The idea of selling operating licenses for the LFS game engine is not absurd. On the other hand, I'm not sure we have anything to gain as players.
In fact, it is true that this would lead other studios to develop (perhaps more quickly
) paid products competing with other packaging and cosmetic marketing targets. But it would be enough for the mod system to mature and be accompanied by a track editor and the possibility of creating your own championships to achieve the same result, with a level of freedom and creativity which risks becoming even rarer the future.We don't have much power here, and certainly not to interfere in the LFS business plan. For my part, I hope that LFS will remain this historic monument of automobile simulation, independent, humanly open and accessible, creative and unique.
If the LFS game engine is sold in the form of commercial licenses, it is simply LFS which will disappear under competing offers based on the same physics. The balance of power between the big studios and the human resources of the current team will be much more disadvantageous than it is today. And undoubtedly fatal. But this choice is not ours.
No, but it doesn't matter.
{OFF TOPIC
1) We are here in the "off topic" section.
2) I noticed this was a problem for you, but not everyone has the same uses as yours. This is valid for the game as well as for this forum.
3) For example, people who work (like me) receive messages by email, on their desktop computer or on their phone, at times when they are not always able to respond. They put it in a corner of their mind.
If when they can log in, the message they want to reply to has been modified, they are wasting time. That is why sometimes it is better to make several messages rather than modifications, of which no one will be notified.
Is it good for you ?
4) don't worry, I will soon create an LFS topic that will fascinate you
OFF TOPIC END }
Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, .
These messages are not all addressed to the same people and Aleksandr's message is inserted there. A problem ? 
Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, .
Reason : Name correction (I have a problem with it)
I come back to the problem of recycling nuclear waste that I mentioned, in order to allow you to give us a complete answer in one go with the problem of hydrogen.Do you think, as the RePlanet report mentions, that nuclear waste could generate centuries of clean energy? And that the nuclear economy could become quasi-circular? Or, at a minimum, get rid of its intractable waste?
Thanks
Once again, you don't understand what we're talking about. Take the time to educate yourself before intervening with pointless monologues and your endless justifications that no one cares about here.
I sympathize, but don't bother me anymore with your nonsense. I still have a lot under the hood.
To further contextualize my point without being chauvinistic , Belgian scientists have succeeded, for many years now, in producing affordable renewable green hydrogen.
Researchers from KU Leuven (University of Leuven) have succeeded in developing a special solar panel that produces hydrogen gas from moisture in the air. A single panel produces 250 liters of hydrogen per day. Twenty of these solar panels can provide electricity and heat to an entire family all year. My Dutch neighbors are already (and have been for a long time) equipping 1OO% autonomous housing cells with a similar principle. The remaining hydrogen produced can power the family car.
These solutions exist and they work. States do not implement them because states finance themselves largely on energy consumption. This is why states are complicit with fossil fuel extractors. A big part of the problem is economic-political. As long as states live on energy consumption (especially wich of individuals) they will put in place false solutions that provide them with money.
However, the solution to the global energy problem rests, in my opinion, on the energy autonomy of citizens. This is the paradox to be resolved if we want to move towards real solutions. Because scientifically these simple and operational solutions already exist.
, Belgian scientists have succeeded, for many years now, in producing affordable renewable green hydrogen.Researchers from KU Leuven (University of Leuven) have succeeded in developing a special solar panel that produces hydrogen gas from moisture in the air. A single panel produces 250 liters of hydrogen per day. Twenty of these solar panels can provide electricity and heat to an entire family all year. My Dutch neighbors are already (and have been for a long time) equipping 1OO% autonomous housing cells with a similar principle. The remaining hydrogen produced can power the family car.
These solutions exist and they work. States do not implement them because states finance themselves largely on energy consumption. This is why states are complicit with fossil fuel extractors. A big part of the problem is economic-political. As long as states live on energy consumption (especially wich of individuals) they will put in place false solutions that provide them with money. However, the solution to the global energy problem rests, in my opinion, on the energy autonomy of citizens. This is the paradox to be resolved if we want to move towards real solutions. Because scientifically these simple and operational solutions already exist.
Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, .
Reason : bad wording
If I understand you correctly Rane, it is only tomorrow's atomic bomb that can save us (unfortunately only partially) from the horrors of global warming?
I had an intuition of it, but not yet such a clear and radical vision. (joke) I'm glad this debate is finally becoming more interesting. And that everyone really starts to participate without gimmicks or falsifications.New projects around nuclear fusion (particularly with miniaturization) will eventually succeed. The world of tomorrow will need new sources and types of energy. What raises questions for me here (like you) is the temporality of their implementation.
At the rate things are going in terms of global warming, it is more than likely that the consequences of global warming will quickly create chaos and suddenly slow down experimental research.
This is what bothers me about major fusion reactor projects. It's dependent on structures that require enormous funding and extremely long development times. But then again, perhaps you have good reasons to remain optimistic?
I agree with Paket42x. I think the oil companies will attack the natural resource (to the point of absurdity) if nothing stops them and our behavioural changes have little weight compared to the real issues (like producing and buying lithium cars)
Also, I wonder if replacing fossil fuels with solutions based on green hydrogen would not be a quicker way to ensure a energy transition than nuclear fusion?
Can we also have your scientific opinion on this question?
Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, .
Reason : contextualization
I grant you, nuclear power is undoubtedly the best energy today in terms of pure efficiency, but perhaps not for long. In terms of cleanliness, reliability and safety, it's something else entirely.
France is regularly forced to shut down nuclear reactors due to the effects of global warming. Some of its nuclear power plants will soon find themselves with their feet in water, others without cooling water. The EPR construction site is an absolute disaster, at all levels... Waste management is still an unresolved problem and their supposed recycling still remains a pipe dream.
I do not wish to enter into conflict with you on nuclear power, and I will listen to all your arguments. But I admit to being more than doubtful about this. I'm not trying to destroy Alexander. I was just trying to make him understand that he understands absolutely nothing about global warming and its issues. As demonstrated by the very formulation of these “hypotheses” and almost all of his posts.But I have to face the facts, this is an impossible task.
In fact, I don't see where we approached the philosophical question? Some people seem to believe it, and it seems to please them. It is true that they have nothing to say apart from methodological nonsense devoid of real interest in this debate. I hope at least that with the general knowledge elements posted here and some basic deconstructions, no one here will no longer say that global warming is not anthropogenic. Or that it is not dangerous for nature or for humans.
As for solutions... I think we need to prepare ourselves to face the reality, with little possibility of really softening the blow.
Unless you have good news on that front? I hadn't seen that. You are definitely surpassing yourself today. Be careful of overwork.I mentioned one of these theses in one of my previous posts. You didn't even notice it. This shows what a competent and informed scientist you are.
I hope you don't waste time reading all this.This topic is in itself an ecocide.
You don't say anything substantial. You limit yourself to spreading texts without objects with the discussion to camouflage things. This won't alter the fact that your assumptions are terribly stupid. Thank you SamH for informing me that science has progressed in fifty years. I admit that I had some concerns about this.Exxon could have done its calculations on a Chinese abacus and engraved its results in cuneiform writing on a clay tablet. This would not change the fact that the world oil companies had calculated, and with surprising precision, their contribution to global warming as early as 1977. An anthropogenic contribution whose real impact you still partly deny.
This is, for example, what a propensity for conspiratorial delirium is.
Do you also doubt that Youri Alekseïevitch Gagarine was the first human being to fly into space under the pretext that it was Soviet propaganda?I set a prerequisite that you have not met.
See above.
The logic is as follows: the evidence shows that you had not consulted the IPCC reports before I provided you with links to these reports, as evidenced by our exchanges. Nothing else.
Who told you otherwise?
I was referring here to the fact that you could not find the references of the studies cited in the IPCC report, because you did not consult the full report. So I had to, again, provide you with a link to this full report.
I am only retracing the chronology of the facts. Which attest that your questions (your “theses”) predate your knowledge of the IPCC reports. I specify this because it could partly explain their lack of foundations. I'm just trying to put things into perspective here.
