Hydrogen has not been developed as a energy producer, only a energy storage method. I suppose that it could work if we got our solar/hydro/nuclear/wind electricity production up to a energy production level far higher than what it is now, but I find that possibility a little unlikely.
As for biofuels, the biggest problem I see with them, assuming net energy production, is finding the farmland to produce the necessary biomass. We would definitely have to cut our meat production (production of animal protein is far more resource intensive than vegetable protein) and even then might not have enough farmland to both feed people and drive cars.
I feel like we really need to start restructuring society in a more compact manner, reliant much less on personal vehicle which consume produced fuels. Bike friendly cities and public transportation will be a necessity in the near future.
To be honest, there are days I cheer The Doom, too. It is not because I expect jesus, or whoever, to return, but because it really seems like some kind of catastrophy is coming, and I want to see it rather than delay the inevitable.
I agree with most of what you are saying here but must take issue on one point: New Orleans.
The biggest problem in NOLA was that the government was not allowing independent volenteers to go in and rescue people or bring in supplies. Given the chance regular people would have stepped up and started making things better.
Everytime I hear comments about "alarmists" I think back to the beginning of Asimov's Empire and the way Hari "the raven" Seldon was treated.
Most people wish to live in a world where everything is going to end up ok, where science will save us, where the doomsday predictions are not true. Not that this necessarily mean he is right; but we do need to take this with some amount of seriousness.
It could mean the end of modern civilization and the death of billions, not something to be dismissed lightly.
I have to disagree with you on the oil front. We will have a problem with oil. The problem will not be the amount of oil in the ground, it will be the amount of energy it takes to remove that oil. Once the amount of energy required to remove oil from the ground is more than the amount of energy recieved from that oil then we will be in big trouble.
It is analagous to the bio-fuels we have right now. They are net energy losers. Once the oil starts to run out then there is no way we can support current population level at anywhere near current standards, if at all. We use oil for everything; agriculture, manufacturing, medicine, i could go on.
watch Brazil, by Terry Gilliam, instead; much more aprapos to the current situation. Make sure to get the version that is *longer* than 2h12m as there is a shorter censored version that is crap.
Well shoot. I owe you an apology. I went back and reread your post and, yeah, I completely thought you were talking about something else. Although I do possibly disagree with you on one points.
"I was not aware that I was making that argument. In my original post, I was merely arguing that the entire idea of even repeatable experimentation is invalid when talking about the past. I'm all for the advancing of our body of knowledge, but in this area, there's _no_ _way_ to prove _anyone_ wrong."
If you are talking about ID here, and not evolution, then I agree. But it is possible to do repeatable experiments on remains that are found. And it is possible to disprove evolutionary theory.
And I am sorry for the combative tone in that last post, I was a little riled up.
Um, nice Freshman philosophy paper. Now join the real world.
Yes, I am aware that science is an out growth of Materialistic Philosophy; but, if you want to argue that this makes it invalid then you need to try harder. Evolution is not about creation, it is about the changing of species, the way that species seperate from each other. Evolution is not only a historical endeavor, it is an ongoing process that changes life around us, it effects every part of this world. To deny the reality of evolution is as absurb as denying that the humans are having a negative effect upon the environment.
If it pleases you to sit around and wax philosophical about the "true nature" of the world, fine, I can do that; but, if you actually wish to learn things you need to realize that there is a shared physical reality. By denying that reality you make youself sound absurd and manage to gloss over the real argument.
Wow, good job at argueing the completely wrong point.
Evolution says NOTHING (see I can type in all caps, too) about the initial creation of life. Evolution is, as Darwin so nicely put it, about the origin of species. Evolution is a method for describing how species came to exist. It does a damn good job of this. It is, however, not complete. Gasp! Uh oh. Where is your bullshit about darwinism being a religion now? Take your stupid strawmen arguements elsewhere, intellegent people are trying te debate real issues.
The theory of evolution is the best description science can come to using the current evidence. When science gets more evidence, as it will, it will continue to be confirmed or changed, that is right, changed. Theories change when presented with new evidence.
He had one peer reviewed article, not on the subject of ID, which was subsequently ripped to shreds by the rest of the scientific community for poor use of citations and methodology.
Check out Pharyngula.com, a nice science blog, for all the smack on the ID chumps.
P.S. I am so sick of all this whining about flamebait from ID proponents. They were the ones who wanted to debate the theories, and now they cannot handle the debate. They need to put up or shut up; show us possible experiments that can prove or disprove ID.
My wife picks up 4 of my kid's friends and drives 10 miles to the soccer field. I can just see her and 5 seven year olds on their bikes going down highway 280."
And twenty bucks says she takes the same car five blocks away to pick up one little thing at the store.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact we will
Sorry, I was not completely clear there. I meant we needed to take possible global environmental catastrophy seriously, not this one person.
I also think we need to do it sooner rather than later. And by sooner I mean now.
Hydrogen has not been developed as a energy producer, only a energy storage method. I suppose that it could work if we got our solar/hydro/nuclear/wind electricity production up to a energy production level far higher than what it is now, but I find that possibility a little unlikely.
As for biofuels, the biggest problem I see with them, assuming net energy production, is finding the farmland to produce the necessary biomass. We would definitely have to cut our meat production (production of animal protein is far more resource intensive than vegetable protein) and even then might not have enough farmland to both feed people and drive cars.
