Walled Garden is relevant because it applies to their forums as well. OK, walled ecosystem, does that sound better? It's still shit, but hey, it's melodic shit now:)
WTF. So the human driving the car somehow doesn't eat, or what?
In the red corner, human on bike. human eats food and uses its energy to travel around. In the blue corner, human in car. Human eats food and uses its energy to sit on his ass. Car uses fuel and pollutes more than the human himself.
You can't seriously tell me that red corner pollutes nearly as much as blue corner. oh and it doesn't matter whether the car holds 1, 2 or 50 people, the car party still wins the stinky prize.
Except for when it blows up. See my comment above on the issue. A well built nuclear plant should withstand anything save for an event so catastrophic that it wouldn't matter if it resisted or not (e.g. 11 degrees earthquake or cometary impact or, oh, the irony!, nuclear warfare).
Shortly put, no. The abundance of Uranium versus sterile earth is same orders of magnitude below Coal versus Sterile earth. The environmental friendly part exists, though, in theory, but in practice it's dwarfed by cost cutting and incompetence from whoever builds, maintains and decommissions the nuclear plant. there is such a thing as a nuclear plant "as safe as possible" (without becoming ridiculously expensive), but that rarely, if ever, is met. That's the environmentalists' concern (save for the nutty fanatic tree-huggers).
With that being said, the difference between my concern as an environmentalist and their concern is that I am deeply concerned about how a nuclear plant is built, versus their concern about whether it's built.
Resources exist to be exploited, albeit not indiscriminately. Zero tolerance ban is just as bad as gung-ho mining, they're both extremes of what otherwise should be "sensible mining".
Irrelevant to the question at hand. The question was about safety, not the environmental impact.
Not really. Think about it. People breathe that pollution (or at least part of it) which leads to health issues. It's safety, all right. Not the obvious type but still.
Way less than the amount of pollution spent to carry thousands of pounds of metal around. Come on, you can't be serious when trying to equate the energy spent moving a huge lump of metal and whatnot to the difference in food from a static person to a pedaling one. No way they're equal.
A car staying at the stoplight for 1 minute gives out more CO2 (not to mention other crap) than a human being who pedals all the way home. My food intake doesn't change when riding a bike compared to when not. If anything, the body becomes more efficient rather than more wasteful. Same food intake, less fat added up. That's why I weigh 140 pounds and not 220.
Here lies your problem. If there was zero enforcement for drivers, you'd see the same thing there. People will act like crap if they can get away with it.
While I agree three feet of snow is a problem, everything else isn't. 12 degrees? Drysuit. Driving rain? Drysuit. 100+ degree temperatures? Wetsuit. And showering afterwards.
Granted, people don't want to get out of their comfort zones. So they're using their very heavy "tin umbrellas" to move around in bad weather. That doesn't mean biking in bad weather is impossible. And FYI, when there's 3 feet of snow, cars won't cut it either.
Slashdot Mirror
I would also like to understand what's the definition of "unstable code".
Then they won't do shit about it, because the story comes from the UK.
It's funny until I realize I own no Apple products whatsoever. After that, it's even funnier!
Walled Garden is relevant because it applies to their forums as well. OK, walled ecosystem, does that sound better? It's still shit, but hey, it's melodic shit now :)
^Funny
Walled garden is walled.
What did you expect?
(EVE Online oblig: Damage Control II works in PvP!!11one)
If they find it feasible, they will sell it. The tech will probably be called "Oracle on Oracle... on Oracle". Like... an orgy of oracles.
"English, motherfucker, do you speak it?" (Wesley Snipes)
Read again what I said. You somehow managed to argue with me while saying THE SAME THING I DID.
[picard_WTF.jpg]
WTF.
So the human driving the car somehow doesn't eat, or what?
In the red corner, human on bike. human eats food and uses its energy to travel around.
In the blue corner, human in car. Human eats food and uses its energy to sit on his ass. Car uses fuel and pollutes more than the human himself.
You can't seriously tell me that red corner pollutes nearly as much as blue corner. oh and it doesn't matter whether the car holds 1, 2 or 50 people, the car party still wins the stinky prize.
"blows up" was just a play of words. geez mate. RELAX.
WOOOOOOOSH!
Well I just hope they implement the necromonger's creed for PvP: "You keep what you kill!"
Is my ass a resource? like water? Would you drink it?
Well... have fun.
I genuinely lol'd at this.
if one thinks oil prices are high in the States, he should come to Europe and drive around for a bit.
Except for when it blows up.
See my comment above on the issue. A well built nuclear plant should withstand anything save for an event so catastrophic that it wouldn't matter if it resisted or not (e.g. 11 degrees earthquake or cometary impact or, oh, the irony!, nuclear warfare).
Shortly put, no.
The abundance of Uranium versus sterile earth is same orders of magnitude below Coal versus Sterile earth.
The environmental friendly part exists, though, in theory, but in practice it's dwarfed by cost cutting and incompetence from whoever builds, maintains and decommissions the nuclear plant. there is such a thing as a nuclear plant "as safe as possible" (without becoming ridiculously expensive), but that rarely, if ever, is met. That's the environmentalists' concern (save for the nutty fanatic tree-huggers).
With that being said, the difference between my concern as an environmentalist and their concern is that I am deeply concerned about how a nuclear plant is built, versus their concern about whether it's built.
Resources exist to be exploited, albeit not indiscriminately. Zero tolerance ban is just as bad as gung-ho mining, they're both extremes of what otherwise should be "sensible mining".
Besides, car pollution is an engineering problem, and we're solving it: biofuels, EVs, and so on.
The cycling safety is easily resolved by the biker. it's called "ride carefully". No other costs involved :)
Holland could do it, so why not elsewhere?
Irrelevant to the question at hand. The question was about safety, not the environmental impact.
Not really. Think about it. People breathe that pollution (or at least part of it) which leads to health issues. It's safety, all right. Not the obvious type but still.
That's the problem.
Way less than the amount of pollution spent to carry thousands of pounds of metal around. Come on, you can't be serious when trying to equate the energy spent moving a huge lump of metal and whatnot to the difference in food from a static person to a pedaling one. No way they're equal.
A car staying at the stoplight for 1 minute gives out more CO2 (not to mention other crap) than a human being who pedals all the way home. My food intake doesn't change when riding a bike compared to when not. If anything, the body becomes more efficient rather than more wasteful. Same food intake, less fat added up. That's why I weigh 140 pounds and not 220.
And there's zero enforcement for any of this.
Here lies your problem.
If there was zero enforcement for drivers, you'd see the same thing there. People will act like crap if they can get away with it.
While I agree three feet of snow is a problem, everything else isn't.
12 degrees? Drysuit.
Driving rain? Drysuit.
100+ degree temperatures? Wetsuit. And showering afterwards.
Granted, people don't want to get out of their comfort zones. So they're using their very heavy "tin umbrellas" to move around in bad weather. That doesn't mean biking in bad weather is impossible. And FYI, when there's 3 feet of snow, cars won't cut it either.