Sorry, I'm past the age of school yard sandbox rhetoric.
You were asking yourself very basic questions about Earth's climate evolution (like the one below) which demonstrate that your climate knowledge is full of holes. Again, I gave you a link to the information you were missing. You were still going off on ramblings unrelated to the subject.
I tried to talk with you. But I don't have time to play. I happily exchange with those for whom words and concepts have meaning. Recognizing the validity of science and the elements on which scientists agree, has (for example) absolutely nothing to do with rhetoric or sophism. It’s a simple rational positioning.
I have nothing personal against you. Besides, I patiently respond to almost all your nonsense. Even if you say too much. Dissect all would be a full-time job. I have other things to do.
Your thinking is confused. You mix everything up. It's exhausting and discouraging to have to fight to make you hear so primary things.
You are neither in the debate nor in the quest for understanding. You don't even try to understand your interlocutors. Not only that, but you just want to be right, and you use every trick possible to convince yourself of that. I'm sorry, these tricks don't work on me.
You are systematically involved in controversy, provocation, and the distortion of realities, even in the most serious and reprehensible personal attacks. I refuse to give you the pleasure of falling into this trap, but you know exactly what I'm talking about. You obviously have no concept of what respect for people is. But as you can see, once again, I answer you. You will have to make an effort if you don't want it to be the last time.
This means, as I have already explained to you several times, that your thesis is not admissible as it stands. Because it has absolutely no semantic significance, to the extent that it is devoid of any societal perspective.
Explanatory contextual note:
Blind spots of your introductory hypothesis (abridged):
1- How will humanity survive chain cataclysms, particularly nuclear ones, pollution and social disorders resulting from the loss of coasts and the melting of permafrost, glaciers and poles, etc.? And for how long ?
Subsidiary questions; What macro-sociological impacts will the sixth mass extinction, systemic economic collapses have? The same goes for the scarcity of drinking water and essential foodstuffs, etc. and resulting turf wars?
Even if your pretty little green greenhouse had a chance of existing climatically. For how long would it exist? And for what humanity? Those are the real questions.
You place your hypothesis as a competitor to scientific predictions presented as catastrophic (by the sensationalist media, of which SamH seems to be fond of). However, the purpose of these scientific forecasts is to define prevention policies and means of action. Humans are always at the centre of climate issues.
Your greenhouse hypothesis makes no sense because it is devoid of any contextual insight. The statement “People will be able to settle in areas further from the coast. » does not constitute an admissible proposal, because it is totally disconnected from the health and societal realities which will result from global warming as measured. The disappearance of the coasts, for example, will not occur gradually and predictably depending on the average level of rising water levels. The ratings will disappear suddenly, with a combination of sudden weather phenomena, caused and/or amplified by global warming. The rise in ocean temperature is already disrupting ecosystems and killing organisms, with countless irreversible consequences. Etc. Etc. Etc. The list of aberrations of your postulate is endless.
Your hypotheses escape rationality in that they tend to refute an objective reality: the catastrophe of global warming is already a reality for tens of millions of people in the world, for the fauna and for the flora.
In their very formulations, what you call your hypotheses, are only a question mark placed behind tautologies which are ignored itself, such as:
Does water get wet? Is the fire burning? Is death mortal?
I tried to tell you in a nicer way. You didn't understand it. So you force me to be clearer. If I had to evaluate your hypotheses, I would use a negative rating system, as their level of absurdity is beyond comprehension.
When I read from your pen and that of SamH that there is no "significant increase in sea levels", while entire populations are already seeing their habitat disappear, that in my region alone 2 million people will have to -be displaced and that it is the first economic lung of the country which will soon be underwater. I seriously wonder what's going on in your head?
When I read in your introduction to this topic:
I note with disappointment that you know nothing about how the IPCC modelling tools work.
