is far lower than your maximum speed. And if all you're doing is driving around town, try learning to ride a bike.
There's far more "pollution" per se from a vehicle than just the gases that come out of it!
Where are you going to park it?
How many other vehicles, lightpoles, houses, pedestrians, or cyclists are you going to hit, injure or kill with your car?
How many times are you going to sound your horn because someone's in the way or not driving how you want?
How much aggro is going to be caused, how much road rage transferred from person to person like some sort of emotional plague?
How much more of the earth is going to be covered in unbreathing, planet killing concrete, tar and bitumen, just so we can add one more lane to a highway in the hopes of "reducing traffic congestion"?
Sure, there are some good uses for cars or road transport, but whilst we rely on them for so much of life movement, I don't care if they run on magic, they're still not the answer. I drive my car to get the shopping or to go and visit family. But public transport and walking or riding a bike take me everywhere else.
Have a look next time you're in a traffic jam, going nowhere fast. Have a look in your own car and those of the cars around you. See how many of those cars have 1 person in them, coming from the same source and heading to roughly the same destination. Want to halve your dependence on foreign oil? Want to reduce your greenhouse gases by 40%? Want to reduce your driving to work expenses by 30%? Try carpooling: pick up one person that lives nearby and works in the same town, and drive to them work too.
Seem to be "thwart the cameras". And I concur. My initial ideas are:
* learn a foreign language (Iraqi may not be a good one there?)
* learn to sign
* develop the "touch language" mentioned in Dune (Frank Herbert) - where you communicate through touching
And WTF is going on in 1984 land, er I mean Britain? Is the Orwellian development accelerating there or what?
I'm not from around your neck of the woods, and honestly couldn't tell you if the decision was a good or a bad one. Nor do I understand the consequences or background to the situation, even after RTFAs.
The very fact that the decision had to be made leads me to believe there are communities, cities, populaces with many thousands if not millions of people who want a say in how their town is serviced by a telecommunications company. Some kind of kickback, like a swimming pool, or some franchise fees.
To my naive way of thinking, it seems incredible that 5 (3-2) people can veto the decision making process / power of entire cities or possibly even states, throughout the entire country.
It also seems kind of wrong. Power, corruption, ultimate power, you know, that kind of wrong.
More idiots adding more sh!t to the environment. We've already seen how the ocean provides the particulates and the water vapor for the clouds that keep the planet from going supernova...
I dislike greenies as much as the next guy, but adding polymer ejaculates to ships - battleships, ships of war, or just ships that have to go fast, to make them go faster or use less fuel.... ffs wtf are the thinking!?
From TFA: "The polymers probably won't damage the environment"
Let's start a famous quotes page, here are a few to kick things off:
Qld gov't: "The cane toads probably won't damage the environment"
B Gates: "You probably won't ever need more than 640k"
Local Dr: "This might sting a little bit"
Oh. So you agree, then? That we should pump sulphates into the atmosphere?
Ever heard of equilibrium? http://www.answers.com/equilibrium
A condition in which all acting influences are canceled by others, resulting in a stable, balanced, or unchanging system.
So, very naively and simply (but most importantly, naturally):
plankton (incl. sulphur+stuff) + seawater + other organisms --> broken plankton + sulphur + stuff + seawater + other organisms
sulphur + stuff + seawater + other organisms + sunlight --> sulphur in the atmosphere, helping create clouds.
Now add more sulphur, unnaturally, to the right hand side of the equation. This is basic, naive, unexpert chemistry.
sulphur + stuff + seawater + other organisms + sunlight + sulphur already in the atmosphere --> sulphur in the atmosphere, helping create clouds + (remaining in the sea) sulphur + stuff + seawater + other organisms + acid rain
ie you potentially raise the sulphur content of the oceans. Great idea. Kill anything on a global scale lately? Poison any oceans lately?
People who really think these "experts" can determine when and where to "add things to the naturally occurring biosphere to improve or positively change things" are delusional, surely?
The exact same arguments as the last slashdot article.
I RTFA, you twit, it was titled "Could smog protect against global warming?" and contained such pearls of potential joy as
"...A massive dissemination of pollutants would be needed every year or two, as the sulfates precipitate from the atmosphere in acid rain...."
