I would have been really surprised if the government would have allowed a critical article co-written by a government official to be published.
WHAT? Isn't there a freedom of speech thingamajig in that US Constitution-a-calit? I know it wasn't in the original but I thought we made an amendment to make sure people and the press could speak out against the government.
Why are we only surprised if we don't get censored? Is it opposite day or something?
Welcome to the Interweb: This exciting place will allow you to host your own streaming webcast which can actually reach more people across the planet than any major US network. You can also publish a newspaper, have a radio show or post comments to/. that don't make any sense.
At least for now until a bill like this screws it up for the little guy.
More efficient heating includes: radiant heat instead of forced air [not exactly new technology]; better insulation techniques; making use of geo-regulation of heating and cooling costs; amoung many others. Do a Google search for sustainable development or check this out: http://www.arch.hku.hk/research/BEER/sustain.htm#1 .1
The excuses listed for not using renewable resources almost don't make sense!
Endangered Species protection areas are definately the exception to land use and don't warrant a response.
Wind studies have shown that many areas that were previously though to not have enough wind to support a turbine may contain areas (such as on a ridge) where the winds are consistant enough
Solar is a great way to offset air conditioning demand since availabilty is high when demand is high. Solar is also used in many remote locations to power lights and safety equipment
The other arguments are just plain negative thinking! Oceans are not privately owned, upper class populations are probably more likely to invest in alternative energy (like w/hybrid cars), and who said anything about destroying habitats?
There are definately NIMBY cases where people complain about windmills etc. but I always say I would rather see a windmill than not be able to see the whole mountain because of the smog.
Solar, wind, hydroelectric, tide power, and other technologies _can_ take the place of nuclear and coal power.
I see the future as one without nuclear waste and with decentralized power coming from safe and clean sources. Just because our houses today have high energy demands it does not mean that is how it has to be.
What is wrong with more efficient heating and cooling combined with renewable sources for the future? To hear a bunch of techies debating nuclear technology as the energy source of the future is a little dissapointing.
The author of the Washington Post article is also a spokesman for- drumroll please....the timber industry, the plastics industry, the Three Gorges dam, genetically modified foods [this guys karma is shot so why not shill for the nuclear industry while he is at it?!].
"In an email, former Greenpeace director Paul Watson charges, "You're a corporate whore, Pat, an eco-Judas, a lowlife bottom-sucking parasite who has grown rich from sacrificing environmentalist principles for plain old money."
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/moore.htm l
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad someone finally explained the basis for the whole rave scene
on people who are bad at math... it looks like this proves it.
Why are we only surprised if we don't get censored? Is it opposite day or something?
Should we trust this guy to protect our RFID chips when he can't seem to protect his underwear by zipping his fly?
Welcome to the Interweb: /. that don't make any sense.
This exciting place will allow you to host your own streaming webcast which can actually reach more people across the planet than any major US network.
You can also publish a newspaper, have a radio show or post comments to
At least for now until a bill like this screws it up for the little guy.
Don't be shortsighted:
More efficient heating includes: radiant heat instead of forced air [not exactly new technology]; better insulation techniques; making use of geo-regulation of heating and cooling costs; amoung many others. Do a Google search for sustainable development or check this out: http://www.arch.hku.hk/research/BEER/sustain.htm#1 .1
The excuses listed for not using renewable resources almost don't make sense!
Endangered Species protection areas are definately the exception to land use and don't warrant a response.
Wind studies have shown that many areas that were previously though to not have enough wind to support a turbine may contain areas (such as on a ridge) where the winds are consistant enough
Solar is a great way to offset air conditioning demand since availabilty is high when demand is high. Solar is also used in many remote locations to power lights and safety equipment
The other arguments are just plain negative thinking! Oceans are not privately owned, upper class populations are probably more likely to invest in alternative energy (like w/hybrid cars), and who said anything about destroying habitats?
There are definately NIMBY cases where people complain about windmills etc. but I always say I would rather see a windmill than not be able to see the whole mountain because of the smog.
Solar, wind, hydroelectric, tide power, and other technologies _can_ take the place of nuclear and coal power.
I see the future as one without nuclear waste and with decentralized power coming from safe and clean sources. Just because our houses today have high energy demands it does not mean that is how it has to be.
What is wrong with more efficient heating and cooling combined with renewable sources for the future? To hear a bunch of techies debating nuclear technology as the energy source of the future is a little dissapointing.
The author of the Washington Post article is also a spokesman for- drumroll please....the timber industry, the plastics industry, the Three Gorges dam, genetically modified foods [this guys karma is shot so why not shill for the nuclear industry while he is at it?!].
"In an email, former Greenpeace director Paul Watson charges, "You're a corporate whore, Pat, an eco-Judas, a lowlife bottom-sucking parasite who has grown rich from sacrificing environmentalist principles for plain old money." http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/moore.htm l
Ouch!