Isn't it easy to blame others?
I do my part, thank you. And I also can deal with being a hypocrite to some. I can admit being a hypocrite and you're (plural) still an excessively polluting git.
Human actions don't matter? Ffs, try to think with reason. So what if nature causes more greenhouse gasses than us. More the reason to not add excessively into it. Besides, if cows produce more greenhouse gasses, then wouldn't it be reasonable to get rid of them?
Think.
People "need" meat and milk from cows. Cows need pasture and food. Most of worlds crop production goes into growing meat. In order to get room for pasture and fields, forests must be cut down. Forests however are quite essential in dealing with greenhouse gasses. More cows -> less forests -> less resources to cope with co2.
Think.
Think about natural resources. Producing warm water takes resources. Electricity is quite essential, and so is the powerline network that transfers it. Electricity doesn't come cheap. Most of worlds energy is produced using mineral-based resources, oil, coal and uranium for example. What then when we run out of them? No oil to maintain the networks, no uranium to produce more electricity. Industry uses huge loads of more energy than "common people", but what stops us to try and change the fact? Companies have no choice is enough people force them to. How much energy goes to waste simply by leaving all the lights on in a factory or in a superstore 24/7. How much energy goes to waste when everybody always picks a new plastic bag when shopping instead of reusing.
Think.
Think about pollution. Producing energy causes vast amount of very damaging pollution. Sure, we can dig holes and sink the waste into those, but what happens when we run out of solid ground to dig on? What happens when those barrels corrode and start to leak into natural water resources? Factories produce huge amount of waste. Consuming more creates a demand. Demand creates more factories and production, which again creates more pollution.
Cars pollute. You can't deny that. Using car to travel to work every day, using car every second day (yeah, right, more likely every day too) to go shopping, using car at weekends to go boozing and generally driving around. You only waste your hard earned money to gasoline and also create enough emission to spoil another fine day.
If you think global warming is a hoax, then fine. Just don't deny the problems with running out of resources. Don't deny the problems with pollution.
May our rivers run clean once again. Someday, somewhere.
Yeah, right.
Think.
People "need" meat and milk from cows. Cows need pasture and food. Most of worlds crop production goes into growing meat. In order to get room for pasture and fields, forests must be cut down. Forests however are quite essential in dealing with greenhouse gasses. More cows -> less forests -> less resources to cope with co2.
Think.
Think about natural resources. Producing warm water takes resources. Electricity is quite essential, and so is the powerline network that transfers it. Electricity doesn't come cheap. Most of worlds energy is produced using mineral-based resources, oil, coal and uranium for example. What then when we run out of them? No oil to maintain the networks, no uranium to produce more electricity. Industry uses huge loads of more energy than "common people", but what stops us to try and change the fact? Companies have no choice is enough people force them to. How much energy goes to waste simply by leaving all the lights on in a factory or in a superstore 24/7. How much energy goes to waste when everybody always picks a new plastic bag when shopping instead of reusing.
Think.
Think about pollution. Producing energy causes vast amount of very damaging pollution. Sure, we can dig holes and sink the waste into those, but what happens when we run out of solid ground to dig on? What happens when those barrels corrode and start to leak into natural water resources? Factories produce huge amount of waste. Consuming more creates a demand. Demand creates more factories and production, which again creates more pollution.
Cars pollute. You can't deny that. Using car to travel to work every day, using car every second day (yeah, right, more likely every day too) to go shopping, using car at weekends to go boozing and generally driving around. You only waste your hard earned money to gasoline and also create enough emission to spoil another fine day.
If you think global warming is a hoax, then fine. Just don't deny the problems with running out of resources. Don't deny the problems with pollution.
May our rivers run clean once again. Someday, somewhere.
Yeah, right.
You gotta think outside the movies. The gang wouldn't have survived if they couldn't have fought for gasoline. Max was just too tough for them.
Maybe George promised that there would be huge amounts of roos to shoot in Iraq? Offering truckloads of their (ie. American) beer could not have been the lure, obviously.
