Author Topic: Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!  (Read 7065 times)

Offline Peter

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2008, 10:09:17 AM »
Quote from: Numsgil
Global warming simply means that the planet is warming.  If you don't want to look like a fool needlessly, I would admit that global warming is happening when you talk to other people, since it's all just semantics.

Otherwise very telling responses
You're right, after reading wikipedia. Global warming simply means that the the average temperature is rising. Well it is you are right  

Well I leave it to a strange combination, of bad translation of my side(most english have I leaned from games, really  ). And propanganda of scientists, and Al Gore alike that really made me think there was a direct connection between CO2 and Global warming and I turned it into some kind of enlarged greenhouse effect theorie.

semantics: Well I am going to look up the exact meaning of it.  My english isn't that good.
Oh my god, who the hell cares.

Offline EricL

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2266
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2008, 02:33:43 PM »
Quote from: Numsgil
1.  Is global warming hapening?
2.  Is it humanity's fault
3.  Can humanity fix it
4.  Should humanity fix it (that is, is global warming a net positive for humanity?)
5.  Do other co-inhabitors of our planet have a right to existance (that is, do Polar Bears deserve to live?)

1. Yes.  There is overwhelming evidence of this as well as well as my own anadontal personal experience.  I have sailed around in bays that were Alaskan tide water glaciers when the charts were made for example.

2. Yes.  There is of course some historical cyclic variation in both the sun's output and the earths own heat retention, but the evidence overwhelmingly suggests human activity is the primary culprit.  And it's not just recent industrial activity though the curve has gone exponential in the past few 100 years.  Humans have been burning forests to hunt and otherwise changing their environment at scale for tens of thousands of years.

3. Yes, but they won't.  Humans lack the will (and the biology) to think long term and act globally and collectivly (at some local expense) until the local benifits of such global activity are overwhelmingly apparant locally at which point it is often too late.   This isn't cloroflorocarbons.   Too many factors, from the billions in the third world wanting an increased standard of living to the capitialistic models of the first world which (like evolution) optomize for local gain are acting against it.   These will not be overcome in the short or mid term.   I'm afraid the world of 100 years from now will be considerably warmer and less diverse and way more crowded (with humans).  The fall for humans will likely come later when all airable land is used for crops and billions die for lack of petrolum feterilizer or some such.  There will be a Hubbard Peak for food some day I predict.

4. Yes, but we won't.  We're an incredibly adaptable species to be sure that can live in many different environments.  Humans will survice though the world is converred in concrete.  I for one would prefer to live in a more interesting and biologically diverse world.

5. The terms "right" and "deserve" presume an external frame of reference which does not exist.  The environment has changed and will continue to change.  Species which cannot adapt will go extict.  It saddens me, but this is the way it has always been.  There is no deserve, there is no right, except as that allowed by collective human behaviour which as above, I am very pessimistic about.  I have visited mountain gorrillas in Rwanda.  I have sailed with killer whales in Alaska and grey whales in the Sea of Cortez.   Personally I would gladly trade a few billion humans for a more diverse ecology but the realist in me says that they and the polar bears and many thousands of other extant species are doomed no matter what I think.
Many beers....

Offline Numsgil

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7714
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2008, 09:06:55 PM »
The point I'm trying to make with 5 is to ask if humanity could fundamentally change the planet to make it better for us, but at the detriment of other animals, would we be "moral" to do so (moral from the point of view of you personally).  For many people it would be, and for others it wouldn't.  So it's a good barometer of your attitude towards environmentalism.  But you gave a good answer anyway
« Last Edit: January 05, 2008, 09:07:39 PM by Numsgil »

Offline Testlund

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1574
    • View Profile
    • Games And Electronica
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #33 on: January 06, 2008, 07:59:14 AM »
I think changing the planet in a way so it gets better for us but worse for a lot of other species would just work for a short time, because we're disrupting a balance that has evolved for a very long time. All species that are here are supposed to be here! At least they're not supposed to get whiped out within a few 100 years or so. Very quick changes is more like catastrophies which would cause evolution to have to start over and rebuild everything, with new species. Ecosystems will likely colapse if several species gets extinct. We need a diverse planet!
"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorence." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

"God is a kid with an ant farm" - Constantine

Offline Peter

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2008, 12:34:13 PM »
Let go further  
Quote from: Numsgil
Increases in global ambient temperature through the well understood greenhouse effect.
Well the greenhouse effect takes more into account then just the CO2 amout. The thickness of atmosphere, other greenhouse-gasses and their amout in atomosphere. You could compare the two closest planets, mars and venus. Both have a very high CO2-percentage in atmosphere. Venus is hot and mars is cold. Venus got a thick atmosphere and mars a thin one. Maybe humans have an effect on global temperature but I highly doubt that it is an measurable effect humands have. And I think only future can bring the truth, about how the effect of humans was/is.

Quote
Average temperatures usually change extremely slowly, and even then have dramatic effects on the planet.  A hotter planet means more extreme weather (to put it simply there's more energy in the system).  Places that were once wet become dry, and vice versa.  Which means floods and droughts.  Many plant and animal species, already on the brink of extinction, could be pushed to the extinction.  This would decrease the global biodiversity.  Most of humanity is surviving on the brink of death themselves.  Consider the little ice age which had profound effects on Europe.  A hotter planet means a wetter tropic and a drier temperate zone.
How much knowledge do we have in the change of average temperatures, so how can we tell what a fast temperature rise is and what is normal.
I had seen some graphic lieing around somewhere that would show that the increase in temperature we have now isn't very unusual, poorly I can't find it back  
I agree with your points that global warming could have good/bad effects, and the fact that anyway we turn it we may not be able to reverse it.

Quote
Monocrops are huge profit makers in the short term.  But most species are not hardy at all.  They're grown for their ability to produce money, not survive.  They grow on a razor thin margin that can easily be upset.  Witness the Irish potato famine.
The irish potato famine, well that could even happen right now in any country. It was a disease that did it in Ireland in combination with the poor people of Ireland so that even the leftover potatos where bought by the english, in africa it even happens nowadays, any bad harvest will couse many people to die.
With today subsidion on green petrol/alcohol well fuel. The prices for the particular crops has rissen. Meaning that every not rich country could await disaster. I don't know where exactly in america you live but I try to get a country close, look at mexico. The higher prices will probably couse for the upcoming jears to have a foodshortage in mexico. A lot of their crops will go to america for the green fuels.
The upcoming jears you could have a complete and possible worse irish famine if there came an unknown desease like happened there.