Acid rain, you retard, acid fvcking rain. Deliberately produced by man. Unnaturally. I will never stop criticizing experts who advocate increasing the levels of acid rain in the atmosphere. Seen what acid rain does to trees, genius? Great solution, kill more trees via acid rain to reduce global warming. ffs.
They go on to say "...n past years scientists have scoffed at the idea of air pollution as a solution for global warming, saying that the kind of sulfate haze that would be needed is deadly to people...." etc.
Call me an idiot all you like, but ADDING MORE SHIT TO THE ATMOSPHERE is not the solution, it's the fvcking problem. The article appears to agree with me. Maybe you should RTFA article again?
I'm pretty sure clouds are formed by water vapour too, or are you talking about a different form of cloud than the ones I am meaning? You know, the ones that drop down rain!?
For the sake of semantics, here are my intended definitions of some words:
Now look at what I said, compared to what the articles says:
Me:
---
"the earth is 2/3rds water, which evaporates, naturally, the warmer the planet gets, covering the planet in CLEAN, NATURAL, REFLECTIVE, WHITE, FLUFFY, clouds of water vapour"
Article:
--------
"...natural gases play an important role in moderating our climate..."
"...Trace concentrations of a sulfurous gas were discovered..."
"...Clouds affect the Earths radiation balance and thereby greatly influence its temperature and climate...."
"...Data indicate that clouds have an overall net cooling effect...."
"...Albedo is an important factor in the radiation balance, and clouds have the major effect on albedo...."
"...This affects the radiative properties (reflectance, transmittance and absorbance) of the cloud...."
"...DMS may influence both the hydrologic cycle and the global heat budget through its part in cloud formation, and may alter rainfall patterns and temperatures...."
May! The author of the article is far less confident than you are! Why is that??
I will paraphrase the final point: sulphur gets into the atmosphere from the ocean when naturally occuring organisms are consumed / damaged or killed, and other naturally occurring organisms break down their constituent parts. "...In the ocean dimethylsulfide is produced through a web of biological interactions...."
Sounds pretty bloody natural to me.
Compared to dumping a shitload more based on what some very finite-knowledged human (or better yet TEAM of humans) thinks is the right way / amount / time to dump even *more* into the atmosphere, it's very natural.
I'm in Melbourne. It's tragic what's happening out there in the bush, absolutely tragic. I am not sure that spraying sulphurous chemicals into the atmosphere is going to improve the situation, however.
Clouds of tears for the loss of life as they knew it.
..."In order to form, clouds require the presence of water vapor and aerosols (tiny solid or liquid particles suspended in the atmosphere)-both are found abundantly in Earth's atmosphere."...
A few weeks ago (here, on slashdot) they wanted to pour sulphur or something into the atmosphere, now smog?
What part of "the earth is 2/3rds water, which evaporates, naturally, the warmer the planet gets, covering the planet in CLEAN, NATURAL, REFLECTIVE, WHITE, FLUFFY, clouds of water vapour" do these brainiacs not get?
Ever been outside? On a hot day? And had a cloud drift over. Ever felt the blessed relief as you race your bicycle up a 12km, 7% incline, maxing at 22% and felt the cooling effect as the sky becomes more overcast, shielding you from the burning rays of the sun and providing a UV protection of up to 50% compared with clear skies?
Quit trying to add stuff to the atmosphere, it's where the problems started in the first place.
The only thing they should be adding to the atmosphere is the leaves of the trees they plant. And lots of them.
What, no answer to my first point? And how does getting personal help your argument?
Chernobyl dome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster/
The Chernobyl dome has not successfully "solved" the problem - it has simply covered it in meters of concrete, the radiation and environmental damage is still there.
"The sarcophagus is not an effective permanent enclosure for the destroyed reactor."
"Water continues to leak into the shelter, spreading radioactive materials throughout the wrecked reactor building and potentially into the surrounding groundwater."
"Similarly, the EPA classifies DDT as class B2, a probable human carcinogen". Yeah, great example.
"By the 1950s, in some cases, doses of DDT and other insecticides had to be doubled or tripled as resistant insect strains evolved. In addition, evidence began to grow that the chemical had a tendency to become more concentrated at higher levels in the food chain."
