[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="572" id="3402741"] Hrm, this is a major issue that I haven't gotten into, but this might be the appropriate time. The claims of doom and gloom for the economy are almost certainly overstated. Certainly switching to a greener economy will cause great economic change. And every time you see great economic change, you see the old guard whining to high hell about how the economy will suffer. I mean, when computers come aroun
[quote who="Borg999" reply="568" id="3402734"] What is it about electric cars you don't like? The gov't takes money away from people (taxes) and uses it for all sorts of things. [/quote] The problem is do-gooderism never runs out of uses for other people's money. That's Brad's whole point. The solutions to these problems ALWAYS revolve around taking money from people and using it for all sorts of things.
[quote who="Borg999" reply="569" id="3402735"] Ok, I just read your last post. You have an issue subsidizing consumer products. Fair enough. I agree. But I would say that if you live outside a city, a car is a necessity.[/quote] I disagree. But even if I agreed a "car" is a long way from a modern electric car. The cost is quite different. We could buy you a car to get around for $10k. The electric car is several times that. <
[quote who="flagyl" reply="506" id="3402543"] Why didn't you quote my other post or myfist0's post? Cherries must taste really nice when you pick them in the fall, right?[/quote] I quoted this one because this is the one where you bitched about rich people being the only ones who could afford it. That's a point I have been trying to make and you and others keep pretending doesn't exist. I'm not cherry picking at all. In fact I seem t
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="501" id="3402535"] Why is this ludicrous... people don't care, so they'll keep on pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. At 2ppm/year of CO2 increase, this will result in about 2,500 ppm of CO2 after 1,000 years. [/quote] It's ludicrous because we're decades away from having real, viable alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Once those alternatives are cost effective they will overtake carbon fuel as th
[quote who="sjaminei" reply="497" id="3402517"] However the consequences will largely be felt by the third world, and we've screwed them before, so why not again? [/quote] Even assuming all the true-believers are right about AGW, a fact I dispute but will stipulate for arguments sake, which screws the 3rd world more? The eventual consequences of AGW or having their economic development destroyed because they can't afford non-carbon based fuel development? &nbs
[quote who="sjaminei" reply="497" id="3402517"] However the consequences will largely be felt by the third world, and we've screwed them before, so why not again? Republicans (as they seem the main deniers in the US), or their advisers could be aware of this, and even if hell breaks loose in a 100 years, just invade Canada and you guys will be fine. Someones misery is always someones gain. But instead of saying the truth, that global warming is man-made, or will at least be dep
[quote who="flagyl" reply="486" id="3402462"] http://www.solarpanelscostguide.com/#cost Statistics An average home in the United States requires approximately 20 to 24 kWh of electricity every day. An array of panels able to produce this much power has a size of 4 kW or more (based on 5 sun hours per day) and ranges in price from $15,000 to $20,000 installed (not taking any incentives into consideration). http://www.greencarreports.com/n
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="483" id="3402451"] Al Gore, after all, couldn't even be bothered to put up a token solar panel on his mansion. [/quote] He was going to put in a nice big array, but he needed the money to fuel his zero carbon footprint private jet that he uses to jump all over the globe giving all those free AGW speeches that he does. You know, the ones where he courageously warns folks of the impending doom to the planet that can only be avoided by his
[quote who="Jafo" reply="480" id="3402348"] Quoting Kantok, reply 479Trying to claim that we should make global economy altering decisions based on the predictions of models looking out 50 or 100 or 1000 years is dumb. And doing nothing therefore is what? Clever? Or economically/conveniently profitable? When in doubt...do nothing. Eventually the doubt will be replaced by absolute certainty .... typically at a moment in histor
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="475" id="3402330"] Quoting Kantok, reply 471Randomness has nothing to do with it. Good job killing that straw man you built though. He's dead. Randomness has everything to do with your primary concern - that the models don't good predictions over the short term, and therefore shouldn't be trusted over medium terms. I mean, you were claiming that the models are not trustworthy over 50 years, which is clear