Quote
A loss of biodiversity and soil quality.  That land doesn't suddenly become farmland.  After a few years it becomes unarable, and is left fallow.  Left unchecked, eventually the entire amazon basin could look like the sahara.
There is a reason there is a forest in amazon and there isn't in sahara. The slash and burn policy couses to just get suddenly some farmland. And to my idea it works there is farmland and it stays. I haven't heard of any farmland to get turned into desert suddenly. If it turns into desert why doesn't the forest do so.

Quote
Forbidden or not, they've had and are having strong effects on the environment.  Consider your computer monitor.  It has roughly a pound of lead in it, if I remember correctly.  All sorts of volatile and toxic chemicals exist in all sorts of household products.  And they're routinely disposed of improperly.
They have had some effects on enviroment, the effects of older products will eventual wear off. Today products have got a lott of toxic-testing and other stuff. It is just better then it use to be. There exists some volatile toxic chemicals in household products, but I haven't heard of anyone eating then. A pound of lead in my monitor, that is a lot. The inproperly dispose is a bad point but I don't know the exact proces of all garbage to have a proper idea to what the effects are.

Quote
Those requlations go against the natural tendancy of the fishing industries, and are largely a consequence of the environmental movement in the 60s and 70s.  When environmentalism goes out of vogue, so will those regulations.
If envirolism goes out of vogue, the hunting on seals will also legal. And as a fisherman thinks less seals is more fish. There could stay a proper amount of fish that way, seals will probably also stay, they have tried before to kill them out, but atleast there will be less in number.

Quote
Actually, human growth does seem to have a natural sense of carrying capacity, at least in industrialized areas with ample supply of birth control and a social acceptance.  Europe's birth rate, I believe, is in strong decline.  Apparently economic pressures might actually be sufficient to limit human growth, when birth control allows parents to choose to conceive or not.  But it remains to be seen if this birth rate decline is just a short term fad or a long term trend, and wether this self-limiting growth is universal to humanity or a side-effect of the rather liberal European culture.
Yes true, but saying the colonist have set on particular ilands they lived on, different kind of animals like chickens and pigs. Them seem harmless but they where better in surviving then the natural spicies as history has proved, and humans always had enough to eat. If they keep pigs from going wild, they will keep coming back. So in first they had an explosion of capacity everywhere new colonists came.
And about europa's birth rate, yes it is low. Every rich country has a low birthrate. I believe america population is keeping stable becouse of the immigrates they have, without them population would probably drop.

Quote
Like we did with the Tasmanian tiger?  Zoos are only barely beginning to reach a break even point with animal breeding.  It wasn't all that long ago that most zoo specimens were hunted from the wild.  Go to your local zoo and find out how many of the animals were born in captivity.  I'll bet you anything that it's in the far minority.  Plus, populations need a large gene pool to remain stable.  Zoos have to spend a lot of money to get breeding pairs together.  It's just not economically viable as a long term solution.  Zoos are not the way to ensure long term species survival.
Barely begining?, well I am pretty sure most of them are born in capitiviy. There are even some zoos making money out of the animals. I know some have been on the discussion of some animals that didn't had strong genes becouse in the beginning anything that was born was good and they went further with those. Even with some strange combination like Lion+tiger->lijgers(dutch name, haven't got a clue what the english name is).
And economally speaken, there are even some zoos making money selling their pure breed animals.
Main problem could be the large gene pool, I dunno.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2008, 12:34:42 PM by Peter »
Oh my god, who the hell cares.

Offline Testlund

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1574
    • View Profile
    • Games And Electronica
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #35 on: January 06, 2008, 03:26:56 PM »
Quote from: Peter
Well the greenhouse effect takes more into account then just the CO2 amout. The thickness of atmosphere, other greenhouse-gasses and their amout in atomosphere. You could compare the two closest planets, mars and venus. Both have a very high CO2-percentage in atmosphere. Venus is hot and mars is cold.

I think the distance to the sun is the main reason for the different temperatures between mars and venus. Earth happens to be at just the right distance, but it's a delicate balance that tend to tip a little back and forth through earth's history.

When I was looking up 'The Global Warming Swindle' to post a link to it, I discovered their were more info to be had, but still nothing to convince me the global warming is man made, only that I got more confused what to believe.
One thing I find strange is that when earth causes lots of green house gases to appear in the atmosphere the earth gets cooler, like the eruption at Mt Toba 74000 years ago that immedeately caused an ice age, but when WE through out those gases, which is just a tiny amount what earth causes, we're supposed to believe it makes earth hotter. It makes no sense at all! It's obvious that the more particles in the atmosphere the cooler it gets.
Another thing I thought about what could be causing the earth to get warmer is all the buildings covering the planet that gives away heat, all the cars, tons of planes spewing out hot waste in the air, not to mension all billions of walking radiators, the people. If you live in the northern hemisphere and been taking a stroll through the woods a winter evening, you can feel it gets warmer when you go into the city.

Quote
I haven't heard of any farmland to get turned into desert suddenly. If it turns into desert why doesn't the forest do so.

I guess you've also missed the tree planting project in Africa trying to stop Sahara taking over because they chopped down too many trees to make farmlands.  
They're doing it in South America too, but it will be damn boring to walk through and nothing to see. Trees binds the soil and keep it moist!
There's only two choices here, diversity or nothing!
"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorence." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

"God is a kid with an ant farm" - Constantine

Offline Numsgil

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7714
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2008, 04:14:01 PM »
So. Much.  Willful.  Ignorance.  It's giving me an aneurysm.  

Quote
Well the greenhouse effect takes more into account then just the CO2 amout. The thickness of atmosphere, other greenhouse-gasses and their amout in atomosphere. You could compare the two closest planets, mars and venus. Both have a very high CO2-percentage in atmosphere. Venus is hot and mars is cold. Venus got a thick atmosphere and mars a thin one. Maybe humans have an effect on global temperature but I highly doubt that it is an measurable effect humands have. And I think only future can bring the truth, about how the effect of humans was/is.