The proof of the anthropogenic origin of global warming is mathematically demonstrated: if we remove the CO2 of human origin, the models no longer establish warming CQFD. The gradual increase in temperatures linked to CO2 emissions has also been mathematically demonstrated since the 1970s, notably by a company like Total which shares few interests with IPCC scientists. As early as 1977, ExxonMobil had precisely modeled the gradual impact of fossil fuel combustion on global warming. The veracity of these calculations has been verified because these 1977 calculations corroborate current measurements.
The consequences of the melting of the poles and glaciers are established, particularly in their impact on global sea levels and the proportion of fresh water in the functioning of the dominant currents.etc. etc.
Global warming, if it increases in the calculated proportions, will cause immeasurable planetary disorders. Your thesis of the pretty little green greenhouse and the conspiratorial rantings of SamH, constitute only Idiosyncratic blisters stuck to the surface of reality, like boogers under a dunce's school desk. In more consensual terms: this is childishness.
It's amazing to produce so much gibberish and copy/paste to say nothing. I note that for once, you use definitions... this is already, in itself, a mark of progress.Once again you are mixing everything up and understanding nothing. When I say "There is absolutely nothing 'inductive' about saying that you, like SamH, are more likely to be wrong than the scientific community", I am trying to make you understand in a cordial way, but apparently too subtle, that the facts don't need demonstrated: they are observed.
The fact that you and SamH are not credible on the climate issue does not require any sort of argumentative demonstration. This is what we call obvious in everyday language.
The logic, the only one that is valid here, is that the scientific community alerts us to global warming based on a meta-analysis of all current scientific data. And may your prevarications and personal fantasies weigh nothing compared to the scientific reality of global warming. Unless you give yourself the means of scientific demonstration in order to invalidate the conclusions of the IPCC.
However, neither you nor SamH have formulated anything scientific here. Nor anything likely to cast doubt on the consensus thesis. Nor even to suggest that you understand anything about current climate issues and their consequences for nature and for man.
You have once again demonstrated that your position is purely ideological and that there is nothing scientific about it. But your ranting has no effect on me. Unlike you, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I also know the dissident theses. I chose my side objectively.
If I follow the logic of your argument, that your positions are debated in the scientific community, we are both just reciting a different catechism. If you don't like that of IPCC, refer to the studies commissioned by Total in the 1970s, which reached exactly the same conclusions as the IPCC reports on the causes, nature, and progress of global warming.
The above led me to the logical conclusion that you did not have the sources for the studies whose validity you were questioning. You were even unable to access on your own the complete study with the references. I provided it to you.
Most of your statements here demonstrate that your knowledge of the subject is extremely incomplete. Stop constantly reinventing yourself, you're not fooling anyone.
I assure you that there is no logical error in thinking that what is scientifically agreed by consensus upon is unfortunately the most probable. This is my position, even if I don't like the prognosis. The only personal opinion I have put forward here is that I doubt that we will succeed in taking collective action on global warming.
Unlike others here, I do not venture into anticipations and personal ramblings. At no point in this thread have I reported anything other than the words of the scientists themselves, on climate issues, in respect of the principles of responsibility and humility. You should try. You will see that it is relaxing to accept that there may be skills and intelligence superior to yours. If you lack data to understand what climate future (and its consequences) we are heading towards, others have it for you. They understood and analysed them.
I would also like to bring to your attention a distinction in meaning that perhaps does not exist in Russian? A language in which, it seems, the words have no common meaning. In the languages I use, a "dialogue" is not an "interrogation". Your interlocutors are not there to respond to all your meaningless injunctions.
Your kindergarten ramblings about inductive and deductive arguments are irrelevant to this debate. I am not presenting any personal argument here. I give you access to current scientific knowledge. The fact that this scientific data does not support your personal representations does not matter to me in any way. There is absolutely nothing "inductive" about saying that you, like SamH, are more likely to be wrong than the scientific community as a whole, whatever you say about the climate.
The phenomenon you are talking about is well known to scientists and studied precisely since the end of the sixties (since the first mission of Appolo 11). You will very easily find a considerable amount of scientific information on this subject.
To make it short and answer your question, in addition to what Aleksandr said. This phenomenon is caused by Earth's tides which exert a gravitational force on the Moon and accelerate its movement, thus expelling it from the Earth's sphere of influence. The exchange of energy between the Earth and the moon also slows down the Earth's rotation speed.
If the modifed distance from the Earth and the Moon is real and measurable, and this has modified the Earth's climate and will continue to do so, this distance has no effect on current global warming. Because this distance of 3.78 cm per year is significant on a completely different time scale (like Aleksandr said you). Its temporal incidence is, for example, less than 2 milliseconds per century...
It seems you are mixing 2 known phenomena. The distance between the moon and the earth that I have just talked about (and which has real effects on the climate measurable on a geological level) and the recent work of meteorologist Ed Hawkins on the 18-year lunar cycles, which have a real influence, but weak on warming and will contribute to an increase in temperatures around 2O30. Currently, the influence of this cycle leads to a cooling of 0.04°C.
The mechanism is as follows: tidal intensity modifies the mixing between warmer waters at the ocean surface and colder deep waters. This changes the rate at which the oceans can absorb heat. The effect is negligible on current warming.
The particularity and danger of current global warming, to which you contribute greatly
, is that it is the fastest ever recorded on earth. It is for this reason that natural adaptation to the sudden changes that await us cannot take place without causing serious problems.Thanks. But I know how to read. I clarified things by "ensuring common and mutual understanding", second part of your sentence.
You are fascinatingly pretentious, and your attempts at recovery are pathetic. Anyone who has followed this thread realizes this.
I have not put forward any scientific proposition here. You haven't done more.
I referred you to the scientific arguments of the IPCC which you claim are invalid without being able to demonstrate why ?
So the real situation is this: You and Alexandr claim to have a scientific truth superior to the current scientific consensus on global warming in the name of scientific doubt and nothing else. And that should matter more than the work and conclusions of experts.
While neither you nor Alexandr have any kind of scientific training and you seem (for Alexandr it is sure) to discover the scientific studies that are presented to you here.
And your conclusion is that I am incompetent!SamH, you know what ? You are absolutely fantastic !
You elevate incomprehension to the level of artistic performance.[end of discussion with Alexandr]
Once again, you are deluding yourself and telling yourself stories. Occam's razor is used wisely on hypotheses that are valid, or at least admissible as such. Which was absolutely not the case with your proposal. You don't use a philosophical tool to mash butter on a tablecloth.
Correction: I said I followed a 5-year philosophical course in higher education and made a living from the concept (I didn't say philosophical). I don't claim to be a philosopher.
But I know enough about philosophy (and things in general) to make an objective judgment on your statements, your approximate references and your erroneous intellectual paths.
I repeat it to you for the last time. You are certainly deluding yourself about your abilities. But you will not deceive me.
[End of the discussion ]
This long book is not addressed to you and does not contain any kind of insults or personal appeals. This contextualizes your speech.
Everyone has understood (I hope?), that your intelligence and your remarkable scientific knowledge allow you to scientifically question the current scientific consensus. Because common sense and scientific logic dictates that what is scientifically demonstrated must be deconstructed scientifically. Scientific doubt does not boil down to: “this is not true, because no one have a crystal ball”.
There is no man so blind as he who refuses to see.How do you want these people to access the evidence of reality? They are deaf, proud of it, satisfied with themselves, intoxicated with the scent of their flawed thoughts.
Their scientific culture is as null as their reflective faculties. We cannot judge anything without knowing the difference between a dictionary definition, a philosopher's witticism, a contextual explanation of any position taken at random from Wikipedia. This is the basis. No one can think that way. If those who claim to be scientific skepticism knew what it was, they would spare themselves the ridicule of talking about it.
Cartesian doubt, at the origin of scientific skepticism, led Renée Descartes himself to the evidence of the existence of God. The real meaning of Descartes’ famous quote is: “I think therefore I am, because God made me.” Cartesian doubt was in fact only a disguised ontological proof. But this, undoubtedly, is not clearly explained in Wikipedia. The irony of History here is that Cartesianism, which was only an intellectual integration of Christian biblical fundamentals, which are the product of a loss of meaning of the original text (for short), is also the philosophical alibi of consumerist ideology. The circle is complete.
