But moving it is one of the most dangerous things you can do with it. An objection to moving it isn't an endorsement of the safety of on-site storage. It's an admission that we're in a messed up situation where there are no good answers yet.
The best thing about solar power is that you don't have to invade sovereign countries and kill thousands of innocent people to secure sources of solar panels. You also don't have to blast away entire mountain ranges and snuff out the valleys and streams below with the leftover rock and dirt from mining solar panels. So, relatively speaking, yeah, solar panels are pretty good.
We don't need loonies with beliefs like that informing us of what's going on. We need good people who believe that a diety in the clouds formed the whole univers in six days, that men have one fewer rib than women, that a man put two of every animal on a boat, and that a virgin gave birth to a man who could rise from the dead. That's what really gives people credibiltiy.
Most of them interviewed think food comes from the supermarket or farmers need laws to tell them how to maintain their land (even tho they did a damn good job since the 1500's).
Ever hear of the "Dust Bowl"? Poor soil conservation techniques were fine until the drought came. What about the use of DDT and other chemicals that were found to be causing damage? What about the damage to water resources being caused right now by nitrogen fertilizer runoff. Get your head out of the sand.
The war wasn't fought so US citizens could have the Iraqi oil. It was fought so US companies could have the Iraqi oil distribution contracts.
At least someone sees what's going on... And if you need a little extra confirmation of that, look at how the administration is hell-bent on assuring that the $20 billion to be spent fixing up Iraq's infrastructure (read "oil production facilities") be given as a grant instead of a loan. If we gave it as a loan then Iraq would have to retain control of the oil reserves so they could sell it to repay the loan. (Remember, the US overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran to prevent the nationalization of Iranian oil) If it is a grant, however, then the US can pressure the Iraqi Governing Council to sell off the oil reserves at ridiculously low prices to private energy corporations and forget about the money US taxpayers gave them.
What a friggin' racket! US taxpayers will be providing $20 billion (and more) to provide good facilities for oil corporations to make a profit. Talk about welfare deadbeats. If there is profit to be had there, then the oil corporations should invest their own damn money, not mine.
Then you go ahead and base a major part of your argument against another on that other person not spelling than/then correctly.
First of all, that was in no way a major part of my argument. You're really reaching on that one. Secondly, the then/than issue is a grammar error that indicates a basic misunderstanding of the language rather than a spelling error which is common and understandable. Thirdly, "entitled" is entirely the wrong word to use for what you meant. And, finally, "Ranitng" was a simple fat-finger typo rather than the hypocrisy you would like to make it out to be. Grow up.
Maybe they are maybe they aren't, but that's beside the point. They were "FACTS" that were in no way relevant to the discussion. The AC only injected them in to make a purely partisan point. You people are completely blind to your own partisanship.
This has nothing to do with shills (I have mentioned none) or corporate power.
Yes you did. You mentioned shrub. He is the shill and you mentioned him unprompted by anyone. Nobody was talking about dubya until you brought him up to defend his record.
You guys really can't stand it when someone calls you on your partisanship. You unilaterally declare your side to be the objective side, then say others are biased.
If it really was about cutting greenhouse gases, it would not allow China to increase theirs.
It's called a "concession." They're used in negotiations to come to what's called an "agreement." You see, there was once a time when people believed that it was a good idea to negotiate problems and try to resolve differences peacefully. I guess we'll just have to nuke them now. That'll stop their greenhouse gasses.
Well, assuming they're facts (I didn't check them) they were completely unrelated to the article and presented a preemptive defense of the AC's favorite shill for corporate power. He was trying to present W in a glowing light before someone spoke badly of him. Your mind is warped with ideology if you don't see the AC's post as pro-Bush.
Sadly, most of the human race thinks that way. And you know it.
Maybe, but I don't concede that point. I think we're facing many challenges that absolutely cannot be solved as long as we think like that. Perhaps this is our challenge -- to grow up. Isn't it about time?
So, let me spell it out clearly for you, as you seemed to have missed this. Life on this planet will die when the sun dies. There is one creature capable of changing this trend, and that is us.
The irony of having someone who doesn't know the difference between "then" and "than" spelling something out for me is almost too much, but, believe it or not, I did understand your point. I just don't agree with it.
By jumping in as a global warming apologist and then claiming that we are good for nature you built your manifesto on shaky ground.
Your attitude that it's okay to alter our environment because we're leaving anyway isn't long-range thinking. It's actually quite short-sighted because, at the moment and for the foreseeable future, we have no technology that will either isolate us from a hostile environment or transport us to a friendlier one. Counting on some future development to bail us out of the problems we're causing is not sound thinking. It's like a family who hopes to find a bigger house some day so they go ahead and start trashing the one they're living in now even though they have no idea when or where or even if they'll be moving.
"Well, in the meantime, step over that broken toilet and crap down that hole in the floor. Boy it'll be nice when we move into that mansion...whenever and wherever. What's that smell? Is that a chicken bone stuck to your back? Why are the dirty dishes stacked in my bed?"
Do you really want to live like that or do you think we should take care of the place we live now?
Should I be the first to point out that.1 mm is not a lot?
No. But keep in mind that that is a yearly increase and that it's only 9% of the total.
People seem to forget that no matter what happens, we are still humans, and humans are masters of changing their environment to fit their needs, and this great power only grows stronger as we advance.
Yes! We are GODS! Take THAT Mother Nature! IN YOUR FACE!
Humans are mother natures dream come true and her ultimate creation.
Yes, we are nature's gift to the universe. How wonderful we are and full of hubris. Nature hasn't been working for 4 billion years on this planet just to come up with us, and she never landed on and aircraft carrier to declare, "Mission accomplished."
One day the sun is going to go super nova and everything on this planet is going to die.
No it's not. It doesn't contain enough mass to go nova. You seriously need more education before posting manifestos.
We might be a minor global catastrophe as far as the environment is concerned...
What? Weren't you just saying that we were mother nature's "dream come true?" Make up your mind.
In exchange for being a minor environmental disaster we staunchly defend life in general...
No. We just defend life in specific -- namely, human life. We destroy other life, sometimes gleefully.
...mother nature personified would gladly embrace human existence and declare it the best thing to happen to this hunk or rock floating in the lifeless void.
Only if she's had her coffee and an extra happy pill that morning.
Well, your calculation is way off since you only accounted for 9% of global glacial melting and you made the assumption that the rate of melting will remain constant during your lifetime. Aside from that, though, what kind of person thinks that as long as it's not a problem for them, then it's not a problem? You only consider your lifetime and your location. That's a really responsible attitude -- one normally associated with children.
You can always get a karma boost by waiting for someone to suggest a conspiracy and then slamming the "tinfoil hat" on their head. As if conspiracies don't happen. "Nothing to see here. Move along."
Slashdot Mirror
If a better repository is found, move it.
But moving it is one of the most dangerous things you can do with it. An objection to moving it isn't an endorsement of the safety of on-site storage. It's an admission that we're in a messed up situation where there are no good answers yet.
You can always get a little karma boost by repeating this crap. Lots of rabid haters out there.
So much for Geeks being qualified as leaders.
Is there some reason this was modded down twice? It might not be a magnum opus but, hell, it wasn't that bad.
The best thing about solar power is that you don't have to invade sovereign countries and kill thousands of innocent people to secure sources of solar panels.
You also don't have to blast away entire mountain ranges and snuff out the valleys and streams below with the leftover rock and dirt from mining solar panels.
So, relatively speaking, yeah, solar panels are pretty good.
We don't need loonies with beliefs like that informing us of what's going on. We need good people who believe that a diety in the clouds formed the whole univers in six days, that men have one fewer rib than women, that a man put two of every animal on a boat, and that a virgin gave birth to a man who could rise from the dead. That's what really gives people credibiltiy.
...because it has two right wings.
funny how the ACLU is completely silent when the 2nd or 10th amendments are involved
Only if you call this being silent.
But the do care if you wish to own a gun. I guess their copy of the Bill of Rights has less adms than mine does.
You are so wrong. Read it and weep. Oh, man, I love this thread.
Oh, yeah, did you see the AC's post to your sig the other day? Israeli/Palestininan Facts
And the 2nd amendment shows it even more.
This shows what a looser you are. You are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Your couldn't be more wrong. So how do you like being wrong?
This is Bull Shit! When is the last time the ACLU tried to protect anyones 2nd Amendment rights.
Well, I think this article will show that you are almost completely full of excriment.
Most of them interviewed think food comes from the supermarket or farmers need laws to tell them how to maintain their land (even tho they did a damn good job since the 1500's).
Ever hear of the "Dust Bowl"? Poor soil conservation techniques were fine until the drought came. What about the use of DDT and other chemicals that were found to be causing damage? What about the damage to water resources being caused right now by nitrogen fertilizer runoff. Get your head out of the sand.
The war wasn't fought so US citizens could have the Iraqi oil.
It was fought so US companies could have the Iraqi oil distribution contracts.
At least someone sees what's going on...
And if you need a little extra confirmation of that, look at how the administration is hell-bent on assuring that the $20 billion to be spent fixing up Iraq's infrastructure (read "oil production facilities") be given as a grant instead of a loan. If we gave it as a loan then Iraq would have to retain control of the oil reserves so they could sell it to repay the loan. (Remember, the US overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran to prevent the nationalization of Iranian oil) If it is a grant, however, then the US can pressure the Iraqi Governing Council to sell off the oil reserves at ridiculously low prices to private energy corporations and forget about the money US taxpayers gave them.
What a friggin' racket! US taxpayers will be providing $20 billion (and more) to provide good facilities for oil corporations to make a profit. Talk about welfare deadbeats. If there is profit to be had there, then the oil corporations should invest their own damn money, not mine.
Dude, you need to get laid. Seriously!
Whoo. Thanks. That was a good idea. Sorry it took me so long. Glad my wife was home. She's pretty hot, too.
Then you go ahead and base a major part of your argument against another on that other person not spelling than/then correctly.
First of all, that was in no way a major part of my argument. You're really reaching on that one. Secondly, the then/than issue is a grammar error that indicates a basic misunderstanding of the language rather than a spelling error which is common and understandable. Thirdly, "entitled" is entirely the wrong word to use for what you meant. And, finally, "Ranitng" was a simple fat-finger typo rather than the hypocrisy you would like to make it out to be. Grow up.
They are FACTS. Facts have no ideology.
Maybe they are maybe they aren't, but that's beside the point. They were "FACTS" that were in no way relevant to the discussion. The AC only injected them in to make a purely partisan point. You people are completely blind to your own partisanship.
This has nothing to do with shills (I have mentioned none) or corporate power.
Yes you did. You mentioned shrub. He is the shill and you mentioned him unprompted by anyone. Nobody was talking about dubya until you brought him up to defend his record.
You guys really can't stand it when someone calls you on your partisanship. You unilaterally declare your side to be the objective side, then say others are biased.
If it really was about cutting greenhouse gases, it would not allow China to increase theirs.
It's called a "concession." They're used in negotiations to come to what's called an "agreement." You see, there was once a time when people believed that it was a good idea to negotiate problems and try to resolve differences peacefully. I guess we'll just have to nuke them now. That'll stop their greenhouse gasses.
How is presenting facts "shouting a cheer?"
Well, assuming they're facts (I didn't check them) they were completely unrelated to the article and presented a preemptive defense of the AC's favorite shill for corporate power. He was trying to present W in a glowing light before someone spoke badly of him. Your mind is warped with ideology if you don't see the AC's post as pro-Bush.
Sadly, most of the human race thinks that way. And you know it.
Maybe, but I don't concede that point.
I think we're facing many challenges that absolutely cannot be solved as long as we think like that. Perhaps this is our challenge -- to grow up.
Isn't it about time?
So, let me spell it out clearly for you, as you seemed to have missed this. Life on this planet will die when the sun dies. There is one creature capable of changing this trend, and that is us.
The irony of having someone who doesn't know the difference between "then" and "than" spelling something out for me is almost too much, but, believe it or not, I did understand your point. I just don't agree with it.
By jumping in as a global warming apologist and then claiming that we are good for nature you built your manifesto on shaky ground.
Your attitude that it's okay to alter our environment because we're leaving anyway isn't long-range thinking. It's actually quite short-sighted because, at the moment and for the foreseeable future, we have no technology that will either isolate us from a hostile environment or transport us to a friendlier one. Counting on some future development to bail us out of the problems we're causing is not sound thinking. It's like a family who hopes to find a bigger house some day so they go ahead and start trashing the one they're living in now even though they have no idea when or where or even if they'll be moving.
"Well, in the meantime, step over that broken toilet and crap down that hole in the floor. Boy it'll be nice when we move into that mansion...whenever and wherever. What's that smell? Is that a chicken bone stuck to your back? Why are the dirty dishes stacked in my bed?"
Do you really want to live like that or do you think we should take care of the place we live now?
China...is the second largest industrial emitter of greenhouse gases.
The two worst countries: US and Canada...
There is something smelly here...
You can say that again. Who is the second largest emitter? China, the US, or Canada?
Should I be the first to point out that
No. But keep in mind that that is a yearly increase and that it's only 9% of the total.
People seem to forget that no matter what happens, we are still humans, and humans are masters of changing their environment to fit their needs, and this great power only grows stronger as we advance.
Yes! We are GODS! Take THAT Mother Nature! IN YOUR FACE!
Humans are mother natures dream come true and her ultimate creation.
Yes, we are nature's gift to the universe. How wonderful we are and full of hubris. Nature hasn't been working for 4 billion years on this planet just to come up with us, and she never landed on and aircraft carrier to declare, "Mission accomplished."
One day the sun is going to go super nova and everything on this planet is going to die.
No it's not. It doesn't contain enough mass to go nova. You seriously need more education before posting manifestos.
We might be a minor global catastrophe as far as the environment is concerned...
What? Weren't you just saying that we were mother nature's "dream come true?" Make up your mind.
In exchange for being a minor environmental disaster we staunchly defend life in general...
No. We just defend life in specific -- namely, human life. We destroy other life, sometimes gleefully.
Only if she's had her coffee and an extra happy pill that morning.
Well, your calculation is way off since you only accounted for 9% of global glacial melting and you made the assumption that the rate of melting will remain constant during your lifetime.
Aside from that, though, what kind of person thinks that as long as it's not a problem for them, then it's not a problem? You only consider your lifetime and your location. That's a really responsible attitude -- one normally associated with children.
Did anyone mention Kyoto or W?
Or did you just want to shout a cheer for your man in the White House?
You can always get a karma boost by waiting for someone to suggest a conspiracy and then slamming the "tinfoil hat" on their head. As if conspiracies don't happen. "Nothing to see here. Move along."