Over here in Sweden Synoptik lets you buy glasses with your age in years as rabatte on a pair of glasses, so if you are 45% old you'll get 45% off and so on. Great for 100+ year olds.
(I wonder if 500 pairs / day at 120 year old works, will someone please think of the grandchildren?)
If you accept the fact we are different and some attributes get mixed/copied/(can't find a good word for it) from your parents you is also accepting the fact that mutations in genomes get copied as well. Except a big enough amount of mutations and you also except that life evolve, and then you probably have no use for old gods and stupid stories since it could be explained without them.. And well, then you aren't into intelligent design at all.
Just kill their family, convince them their god hates them, don't exist or have failed one them. Why is he so cruel!?!:D Why do they as the very good christians they are get punished so bad!?!:D
And if god was so fucking smart why did he made two sexes? Why not just make one or make us hermaphrodites? If there are no heritage of mutations and ongoing evolution of the species why have two sexes? Seems like such a waste of potential partners. Not very intelligent.
If we made a robot army would we waste our time doing two different models and make it in such a way that you needed both to generate a new one!?!
You can't prove anything for religions morons because it's not science and nothing lets itself be tested. All you can do is tell them to fuck off and shut the fuck up because there is nothing to discuss, no theories, no what if, no maybies. It's just like arguing on the Internet, even if you're not the christian it still makes you retarded. They are not worth it, just hope they all die and burn in hell so we don't have to hear them any more.
Yeah, I don't get that line either, this creates questions about creationism HOW?!
Sure life may evolve into being able to create more life, but what the fuck does that have to do with creationism? There is no fucking proofs or anything pointing for that religious bullshit, how could this possible make some made up story about the invisible, never possible to test, never to be observed, non-existant piece of bullshit true or worth discussing at all!?!
Stupid fuck who submitted this story. There is no questions about creationism, there is nothing to be discussed, there is no topic whatsoever.
They would have been more correct if the fucking console and games let me use a MOUSE!
I'd have no problem playing optimized games on a "no upgrades for years"-platform if the titles I wanted to play was available on the platform.. But well, without a mouse I doubt Starcraft 2 come to playstation 3.
In any case if they don't remove CO2 as some people said but rather just increase reflection I guess they will sooner or later get old and have to be replaced since they haven't solved the actually issue, just the effects of it.
But it's copyrighted content? Sure they just use parts of it but whatever, as long as one make the criticism using their videos and content I think it's quite ok to ask for it to be taken down.
Why is all fucking americans blaming china? This is the third post which answers to my post talking about china. It's not like the chinese people is the most consuming and resource spending people on the planet. It's you! Sure your things may be PRODUCED in china but that doesn't matter. As long as you want more items it will use more resources and energy, simple as that, consume less and the hit on nature will be less. Stop blaming the chinese people, most of them are poor fucks who can't afford shit compared to you americans.
Sure it could happen, for instance yes, we know that solar and wind power may cost more to use than oil and coal, but since we don't know the long time cost of the later ones we could implement and use solar and wind power anyway and be sure that now we know the cost. We could then use that energy for creating cars, and run those cars on electricity, and use the same environmental friendly (in my opinion) energy in all sorts of manufacturing.
That way you won't have this "oh no we must go back to stone age"-problem. Just use another energy resource, you don't even have to stop using energy!
But then people say "hey it's no idea we can't get back to stone age!"
But uhm, we can do SOMETHING, we don't need a new computer every second year, we don't need new clothes all the time, we don't need local grown oil powered green house vegetables if there are some sun light grown somewhere else. Do we need that 340 watt lcd tv? Pre-cooked food, freezed and microwaved? Can't we take the bike a little more often?
But oh no, doing something must mean to stop everything!!
I never suggested that china or india would do anything at all, it's the mass consumption and travel and such which is the problem, not poor people in developing countries.
Tss, bullshit, the average american or european consume waaay more energy and resources than someone in china, why would they have to cut down the most? Or even at all? If we would have want to make it "fair" we would have to cut down much more on consumption and luxury in the western world first.
Also IF it will happen bad things who will suffer the most? For sure not the most rich people, maybe in materialism loss but I would believe that the poor people will take the hardest hit, since they can't afford to travel and maybe can't get into other countries and don't have a good education and so on so on. So in that case if we do anything they will suffer the most, and they wasn't the ones causing it in the first place!
Sure doing something about it will affect people in the western world the most, poor people in africa without electricity, a car and so on will probably not even notice the difference, or only slightly, but that is the most fair and correct way to solving it.
(And while doing it may I suggest to reserve say 1/2 of the area in every country for the wild life to?)
So please stop this "omg I think so much about the poor so we can't hinder them from reaching our standards"-bullshit.
The solution, or not doing anything, MAY cost more than to do something. Same with nuclear power, who knows in the end what it will cost? Sure it's efficient now, and seems like a good deal, but who will know for sure in the end? With wind and solar power you know they are "more expensive" for now but at least there isn't many hidden costs or future risks. You know the price.
I agree with you that most of the planet isn't wild life / nature longer, a very huge area is crops and such and all the elephants, tigers, lions and shit probably lives in small reservates, it's not how the live in whole continents.
I'd guess hydrochloric acid may be an even bigger problem in that case, but yes, "sea water" instead may be an issue as well. I don't know what is more likely.
Uhm, of course it means other will get less, and less clouds, since the amount evaporating from each area are probably similar (well, sure if china gets way more rain it would evaporate more from there as well, but most water vapor may come from the seas I guess.)
Not the rock, but the animals and plants on the planet. More CO2 and higher temps = more plant growth = less CO2 if it gets stored in the ground or bottoms of oceans.
Yes, it would suck to try to limit oil usage, but we will have to sooner or later anyway, and there have been times without it. Sure it would affect us a lot, but higher temps / even out of control temps / raising sea levels / very changed weather in different areas / fucked up crop fields /... will also affect us a lot.
The link may be for an older version, the one I wanted to link to was eyeball messenger, but I only searched for eyeball and took the first hit from google.
Anyway if I remember correctly I did mail them and asked about technologies used (since they claim MSN support and such as well, I guess only thru transports though) and told them I couldn't run it because I used OS X.
Slashdot Mirror
Over here in Sweden Synoptik lets you buy glasses with your age in years as rabatte on a pair of glasses, so if you are 45% old you'll get 45% off and so on. Great for 100+ year olds.
(I wonder if 500 pairs / day at 120 year old works, will someone please think of the grandchildren?)
But then you'd have to replace it after every crash, and predict them in advance so the user never notice that there was one.
If you accept the fact we are different and some attributes get mixed/copied/(can't find a good word for it) from your parents you is also accepting the fact that mutations in genomes get copied as well. Except a big enough amount of mutations and you also except that life evolve, and then you probably have no use for old gods and stupid stories since it could be explained without them.. And well, then you aren't into intelligent design at all.
At least he'll never think "oh, what? there was no paradise/heaven/..?" (assuming we can't think longer when our metabolism is stopped.)
No, never will either. Wasn't that kind of obvious from my post?
Just kill their family, convince them their god hates them, don't exist or have failed one them. Why is he so cruel!?! :D :D
Why do they as the very good christians they are get punished so bad!?!
And if god was so fucking smart why did he made two sexes? Why not just make one or make us hermaphrodites? If there are no heritage of mutations and ongoing evolution of the species why have two sexes? Seems like such a waste of potential partners. Not very intelligent.
If we made a robot army would we waste our time doing two different models and make it in such a way that you needed both to generate a new one!?!
Maybe we could use nanotechnology to develop some new bullets or something to help us get rid of the ID-people?
You can't prove anything for religions morons because it's not science and nothing lets itself be tested. All you can do is tell them to fuck off and shut the fuck up because there is nothing to discuss, no theories, no what if, no maybies. It's just like arguing on the Internet, even if you're not the christian it still makes you retarded. They are not worth it, just hope they all die and burn in hell so we don't have to hear them any more.
First rule of jack club: You don't talk about jack off.
Yeah, I don't get that line either, this creates questions about creationism HOW?!
Sure life may evolve into being able to create more life, but what the fuck does that have to do with creationism? There is no fucking proofs or anything pointing for that religious bullshit, how could this possible make some made up story about the invisible, never possible to test, never to be observed, non-existant piece of bullshit true or worth discussing at all!?!
Stupid fuck who submitted this story. There is no questions about creationism, there is nothing to be discussed, there is no topic whatsoever.
They would have been more correct if the fucking console and games let me use a MOUSE!
I'd have no problem playing optimized games on a "no upgrades for years"-platform if the titles I wanted to play was available on the platform.. But well, without a mouse I doubt Starcraft 2 come to playstation 3.
In any case if they don't remove CO2 as some people said but rather just increase reflection I guess they will sooner or later get old and have to be replaced since they haven't solved the actually issue, just the effects of it.
But it's copyrighted content? Sure they just use parts of it but whatever, as long as one make the criticism using their videos and content I think it's quite ok to ask for it to be taken down.
The question is why one would use this program? And why Real think it's ok that they look your file to a single computer.
Sounds like a pretty bad deal, why use this crap? Not that we already knew everything "real" suck.
So? Stop consuming them and they won't make them. Simple as that.
And my point was already that it's the consumers "fault" they produce the things.
Why is all fucking americans blaming china? This is the third post which answers to my post talking about china. It's not like the chinese people is the most consuming and resource spending people on the planet. It's you! Sure your things may be PRODUCED in china but that doesn't matter. As long as you want more items it will use more resources and energy, simple as that, consume less and the hit on nature will be less. Stop blaming the chinese people, most of them are poor fucks who can't afford shit compared to you americans.
Sure it could happen, for instance yes, we know that solar and wind power may cost more to use than oil and coal, but since we don't know the long time cost of the later ones we could implement and use solar and wind power anyway and be sure that now we know the cost. We could then use that energy for creating cars, and run those cars on electricity, and use the same environmental friendly (in my opinion) energy in all sorts of manufacturing.
That way you won't have this "oh no we must go back to stone age"-problem. Just use another energy resource, you don't even have to stop using energy!
But then people say "hey it's no idea we can't get back to stone age!"
But uhm, we can do SOMETHING, we don't need a new computer every second year, we don't need new clothes all the time, we don't need local grown oil powered green house vegetables if there are some sun light grown somewhere else. Do we need that 340 watt lcd tv? Pre-cooked food, freezed and microwaved? Can't we take the bike a little more often?
But oh no, doing something must mean to stop everything!!
I never suggested that china or india would do anything at all, it's the mass consumption and travel and such which is the problem, not poor people in developing countries.
Tss, bullshit, the average american or european consume waaay more energy and resources than someone in china, why would they have to cut down the most? Or even at all? If we would have want to make it "fair" we would have to cut down much more on consumption and luxury in the western world first.
Also IF it will happen bad things who will suffer the most? For sure not the most rich people, maybe in materialism loss but I would believe that the poor people will take the hardest hit, since they can't afford to travel and maybe can't get into other countries and don't have a good education and so on so on. So in that case if we do anything they will suffer the most, and they wasn't the ones causing it in the first place!
Sure doing something about it will affect people in the western world the most, poor people in africa without electricity, a car and so on will probably not even notice the difference, or only slightly, but that is the most fair and correct way to solving it.
(And while doing it may I suggest to reserve say 1/2 of the area in every country for the wild life to?)
So please stop this "omg I think so much about the poor so we can't hinder them from reaching our standards"-bullshit.
The solution, or not doing anything, MAY cost more than to do something. Same with nuclear power, who knows in the end what it will cost? Sure it's efficient now, and seems like a good deal, but who will know for sure in the end? With wind and solar power you know they are "more expensive" for now but at least there isn't many hidden costs or future risks. You know the price.
I agree with you that most of the planet isn't wild life / nature longer, a very huge area is crops and such and all the elephants, tigers, lions and shit probably lives in small reservates, it's not how the live in whole continents.
I'd guess hydrochloric acid may be an even bigger problem in that case, but yes, "sea water" instead may be an issue as well. I don't know what is more likely.
So you are suggesting the nature at large doesn't exist? Because that's what I mean with mother nature, not god or something such bullshit.
Uhm, of course it means other will get less, and less clouds, since the amount evaporating from each area are probably similar (well, sure if china gets way more rain it would evaporate more from there as well, but most water vapor may come from the seas I guess.)
Not the rock, but the animals and plants on the planet. More CO2 and higher temps = more plant growth = less CO2 if it gets stored in the ground or bottoms of oceans.
Yes, it would suck to try to limit oil usage, but we will have to sooner or later anyway, and there have been times without it. Sure it would affect us a lot, but higher temps / even out of control temps / raising sea levels / very changed weather in different areas / fucked up crop fields / ... will also affect us a lot.
The link may be for an older version, the one I wanted to link to was eyeball messenger, but I only searched for eyeball and took the first hit from google.
Anyway if I remember correctly I did mail them and asked about technologies used (since they claim MSN support and such as well, I guess only thru transports though) and told them I couldn't run it because I used OS X.
I'd think a bad idea.
What happens when we get the clouds at this and that location instead of wherever it would be generated without the ships?
Are we 100% sure how the weather will be affected by the ships?
Will richer countries try to get more water by controlling the rain?
What if mother nature takes care about the CO2 emissions without us interfering?
What if it doesn't affect things that much? Or much more than we believe?
Would it be like, you know, much "easier" and safer to stop using fossile fuel? Even if it would put development backwards "a bit" for the moment?