Antibiotics
Which human-created environmental problem do antibiotics solve? Bacteria are not human-created. And have you not heard of super bugs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotics/
"Use or misuse of antibiotics may result in the development of antibiotic resistance by the infecting organisms, similar to the development of pesticide resistance in insects."
Your examples support my argument further, thanks. Humans cannot reliably predict the weather. And yet your post seems to support the notion that pumping Sulphur into the atmosphere and its effect can be reliably predicted. Right.
We live on a planet covered 2/3rds in water. If it gets too hot, the water evaporates, producing white, fluffy, reflective clouds, naturally. Ever felt the blessed relief as a cloud flies overhead on a hot day, momentarily shielding you from the sun's burning rays? It's a natural, safe, protective layer of cooling effect that lets some of the sun's rays through so that photosysnthesis etc can continue to operate.
And many other posters are correct. Show me ONE successful human-created environmental "solution" to a human-created environmental "problem" and I'll show you a thousand that went horribly wrong, and are still going wrong today.
Some students feel it should be free or cost less.
Yeah, right. Like they won't turn around and waste $2.50 TODAY on a burger, or a beer, or 1/4 packet of cigarettes, etc, etc.
Before you know it they'll be demanding free software, source included.
Sheesh.
I listened to a lecture after the fact, and listened far more attentively, paying $2.50 would have been fine, too. You value your time more when you have to make up for missed lectures later, like, a day before a major assignment based on that lecture is due... Whinging about paying a pittance for the priviledge seems weak.
Methinks the real problem is the whingers are considering the cost of purchasing EVERY lecture for the semester, so they don't have to turn up at all, rather than the odd missed but important one.
reach a state of Eutopia. Just be an ant, or something lower than human with all its desires and foibles.
(Closed source developer working for himself.)
Slashdot Mirror
There's far more "pollution" per se from a vehicle than just the gases that come out of it!
Sure, there are some good uses for cars or road transport, but whilst we rely on them for so much of life movement, I don't care if they run on magic, they're still not the answer. I drive my car to get the shopping or to go and visit family. But public transport and walking or riding a bike take me everywhere else.
Have a look next time you're in a traffic jam, going nowhere fast. Have a look in your own car and those of the cars around you. See how many of those cars have 1 person in them, coming from the same source and heading to roughly the same destination. Want to halve your dependence on foreign oil? Want to reduce your greenhouse gases by 40%? Want to reduce your driving to work expenses by 30%? Try carpooling: pick up one person that lives nearby and works in the same town, and drive to them work too.
Seem to be "thwart the cameras". And I concur. My initial ideas are: * learn a foreign language (Iraqi may not be a good one there?) * learn to sign * develop the "touch language" mentioned in Dune (Frank Herbert) - where you communicate through touching And WTF is going on in 1984 land, er I mean Britain? Is the Orwellian development accelerating there or what?
I'm not from around your neck of the woods, and honestly couldn't tell you if the decision was a good or a bad one. Nor do I understand the consequences or background to the situation, even after RTFAs.
The very fact that the decision had to be made leads me to believe there are communities, cities, populaces with many thousands if not millions of people who want a say in how their town is serviced by a telecommunications company. Some kind of kickback, like a swimming pool, or some franchise fees.
To my naive way of thinking, it seems incredible that 5 (3-2) people can veto the decision making process / power of entire cities or possibly even states, throughout the entire country.
It also seems kind of wrong. Power, corruption, ultimate power, you know, that kind of wrong.
Why are you turning a computer on at all? Because you turned it off in the first place. *There's* your problem - PEBKAC.
The reason they don't care is because you turn your computer on at most once a day. I turn mine on once every N months. ie I don't turn it off.
Finally, I cannot believe you compared a computer to a television and said "My TV turns on quicker than this".
Oh wait.
Trolled. Well done, you got me.
More idiots adding more sh!t to the environment. We've already seen how the ocean provides the particulates and the water vapor for the clouds that keep the planet from going supernova...
I dislike greenies as much as the next guy, but adding polymer ejaculates to ships - battleships, ships of war, or just ships that have to go fast, to make them go faster or use less fuel.... ffs wtf are the thinking!?