Don't know that either, but it's obvious why you guys were dragged into the mess: everyone knows you're the best warriors to fight for oil!
Best use any theory has, is to be inspirational to other theories. Some (or most) theories only apply practically when combined with other theories. Therefore it's quite useless to judge a theory without its full context.
Practical, understandable applications never meet any theory, because all theories base on estimates (at best) about the "real" world, the practicality's world.
Hare never catching the tortoise is a theory which helps to point out the effect of sequential (actually I don't know if its sequential, because I can't get that one word to my head right now) time. It also boggles the mind of an open-minded person.
Think outside the box or at least don't suffocate those who do.
First of all, you all just jumped on this thing because of the writer and his/hers past. If you don't like what he's writing, them ignore him/her.
Second, the theory he described is valid in a closed environment. You have to understand that time has been included in mathematics/physics for quite short period of time. Also this theory makes use of the concepts of finite and infinite. If the tortoise sets the frame of finite, then the rabbit can never pass it, or the arrow never hits the target.
Thirdly, why does every theory has to be so simple that "common people" could understand it, or more likely, to not to think it as bs. Be open-minded. Accept that there are shoit-loads of stuff you don't understand.
Fourthly, it saddens when teachers get the facts wrong. My experience is that teachers aren't usually any better than the average janes and joes.
Second, the theory he described is valid in a closed environment. You have to understand that time has been included in mathematics/physics for quite short period of time. Also this theory makes use of the concepts of finite and infinite. If the tortoise sets the frame of finite, then the rabbit can never pass it, or the arrow never hits the target.
Thirdly, why does every theory has to be so simple that "common people" could understand it, or more likely, to not to think it as bs. Be open-minded. Accept that there are shoit-loads of stuff you don't understand.
Fourthly, it saddens when teachers get the facts wrong. My experience is that teachers aren't usually any better than the average janes and joes.
Thought it was nice coincidence. Just think about all the dreams you had that didn't happen afterwards. You only remember the cases where random events were connected. Besides, memory fades, changes and lies.
Pure sense. Heightened senses, trained prediction. Nothing superficial. Nothing beyond human capabilities.
Last edited by Julppu, .
Reason : grammar (still wrong)
I'm quite convinced that I live the same life over and over again, in a never-ending cycle. Doomed or blessed, dunno about that yet. As I've been getting older, my deja-vu's have been more frequent, so that must mean that I start to remember the last identical lives. If I could only figure out a way to change the flow of events (yeah, like that hasn't been the case with previous cycles).
World is all about me!
Two people won't collide while passing with eye contact, because it would be rude. Quite few have the need or guts to look someone in the eyes and collide into them.
Ermm, actually the hot chicks that don't like motorsports don't also like you liking motorsports, so you actually can't have them both.
It's easy to blame something else. The point is that if we don't start from somewhere we aren't going anywhere. Banning environmentally hazardous motorsports is relatively small step compared to changing peoples driving habits; both in evironmental effect and easiness. Therefore it has to be done. True progression comes from small steps. Giant leaps seldomly work. Same goes to saving in electricity: it's no big deal to turn off lights when they are not really needed. When more people do this, then they become more and more aware of the massive amounts of energy wasting that goes on in industry. More awareness -> more pressure for industry to change habits.
I say ban the evil motor racing. I don't need it. I got my LFS.
Naturally. Controlling the rest of the world with their devious oranges.
Culture - Blood in Babylon
Or cut off his finger(s).
They already broke it. They've been catering the quests with all the regular things: sauna, boot throwing, wife carrying, santa, lapland, but no mosquitoes.
I personally hate it when every official representation about finland is with those things.
Finland has no hope in the actual contest, but that was a planned thing, as usual.
OT
You named the place in your orig. text: Africa.
Sarcasm, anyone?
But hey, I'll take my sarcasm back if you actually have been living in Africa. Otherwise if you've gotten your impression about gun-filled-africa from third-hand-soruces, then I can justify my claim by the same thing.