The greenhouse effect only deals with greenhouse gases.  You're right that atmosphere thickness plays a roll in temperature too, but Earth's atmosphere hasn't suddenly become thicker, so that wouldn't be a good explanation for the observed warming (about 1 degree celcius).

CO2 levels, on the other hand, are at an all time high over the last several hundred thousand years.  The other greenhouse gases are also in flux: ozone, water vapor, and methane.  All are being modified by human activity either directly or indirectly.

The amount of temperature differences each gas cause are well known, and have been for over 100 years.  As are the mechanics of this warming.  This isn't guess work, these guys know what they're doing.  Not all of the observed warming might be man-made, but you can bet that a significant portion of it is.

In truth, I consider it the pinnacle of naivite to assume that thousands of years of human activity have had no effect on the planet.  It'd be like if instead of throwing your garbage away you just through it in the backyard and wonder why your yard is so trashed.  It's all a closed system.

Quote
How much knowledge do we have in the change of average temperatures
Alot.  People have had thermometers for quite a while.  Before that, we have ice core data.  The neat thing is that the ice core data syncs up with the data our thermometers gave, so we know the ice cores are a reliable source of information on temperature trends.  See Wikipedia.

Now, the nice thing about ice cores is that not only can they show us temperature, but they can show us CO2 concentrations.  And the funny thing is that the two seem to rise and fall together.  See this graph.  Of course, that doesn't automatically mean that one causes the other.  But there's definately a connection.  And there's the greenhouse effect to suggest that CO2 causes the temperature changes.

Last century was hotter than the one before.  And it had alot more CO2.  So we seem to be following the same connection.  It would be naive to dismiss off-hand that the two are related.

Quote
I had seen some graphic lieing around somewhere that would show that the increase in temperature we have now isn't very unusual, poorly I can't find it back

Right now is among the hottest times in the last 500 thousand years.  So define unusual.

Quote
The irish potato famine, well that could even happen right now in any country.

Exactly my point.  Because all of our crops are basically clones, they're extremely susceptible to diseases and other issues.

Quote
With today subsidion on green petrol/alcohol well fuel. The prices for the particular crops has rissen. Meaning that every not rich country could await disaster. I don't know where exactly in america you live but I try to get a country close, look at mexico. The higher prices will probably couse for the upcoming jears to have a foodshortage in mexico. A lot of their crops will go to america for the green fuels.
The upcoming jears you could have a complete and possible worse irish famine if there came an unknown desease like happened there.

Food economics is really weird.  The federal government subsidizes American farmers not to grow food.  The weird thing about food is that the more you grow, the less money you make.  That's part of what caused the great depression in the 30s.  So basically America is way below capacity on food production.  If a viable biodiesel market arose, it wouldn't have profound effects on the price of food.  The US also taxes imported food (sugar especially), which makes up a large part of the cost of food in America.  It's the reason soda uses corn syrup instead of sugar.  All the government would have to do is readjust its policies to assume for a greater demand.  Prices would change very little.

However, biodiesel is missing the point.  While it does remove our dependance on oil, it still polutes and produces CO2.  Meaning it's not a solution to global warming.  It's more a political lifesaver than an environmental one.

Quote
There is a reason there is a forest in amazon and there isn't in sahara. The slash and burn policy couses to just get suddenly some farmland. And to my idea it works there is farmland and it stays. I haven't heard of any farmland to get turned into desert suddenly. If it turns into desert why doesn't the forest do so.

Your ignorance startles me.  Slash and burn only works for a couple of growing seasons before the soil wears out and the farmer has to go slash and burn some new ground.  Soil in rain forests is extremely poor in nutrients.  Slash and burn is not a sustainable practice, whatever your attitude towards environmentalism.  See Wikipedia.

Second, the Amazon is extremely susceptible to drought.  While sahara is probably an exageration, it could easily turn in to something between a savannah and desert.  The forest would take centuries to grow back.  See Impact of Amazon drought.

Quote
the effects of older products will eventual wear off

You're talking centuries to thousands of years.  If then.  Plastics might never decompose.

Quote
Today products have got a lott of toxic-testing and other stuff. It is just better then it use to be. There exists some volatile toxic chemicals in household products, but I haven't heard of anyone eating then. A pound of lead in my monitor, that is a lot. The inproperly dispose is a bad point but I don't know the exact proces of all garbage to have a proper idea to what the effects are.

The issue isn't people eating monitors  .  The issue is that improperly disposed electronics, and other gadgets, with "safely sealed" toxins will eventually leak and poison the ground water.  Or get burned in 3rd world countries as they try to harvest used copper, resulting in all that crap being airborne.

Quote
If envirolism goes out of vogue, the hunting on seals will also legal. And as a fisherman thinks less seals is more fish. There could stay a proper amount of fish that way, seals will probably also stay, they have tried before to kill them out, but atleast there will be less in number.

Tell me you don't really believe that.  Tell me that you're just telling a really bad joke.

Quote
Yes true, but saying the colonist have set on particular ilands they lived on, different kind of animals like chickens and pigs. Them seem harmless but they where better in surviving then the natural spicies as history has proved, and humans always had enough to eat. If they keep pigs from going wild, they will keep coming back. So in first they had an explosion of capacity everywhere new colonists came.

I think you're confusing a population explosion with repopulation.  Usually when European explorers arrived somewhere, a huge chunk of the native population got killed.  The Europeans could then easily colonize the oddly "empty" land.  See this article.

Quote
And about europa's birth rate, yes it is low. Every rich country has a low birthrate. I believe america population is keeping stable becouse of the immigrates they have, without them population would probably drop.

Exactly my point.  It's possible that there's a natural economic force that keeps the human population at a stable carrying capacity.  As there's more people, the cost of raising a kid increases and so families don't have quite so many.  Thanks to birth control, they can make that choice.  But since reliable birth control is fairly new, it has yet to be seen if this is a long term trend.  Let's hope it is, since it would demonstate that humanity does have some natural self restraint on a global level.