I feel like we really need to start restructuring society in a more compact manner, reliant much less on personal vehicle which consume produced fuels. Bike friendly cities and public transportation will be a necessity in the near future.
To be honest, there are days I cheer The Doom, too. It is not because I expect jesus, or whoever, to return, but because it really seems like some kind of catastrophy is coming, and I want to see it rather than delay the inevitable.
But normally I am not that misanthropic.
Which biofuels are net energy producers?
I agree with most of what you are saying here but must take issue on one point: New Orleans.
The biggest problem in NOLA was that the government was not allowing independent volenteers to go in and rescue people or bring in supplies. Given the chance regular people would have stepped up and started making things better.
Everytime I hear comments about "alarmists" I think back to the beginning of Asimov's Empire and the way Hari "the raven" Seldon was treated.
Most people wish to live in a world where everything is going to end up ok, where science will save us, where the doomsday predictions are not true. Not that this necessarily mean he is right; but we do need to take this with some amount of seriousness.
It could mean the end of modern civilization and the death of billions, not something to be dismissed lightly.
I have to disagree with you on the oil front. We will have a problem with oil. The problem will not be the amount of oil in the ground, it will be the amount of energy it takes to remove that oil. Once the amount of energy required to remove oil from the ground is more than the amount of energy recieved from that oil then we will be in big trouble.
It is analagous to the bio-fuels we have right now. They are net energy losers. Once the oil starts to run out then there is no way we can support current population level at anywhere near current standards, if at all. We use oil for everything; agriculture, manufacturing, medicine, i could go on.
watch Brazil, by Terry Gilliam, instead; much more aprapos to the current situation. Make sure to get the version that is *longer* than 2h12m as there is a shorter censored version that is crap.
Yeah, I guess the age of the absurd really is upon us.
Tons of fans record the stats as well. You see them at games with wierd little notepads.
I got dibs on planck's constant!
I thought this whole IP thing coult not get any wierder.
Next the government will start copyrighting statistics they do not want to get out.
Shit, I shouldn't have said that, just gives people ideas.
If playing to many formats is a bad thing then I should let you know that I have not managed to get it to play .wmv files.
Though, I have not tried to hard.
VLC.
I love it to death. It does everything quicktime should do.
videolan.org
As someone who does not play games, you are living in a fantasy world if you expect your dad to mind his own business.
Well shoot. I owe you an apology. I went back and reread your post and, yeah, I completely thought you were talking about something else. Although I do possibly disagree with you on one points.
"I was not aware that I was making that argument. In my original post, I was merely arguing that the entire idea of even repeatable experimentation is invalid when talking about the past. I'm all for the advancing of our body of knowledge, but in this area, there's _no_ _way_ to prove _anyone_ wrong."
If you are talking about ID here, and not evolution, then I agree. But it is possible to do repeatable experiments on remains that are found. And it is possible to disprove evolutionary theory.
And I am sorry for the combative tone in that last post, I was a little riled up.
Um, nice Freshman philosophy paper. Now join the real world.
Yes, I am aware that science is an out growth of Materialistic Philosophy; but, if you want to argue that this makes it invalid then you need to try harder. Evolution is not about creation, it is about the changing of species, the way that species seperate from each other. Evolution is not only a historical endeavor, it is an ongoing process that changes life around us, it effects every part of this world. To deny the reality of evolution is as absurb as denying that the humans are having a negative effect upon the environment.
If it pleases you to sit around and wax philosophical about the "true nature" of the world, fine, I can do that; but, if you actually wish to learn things you need to realize that there is a shared physical reality. By denying that reality you make youself sound absurd and manage to gloss over the real argument.
Wow, good job at argueing the completely wrong point.
Evolution says NOTHING (see I can type in all caps, too) about the initial creation of life. Evolution is, as Darwin so nicely put it, about the origin of species. Evolution is a method for describing how species came to exist. It does a damn good job of this. It is, however, not complete. Gasp! Uh oh. Where is your bullshit about darwinism being a religion now? Take your stupid strawmen arguements elsewhere, intellegent people are trying te debate real issues.
The theory of evolution is the best description science can come to using the current evidence. When science gets more evidence, as it will, it will continue to be confirmed or changed, that is right, changed. Theories change when presented with new evidence.
He had one peer reviewed article, not on the subject of ID, which was subsequently ripped to shreds by the rest of the scientific community for poor use of citations and methodology.
Check out Pharyngula.com, a nice science blog, for all the smack on the ID chumps.
P.S. I am so sick of all this whining about flamebait from ID proponents. They were the ones who wanted to debate the theories, and now they cannot handle the debate. They need to put up or shut up; show us possible experiments that can prove or disprove ID.
If it were actually available, it would be great.
Or if there was some sort of price on it.
Technology, not science, has been used as an authoritarian means of control. Only rarely has science been used for these ends.
non curas.
And we all thank you.
And I cannot stop laughing after that post.
" Ride a bike. Ya, I'm sure.
My wife picks up 4 of my kid's friends and drives 10 miles to the soccer field. I can just see her and 5 seven year olds on their bikes going down highway 280."
And twenty bucks says she takes the same car five blocks away to pick up one little thing at the store.