From TFA: "The polymers probably won't damage the environment"
Let's start a famous quotes page, here are a few to kick things off:
Qld gov't: "The cane toads probably won't damage the environment"
B Gates: "You probably won't ever need more than 640k"
Local Dr: "This might sting a little bit"
Oh. So you agree, then? That we should pump sulphates into the atmosphere?
Ever heard of equilibrium?
http://www.answers.com/equilibrium
A condition in which all acting influences are canceled by others, resulting in a stable, balanced, or unchanging system.
So, very naively and simply (but most importantly, naturally):
plankton (incl. sulphur+stuff) + seawater + other organisms --> broken plankton + sulphur + stuff + seawater + other organisms
sulphur + stuff + seawater + other organisms + sunlight --> sulphur in the atmosphere, helping create clouds.
Now add more sulphur, unnaturally, to the right hand side of the equation. This is basic, naive, unexpert chemistry.
sulphur + stuff + seawater + other organisms + sunlight + sulphur already in the atmosphere --> sulphur in the atmosphere, helping create clouds + (remaining in the sea) sulphur + stuff + seawater + other organisms + acid rain
ie you potentially raise the sulphur content of the oceans. Great idea. Kill anything on a global scale lately? Poison any oceans lately?
People who really think these "experts" can determine when and where to "add things to the naturally occurring biosphere to improve or positively change things" are delusional, surely?
The exact same arguments as the last slashdot article.
I RTFA, you twit, it was titled "Could smog protect against global warming?" and contained such pearls of potential joy as
"...A massive dissemination of pollutants would be needed every year or two, as the sulfates precipitate from the atmosphere in acid rain...."
Acid rain, you retard, acid fvcking rain. Deliberately produced by man. Unnaturally. I will never stop criticizing experts who advocate increasing the levels of acid rain in the atmosphere. Seen what acid rain does to trees, genius? Great solution, kill more trees via acid rain to reduce global warming. ffs.
They go on to say "...n past years scientists have scoffed at the idea of air pollution as a solution for global warming, saying that the kind of sulfate haze that would be needed is deadly to people...." etc.
Call me an idiot all you like, but ADDING MORE SHIT TO THE ATMOSPHERE is not the solution, it's the fvcking problem. The article appears to agree with me. Maybe you should RTFA article again?
I'm pretty sure clouds are formed by water vapour too, or are you talking about a different form of cloud than the ones I am meaning? You know, the ones that drop down rain!?
..."
For the sake of semantics, here are my intended definitions of some words:
http://www.answers.com/naturally
Naturally: By nature; inherently.
http://www.answers.com/organic
Organic: Of, relating to, or derived from living organisms: organic matter.
Now look at what I said, compared to what the articles says:
Me:
---
"the earth is 2/3rds water, which evaporates, naturally, the warmer the planet gets, covering the planet in CLEAN, NATURAL, REFLECTIVE, WHITE, FLUFFY, clouds of water vapour"
Article:
--------
"...natural gases play an important role in moderating our climate..."
"...Trace concentrations of a sulfurous gas were discovered
"...Clouds affect the Earths radiation balance and thereby greatly influence its temperature and climate...."
"...Data indicate that clouds have an overall net cooling effect...."
"...Albedo is an important factor in the radiation balance, and clouds have the major effect on albedo...."
"...This affects the radiative properties (reflectance, transmittance and absorbance) of the cloud...."
"...DMS may influence both the hydrologic cycle and the global heat budget through its part in cloud formation, and may alter rainfall patterns and temperatures...."
May! The author of the article is far less confident than you are! Why is that??
I will paraphrase the final point: sulphur gets into the atmosphere from the ocean when naturally occuring organisms are consumed / damaged or killed, and other naturally occurring organisms break down their constituent parts. "...In the ocean dimethylsulfide is produced through a web of biological interactions...."
Sounds pretty bloody natural to me.
Compared to dumping a shitload more based on what some very finite-knowledged human (or better yet TEAM of humans) thinks is the right way / amount / time to dump even *more* into the atmosphere, it's very natural.
"Outside" is where the pizza guy comes from / goes to after he drops your pizza off!
Phew, wasn't sure if anyone would get my weak stab at humour. Thanks.
I'm in Melbourne. It's tragic what's happening out there in the bush, absolutely tragic. I am not sure that spraying sulphurous chemicals into the atmosphere is going to improve the situation, however.
Clouds of tears for the loss of life as they knew it.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalClo uds/
..."In order to form, clouds require the presence of water vapor and aerosols (tiny solid or liquid particles suspended in the atmosphere)-both are found abundantly in Earth's atmosphere."...
Your point being?
Partical?
Never been to Venus, so I couldn't tell you. Neither do I care, as I don't plan on living there and breathing the atmosphere any time soon.
I am sure there is plenty of information you could find via google.com if you were really interested or wished to cure your ignorance.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/1 9/2022220
A few weeks ago (here, on slashdot) they wanted to pour sulphur or something into the atmosphere, now smog?
What part of "the earth is 2/3rds water, which evaporates, naturally, the warmer the planet gets, covering the planet in CLEAN, NATURAL, REFLECTIVE, WHITE, FLUFFY, clouds of water vapour" do these brainiacs not get?
Ever been outside? On a hot day? And had a cloud drift over. Ever felt the blessed relief as you race your bicycle up a 12km, 7% incline, maxing at 22% and felt the cooling effect as the sky becomes more overcast, shielding you from the burning rays of the sun and providing a UV protection of up to 50% compared with clear skies?
Quit trying to add stuff to the atmosphere, it's where the problems started in the first place.
The only thing they should be adding to the atmosphere is the leaves of the trees they plant. And lots of them.
What, no answer to my first point? And how does getting personal help your argument?
Chernobyl dome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster/
The Chernobyl dome has not successfully "solved" the problem - it has simply covered it in meters of concrete, the radiation and environmental damage is still there.
"The sarcophagus is not an effective permanent enclosure for the destroyed reactor."
"Water continues to leak into the shelter, spreading radioactive materials throughout the wrecked reactor building and potentially into the surrounding groundwater."
Your idea of "solution" differs to mine, clearly.
DDT
Which human-created environmental problem did DDT solve? Hint: Malaria is not human-created.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT/
"Similarly, the EPA classifies DDT as class B2, a probable human carcinogen". Yeah, great example.
"By the 1950s, in some cases, doses of DDT and other insecticides had to be doubled or tripled as resistant insect strains evolved. In addition, evidence began to grow that the chemical had a tendency to become more concentrated at higher levels in the food chain."
Antibiotics
Which human-created environmental problem do antibiotics solve? Bacteria are not human-created. And have you not heard of super bugs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotics/
"Use or misuse of antibiotics may result in the development of antibiotic resistance by the infecting organisms, similar to the development of pesticide resistance in insects."
Your examples support my argument further, thanks. Humans cannot reliably predict the weather. And yet your post seems to support the notion that pumping Sulphur into the atmosphere and its effect can be reliably predicted. Right.
We live on a planet covered 2/3rds in water. If it gets too hot, the water evaporates, producing white, fluffy, reflective clouds, naturally. Ever felt the blessed relief as a cloud flies overhead on a hot day, momentarily shielding you from the sun's burning rays? It's a natural, safe, protective layer of cooling effect that lets some of the sun's rays through so that photosysnthesis etc can continue to operate. And many other posters are correct. Show me ONE successful human-created environmental "solution" to a human-created environmental "problem" and I'll show you a thousand that went horribly wrong, and are still going wrong today.
Some students feel it should be free or cost less.
Yeah, right. Like they won't turn around and waste $2.50 TODAY on a burger, or a beer, or 1/4 packet of cigarettes, etc, etc.
Before you know it they'll be demanding free software, source included.
Sheesh.
I listened to a lecture after the fact, and listened far more attentively, paying $2.50 would have been fine, too. You value your time more when you have to make up for missed lectures later, like, a day before a major assignment based on that lecture is due... Whinging about paying a pittance for the priviledge seems weak.
Methinks the real problem is the whingers are considering the cost of purchasing EVERY lecture for the semester, so they don't have to turn up at all, rather than the odd missed but important one.
reach a state of Eutopia. Just be an ant, or something lower than human with all its desires and foibles. (Closed source developer working for himself.)
Would that violate UN sanctions against the use of Weapons for Mass Crustaceans (WMCs)?
It's kind of like saying "Don't get AIDs", then having unprotected sex with prostitutes.