Quote
Barely begining?, well I am pretty sure most of them are born in capitiviy. There are even some zoos making money out of the animals. I know some have been on the discussion of some animals that didn't had strong genes becouse in the beginning anything that was born was good and they went further with those. Even with some strange combination like Lion+tiger->lijgers(dutch name, haven't got a clue what the english name is).
And economally speaken, there are even some zoos making money selling their pure breed animals.
Main problem could be the large gene pool, I dunno.

I was wrong about captive breeding.  This article says over 90% of mammal species in zoos are born in captivity.  However, the fact remains that it's an expensive and labor intensive process of keeping a viable zoo population.  It's really much easier if the animals have a stable natural habitat.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2008, 04:16:04 PM by Numsgil »

Offline Peter

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2008, 03:06:43 PM »
Quote from: Numsgil
So. Much.  Willful.  Ignorance.  It's giving me an aneurysm.
Hmmm, is this an insult. It sounds like it.
Quote from wiki
Quote
Ignorance or nescience is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is sometimes misinterpreted as a synonym of stupidity, and is as thus often taken as an insult.
So Numsgil are you saying I don't know much, are you saying I am stupid.
It makes me sad  , someone on the internet says my school did a poor job.

Quote
The greenhouse effect only deals with greenhouse gases.  You're right that atmosphere thickness plays a roll in temperature too, but Earth's atmosphere hasn't suddenly become thicker, so that wouldn't be a good explanation for the observed warming (about 1 degree celcius).
WRONG.
The [I]greenhouse[/I] effect doesn't just deal with greenhouse gasses.
First line english wikipedia.
Quote
The greenhouse effect is the process in which the emission of infrared radiation by the atmosphere warms a planet's surface.
Where do you see that it only affects greenhouse gasses. Thickness of enviroment is in fact a main part of the greenhouse effect. More thick also more CO2 meaning more atombs CO2 but no extra percentage. Not taking thickness into the seeing of greenhouse is purely seeing blind.

Quote
CO2 levels, on the other hand, are at an all time high over the last several hundred thousand years.  The other greenhouse gases are also in flux: ozone, water vapor, and methane.  All are being modified by human activity either directly or indirectly.
You're wrong, ozone is not a greenhouse gas, it absorbs UV no IR. And oxygen is also a greenhouse gas. You forgot oxygen, shame on you.
I wonder if nitrogen-gas(well, I mean N2) is a greenhouse gas also.

Quote
The amount of temperature differences each gas cause are well known, and have been for over 100 years.  As are the mechanics of this warming.  This isn't guess work, these guys know what they're doing.  Not all of the observed warming might be man-made, but you can bet that a significant portion of it is.
If those guys know what they are doing and they can exactly say how it works and prove it, why are there still scientists saying the opposite of it. I say it is gues-work, some kind of propaganda of certain scientists, I mean is Al Gore a scientist, well no, he had some scientists behind him I believe. The movie he made, can easy be said as it was propaganda, he has got some facts, CO2 and temperature grahps. From only that he made that human coused the whole temperature increase, and that it would couse many disaters, and that they all would be coused by humans. He earned much money out of it, he won the nobel-price, if I am not wrong the nobel-price is worth 1,6 milion euro. More out of a politican case than that he was enviromental right. There are also in much cases subsidions being given if you had a reseach to underbuild the enlarged greenhouse-effect.

Quote
In truth, I consider it the pinnacle of naivite to assume that thousands of years of human activity have had no effect on the planet.  It'd be like if instead of throwing your garbage away you just through it in the backyard and wonder why your yard is so trashed.  It's all a closed system.
Well, the planet is still just as big, it consists out of desame atombs. Pretty much desame atmosphere. So you call me the pinnapple of 'naivite'(is this spelled correct, I typed over from you but is naivite correct?), well eh thanks.

Quote
Alot.  People have had thermometers for quite a while.  Before that, we have ice core data.  The neat thing is that the ice core data syncs up with the data our thermometers gave, so we know the ice cores are a reliable source of information on temperature trends.  See Wikipedia.

Now, the nice thing about ice cores is that not only can they show us temperature, but they can show us CO2 concentrations.  And the funny thing is that the two seem to rise and fall together.  See this graph.  Of course, that doesn't automatically mean that one causes the other.  But there's definately a connection.  And there's the greenhouse effect to suggest that CO2 causes the temperature changes.
Human is a blib, and the thermometers are even more a blib, ice core data gives more data yes, it is true, what does it prove. There is a connection but that could go any way, and this definitely doesn't prove it. It could even be that there is not even an connection between them and there is something else that couses both effects.
Quote
Last century was hotter than the one before.  And it had alot more CO2.  So we seem to be following the same connection.  It would be naive to dismiss off-hand that the two are related.
Century is a complete blib, it was 400 years ago also colder then let say one thousend or twothousend years ago.

Quote
Right now is among the hottest times in the last 500 thousand years.  So define unusual.
I would say last jear was possible the hottest time of the last 100 thousend years, and even that has for climate not that much weight, therefore you had to take an average on the last 30 years and in that average it was the hotest time since the midle-ages when there wasn't the high carbodioxide emision into the air, and that timescale isn't really a big one. I believe that if the temperature keeps stable for another ten years and that is what probably happens, we can pretty definite say this was the hottest time in 100.000 years. But what does it say, I could say it is coifidence, I could also say not, but what is the reason for it, could be anything. Not only human.

Quote
Food economics is really weird.  The federal government subsidizes American farmers not to grow food.  The weird thing about food is that the more you grow, the less money you make.  That's part of what caused the great depression in the 30s.  So basically America is way below capacity on food production.  If a viable biodiesel market arose, it wouldn't have profound effects on the price of food.  The US also taxes imported food (sugar especially), which makes up a large part of the cost of food in America.  It's the reason soda uses corn syrup instead of sugar.  All the government would have to do is readjust its policies to assume for a greater demand.  Prices would change very little.
It is the same way in europe also there farmers are being given money to grow nothing, there was every year an minimum of 10% of the land where there may nothing be growth. The idea for it came from enviromental groups who say it supports diversity. Any way, you can make more money if you grow crops so making more money if there are less crops is pretty much robage.
Strange thing is that enviromental groups also have land where they do nothing with but get much more money per hectometer then any farmer could make with it, if the same ammount was top qualty land and he would have top quality crops. This is a main point why I am against enviromentalism, money is always wrong spent, the money that goes to many envirolism groups goes to the people that work there and with the money they spent time to get more money in.
Some others like the famous greenpeace, are doing desame they get a lot of money in from different goverments that way, and on their turn they happen to randomly destruct the economy, destroying a few companies with the actions, with the claims(about dangerous for the enviroment or simular) they make they often cost in some cases even milions to other companys, becouse the claim has to be investigated.
Okay that was the rant about greenpeace, an orginasation I uterly hate.
Well, further, next year for the first time sice 1975 when it started, the minimum amount of 'braak' land( %land that may not be used) is going to drop from 10% to 0%. That isn't for no reason.  The 'viable biodiesel market' you spoke off is already there for several years and is growing fast cousing a price rice for different products and this has already happened, in rich countrys it may happen people don't even know, but I am sure that in parts of Mexico they know and also in other parts of the world. You are pretty ignorant that you think there couldn't happen any price raises, I have read somewhere that the pricerice in Mexico was already 800%, so it is possibles.
The drop to 0% that happened in europe is really for a reason, it will couse a severe arguement with enviromental groups. The drop is certainly there for a reason, you would easily see the connection.

Quote
However, biodiesel is missing the point.  While it does remove our dependance on oil, it still polutes and produces CO2.  Meaning it's not a solution to global warming.  It's more a political lifesaver than an environmental one.
It doesn't produce CO2, point. The plants absorb CO2 and with it they store energie in themself, the same amount it produces. There isn't a process human made that negatively produce CO2 as far I know. But what you said was wrong.

Quote
Your ignorance startles me.  Slash and burn only works for a couple of growing seasons before the soil wears out and the farmer has to go slash and burn some new ground.  Soil in rain forests is extremely poor in nutrients.  Slash and burn is not a sustainable practice, whatever your attitude towards environmentalism.  See Wikipedia.

Second, the Amazon is extremely susceptible to drought.  While sahara is probably an exageration, it could easily turn in to something between a savannah and desert.  The forest would take centuries to grow back.  See Impact of Amazon drought.
Soil can be made more rich with different agriculture techniques. Secondly sahara is a desert amazone is not. Amazon has more rain then sahara. The amount of sunenergie is, I think, also lower. So you can agree I think that you can't compare it with eachother. Further you do forget the human activity on it. They will not let it become desert that fast, as earlier stated places to grow crops are becoming more priceful, if the farmers there won't care about the land, a dozan companies will come and take over the land, they will threat it well, you can bet on that, not threating it well is very stupid especially economic.
Oh the point slash and burn, the burning gets pretty fast an rich ground that could be used for a few years if you don't treat the ground well enough, if you do threat it well it will stay rich, Like I see it notihing complicated, very simple.

Quote
You're talking centuries to thousands of years.  If then.  Plastics might never decompose.
If plactics don't decompose they aren't a harm too, you can eat a stone but it goes out exactly desame the other way(if you're lucky). Some additives could be bad, but just as the plastics they have comparely lots of energie, enough to get a few bacteria that possible going to eat it. They eat oil too. Plastice could be more difficult, but possible.

Quote
The issue isn't people eating monitors  .  The issue is that improperly disposed electronics, and other gadgets, with "safely sealed" toxins will eventually leak and poison the ground water.  Or get burned in 3rd world countries as they try to harvest used copper, resulting in all that crap being airborne.
Yes, I know the isue wasn't people eating monitors.   There was only half a line saying that nobody ate them. And as I said I don't know the exact procedure of waste disposel. I can't really make a point there, I can just say, that you are right. I can't deny that. I don't know in what loads it goes good or goes wrong.

Quote
Tell me you don't really believe that.  Tell me that you're just telling a really bad joke.
No, why would I say that. What didn't you like what I believed, what I thought or my way of thinking.

Quote
I think you're confusing a population explosion with repopulation.  Usually when European explorers arrived somewhere, a huge chunk of the native population got killed.  The Europeans could then easily colonize the oddly "empty" land.  See this article.
Well, no I really meant 'really' empty lands. Small ilands, where no human lived, you know the famous bird dodo, well he had no humans around. I was particulair speaking of that colonists setted up pigs an other animals on multiple small ilands, for possible in case in the future they had a ship wrecked. I wasn't speaking about the possible amount of native people that where killed when the colonists arive, mainly the complete diversity-kill at smaller ilands.

Quote
Exactly my point.  It's possible that there's a natural economic force that keeps the human population at a stable carrying capacity.  As there's more people, the cost of raising a kid increases and so families don't have quite so many.  Thanks to birth control, they can make that choice.  But since reliable birth control is fairly new, it has yet to be seen if this is a long term trend.  Let's hope it is, since it would demonstate that humanity does have some natural self restraint on a global level.
I agree, If it isn't a long term trend, I am afraid, there have to be worldwide regulations about the amount of children.

Quote
I was wrong about captive breeding.  This article says over 90% of mammal species in zoos are born in captivity.  However, the fact remains that it's an expensive and labor intensive process of keeping a viable zoo population.  It's really much easier if the animals have a stable natural habitat.
You where wrong, wou where wrong . Then about the fact it is expensive, a very high building like let say the WTC(world trade center) used to be. It is expensive, but it is economicly rendable. I don't know the exact numbers of subsidions the zoos get, but the zoos do exist today, ofcource it is more easy to have a giant piece of land and just let the animals be. That is not the point.
You just forget to mension the point about diversity in a specie and stuff like that coused by a small group on animals that exist in zoos and that have to stop from extinction. You can argue about that it is really bad for a specie, or it is good enough. Is there a possibility that the animals ever could be set back in wild, is it bad if not. Is it good to keep endangered species in zoos to keep them from exstinction or is it against nature.
I don't really have an opinion about if it is good or bad.

You could read over it so, let's see what makes letters big.

Testlund
Quote
I think the distance to the sun is the main reason for the different temperatures between mars and venus. Earth happens to be at just the right distance, but it's a delicate balance that tend to tip a little back and forth through earth's history.
I think it is a combination between distance and the greenhouse effect(where thickness takes in part). Venus is the hottest planet of the solar-system but it is the second planet. Venus is a lot hotter then it would be just of distance.
Venus : closer, thicker atmosphere.
Mars : Further , thin atmosphere.

If venus was at the place of mars and mars at the place of venus. It would be very difficult to see whitch planet would be the hottest. I would bet on the closer place, I believe distance is the main factor. But I believe atmosphere is pretty important too.

Also if anyone can find something about the so called amazone-desert. For example is there already a little part of converted to desert/savanne. Please post. I do like to know if the used to be forest really could chance into desert.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 03:17:00 PM by Peter »
Oh my god, who the hell cares.

Offline Numsgil

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7714
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2008, 01:27:55 AM »
Quote from: Peter
Quote from: Numsgil
So. Much.  Willful.  Ignorance.  It's giving me an aneurysm.
Hmmm, is this an insult. It sounds like it.

I'm saying that you must be willfully ignorant, because some of your assertions are so far off base that it boggles my mind.  I meant it not as an insult but as a chastisement (sp?).

Quote
Quote
The greenhouse effect only deals with greenhouse gases.  You're right that atmosphere thickness plays a roll in temperature too, but Earth's atmosphere hasn't suddenly become thicker, so that wouldn't be a good explanation for the observed warming (about 1 degree celcius).
WRONG.

A thicker atmosphere just changes the planet's specific heat, ie: the amount of energy it can absorb without changing temperature dramatically.  By itself an atmosphere of N2 would have no greenhouse effect.  It would just take a long time to heat up or cool down.

But yes, if the atmosphere is thicker because it has more greenhouse gases, it would have a larger greenhouse effect.

Quote
Quote
CO2 levels, on the other hand, are at an all time high over the last several hundred thousand years.  The other greenhouse gases are also in flux: ozone, water vapor, and methane.  All are being modified by human activity either directly or indirectly.
You're wrong, ozone is not a greenhouse gas, it absorbs UV no IR. And oxygen is also a greenhouse gas. You forgot oxygen, shame on you.
I wonder if nitrogen-gas(well, I mean N2) is a greenhouse gas also.
I'm not crazy.  Also, according to Wiki: "The major atmospheric constituents (nitrogen, N2 and oxygen, O2) are not greenhouse gases. This is because homonuclear diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 neither absorb nor emit infrared radiation, as there is no net change in the dipole moment of these molecules when they vibrate."

Quote
why are there still scientists saying the opposite of it.
There's like one or two for real scientists who say that.  And a lot of crackpots.  Every scientific organization says that man made global warming accounts for the majority of the observed warming.  Even the guys who say it could be solar effects are saying that at best half the observed warming is solar.

Quote
I mean is Al Gore a scientist, well no, he had some scientists behind him I believe. The movie he made, can easy be said as it was propaganda, he has got some facts, CO2 and temperature grahps. From only that he made that human coused the whole temperature increase, and that it would couse many disaters, and that they all would be coused by humans.

Al Gore didn't invent this idea.  It's not new.  It's been a major concern in science since at least the 60s.  People just didn't seem to care that much before the movie.  Go figure.  Gore only used a small fraction of the evidence for global warming in his video.  The parts that are easy for lay people to understand.  Your right that it is propoganda.  It plays on people's emotions to influence them to change.  It just so happens that this propoganda is also strongly supported with empiracle evidence.

Quote
He earned much money out of it, he won the nobel-price, if I am not wrong the nobel-price is worth 1,6 milion euro.

He was independantly wealthy before this.  And the nobel prize wasn't for the movie.  It was for an entire career dedicated to this.  I'll bet anything he's either donated the money to charity or is using it on enviro-friendly causes.  He's not doing this to make money.  It basically cost him the US Presidency in 2000.

Quote
There are also in much cases subsidions being given if you had a reseach to underbuild the enlarged greenhouse-effect.

You got that backwards.  The oil companies are the ones spending money supporting anti-greenhouse research.  Sort of like the Tobacco industry 30 years ago.  Don't ever trust research that supports the funder.  it's just bad science.

Quote
Human is a blib, and the thermometers are even more a blib, ice core data gives more data yes, it is true, what does it prove. There is a connection but that could go any way, and this definitely doesn't prove it. It could even be that there is not even an connection between them and there is something else that couses both effects.

Yes, that's possible.  But this is part of a lot of other data.  It all points to the same conclusion.  It's still possible that the planet will stabalize and humanity won't have to do anything.  Do you want to bet billions of lives on it?

Quote
Quote
Last century was hotter than the one before.  And it had alot more CO2.  So we seem to be following the same connection.  It would be naive to dismiss off-hand that the two are related.
Century is a complete blib, it was 400 years ago also colder then let say one thousend or twothousend years ago.

Yes, it was colder 400 years ago.  And it was colder 1K-2K years ago.  Right now is the hottest time of recorded human history.  It's hotter than the medieval warm period.  It's hot.

Quote
I would say last jear was possible the hottest time of the last 100 thousend years, and even that has for climate not that much weight, therefore you had to take an average on the last 30 years and in that average it was the hotest time since the midle-ages when there wasn't the high carbodioxide emision into the air, and that timescale isn't really a big one. I believe that if the temperature keeps stable for another ten years and that is what probably happens, we can pretty definite say this was the hottest time in 100.000 years. But what does it say, I could say it is coifidence, I could also say not, but what is the reason for it, could be anything. Not only human.

Okay, the last 30 years have been hotter than any previous 30 year period in the history of man.  Or if not the hottest, damn near close to the hottest.  It's still hotter than the medieval warm period.

Quote
Any way, you can make more money if you grow crops so making more money if there are less crops is pretty much robage.

It's weird, so I don't blame you for being skeptical.  Basically what happens is that as you grow more (and everyone else grows more), the supply of food outpaces its demand, and the price drops dramatically.  The result is that farmers as a whole make less money than if they didn't grow as much.  I think it's called a negative price elasticity or something like that.  Most products operate on a positive price elasticity, so the more you produce the more you make, generally speaking.

Quote
Strange thing is that enviromental groups also have land where they do nothing with but get much more money per hectometer then any farmer could make with it, if the same ammount was top qualty land and he would have top quality crops. This is a main point why I am against enviromentalism, money is always wrong spent, the money that goes to many envirolism groups goes to the people that work there and with the money they spent time to get more money in.

Except that environmental groups are not-for-profits.  Meaning that they're carefully regulated by governments.  If they were suddenly making all kinds of money, like you assert, they wouldn't be able to claim not-for-profit status, and their taxes would suddenly balloon.  If they make money at all, it's through donations from rich environmentalists, like Al Gore.

Quote
Well, further, next year for the first time sice 1975 when it started, the minimum amount of 'braak' land( %land that may not be used) is going to drop from 10% to 0%. That isn't for no reason.  The 'viable biodiesel market' you spoke off is already there for several years and is growing fast cousing a price rice for different products and this has already happened, in rich countrys it may happen people don't even know, but I am sure that in parts of Mexico they know and also in other parts of the world. You are pretty ignorant that you think there couldn't happen any price raises, I have read somewhere that the pricerice in Mexico was already 800%, so it is possibles.

Prices are actually dropping in Mexico.  You see, the US suddenly has decided that it doesn't like it's open door policy with Mexico, and so it requires a lot of work to get food imported from Mexico.  Meaning that the Mexican farmers have no market for their food.  Their on hand supply rises, and they're forced to drop prices to keep selling it.  A price increase in food would be great for the mostly Agrarian Mexico.  Price increases in food are good for farmers.  They're just bad for (poor) urban populations.

Quote
The drop to 0% that happened in europe is really for a reason, it will couse a severe arguement with enviromental groups. The drop is certainly there for a reason, you would easily see the connection.

I don't know European economics, but I have a hard time believing that 100% of arable land will be farmed.  Can you provide a reference?

Quote
It doesn't produce CO2, point. The plants absorb CO2 and with it they store energie in themself, the same amount it produces. There isn't a process human made that negatively produce CO2 as far I know. But what you said was wrong.

This is actually really complex.  But yes, I forgot that the plants used for biodiesel pulled CO2 from the atmosphere the growing season before.  Meaning that in theory, it shouldn't produce a net increase in CO2 levels.

Quote
Soil can be made more rich with different agriculture techniques. Secondly sahara is a desert amazone is not. Amazon has more rain then sahara. The amount of sunenergie is, I think, also lower. So you can agree I think that you can't compare it with eachother. Further you do forget the human activity on it. They will not let it become desert that fast, as earlier stated places to grow crops are becoming more priceful, if the farmers there won't care about the land, a dozan companies will come and take over the land, they will threat it well, you can bet on that, not threating it well is very stupid especially economic.
Oh the point slash and burn, the burning gets pretty fast an rich ground that could be used for a few years if you don't treat the ground well enough, if you do threat it well it will stay rich, Like I see it notihing complicated, very simple.

Did you read the links I used?  I'm not making this up.  The Amazon basin could easily turn in to a vast scrubland, with a fertile river running through the middle.

Quote
If plactics don't decompose they aren't a harm too, you can eat a stone but it goes out exactly desame the other way(if you're lucky). Some additives could be bad, but just as the plastics they have comparely lots of energie, enough to get a few bacteria that possible going to eat it. They eat oil too. Plastice could be more difficult, but possible.

Human garbage in the environment is bad.  I don't think I need to defend that position.  If we're lucky maybe a bacteria will learn to eat plastic, but don't hold your breath.

Quote
If it isn't a long term trend, I am afraid, there have to be worldwide regulations about the amount of children.

Ugh, let's hope it doesn't come to that.  Then we'd have to fight a war with an alien bug race, and recruit children to fight the war, and then get saved by a "Third".  And no one wants that

Quote
Also if anyone can find something about the so called amazone-desert. For example is there already a little part of converted to desert/savanne. Please post. I do like to know if the used to be forest really could chance into desert.

Get on google earth and try to find the columbia border in south america.  I think it's columbia.  Could be honduras and belize.  Anyway, you can see on one side of the border is grassland savannah, and the other side is dense forest.

Offline Testlund

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1574
    • View Profile
    • Games And Electronica
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2008, 09:55:16 AM »
I'm going to tell you why there are so many people who don't care about the environment, Peter.
It's because they are used to somebody else taking care of all problems. The garbage man always come to pick up your garbage to take it away out of your sight. The waste water gets flushed away out of your area, and if the crop growth goes bad you just move and start over somewhere else.
Now, imagine that the garbage man stops coming. The pipes for waste water gets cut and starts flush it up to your backyard instead. The border closes so you can't move away. What will you do? How many years do you think you can stand living on that spot? I bet you would become an environmentalist damn fast!
Did you know that they are now sending trash on big boats to Africa because there aren't any places left in their home countries to dump it?
This planet is getting overloaded! And there is no longer anywhere to move because it's all crowded with people already doing the same thing with their place as the one you fled from.
Do you know what happend to Easter Island? What happend there is what will eventually happen to the whole planet.
We can't just keep on moving somewhere else all the time.

Here's a link to Easter Island on the Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island...f_the_ecosystem
"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorence." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

"God is a kid with an ant farm" - Constantine

Offline Peter

  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Product designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2008, 04:31:52 PM »
Quote from: Numsgil
I'm saying that you must be willfully ignorant, because some of your assertions are so far off base that it boggles my mind.  I meant it not as an insult but as a chastisement (sp?).
Well, I can say I learnt a new word 'chastisement' I try to remember the definition.  

And 'willfully ignorant', are you saying I am purposely ignoring facts. A well me sleepy me don't care. I try to answer soon now.

Quote
A thicker atmosphere just changes the planet's specific heat, ie: the amount of energy it can absorb without changing temperature dramatically.  By itself an atmosphere of N2 would have no greenhouse effect.  It would just take a long time to heat up or cool down.

But yes, if the atmosphere is thicker because it has more greenhouse gases, it would have a larger greenhouse effect.

I'm not crazy.  Also, according to Wiki: "The major atmospheric constituents (nitrogen, N2 and oxygen, O2) are not greenhouse gases. This is because homonuclear diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 neither absorb nor emit infrared radiation, as there is no net change in the dipole moment of these molecules when they vibrate."
Lots of links. I'll add one I just seen. Solar radiation spectrum, the yellow area's are absorbed and the red goes through, I'd have to use the favorites tab more often, to quickly see where I found that oxygen in a greenhouse gas, but you see it also in this graph. I'll look later for real facts. If you tend to react to the link, please keep yours in it, me too lazy to type in oxygen  .