Scientific skepticism, manipulated by subjects with short ideas, only serves to reinforce pre-existing certainties. Even a thought as weak and devious as that of Descartes was aware of this trap. It is for this reason that Descartes advised against the use of doubt for less fertile minds. Doubt will only produce in them the illusion of being right.
You can present all possible objective data to those who lay claim scientific scepticism without understanding it. They will methodically reproduce the same errors of judgment. They will constantly return to the same insignificant arguments, drowned in their interpretive gibberish. Because that’s what it’s really about: judging science without having the basic means necessary to understand it. Everyone must choose between understanding or being right. For these people, the choice is made before any reflection.
People who lock themselves in denial will stay in denial. They don't try to understand. Their certainties precede and condition all their pseudo analyses. This positioning effectively allows them, you are right, to instantly become experts in scientific data that they did not know yesterday. Because they only seek material to feed their denialist discourse through the distorting prism that constitutes their uneducated prejudices. Like a reverse anamorphosis, which would deconstruct the readable image of observable reality.
These climate sceptics deny the proven catastrophe of global warming. The one that has already happened before their eyes. With its disastrous repercussions on the fauna and flora, and on the fragile balance of current climatic conditions, which are largely based on dominant marine currents whose functioning is threatened.
These people refuse to admit the catastrophe represented by the proven reduction of 70 to 80% of insect populations in Western agro-industrial landscapes. They refuse to consider the human catastrophe represented by the displacement of tens of millions of people around the world due to current global warming, and the millions of deaths already caused. These climate sceptics deny the real threat of the non-replenishment of permafrost, which accelerates global warming to considerable proportions.
" Yes indeed ! But that doesn’t count since it’s natural and not man-made! » Will retort the dunce from the back of the class. “In what proportions exactly? Give me your graphs so I can see them to show you that you are wrong” the donkey in the front row will demand. This is the story of this subject, which will repeat itself again and again.
But denial has a logical basis and a utility. It is a preservation mechanism.
Understanding the phenomenon of global warming that we are experiencing, and becoming aware of its consequences, are in no way gratifying. The actual reality of the disorder and destruction currently underway is dramatically anxiety-provoking. A relevant analysis of these phenomena leads inexorably to the understanding that the force of inertia of our political-economic system will not make it possible to avoid the shock, or even to absorb it. We are obviously heading towards global warming of more than 4° in the very near future.
It is therefore difficult to talk about global warming, because this debate is painful. The objective realism that this debate implies is not very fruitful, in the sense that very few things actually depend on our will and our capacity to act. Most of us have already figured this out.
If the denial of global warming is so widespread among others, it is because it is much more comfortable to accept than the objective reality. Nothing to do here with scientific scepticism.
This objective reality forces us to admit that the catastrophe of global warming is not a collective fantasy fuelled by historical concepts such as apocalyptic thinking. Nor is this catastrophe an anticipation of a science fiction author frozen in cinema iconography.
Yes, global warming is already a disaster for nature and for humanity. Yes, the cause of global warming is undoubtedly of human origin. The cause of global warming is anthropogenic. This current global warming is already irremediably and profoundly changing the world we know. The reason for global warming: or why man has turned a blind eye to his actions until this point, is the result of beliefs. It is on these beliefs that our political and economic ideologies are based. In the absence of being able to act collectively on global warming, this is what we need to understand to move this debate forward.
Global warming is not the cumulative result of isolated and uncontrollable causes. This global warming that we will have to face is the result of a dominant philosophical thought, inherited from Christian biblical fantasies, called Cartesianism.
Thus, it is the ideology of a man, born at the end of the 16th century and its subsequent extensions, which will have led us into the climatic impasse. This thought and the beliefs on which it is based are also at the source of the magical thinking according to which global warming is not anthropogenic, and that its effects would be negligible on nature and on man.
No comments, but thanks for that.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG