It could have an effect. Stores needs fewer trucks delivering bulbs. Fewer bulbs means fewer factory-hours spent making bulbs (and virtually every industrial process uses oil somewhere along the line). The decreased amount of glass required is a big one -- lots of oil gets used heating silica to make glass. Decreasing demand for electricity brings the price of electricity down, making electric vehicles more attractive.
None of these effects is pronounced, but the ripple spreads out. And that's just one of the things you have to accept with the quest to reduce oil-dependence: it will be thousands and thousands of little things that win the war. A few E85 SUVs here, a few electric cars there, some scooters and motorcycles for the cool kids. CFLs all over the place. Industry starts taking conservation seriously and revamps their processes (you can find hundreds of success stories of manufacturers bringing their power usage way down while simultaneously making their entire operation faster and more efficient). A smarter chemical industry. Old houses being replaced by better houses. Nothing can solve the problem in and of itself, but it all adds up.
There was never a people in all of history so interested in shooting themselves in the foot, than the American working class. They waste money on crap that nobody with an ounce of sense would buy. They get gargantuan vehicles that will cost them more money than they will ever have (and then bitch about the cost of fuelling the behemoth in question). They vote for leaders whose openly stated plan is to deprive them of their social safety net, their jobs, and their rights. It's mystifying. The American working class is the best argument for reproduction licenses that require an IQ test to pass.
What are these full-spectrum CFLs? Does the name say it all, or is there a back story? In any case, they sound better than what I have.
More on topic, I replaced all my lightbulbs with CFLs, and not a single one has failed yet. I've moved four times with them (ah, the life of a student...). They've outlasted three computers. A superb investment by any measure.
I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with a feeling of entitlement. After all, entitlement is a major component of modern society -- what is a constitution, if not a list of entitlements? Democracy means that the people are entitled to whatever the hell they want from their government (assuming it can be delivered at all). Etc.
Neoconservatives, on the other hand, use the word entitlement in a derogatory sense. They use it whenever anyone suggests that maybe the government should take steps to ensure that everyone has access to affordable health care. They use it when anyone suggests that maybe losing one's job shouldn't be tantamount to a death sentence for people in the working class. They use it whenever anyone suggests that maybe, just maybe, the poor shouldn't be the ones shouldering the majority of the nation's tax burden. They accuse anyone who wants anything at all of "feeling entitled", ignoring the fact that they themselves would absolutely freak out if they were denied anything at all in the entire world. Just try asking a congressman to voluntarily not draw his state-supplied pay cheque. After all, very few of them need it -- most politicians already have enough wealth that they don't need to work. Budget tight? Try saving a few million dollars by not paying congress or the senate. Try holding back the president's $400,000. See who feels entitled THEN.
Funny, neoconservatives constantly accuse the working class of feeling entitled (and to frivolities like health care, not dying in stupid foreign wars, and getting to actually elect the president, no less!) And yet it's the CEOs and other super-rich people that expect a bunch of extra favours from society.
Exactly, this is the problem with extremist political philosophies. At the fringes, you have communism, anarchy, and laissez-faire capitalism. All totally unworkable, and the one that has been tried resulted in a global depression so extensive that it earned the adjective "great". Slightly more moderate, you have socialism, libertarianism, and free market capitalism. Not bad, but the one that's been tried nearly destroyed Russia and brought the world a number of terrible wars. And then you're left with the absolute middle ground that every nation converges towards: the welfare free-market capitalo-republicracy ultraman thingy.
So who exactly was it that murdered all those politicians and industrialists then? What exactly has been the outcome of every single anarchical society? To the former, the answer is "anarchists". To the latter, the outcome is "despotism". Anarchy is the single stupidest political philosophy ever conceived of. It's like libertarianism for idiots. And libertarianism isn't exactly known for attracting the cream of the intellectual crop itself.
So will the US start waging the "war on terror" at home? Round up a bunch of people and torture them? Put them in death-campsprisons to be humiliated and then beaten to death? Let the soldiers rape and murder a few families to help relieve tension? Bomb the shit out of all the major cities?
You know, this is sounding better and better. After all, why should Iraq and Afghanistan be the only nations to have their terrorists removed? Don't Americans deserve to have peace and safety?
I used to look after lab animals. Damn that was a great job. The friendly rats, the squeaky mice, the rabbits that bit me. The mother rat that tried to kill me for briefly taking her babies away. The finches that kept getting free and flying around the hallways. The really fat rat that I had to weigh every day. Good stuff. It was always sad when a shelf of rats was suddenly gone, but at least they gave they lives for a good cause. Something to do with brains or learning or swimming or something.
Yeah, damn that Jidahi Ted Kaczynski, and his manifesto demanding that the US be governed according to islamic law. And I distinctly remember Timothy McVeigh's whole deal about needing a cell with a window facing towards Mecca. You're so correct! I see the trend now...
Fair use? Of course not. Professional wrestling organizations trademarked "flipping the bird" (t) back in the late 90s. Unless you meant the sweater -- I think wearing a purple sweater is a service mark of the Purple Man Group (r).
a) Try to recognizance a gentle ribbing when you see it. No one actually thinks the US is a backwards shithole... yet. It does have a conspicuously high number of disabled homeless people though, compared to other developed nations. But the number is also radically lower than that of actual third world countries.
b) What the hell is the ADA? The Americans' With Disabilities act? The American Dental Association? The American Diabetic Association? Context, man. The ADA does seem quite effective at turning otherwise disabled people into functional members of society, but it ignores the enormous numbers of people whose disabilities prevent them from working at all, people with psychological disabilities for whom physical amenities like ramps mean nothing, and so on. Dealing with disability needs so much more -- drugs, therapies, surgeries, etc. What nations like England, France, and Holland do have is that non-employable disabled people don't have to live on the street. They can get free psychoactive medications to treat their schizophrenia or whatever. They can get therapies that will help them without having to come from a family rich enough to afford the expensive treatments. Basically, the ADA only helps people whose disabilities are quite marginal to begin with.
Yeah, we definitely do have a strange trading relationship. Fantastically productive and probably a cornerstone of the global economy, but definitely strange. The most functional dysfunctional relationship on Earth.
This might almost count as a rational thought if not for the fact that even seriously disabled people today live far, far richer lives than people from any point in the past. At least in the industrialized world, that is -- I can't speak for ingorant backwards shitholes like Nigeria or the USA.
Seriously though, if progress means anything, its that genetic "disabilities" are gradually becoming meaningless, as we can compensate for more and more of them with drugs, prosthetics, or therapy. And it's an accelerating process.
I've been working at a fuel retail depot (a gas station, in the "new" English), and I've noticed that a lot of Europeans ask for Diesel (which we don't have, of course, this being Canada with its insanely backwards fuel laws). Nice folks. I like how they're the only ones who NEVER complain about the price of gas. Being harangued by old men about how Iranians are surely paying less than we are for petroleum gets old fast -- especially since our gas is only expensive because of the free-trade deal with US which is what makes Canadians rich enough to afford the cars to put the gas into, the iPods to put in the cars, the nitrogen to fill the car's tires, and enough cheap food that we have to have the car because we're too fucking fat to walk. Damn, I'm going to punch the next old person I see, steal his wallet, and give it to a European.
Anyway, long story short, North America needs to get back on the trolley as far as diesel goes. It seems to be a great fuel these days, and with biodiesel coming around the bend, it looks to get even better.
Dropping the tether further out towards Earth is, from what I've read, precisely what people looking at the idea of a lunar space elevator are thinking of. It's not a big deal for the vehicles, because they don't actually have to meet up with the tether at the endpoint. A small landing station can be located at L1, and the larger counterweight further out. And a maintenance breakdown? Realistically speaking, we will probably lose the first few things we try to build on the moon anyway.
As for (1) -- it's ironic that you would mention the idea of using rails to launch cargo with ten words of the phrase "academic masturbation". I mean really, that's all ANY of this is. But that kind of rampant conjecturing is exactly how new ideas get hashed out. It's valuable in and of itself.
For (2), yes the forces are low. But the cost has to be absolutely miniscule. Rockets are expensive for every trip, whereas a space elevator could, designed appropriately, have only small maintenance costs and have its large initial building cost amortized out (although you should always peer skeptically at anyone who claims that some large cost will amortize out...).
First, we already have cables here on Earth that are in the thousands of kilometres using much older technology than we have today. Second, L1 doesn't have to be perfectly stable. A structure like this can have its position corrected over time, much like real spacecraft. But I suppose you know better than NASA, right? All those probes they send there... just the fevered dreams of madmen?
Are you that guy from my axiomatic logic class who harangued the class about how the transatlantic cable couldn't possibly be real? Seriously, the world is going to be much better off when the people who think on a pathologically small-scale are finally gone.
Notice how the Earth pulls on the moon, and on anything dangling from its surface towards the Earth? Ever notice how you go around criticizing ideas about which you don't know shit?
There is a normal, 17 year sunspot cycle. It has been peaking lately. And this does have a small effect on global temperature. What it does not have, however, is a consistent, thirty-year long effect on temperature, nor does it have a strong enough effect to cause an entire degree of mean global temperature increase. Thanks for the FUD though, it was very subtely presented. The self-deprecating tone made it seem almost genuine.
Three words for you man: Lunar Space Elevator. All you would need then is an economical way to do the mining -- keeping in mind that solar power works like a hot damn on the moon thanks to its thin atmosphere and lack of climate. You could probably only run the site during the times when the moon faced towards the sun (it would presumably be solar-powered), but that still provides you with a lot of mining time.
With the moon, why not build a space elevator? It would have to be much, much cheaper and easier than doing so on Earth. We probably have the tech to do it right now. Given that it would be useful for things like exploration and research as well, the cost of building such a space elevator could be written-off as far as a mining project goes.
Kind of a lame criticism. Thimerosal, for instance, is still a well-used and kick-ass anti-nauseant. You can't give it to pregnant women, but it's awesome for anyone else. It's particularly popular to help chemotherapy patients, who are often unable to keep meals down without powerful antinauseants of some kind.
Besides, women rarely, rarely pass on HIV. Even just vaccinating all men would all but annihilate HIV in just a few decades.
Slashdot Mirror
None of these effects is pronounced, but the ripple spreads out. And that's just one of the things you have to accept with the quest to reduce oil-dependence: it will be thousands and thousands of little things that win the war. A few E85 SUVs here, a few electric cars there, some scooters and motorcycles for the cool kids. CFLs all over the place. Industry starts taking conservation seriously and revamps their processes (you can find hundreds of success stories of manufacturers bringing their power usage way down while simultaneously making their entire operation faster and more efficient). A smarter chemical industry. Old houses being replaced by better houses. Nothing can solve the problem in and of itself, but it all adds up.
There was never a people in all of history so interested in shooting themselves in the foot, than the American working class. They waste money on crap that nobody with an ounce of sense would buy. They get gargantuan vehicles that will cost them more money than they will ever have (and then bitch about the cost of fuelling the behemoth in question). They vote for leaders whose openly stated plan is to deprive them of their social safety net, their jobs, and their rights. It's mystifying. The American working class is the best argument for reproduction licenses that require an IQ test to pass.
More on topic, I replaced all my lightbulbs with CFLs, and not a single one has failed yet. I've moved four times with them (ah, the life of a student...). They've outlasted three computers. A superb investment by any measure.
Neoconservatives, on the other hand, use the word entitlement in a derogatory sense. They use it whenever anyone suggests that maybe the government should take steps to ensure that everyone has access to affordable health care. They use it when anyone suggests that maybe losing one's job shouldn't be tantamount to a death sentence for people in the working class. They use it whenever anyone suggests that maybe, just maybe, the poor shouldn't be the ones shouldering the majority of the nation's tax burden. They accuse anyone who wants anything at all of "feeling entitled", ignoring the fact that they themselves would absolutely freak out if they were denied anything at all in the entire world. Just try asking a congressman to voluntarily not draw his state-supplied pay cheque. After all, very few of them need it -- most politicians already have enough wealth that they don't need to work. Budget tight? Try saving a few million dollars by not paying congress or the senate. Try holding back the president's $400,000. See who feels entitled THEN.
Funny, neoconservatives constantly accuse the working class of feeling entitled (and to frivolities like health care, not dying in stupid foreign wars, and getting to actually elect the president, no less!) And yet it's the CEOs and other super-rich people that expect a bunch of extra favours from society.
Exactly, this is the problem with extremist political philosophies. At the fringes, you have communism, anarchy, and laissez-faire capitalism. All totally unworkable, and the one that has been tried resulted in a global depression so extensive that it earned the adjective "great". Slightly more moderate, you have socialism, libertarianism, and free market capitalism. Not bad, but the one that's been tried nearly destroyed Russia and brought the world a number of terrible wars. And then you're left with the absolute middle ground that every nation converges towards: the welfare free-market capitalo-republicracy ultraman thingy.
So who exactly was it that murdered all those politicians and industrialists then? What exactly has been the outcome of every single anarchical society? To the former, the answer is "anarchists". To the latter, the outcome is "despotism". Anarchy is the single stupidest political philosophy ever conceived of. It's like libertarianism for idiots. And libertarianism isn't exactly known for attracting the cream of the intellectual crop itself.
You know, this is sounding better and better. After all, why should Iraq and Afghanistan be the only nations to have their terrorists removed? Don't Americans deserve to have peace and safety?
I used to look after lab animals. Damn that was a great job. The friendly rats, the squeaky mice, the rabbits that bit me. The mother rat that tried to kill me for briefly taking her babies away. The finches that kept getting free and flying around the hallways. The really fat rat that I had to weigh every day. Good stuff. It was always sad when a shelf of rats was suddenly gone, but at least they gave they lives for a good cause. Something to do with brains or learning or swimming or something.
Yeah, damn that Jidahi Ted Kaczynski, and his manifesto demanding that the US be governed according to islamic law. And I distinctly remember Timothy McVeigh's whole deal about needing a cell with a window facing towards Mecca. You're so correct! I see the trend now...
Which is why historically, only truly shortsighted, ignorant, or evil people have been anarchists.
Fair use? Of course not. Professional wrestling organizations trademarked "flipping the bird" (t) back in the late 90s. Unless you meant the sweater -- I think wearing a purple sweater is a service mark of the Purple Man Group (r).
Two points here:
a) Try to recognizance a gentle ribbing when you see it. No one actually thinks the US is a backwards shithole ... yet. It does have a conspicuously high number of disabled homeless people though, compared to other developed nations. But the number is also radically lower than that of actual third world countries.
b) What the hell is the ADA? The Americans' With Disabilities act? The American Dental Association? The American Diabetic Association? Context, man. The ADA does seem quite effective at turning otherwise disabled people into functional members of society, but it ignores the enormous numbers of people whose disabilities prevent them from working at all, people with psychological disabilities for whom physical amenities like ramps mean nothing, and so on. Dealing with disability needs so much more -- drugs, therapies, surgeries, etc. What nations like England, France, and Holland do have is that non-employable disabled people don't have to live on the street. They can get free psychoactive medications to treat their schizophrenia or whatever. They can get therapies that will help them without having to come from a family rich enough to afford the expensive treatments. Basically, the ADA only helps people whose disabilities are quite marginal to begin with.
Yeah, we definitely do have a strange trading relationship. Fantastically productive and probably a cornerstone of the global economy, but definitely strange. The most functional dysfunctional relationship on Earth.
Seriously though, if progress means anything, its that genetic "disabilities" are gradually becoming meaningless, as we can compensate for more and more of them with drugs, prosthetics, or therapy. And it's an accelerating process.
That is to say, ah, very impressive. Diesel engines just keep finding new ways to not disappoint me.
Makes sense. A less extreme version of why automobiles don't burn coal.
Anyway, long story short, North America needs to get back on the trolley as far as diesel goes. It seems to be a great fuel these days, and with biodiesel coming around the bend, it looks to get even better.
Dropping the tether further out towards Earth is, from what I've read, precisely what people looking at the idea of a lunar space elevator are thinking of. It's not a big deal for the vehicles, because they don't actually have to meet up with the tether at the endpoint. A small landing station can be located at L1, and the larger counterweight further out. And a maintenance breakdown? Realistically speaking, we will probably lose the first few things we try to build on the moon anyway.
As for (1) -- it's ironic that you would mention the idea of using rails to launch cargo with ten words of the phrase "academic masturbation". I mean really, that's all ANY of this is. But that kind of rampant conjecturing is exactly how new ideas get hashed out. It's valuable in and of itself.
For (2), yes the forces are low. But the cost has to be absolutely miniscule. Rockets are expensive for every trip, whereas a space elevator could, designed appropriately, have only small maintenance costs and have its large initial building cost amortized out (although you should always peer skeptically at anyone who claims that some large cost will amortize out...).
Are you that guy from my axiomatic logic class who harangued the class about how the transatlantic cable couldn't possibly be real? Seriously, the world is going to be much better off when the people who think on a pathologically small-scale are finally gone.
First google result.
Second google result.
Third google result, including a diagram.
In 10 seconds with google, all this knowledge could have been yours. But that's okay -- I'm sure ignorance is a good choice too. You're American, huh?
There is a normal, 17 year sunspot cycle. It has been peaking lately. And this does have a small effect on global temperature. What it does not have, however, is a consistent, thirty-year long effect on temperature, nor does it have a strong enough effect to cause an entire degree of mean global temperature increase. Thanks for the FUD though, it was very subtely presented. The self-deprecating tone made it seem almost genuine.
Three words for you man: Lunar Space Elevator. All you would need then is an economical way to do the mining -- keeping in mind that solar power works like a hot damn on the moon thanks to its thin atmosphere and lack of climate. You could probably only run the site during the times when the moon faced towards the sun (it would presumably be solar-powered), but that still provides you with a lot of mining time.
With the moon, why not build a space elevator? It would have to be much, much cheaper and easier than doing so on Earth. We probably have the tech to do it right now. Given that it would be useful for things like exploration and research as well, the cost of building such a space elevator could be written-off as far as a mining project goes.
Besides, women rarely, rarely pass on HIV. Even just vaccinating all men would all but annihilate HIV in just a few decades.