/OT
You named the place in your orig. text: Africa.
Sarcasm, anyone?
But hey, I'll take my sarcasm back if you actually have been living in Africa. Otherwise if you've gotten your impression about gun-filled-africa from third-hand-soruces, then I can justify my claim by the same thing.
/OT
We have the same thing in our parliament elections. Screw every voting system that's not direct and based on the actual number of votes.
Too bad the whole democracy thing bases on manipulation of the voters..
Africa is a mess. First euros messed it up with our time of colonization (and/or imperialism) and then the usa joined in. But hey, free resources for anyone who can control the poor.
I'm concerned about the situation in united states. have you seen life there??? look around every conrner and every kid has a damn gun, its scary as anything! I think some major troops should be deployed to usa to calm that s**t down.
Yep, that's the essence of a Finn.
Krhm. There's just as many genres as there are people podering about the genres. Kind of pointless to argue what is in which genre and what genre is purely fictional.
So, take a deep breath, relax and enjoy one look at genres.
So, take a deep breath, relax and enjoy one look at genres.
One point to nuclear energy discussion. I don't support it, but I don't support fossilefuels either. Currently it seems that we must choose between two evils and that naturally sucks. Real problem is, that when nuclear energy is lobbed as an acute solvant to pollution, it at the same time takes away chances of getting better and cleaner methods of getting energy.
Remember: explosions and catastrophies are nothing in comparison to the state of conservative energy politics. If we decide to solve environment issues with nuclear energy, then no new method can come up in 50 years (or so), because all that time we have a decent source of energy. Full-scale development of alternative energy sources would be too expensive and not so efficient as nuclears in short timespan. Remember that political memory can barely remember yesterday (and doesn't give a damn about it, at best) and doesn't care about tomorrow. Today's incomes talk.
One ethical question is, that if nature has it's own way, then isn't it only natural that humen mess things up? I strongly feel that humankind has a power to determine most of it's destiny. We also must adapt to changing situations. If a comet is going to destroy Earth in two years, then we must come up something fast or vanish. If we are drowning in our own waste, then we definately must come up with something. In an universe, where random luck keeps us safe, it's pretty darn stupid to make a suicide.
End of rant. Gotta work.
Remember: explosions and catastrophies are nothing in comparison to the state of conservative energy politics. If we decide to solve environment issues with nuclear energy, then no new method can come up in 50 years (or so), because all that time we have a decent source of energy. Full-scale development of alternative energy sources would be too expensive and not so efficient as nuclears in short timespan. Remember that political memory can barely remember yesterday (and doesn't give a damn about it, at best) and doesn't care about tomorrow. Today's incomes talk.
One ethical question is, that if nature has it's own way, then isn't it only natural that humen mess things up? I strongly feel that humankind has a power to determine most of it's destiny. We also must adapt to changing situations. If a comet is going to destroy Earth in two years, then we must come up something fast or vanish. If we are drowning in our own waste, then we definately must come up with something. In an universe, where random luck keeps us safe, it's pretty darn stupid to make a suicide.
End of rant. Gotta work.
That's kind of one thing I tried to address. We wouldn't need more energy if we could optimize our production, but since no shareholder is willing to cease their income (from shares) for few years, no reasonable investions to factory productiveness and energy efficiency is made.
Nuclear power in Finland has been very secure, but mainly because of good luck and small number of plants. They still produce waste. Burying it into ground because "our ground base is trillions years old and will remain consistent for million years to come" is pretty lame. It's just like brooming dirt under a carpet.
Naturally something has to be done to the waste. Burying it into ground seems reasonably secure if it doesn't leak into the waters-below-surface. Problem is, that with increasing amount of nuclear power plants, the amount of waste increases all the time. There will be point when there aren't anymore secure places under ground.
This is deep and I think it would be best to discuss these things in a pub with a pint (just one). Would you internationals care to come to Tampere?
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG