dunno.. half a mile away - means I'm using more fuel than some hyped up little **** driving 400 miles a day in his ****ing Prius?
RAWR.
People always worry about their own little ideals, and they always get carried away in **** that doesn't matter. If only these Greenpeace fgts and anyone else would just back up and think "Oh hey, In a world full of BILLIONS of people that don't give a **** - why are we even bothering?"
In an ideal world anyway.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 09:33:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 19/01/2009 09:33:09
Originally by: Stitcher
...To stop worrying and finally give in to my hatred of Greenpeace.
As far as I'm concerned, they're a pack of short-sighted stubborn luddites blinded by their over-inflated senses of self-importance.
What the hell do they think buying that land will do? The property prices around Heathrow are already apalling, the local ecosystem's already nonexistant and as far as I'm aware that third runway is mostly planned to take the load off the overburdened two that are there already and can't cope.
What's that? planes cause pollution?
Let's compare a few facts, shall we:
My car (according to this government website) produces CO2 at a rate of 152 g/km, while a Boeing 747-400 produces CO2 at a rate of 30.638 kg/km
My car can carry a maximum of five people at a time, and I estimate that my driving habits produce an average of 2.5 people in the car for any given trip. A boeing 747-400 can carry 524 people, and most airline companies attempt to have their planes filled to capacity.
152/2.5 = 60.8
30,638/524 = 58.469
What that means is that my car produces an average of 60.8 grams of CO2 per Kilometre, and that a Boeing 747-400 produces an average of 58.5g/km. In other words, a JUMBO JET produces less CO2 per person than my car does.
These people latch, leech-like, onto a half-baked cause and do everything in their power to achieve... what? It's not like there isn't other land that can be used for that runway, or even laws that can be invoked to render their purchase of the land null and void.
Petty, tiny-minded neophobes the lot of them.
brb buying up your garage and driveway to prevent your epic pollution
Your cap ship deserves CPR's! |
Poreuomai
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 13:24:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Poreuomai on 19/01/2009 13:24:38
I know, lets pretend that everything is fine with the environment and just keep on building and expanding !
Let My People Go |
Marisal
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 13:56:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Poreuomai
Edited by: Poreuomai on 19/01/2009 13:24:38
I know, lets pretend that everything is fine with the environment and just keep on building and expanding !
Ehh tbh we've probably already done some irreparable damage to the environment quite alot of it when we weren't even aware of what we were doing now just struggling to break the bad habits. Most stuff now is really damage limitation.
The next real new impact to the environment won't be until civil space flight really kicks up with the suborbital flights the effects of large scale aero braking will cause a number of problems.
Tbh I doubt civil spaceflight will ever actually get to that level well certainly not with the return technology we currently have, it would be far better to concentrate on space elevator because all the designs work out cheaper for hauling stuff into orbit, the only drawback is finding materials ideal to the stresses it will endure (carbon nanotubes at the moment are the best opportunity) and the initial investment is rather high that its off putting for the majority of nations in the world to attempt it as a group let alone independently, plus you run into the snag of where to base it as most likely the major investors would want territorial control but it needs to be on the equator far away from any major investor. |
Myrhial Arkenath
Ghost Festival
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 09:31:00 -
[50]
Things like this are exactly what is NOT helping with raising awereness for the environment. Ever since Greenpeace started to dump concrete into the ocean so nets would get stuck in them I've lost my respect for them. Don't they get that concrete doesn't belong in an ocean and may do even more harm? Same thing with buying the land. Traffic load actually causes more polution because planes will have to stay up in the air longer or wait a while before taking off, meaning in the latter case they will have the engine running longer to be ready for takeoff asap.
I wish they'd put their time and effort into something that actually made a difference 
Diary of a pod pilot |
|
|
Rodj Blake
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 10:14:00 -
[51]
A couple of things to consider...
* The most popular destination from Heathrow is Paris, and the fourth most popular is Manchester. Aren't there faster, more economical and greener methods for travelling these relatively short distances? Rail for example?
* The transport infrastructure around Heathrow is already seriously overloaded. What's it going to be like with the inevitable increase in passenger numbers? |
Arnulf Ogunkoya
Minmatar
The Causality
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 20:08:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Rodj Blake
A couple of things to consider...
* The most popular destination from Heathrow is Paris, and the fourth most popular is Manchester. Aren't there faster, more economical and greener methods for travelling these relatively short distances? Rail for example?
* The transport infrastructure around Heathrow is already seriously overloaded. What's it going to be like with the inevitable increase in passenger numbers?
As this gentleman points out. Carbon emissions aside another runway at Heathrow is a terrible idea because the airspace around it is already filled to capacity. If expansion is needed then somewhere outside the south east would be much better. |
KenDoll
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 01:40:00 -
[53]
Edited by: KenDoll on 22/01/2009 01:49:17
Originally by: Stitcher
...To stop worrying and finally give in to my hatred of Greenpeace.
As far as I'm concerned, they're a pack of short-sighted stubborn luddites blinded by their over-inflated senses of self-importance.
What the hell do they think buying that land will do? The property prices around Heathrow are already apalling, the local ecosystem's already nonexistant and as far as I'm aware that third runway is mostly planned to take the load off the overburdened two that are there already and can't cope.
What's that? planes cause pollution?
Let's compare a few facts, shall we:
My car (according to this government website) produces CO2 at a rate of 152 g/km, while a Boeing 747-400 produces CO2 at a rate of 30.638 kg/km
My car can carry a maximum of five people at a time, and I estimate that my driving habits produce an average of 2.5 people in the car for any given trip. A boeing 747-400 can carry 524 people, and most airline companies attempt to have their planes filled to capacity.
152/2.5 = 60.8
30,638/524 = 58.469
What that means is that my car produces an average of 60.8 grams of CO2 per Kilometre, and that a Boeing 747-400 produces an average of 58.5g/km. In other words, a JUMBO JET produces less CO2 per person than my car does.
These people latch, leech-like, onto a half-baked cause and do everything in their power to achieve... what? It's not like there isn't other land that can be used for that runway, or even laws that can be invoked to render their purchase of the land null and void.
Petty, tiny-minded neophobes the lot of them.
think about the people who are being forced from their homes, this isnt just about greenpeace.
even if they are a bunch of knobbers.
|
Munchees
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 01:53:00 -
[54]
Nuke Greenpeace and learn to love the atomic bomb. |
rValdez5987
Amarr
32nd Amarrian Imperial Navy Regiment.
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 04:48:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 18/01/2009 02:59:57
Originally by: Stitcher
These people latch, leech-like, onto a half-baked cause and do everything in their power to achieve... what?
To give you an EVE analogy : "minerals I mine are free, therefore I can underbid everybody on stuff I manufacture".
Generally speaking, people are stupid and can't see much past their own nose's length, EVEN IF they might have the best of intentions at heart.
Actually, it's those ill-informed people WITH "good intentions" that create a lot of the problems.
The respect due to other people's opinions...
Yeah, they might be entitled to their own opinion, but they're certainly not entitled to their own facts, and less so entitled to have us respect theirs 
Akita sometimes I wonder if your my doppleganger. You see things as they are, and I can say that other then myself, and you, I know of very few people who are actually intelligent enough to see through all the garbage.
Keep on keepin on. 
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |