...and less innovation may well happen. And I'm not sure about that either, cause getting all that human flesh onto another planet some 60 million kilometers away MAY require quite a few of them eye-now-aye-shins.
On a (slightly) more serious note, I foresee a 7-25 minute limit between posts on Slashdot for all Earthlings, as it would take that long for the message to go to Mars and back to Earth - depending on the current distance between the planets. Also, a boost in the popularity of turn-based-games.
The point is how MUCH is being produced, not how many people are doing it.
That would be the point only in very-very-VERY-limited, overly generalized and utterly unrealistic approach to subject.
From any real life point of view, economical to biological, the number of humans producing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is a VERY important factor in the equation. Cause countries, being imaginary lines on the land drawn by humans, produce no CO2. You're pointing to that yourself with that Germany example - draw a line differently and the country's numbers may change, but a person riding a bicycle still releases less CO2 than a person riding around in an SUV.
Also, that Germany example is utter nonsense. Germany reunified in 1990, and their per-capita CO2 has steadily declined since then - regardless of their population numbers. In fact, due to their ever-dwindling population numbers they are back at the population size they had in 1996. And yet, their CO2 level is down by 1.7 metric tons of CO2 per capita - since 1996.
Per capita numbers tell you if someone is producing CO2 because they have to (gotta put food on the table) or because they are being a selfish prick. See why they matter?
By deobfuscated they (actually, the anonymous Wikipedia user who made it) mean apparently that:
"The data only considers carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, but not emissions from land use such as deforestation."
But without the per capita numbers, all that data is useless. With per capita numbers on the other hand you naturally have to ask yourself a few things.
Like, what the fuck are the Australians building down there? What do they know that we don't? And where do they plan to go with that secret spaceship of theirs?
How about we break the cycle by trying to visualize silicone under hundreds of thousands of tons of pressure, and thousands of degrees, with and atmosphere of ammonia? Or, alternatively, in a vacuum at tens of thousands of degrees? Partial pressure atmospheres at near 0 degrees kelvin?
Max Bernstein mentions something very similar to that in TFA.
Dorminey â" DO YOU THINK THAT SILICON-BASED LIFE MIGHT EXIST SOMEWHERE OUT THERE?
Bernstein â" Maybe deep below the surface of a planet in some very hot hydrogen-rich, Oxygen-poor environment, you would have this complex silane chemistry. There, maybe silanes would form reversible silicon bonds with selenium or tellurium.
How about the possibility that a face to face meeting with another life form might be fatal to one or both of the participants in the meeting? His environment is a poisonous atmosphere (to me) and my own body radiating heat might be fatal to him!
There is no point in competition for any business. None. Businesses are FORCED by antitrust laws to maintain a certain level of competition instead of simply eliminating it with any means possible. If they could get away with it they'd divide the pie into various noncompeting monopolies and live happily ever after. Perhaps buying off, or taking over or selling a monopoly or two here and there. And when you have an undisputed monopoly, you don't need to innovate or do research - so even friendly competition through research is simply a drain on your bottom line.
Competition has a point ONLY to the consumer. So, it is not "to sell your goods or services for less than it costs you to supply them" but for the customer to have the widest choice possible. Whether they choose according to price, quality, availability, variety, service, color... that is up to the (potential) customer. All 7 billion and counting of them.
Corporations, companies, businesses are not there "to create profit". Oh sure. Profit IS the motivation for the owner of the capital to create a business/company - through PROVIDING A PRODUCT OR SERVICE NEEDED BY THE SOCIETY. If there is no need for the product/service they are providing, there is no need for that kind of a company. And there is no motivation to create it as there is no profit to be made in things that nobody will buy.
Besides all the smuggling and poaching issues (i.e. poaching endangered tuna species from protected fisheries and selling them as their not so threatened cousins), fraud issues (i.e. selling you bottom of the barrel fish at top quality prices) - the main reason that should concern you and everyone else is right there in the summary.
In 2007 several people became seriously ill from eating illegally imported pufferfish that had been mislabeled as monkfish.
(Maple) Puffer fish are generally believed to be the second-most poisonous vertebrate in the world, after the Golden Poison Frog. Certain internal organs, such as liver, and sometimes their skin are highly toxic to most animals when eaten, but nevertheless the meat of some species is considered a delicacy in Japan (as æè±s, pronounced as fugu), Korea (as bok), and China (as æè±s he2 tun2) when prepared by chefs who know which part is safe to eat and in what quantity.
...with renewable sources of energy. What happened? Solar collector killed your dog or something?
Tossing those "after only 30 or 40 years of development" statements doesn't make you sound insightful but spiteful. Yes! Technology takes time to develop and improve! Whodathunkit!?
Again. Look at the map. Read the map. Notice all the hydro, geothermal, and biomass - those are backups. And I can't keep repeating myself over and over trying to explain how all those problems you list are already solved or are in the process of being solved - like the political situation.
And there is oil enough to last centuries. Problem is it will become more and more expensive to produce. There is no danger of "energy crisis" or people starving to death for the lack of power to run the food making machines. There is a prospect of everyone not independently rich having to change their lifestyle though. You don't really need to own two or more cars, or take a car driving to the shop two blocks down, or eat prepackaged, precooked food, or use all those single-use-then-throw-away plastic materials.
As for "new, unproven technology" - so was nuclear. Still is, up to a point. Also, commercial HVDC predates nuclear reactors. And nuclear does NOT limit country's dependence on foreign nations' stability - political, economic or as was the case with Japan recently - geological. EU gets only about 3% of its uranium from its own sources.
As for Howard C. Hayden... With all due respect, a man who equates South Pole with Antarctica is either deliberately trying to make a strawman, ignorant to the point that someone should take a look into how he got those diplomas and titles he holds, OR far too passionate about the topic he is arguing to be reasonable to any degree. Either case, there is too much noise in his signal to be of any practical use to anyone but the people who want to debunk either him or science in general.
Plant managers at Nidec Corp. (6594), which makes motors for disk drives and also has a factory at Rajana, decided not to wait for the water to subside at its seven flooded factories. According to company spokesman Masashiro Nagayasu, they cut a hole in the roof of the Rajana factory, sent divers into the toxin-laden waters to unbolt some heavy equipment, and lifted it onto waiting boats. Some of the equipment is now being used in Nidec factories in China and the Philippines.
...than of CEOs like Seagate's Stephen Luczo who are gleefully rubbing their hands together at the price hike, predicting a year-long shortage of hard-drives.
"People are going to appreciate the complexity of this business," he says.
You should notice that a great deal of that map is covered with "wind" icons. Lots of them in Europe. Nobody's ignoring winter. More like counting on it.
As for the night... note how very few of those icons are for photovoltaic solar plants? Again, nobody's ignoring the night.
And I believe that you've misunderstood the bit about the "well-functioning market" as "North Africa will be a part of EU". Are USA and China a part of some kind of a political union just because they are trading with each other?
Also, notice how the political issues are being "addressed" at the moment (not 40 years down the road), with built-in safety measures in case of future political issues? Those red lines on the map represent the power conduits - note the abundance of them connecting North Africa and Europe. And then there is the fact that you can't really store excess electricity - so you must spend it all the time. Locally. Which you do by creating industry which will spend that electricity. Creating jobs. Which in turn create stability in the society.
As for economic issues... Once you cover the expenses of building the system and its maintenance - it's the electricity that's essentially free for the supplier. But not for the customer. Also, note that the investment by 2050 comes to about 400 billion Euros, with ~2 trillion Euros worth of electricity to be created by 2050.
And saying that "they just ignore the nuclear completely" when it's written in your quote that the goal of that report is to "examine what it would take to shift even further to a 100% renewable electricity supply" is not really an insightful discovery. Or even of any kind of value.
As for "3 to 6 times as expensive as nuclear" - you are looking at the wrong page. Tables in Appendix 3 use current costs of electricity to project future numbers - but without the increase in the number of solar and wind power plants. Take a look at the Chapter 5.2 - Costs. Wind generated electricity alone would cost as much as fossil fuel does today - should it reach the production numbers of nuclear. Concentrated Solar Power becomes cheaper than nuclear once its production reaches about 32GW. And that's with it being produced ~12 times less than nuclear power.
Construction of the first solar farm in that system is to start in Morocco next year. It's amazing how those plans from about a decade ago coincided with recent regime changes in the region, isn't it? Just one of those lucky coincidences I guess.
First off, when you scroll down that same wikiMedia (not wikipedia) page you can find that other map/chart by the same author, which should make you question his/her "unbiased approach to the subject", or at least the precision of his/her data. Also note that neither of those graphs are currently used - cause, you know... there are better and more precise ones.
Then there is the fact that neither of those maps currently used is of any particular value on its own. ESPECIALLY those related to the headcounts. Cause, while it may seem from the map of distribution that "Christians RULE!!111eleven!", from "religiosity" and "irreligion" maps one kinda gets the feeling that there may be a rather large percentage of bollocks in those stats.
Then, back to that graph, besides it being out of date - there is the fact that CIA's "The World Factbook" (which is the source of data for that graph) doesn't list its sources or methods or sample sizes. Which makes it basically more akin to guesstimates than statistics. They can't even be bothered to be up to date with readily available data on USA, let alone the rest of the world. And where they pulled those numbers on protestants from is anyone's guess.
So, I wouldn't really bet the farm on those 55.6% you got from that graph. Particularly when taken into account the fact that it's mostly the people in "undeveloped countries" who give credence to the stories in ANY of the religious books.
And that's all without going into the whole "it's a packaged deal" thing where you can't pick and choose the bits of God's words you'll believe in - making all of them unbelievers to some extent.
I was in college during Tiananmen Square. Chinese students studying in America were persecuted for things they said on the internet here once they got back home.
China was monitoring US internet communication back in 1989?
Other countries do that to. US forces are trained by foreign countries at the Center on Global Counterterrorism.
CGCC is not another country. It is an American "research and policy institute".
And a government hiring private instructors to train its law enforcement/military is not the same thing as should that government provide its own law enforcement or military as "advisers" to other governments or forces within other countries. One of those is a public act well within the domain of any government. The other thing is usually the result of a government trying to wage a secretive war without getting its hands dirty or without the consent of its people.
In all fairness the US is essentially policing the world right now. It is not exactly an even comparison.
Well, you're right about that. No other country in the world could dream of reaching USA's score.
Not that often.
And why should they? When they can simply "render" them. Extraordinarily.
And generally the country that the people are being extradited from is glad for the US taking the case.
All the best generalizations start with "Generally...".
Electric vehicles drive the food just fine to and from trains that ship it across great distances. And you can use various kinds of clean and renewable electricity to power both.
As for that farming machinery that can't (yet) operate on electricity or natural gas - there is already a solution for that in regulation of diesel fuel sales for farming. Usually by government subsidies and special coloring added to such fuel in order to prevent it being used for passenger vehicles. It's already being done around the world for fishing. So much so that filtering out the coloring and selling that diesel at market prices is a rather profitable criminal activity.
And then... there is the option of converting city parks into orchards and vegetable gardens. Adding gardens and greenhouses on the rooftops. Even simply everyone planting a pot on their window/balcony makes a difference on a city-wide scale.
Don't worry. Humans might end up eating less meat, but they will most likely not starve.
Tricorders will be issued. Bullwhips and fedoras are a "bring your own..." items.
As for actual usability, it all depends on what kind of rock are you heading to and how developed the settlement on the said rock is. Also, clearly there are precedents for Whips in Space!... space..pace..ace...
You keep making those insightful comments when I have no mod points and I'll have to "friend" you, or something.
As for "artists and scientists, or something", I'm kinda partial to the gentleman adventurer definition of "or something". Substitute gentleman with lady where applicable. Granted, one might argue that scientists and artists are adventurers already, but I'm thinking more along the lines of fedoras and bullwhips than white coats or costumes.
You need a mission statement now to know that things are bad and wrong, or is that just to have an opinion? And an objective... Well... how do I put this without sounding like an ass?
Protesting against the current situation kinda IS their objective. You know... it's what people with SOME control over their own actions are supposed to do once their trust has been violated. First by other people with more resources and less scruples, then by the people who were supposed to make sure that stuff like that does not happen. Less civilized people would simply invest in some matches and rope and went and had themselves some fun in the more affluent parts of the town.
Viable solutions? Well... Like I said, what you are looking at here are people who had their trust betrayed but who still cling to the idea of Democracy, being nice about it, trying to sort of... "jump-start" the democratic process. Trying to get the politicians, the people responsible, even the Joe Average to get off their asses and fix this - for them and for the Joe who doesn't really feel like being on the business side of the police club, but who can bitch about things with the best of them. As such, they really can't have a viable solution/strategy other than "stay visible".
They are not bullshiting you. They are NAIVE. They want the people who fucked things up to fix them, and they want the people who can't be bothered to even give them "moral support" - to do SOMETHING to fix the fuckup (the first ones) and join them (the second ones). Frankly, I think they have a better chance for getting business-critters and politicians to accept their guilt, fix everything and then lock themselves in prisons for the rest of their lives than getting the support of the people who wouldn't give them the sweat of their balls to save their lives.
Cause you know... first ones might actually get bored of doing nothing, or may die of old age and be replaced with someone eager to prove themselves, or EVEN (godforbid) feel actual guilt and responsibility AND have will (and knowledge... and wisdom... and cooperation of their "brethren") to do something useful. The second ones are happy enough with "proving them wrong" from their armchairs, demanding "coherent mission statement/objectives" and "viable solutions / steps" for said objectives and simply being pleased with themselves for NOT doing something for them.
First, that the main issue here is the "greenness" of the power source. It is not. It's the independence and mobility of the power source as protesters can't just plug their devices in the socket in the sidewalk AND they have already been raided several times by the police.
Second, OP seems to assume that car batteries are charged by cars, i.e. by burning fossil fuel - which is not very "green".
From TFA:
A bicycle generator donated by Rock the Bike runs 24/7, with volunteers usually lasting 30 minutes before handing off to the next fresh set of legs.
The electricity thus generated runs into three car batteries to maintain a backup power supply, but the amount of juice that a single bike can generate is only enough to power a single laptop.
An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. An antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.
Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is dangerous or destructive. One example of this view is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which Christopher Hitchens writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."[1]
Frankly, that is the only moral position you can take once you see priests of major religions blessing tanks and artillery (which you know will be used against civilians), soldiers marching with religious insignia on their uniforms and flags and wars based on religious beliefs. Not to mention the political disenfranchisement of those who do not belong to major (and ruling) religions. In secular democratic countries no less. And let's not even start on major religions' position on gay individuals - while they protect child molesters in their own ranks.
That's all besides the fact that in our day and age only two kinds of people (given that they had at least elementary education) can actually preach ANY of that religious claptrap. Utterly naive and gullible OR completely unscrupulous liars.
Slashdot Mirror
... you need per-capita numbers to be able to make anything out of those emission numbers.
...and less innovation may well happen.
And I'm not sure about that either, cause getting all that human flesh onto another planet some 60 million kilometers away MAY require quite a few of them eye-now-aye-shins.
On a (slightly) more serious note, I foresee a 7-25 minute limit between posts on Slashdot for all Earthlings, as it would take that long for the message to go to Mars and back to Earth - depending on the current distance between the planets.
Also, a boost in the popularity of turn-based-games.
The point is how MUCH is being produced, not how many people are doing it.
That would be the point only in very-very-VERY-limited, overly generalized and utterly unrealistic approach to subject.
From any real life point of view, economical to biological, the number of humans producing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is a VERY important factor in the equation.
Cause countries, being imaginary lines on the land drawn by humans, produce no CO2.
You're pointing to that yourself with that Germany example - draw a line differently and the country's numbers may change, but a person riding a bicycle still releases less CO2 than a person riding around in an SUV.
Also, that Germany example is utter nonsense.
Germany reunified in 1990, and their per-capita CO2 has steadily declined since then - regardless of their population numbers.
In fact, due to their ever-dwindling population numbers they are back at the population size they had in 1996.
And yet, their CO2 level is down by 1.7 metric tons of CO2 per capita - since 1996.
Per capita numbers tell you if someone is producing CO2 because they have to (gotta put food on the table) or because they are being a selfish prick.
See why they matter?
By deobfuscated they (actually, the anonymous Wikipedia user who made it) mean apparently that:
"The data only considers carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, but not emissions from land use such as deforestation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
But without the per capita numbers, all that data is useless.
With per capita numbers on the other hand you naturally have to ask yourself a few things.
Like, what the fuck are the Australians building down there?
What do they know that we don't?
And where do they plan to go with that secret spaceship of theirs?
If William Gibson had imagined anything like "The Kardashians" in Count Zero? It would have seemed over-the-top.
Try this instead.
How about we break the cycle by trying to visualize silicone under hundreds of thousands of tons of pressure, and thousands of degrees, with and atmosphere of ammonia? Or, alternatively, in a vacuum at tens of thousands of degrees? Partial pressure atmospheres at near 0 degrees kelvin?
Max Bernstein mentions something very similar to that in TFA.
Dorminey â" DO YOU THINK THAT SILICON-BASED LIFE MIGHT EXIST SOMEWHERE OUT THERE?
Bernstein â" Maybe deep below the surface of a planet in some very hot hydrogen-rich, Oxygen-poor environment, you would have this complex silane chemistry. There, maybe silanes would form reversible silicon bonds with selenium or tellurium.
How about the possibility that a face to face meeting with another life form might be fatal to one or both of the participants in the meeting? His environment is a poisonous atmosphere (to me) and my own body radiating heat might be fatal to him!
A biochemist's vision of such an encounter, for your listening pleasure.
There is no point in competition for any business. None.
Businesses are FORCED by antitrust laws to maintain a certain level of competition instead of simply eliminating it with any means possible.
If they could get away with it they'd divide the pie into various noncompeting monopolies and live happily ever after.
Perhaps buying off, or taking over or selling a monopoly or two here and there.
And when you have an undisputed monopoly, you don't need to innovate or do research - so even friendly competition through research is simply a drain on your bottom line.
Competition has a point ONLY to the consumer.
So, it is not "to sell your goods or services for less than it costs you to supply them" but for the customer to have the widest choice possible.
Whether they choose according to price, quality, availability, variety, service, color... that is up to the (potential) customer.
All 7 billion and counting of them.
Corporations, companies, businesses are not there "to create profit".
Oh sure. Profit IS the motivation for the owner of the capital to create a business/company - through PROVIDING A PRODUCT OR SERVICE NEEDED BY THE SOCIETY.
If there is no need for the product/service they are providing, there is no need for that kind of a company.
And there is no motivation to create it as there is no profit to be made in things that nobody will buy.
Besides all the smuggling and poaching issues (i.e. poaching endangered tuna species from protected fisheries and selling them as their not so threatened cousins), fraud issues (i.e. selling you bottom of the barrel fish at top quality prices) - the main reason that should concern you and everyone else is right there in the summary.
In 2007 several people became seriously ill from eating illegally imported pufferfish that had been mislabeled as monkfish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraodontidae
(Maple) Puffer fish are generally believed to be the second-most poisonous vertebrate in the world, after the Golden Poison Frog. Certain internal organs, such as liver, and sometimes their skin are highly toxic to most animals when eaten, but nevertheless the meat of some species is considered a delicacy in Japan (as æè±s, pronounced as fugu), Korea (as bok), and China (as æè±s he2 tun2) when prepared by chefs who know which part is safe to eat and in what quantity.
...with renewable sources of energy. What happened? Solar collector killed your dog or something?
Tossing those "after only 30 or 40 years of development" statements doesn't make you sound insightful but spiteful.
Yes! Technology takes time to develop and improve! Whodathunkit!?
Again. Look at the map. Read the map. Notice all the hydro, geothermal, and biomass - those are backups.
And I can't keep repeating myself over and over trying to explain how all those problems you list are already solved or are in the process of being solved - like the political situation.
And there is oil enough to last centuries. Problem is it will become more and more expensive to produce.
There is no danger of "energy crisis" or people starving to death for the lack of power to run the food making machines.
There is a prospect of everyone not independently rich having to change their lifestyle though.
You don't really need to own two or more cars, or take a car driving to the shop two blocks down, or eat prepackaged, precooked food, or use all those single-use-then-throw-away plastic materials.
As for "new, unproven technology" - so was nuclear. Still is, up to a point. Also, commercial HVDC predates nuclear reactors.
And nuclear does NOT limit country's dependence on foreign nations' stability - political, economic or as was the case with Japan recently - geological.
EU gets only about 3% of its uranium from its own sources.
NOT getting off of the foreing oil, uranium and gas tit is "playing with the devil" for EU.
As for Howard C. Hayden...
With all due respect, a man who equates South Pole with Antarctica is either deliberately trying to make a strawman, ignorant to the point that someone should take a look into how he got those diplomas and titles he holds, OR far too passionate about the topic he is arguing to be reasonable to any degree.
Either case, there is too much noise in his signal to be of any practical use to anyone but the people who want to debunk either him or science in general.
Or by March 2012, tops.
Personally, I'd rather take the estimates of people doing their best to fix the problem...
Plant managers at Nidec Corp. (6594), which makes motors for disk drives and also has a factory at Rajana, decided not to wait for the water to subside at its seven flooded factories. According to company spokesman Masashiro Nagayasu, they cut a hole in the roof of the Rajana factory, sent divers into the toxin-laden waters to unbolt some heavy equipment, and lifted it onto waiting boats. Some of the equipment is now being used in Nidec factories in China and the Philippines.
...than of CEOs like Seagate's Stephen Luczo who are gleefully rubbing their hands together at the price hike, predicting a year-long shortage of hard-drives.
"People are going to appreciate the complexity of this business," he says.
Click on it.
You should notice that a great deal of that map is covered with "wind" icons. Lots of them in Europe.
Nobody's ignoring winter. More like counting on it.
As for the night... note how very few of those icons are for photovoltaic solar plants? Again, nobody's ignoring the night.
And I believe that you've misunderstood the bit about the "well-functioning market" as "North Africa will be a part of EU".
Are USA and China a part of some kind of a political union just because they are trading with each other?
Also, notice how the political issues are being "addressed" at the moment (not 40 years down the road), with built-in safety measures in case of future political issues?
Those red lines on the map represent the power conduits - note the abundance of them connecting North Africa and Europe.
And then there is the fact that you can't really store excess electricity - so you must spend it all the time. Locally.
Which you do by creating industry which will spend that electricity. Creating jobs.
Which in turn create stability in the society.
As for economic issues...
Once you cover the expenses of building the system and its maintenance - it's the electricity that's essentially free for the supplier. But not for the customer.
Also, note that the investment by 2050 comes to about 400 billion Euros, with ~2 trillion Euros worth of electricity to be created by 2050.
And saying that "they just ignore the nuclear completely" when it's written in your quote that the goal of that report is to "examine what it would take to shift even further to a 100% renewable electricity supply" is not really an insightful discovery.
Or even of any kind of value.
As for "3 to 6 times as expensive as nuclear" - you are looking at the wrong page.
Tables in Appendix 3 use current costs of electricity to project future numbers - but without the increase in the number of solar and wind power plants.
Take a look at the Chapter 5.2 - Costs.
Wind generated electricity alone would cost as much as fossil fuel does today - should it reach the production numbers of nuclear.
Concentrated Solar Power becomes cheaper than nuclear once its production reaches about 32GW.
And that's with it being produced ~12 times less than nuclear power.
...in the long run.
Only about 15-20% of all of it's (100% renewable) power demand by 2050.
Construction of the first solar farm in that system is to start in Morocco next year.
It's amazing how those plans from about a decade ago coincided with recent regime changes in the region, isn't it?
Just one of those lucky coincidences I guess.
First off, when you scroll down that same wikiMedia (not wikipedia) page you can find that other map/chart by the same author, which should make you question his/her "unbiased approach to the subject", or at least the precision of his/her data.
Also note that neither of those graphs are currently used - cause, you know... there are better and more precise ones.
Then there is the fact that neither of those maps currently used is of any particular value on its own.
ESPECIALLY those related to the headcounts.
Cause, while it may seem from the map of distribution that "Christians RULE!!111eleven!", from "religiosity" and "irreligion" maps one kinda gets the feeling that there may be a rather large percentage of bollocks in those stats.
Then, back to that graph, besides it being out of date - there is the fact that CIA's "The World Factbook" (which is the source of data for that graph) doesn't list its sources or methods or sample sizes.
Which makes it basically more akin to guesstimates than statistics.
They can't even be bothered to be up to date with readily available data on USA, let alone the rest of the world.
And where they pulled those numbers on protestants from is anyone's guess.
So, I wouldn't really bet the farm on those 55.6% you got from that graph.
Particularly when taken into account the fact that it's mostly the people in "undeveloped countries" who give credence to the stories in ANY of the religious books.
And that's all without going into the whole "it's a packaged deal" thing where you can't pick and choose the bits of God's words you'll believe in - making all of them unbelievers to some extent.
I was in college during Tiananmen Square. Chinese students studying in America were persecuted for things they said on the internet here once they got back home.
China was monitoring US internet communication back in 1989?
Other countries do that to. US forces are trained by foreign countries at the Center on Global Counterterrorism.
CGCC is not another country. It is an American "research and policy institute".
And a government hiring private instructors to train its law enforcement/military is not the same thing as should that government provide its own law enforcement or military as "advisers" to other governments or forces within other countries.
One of those is a public act well within the domain of any government.
The other thing is usually the result of a government trying to wage a secretive war without getting its hands dirty or without the consent of its people.
In all fairness the US is essentially policing the world right now. It is not exactly an even comparison.
Well, you're right about that. No other country in the world could dream of reaching USA's score.
Not that often.
And why should they? When they can simply "render" them. Extraordinarily.
And generally the country that the people are being extradited from is glad for the US taking the case.
All the best generalizations start with "Generally...".
Electric vehicles drive the food just fine to and from trains that ship it across great distances.
And you can use various kinds of clean and renewable electricity to power both.
As for that farming machinery that can't (yet) operate on electricity or natural gas - there is already a solution for that in regulation of diesel fuel sales for farming.
Usually by government subsidies and special coloring added to such fuel in order to prevent it being used for passenger vehicles.
It's already being done around the world for fishing. So much so that filtering out the coloring and selling that diesel at market prices is a rather profitable criminal activity.
And then... there is the option of converting city parks into orchards and vegetable gardens. Adding gardens and greenhouses on the rooftops.
Even simply everyone planting a pot on their window/balcony makes a difference on a city-wide scale.
Don't worry. Humans might end up eating less meat, but they will most likely not starve.
Tricorders will be issued. Bullwhips and fedoras are a "bring your own..." items.
As for actual usability, it all depends on what kind of rock are you heading to and how developed the settlement on the said rock is.
Also, clearly there are precedents for Whips in Space!... space..pace..ace...
Things get broken...
Among other reasons such as marketing, greed, prestige etc.
You keep making those insightful comments when I have no mod points and I'll have to "friend" you, or something.
As for "artists and scientists, or something", I'm kinda partial to the gentleman adventurer definition of "or something". Substitute gentleman with lady where applicable.
Granted, one might argue that scientists and artists are adventurers already, but I'm thinking more along the lines of fedoras and bullwhips than white coats or costumes.
...this?
You need a mission statement now to know that things are bad and wrong, or is that just to have an opinion?
And an objective... Well... how do I put this without sounding like an ass?
Protesting against the current situation kinda IS their objective.
You know... it's what people with SOME control over their own actions are supposed to do once their trust has been violated.
First by other people with more resources and less scruples, then by the people who were supposed to make sure that stuff like that does not happen.
Less civilized people would simply invest in some matches and rope and went and had themselves some fun in the more affluent parts of the town.
Viable solutions?
Well... Like I said, what you are looking at here are people who had their trust betrayed but who still cling to the idea of Democracy, being nice about it, trying to sort of... "jump-start" the democratic process.
Trying to get the politicians, the people responsible, even the Joe Average to get off their asses and fix this - for them and for the Joe who doesn't really feel like being on the business side of the police club, but who can bitch about things with the best of them.
As such, they really can't have a viable solution/strategy other than "stay visible".
They are not bullshiting you. They are NAIVE.
They want the people who fucked things up to fix them, and they want the people who can't be bothered to even give them "moral support" - to do SOMETHING to fix the fuckup (the first ones) and join them (the second ones).
Frankly, I think they have a better chance for getting business-critters and politicians to accept their guilt, fix everything and then lock themselves in prisons for the rest of their lives than getting the support of the people who wouldn't give them the sweat of their balls to save their lives.
Cause you know... first ones might actually get bored of doing nothing, or may die of old age and be replaced with someone eager to prove themselves, or EVEN (godforbid) feel actual guilt and responsibility AND have will (and knowledge... and wisdom... and cooperation of their "brethren") to do something useful.
The second ones are happy enough with "proving them wrong" from their armchairs, demanding "coherent mission statement/objectives" and "viable solutions / steps" for said objectives and simply being pleased with themselves for NOT doing something for them.
...The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight!
Adventure!
Excitement!
You'll think that you are smarter than the "other people"!
TLDR version.
The OP seems to assume two things.
First, that the main issue here is the "greenness" of the power source.
It is not. It's the independence and mobility of the power source as protesters can't just plug their devices in the socket in the sidewalk AND they have already been raided several times by the police.
Second, OP seems to assume that car batteries are charged by cars, i.e. by burning fossil fuel - which is not very "green".
From TFA:
A bicycle generator donated by Rock the Bike runs 24/7, with volunteers usually lasting 30 minutes before handing off to the next fresh set of legs.
The electricity thus generated runs into three car batteries to maintain a backup power supply, but the amount of juice that a single bike can generate is only enough to power a single laptop.
So there... It IS pretty green too.
How about zero guys and ~5 minutes?
Problems... Expensive charging stations and you don't really own the battery.
Multifunction Utility/Logistics and Equipment vehicle (MULE) IS cancelled but Lockheed Martin probably still owns the name, the ideas and a bunch of other legalish things related to any army robots called mules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. An antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.
Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is dangerous or destructive. One example of this view is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which Christopher Hitchens writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."[1]
Frankly, that is the only moral position you can take once you see priests of major religions blessing tanks and artillery (which you know will be used against civilians), soldiers marching with religious insignia on their uniforms and flags and wars based on religious beliefs.
Not to mention the political disenfranchisement of those who do not belong to major (and ruling) religions. In secular democratic countries no less.
And let's not even start on major religions' position on gay individuals - while they protect child molesters in their own ranks.
That's all besides the fact that in our day and age only two kinds of people (given that they had at least elementary education) can actually preach ANY of that religious claptrap.
Utterly naive and gullible OR completely unscrupulous liars.