[quote who="Jafo" reply="476" id="3402334"] Quoting Kantok, reply 473Because you can't develop an emerging economy on solar power and electric cars. SAAB 'died' because a bankrupt company bought it [GM]....but it's been 'saved' by a Chinese/Korean consortium....to return as an..... ...Electric car. Yep, looks like China's 'emerging economy' has seen the writing on the wall - their massive emerging demand for the
[quote who="Jafo" reply="469" id="3402317"] Yes, all we need is for EVERYONE to approach the potential/reality of AGW the same way as yourself. 'Everyone' means the entire planet's population...and grouped 'entities' known as corporations/industry/business/Government. [/quote] The problem is that the only people who can afford to live like Brad are the upper portion of people in the very wealthiest societies on the planet. Eve
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="470" id="3402318"] This is actually incorrect when modeling a stochastic process like, say, the climate. If you are modeling a process with many random effects (like year to year temperature variations), those year to year variations will dominate the predictions over the short term. However, the randomness averages out over time. That's how statistics works. Thus, models actually become substantially more accurate over
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="455" id="3401190"] In about 1000 years we'll have reached Triassic levels of CO2 (and probably temperatures); by then all icecaps and all glaciers will have melted, adding about 70 meters to the water level. That means, 0.7 meter of sea level rise per decade, not including thermal expansion. [/quote] This is cute. The "scientific" side of the debate is arguing about how things are going to be 1000 ye
I just got this Kickstarter update in my email. Have to admit, seeing the alpha had gone live I am tempted to upgrade from my lower tier to get in. There's just something fun about being involved at that early stage. I love a good argument about gameplay systems.
[quote who="Lavo_2" reply="449" id="3401143"] To be frank, I don't give two %$@!# about the whole global warming debate, but pumping less CO2 into the air is a good thing as it means humans breathe it in less and less of that crap gets adversely absorbed by stuff we care about such as water. Add to that the fact that petro has a large variety of uses outside of fuel, such as in the manufacturing of polymers/plastics, and it will either eventually run out or become horribly expensive
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="342" id="3399599"] EVERYBODY IS AGREEING THAT ITS HAPPENING AND THAT HUMANS ARE TO BLAME. [/quote] No, they're not agreeing with that. Not at all. And the fact that AGW true believes keep insisting that everyone really agrees with them when in fact everyone doesn't is what makes this whole thing more akin to religion than science. Insisting, capitalizing, jumping up and down and screaming at the top of y
[quote who="Trojasmic" reply="25" id="3399137"] We already have a "Slam" ability ... it's called "Bash". Shouldn't "Slam" do something different like divide army stack into separate single-unit armies or throws army into another adjacent army causing first army's attack damage into second army?!?[/quote] I read it like Bash is an active ability (the mob/user uses it and activates a cooldown). Slam is a passive effect. 25% chance on every
The vast majority of users (not the kind posting in a thread here about hypothetical future browser tracking) long ago made the subconscious choice to trade privacy for features and convenience. I honestly think this issue is dead. The NSA stuff, which when it first started coming out was supposedly going to change everything related to privacy, hasn't even moved the needle. Get off the tech sites, the internet outrage bubble and away from the few politicians who are tal
[quote who="Chasbo" reply="67" id="3391019"] I understand where you are coming from. You are explaining. The problem here is that people like to be thought of as people, not "costs" and when an average person hears about corporations using those kind of words it makes one feel less than human. Tie that in with data you hear about, corporations sitting on a trillion dollars, 50,000 factories closing in the last 10 years because of out sourcing, unions getting busted, CEO's like Ron Jo
[quote who="Eilarais" reply="34" id="3390928"] Personally I read these threads about DLC valuation, F2P vs. gameplay debates, and micro-transaction confusion, and I think: We gamers should just have bitten the bullet and taken the price hike, back when we had the chance. I would definitely take a $70 standard in exchange for getting rid of all these "creative" ways to separate us from our money.[/quote] That in and of itself is taking a stance on DLC. The beauty of DLC, as
[quote who="HG_Eliminator" reply="63" id="3390440"] Really?? Iphones, Ipads and unlimited data plans are cheap? Interesting... Growing up in some of the poorer neighborhoods in so Ca., Pomona for example, I watched my mom struggle with 2 jobs at times trying to keep a roof over our head while providing electricity,gas, food and water, and clothing while driving an old pinto, her proudest moment for a long time was buying a 1975 Cordoba in 1984... All the whil
Elemental Forums