Wind energy doesn't use rare-earth minerals, it's just a big fan with a motor.
And at least with solar, you only have to dig it up once and make the panel once, and then it produces power for decades. And you can then recycle it afterwards.
With fossil fuel, once you burn it, it's gone, into the atmosphere, and you have to keep digging more out of the ground and burning it.
Yup we should/could. Problem is we also need to accurately take into consideration externalities via taxes. Acid rain(coal/ng), Global warming(coal/ng), strip mining(solar/wind), flooding (hydro). Then and only then can a free market accurately declare a victor. Unless we do that, we are actually breaking one of the fundamental requirements for a competitive market.
"Overall, life cycle GHG emissions per unit of electric energy production are lower for hydropower
than for fossil fuel sources (though in some cases net hydro emission ranges may be nearly 2/3
those for a natural gas power plant), and may be in the same range as other renewable sources
and nuclear (though reservoir hydro emission ranges are likely higher than those for at least some
other renewable options, depending on the specific site and the level of indirect emissions, which
are not included in Table 1 above)".
IMHO not an expert on nuclear safety, but 20 mils seems close 150 miles not so much. I agree we do have a lot of fear mongering. But there are logistical reasons for doing certain things because of legitimate safety concerns. I am not sure if my concern is legitimate or not, I just think it may be. The "if this goes south we erase probably the most influential city in the world" seems like it may be* a valid concern.
I like nuclear. But that plant is a little too close to NYC. This may be a little MIBYesq but wtf don't they just put it a hundred miles out and use some better transmission technology . It could be just the posts of tinfoil hatters but the claims negligence by other posters does make glad that the plant is getting scrutiny.
It must be wonderful being the child of the obscenely wealth. I like Obama and his daughter's are very nice but the whole thing about the gap year just stinks of the privilege that most just do not have.
I would like to point out the level of black helicopter craziness going on here. In one line you have individuals claiming the phone was never cracked, the next line you claiming it was cracked by apple at the start, the next a clamed that the FBI did it, the next that it was the NSA.
The level of random ideas on the topic is indicative that there is actually something seriously wrong with the discourse on here. People are making way way to many random accusations that they appear 100% confident on. While I realize this is/. Nut this is a much grander and more fetishized version of this behavioral pattern.
Did you even bother to read the post you are responding to? Because it really appears like you didn't. That specific post was more or less a brief proposal specifically outlining a way to ensure that no innocents were executed. You seem to be posting the same canned questions Over and over again with no thought or analysis.
You've asked. The "who question above. It was answered directly. You asked again without any response to the idea.
You asked about the innocent above. It was answered directly. You asked again without any response to the idea.
and no worries I don't mind that my opinions bother you. I view your opinions as if they belong to someone with a "failure to thrive" an organism which has so little self preservation instinct that it will likely be removed from the gene pool within a generation or two at most.
Can't change animal biology over night. Or even within the time frame of modern civilization. Maybe a 1 million years we will have a society where revenge is not a necessary and productive social function. But that won't happen in either of our lifetimes. And yes unrestrained revenge leads to vigilantism and chaos.That is why we have a government to do it for us.
Nope. It is one of the methods to keep populations in check and removing the advantage of individuals abusing each-other. Without revenge sociopaths take over and society breaks down completely. Good luck on being too weak to survive.
I would enjoy this guy's punishment being more harsh. Revenge is a healthy part of the will to survive. Animals such as yourself who perhaps lack it are missing key parts of this survival instinct and much more prone to being removed from the gene pool.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...http://www.scientificamerican....
there are many more articles on the subject all indicating the same thing. Hurting those who hurt others is a basic instinct.
A) It is more expensive. Because the idiots get in the way. It should be cheaper. B) "so it doesn't really benefit society to execute the criminal" Killing these people is a moral good.
Your whole whine about omg omg then he would have won. Is complete nonsense that screaming idiots use over and over again. They constantly scream you cant to X because the terrorists would have won. This is immediately followed by another idiot screaming you can't do !x because the terrorists would have won. You do what is right and that it. There are plenty of valid reasons to be against the death penalty your copout about "then the terrorists would have won" is just shit that those would no real arguments use. Think Bush post 9/11. That is you..
Slashdot Mirror
Mining rare earths is not a major environmental problem. Comparing it to the environmental cost of fossil fuels is absurd.
You were correct up until that point. But rare earths do cause massive environmental damage. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10...
Even The middle category at ~1/2 the emissions of Ng could legitimately be claimed as huge.on the right scale.
I made no judgment call about which is better. But the earlier implication that there is no harm from hydro was nonsense.
There were 3 different Hydro types listed. All of them produced CO2 emissions.
There were 3 different types listed. All of them listed CO2 emissions
-1 Stupid.
Wind energy doesn't use rare-earth minerals, it's just a big fan with a motor.
And at least with solar, you only have to dig it up once and make the panel once, and then it produces power for decades. And you can then recycle it afterwards.
With fossil fuel, once you burn it, it's gone, into the atmosphere, and you have to keep digging more out of the ground and burning it.
-1000 Extra stupid for calling someone out when you are actualy wrong. http://www.frontierrareearths....
Yup we should/could. Problem is we also need to accurately take into consideration externalities via taxes. Acid rain(coal/ng), Global warming(coal/ng), strip mining(solar/wind), flooding (hydro). Then and only then can a free market accurately declare a victor. Unless we do that, we are actually breaking one of the fundamental requirements for a competitive market.
http://www.clf.org/wp-content/...
"Overall, life cycle GHG emissions per unit of electric energy production are lower for hydropower than for fossil fuel sources (though in some cases net hydro emission ranges may be nearly 2/3 those for a natural gas power plant), and may be in the same range as other renewable sources and nuclear (though reservoir hydro emission ranges are likely higher than those for at least some other renewable options, depending on the specific site and the level of indirect emissions, which are not included in Table 1 above)".
IMHO not an expert on nuclear safety, but 20 mils seems close 150 miles not so much. I agree we do have a lot of fear mongering. But there are logistical reasons for doing certain things because of legitimate safety concerns. I am not sure if my concern is legitimate or not, I just think it may be. The "if this goes south we erase probably the most influential city in the world" seems like it may be* a valid concern.
I like nuclear. But that plant is a little too close to NYC. This may be a little MIBYesq but wtf don't they just put it a hundred miles out and use some better transmission technology . It could be just the posts of tinfoil hatters but the claims negligence by other posters does make glad that the plant is getting scrutiny.
It must be wonderful being the child of the obscenely wealth. I like Obama and his daughter's are very nice but the whole thing about the gap year just stinks of the privilege that most just do not have.
Any they are not necessary. So big whoop. The internet is necessary for modern life which is the whole point.
The level of random ideas on the topic is indicative that there is actually something seriously wrong with the discourse on here. People are making way way to many random accusations that they appear 100% confident on. While I realize this is /. Nut this is a much grander and more fetishized version of this behavioral pattern.
You've asked. The "who question above. It was answered directly. You asked again without any response to the idea.
You asked about the innocent above. It was answered directly. You asked again without any response to the idea.
and no worries I don't mind that my opinions bother you. I view your opinions as if they belong to someone with a "failure to thrive" an organism which has so little self preservation instinct that it will likely be removed from the gene pool within a generation or two at most.
Can't change animal biology over night. Or even within the time frame of modern civilization. Maybe a 1 million years we will have a society where revenge is not a necessary and productive social function. But that won't happen in either of our lifetimes. And yes unrestrained revenge leads to vigilantism and chaos.That is why we have a government to do it for us.
My more ideal situation would be to split criminal trials into three categories "with reasonable doubt" "without reasonable doubt" and "no doubt"
"with reasonable doubt" you go free"
"without reasonable doubt" traditional punishments
"no doubt" for murder and rape you get executed with a week or two at most.
This guy clearly falls into the latter
Yes.
Nope. It is one of the methods to keep populations in check and removing the advantage of individuals abusing each-other. Without revenge sociopaths take over and society breaks down completely. Good luck on being too weak to survive.
there are many more articles on the subject all indicating the same thing. Hurting those who hurt others is a basic instinct.
Society does. Yes I am. Yes I am. I have not killed innocents. That's all the criteria you need
A) It is more expensive. Because the idiots get in the way. It should be cheaper. B) "so it doesn't really benefit society to execute the criminal" Killing these people is a moral good.
1)Society does.2) Yes it does 3) Those arguments are the same which was my whole point Mr.W 4) Sure we can,
That you are a fine and just person with sound enough self preservation instincts to actually survive.
Your whole whine about omg omg then he would have won. Is complete nonsense that screaming idiots use over and over again. They constantly scream you cant to X because the terrorists would have won. This is immediately followed by another idiot screaming you can't do !x because the terrorists would have won. You do what is right and that it. There are plenty of valid reasons to be against the death penalty your copout about "then the terrorists would have won" is just shit that those would no real arguments use. Think Bush post 9/11. That is you..
Cost & justice.