Quote
There's like one or two for real scientists who say that.  And a lot of crackpots.  Every scientific organization says that man made global warming accounts for the majority of the observed warming.  Even the guys who say it could be solar effects are saying that at best half the observed warming is solar.

Al Gore didn't invent this idea.  It's not new.  It's been a major concern in science since at least the 60s.  People just didn't seem to care that much before the movie.  Go figure.  Gore only used a small fraction of the evidence for global warming in his video.  The parts that are easy for lay people to understand.  Your right that it is propoganda.  It plays on people's emotions to influence them to change.  It just so happens that this propoganda is also strongly supported with empiracle evidence.

He was independantly wealthy before this.  And the nobel prize wasn't for the movie.  It was for an entire career dedicated to this.  I'll bet anything he's either donated the money to charity or is using it on enviro-friendly causes.  He's not doing this to make money.  It basically cost him the US Presidency in 2000.

You got that backwards.  The oil companies are the ones spending money supporting anti-greenhouse research.  Sort of like the Tobacco industry 30 years ago.  Don't ever trust research that supports the funder.  it's just bad science.
Can you say that the movie has really made people change, I don't think. Maybe they think about the issue but have they changed, not that I believe that human really coused the big part of the global warming neither that people could change the futore. But have people really changed. Have they used less pertrol are they traveling less, do they use less electricity, or let I ask this different, do you.
And it is rather ironic Al Gore himself uses a lot of energie, and no I can't see a way he can have an good answer to it.
I would almost think that he just likes the publicity, the money doesn't matter, the film doesn't have an effect to my idea. What is left.


Quote
Yes, that's possible.  But this is part of a lot of other data.  It all points to the same conclusion.  It's still possible that the planet will stabalize and humanity won't have to do anything.  Do you want to bet billions of lives on it?

Yes, it was colder 400 years ago.  And it was colder 1K-2K years ago.  Right now is the hottest time of recorded human history.  It's hotter than the medieval warm period.  It's hot.
In my opinion human can't do anything, even if it where true. So betting is out of the question. I meant during the colder time that was 400 years ago, it was colder then 1k or 2k years ago. But your statement is right.

Quote
Okay, the last 30 years have been hotter than any previous 30 year period in the history of man.  Or if not the hottest, damn near close to the hottest.  It's still hotter than the medieval warm period.
Well okay, yes your right. I have mislooked, it is today warmer then in the medieval warm period, as I also see standing here. It is still not hotter then 100.000 years ago. I keep my point about 'what does it mean?'


Quote
It's weird, so I don't blame you for being skeptical.  Basically what happens is that as you grow more (and everyone else grows more), the supply of food outpaces its demand, and the price drops dramatically.  The result is that farmers as a whole make less money than if they didn't grow as much.  I think it's called a negative price elasticity or something like that.  Most products operate on a positive price elasticity, so the more you produce the more you make, generally speaking.
Well I think I do understand, not fully but that is hard for every market.
Food industry works at world scale, the times everybodys crops around the world grow good is rare. Therefore you never know when there are many or when there are lesser. Any farmer in america jumps and is happy if it goes wrong in australia and the reverse is also right, and of course in europe we're also happy if it goes wrong is america and the reverse is also right. Making a complicated market where there is much trading going on. Any trader could gamble on a bad harvest and try to win money. With grain reserves and alike they keep to have the price stable it isn't like when you harvest more you get less. It is true if it goes on for multiple years, then the price have to drop and there will be less farmers becouse many already know when the price is low.
Already confused, well I am, seems strange but everything is walking through eachother. And I probably missed some importend points.
There are many farmers, much other products have much less suppliers. Together with a product that is unstable. You could make profit one year and lose the other one. And a crop-farm has to invest the whole year and get it all out it the last months very unpredictable.
Very simple you make more money if you're a bigger farmer then a smaller one. Farm-land makes money. More land makes more money, with the extra crop demand there is going to be, the extra amazone area could become profitable.
Comparely to other sectors the in the farming, the profit-percentages are lower mainly becouse they tend to outcompete eachother. If everyone tries to produce much they all could suffer.

Quote
Except that environmental groups are not-for-profits.  Meaning that they're carefully regulated by governments.  If they were suddenly making all kinds of money, like you assert, they wouldn't be able to claim not-for-profit status, and their taxes would suddenly balloon.  If they make money at all, it's through donations from rich environmentalists, like Al Gore.
Well, regulated by goverment, I tend to find it awfully strange that in the Netherlands(not sure about other countrys), many old politicans are working in higher places in enviromental organisation and are earning a lot of money with it. Would it be ethical to draw the line further, I wonder. Well let you draw it.

Quote
Prices are actually dropping in Mexico.  You see, the US suddenly has decided that it doesn't like it's open door policy with Mexico, and so it requires a lot of work to get food imported from Mexico.  Meaning that the Mexican farmers have no market for their food.  Their on hand supply rises, and they're forced to drop prices to keep selling it.  A price increase in food would be great for the mostly Agrarian Mexico.  Price increases in food are good for farmers.  They're just bad for (poor) urban populations.
I have read that they have risen, and that the '(poor) urban populations' like you call it was having food schortage. I really have to use favorites.  bashing myself.

Quote
I don't know European economics, but I have a hard time believing that 100% of arable land will be farmed.  Can you provide a reference?
Trouble is that it is setted up pretty recently, facts is that the farmers don't get a penny if they don't use it next growing season and draw the conclusion. Keep also in mind it has been a ragulation, settup up in 1975 and it just suddenly without warning it has changed for the first time if I am not wrong, and too inmidiatly to 0%. I would give you the link but I don't know the english word for 'braak'(unused) land. And I gues you don't know dutch.

Quote
Did you read the links I used?  I'm not making this up.  The Amazon basin could easily turn in to a vast scrubland, with a fertile river running through the middle.
I have read some links, I am going to look at them later to be sure if I missed something.

Quote
Ugh, let's hope it doesn't come to that.  Then we'd have to fight a war with an alien bug race, and recruit children to fight the war, and then get saved by a "Third".  And no one wants that
 

Quote
Get on google earth and try to find the columbia border in south america.  I think it's columbia.  Could be honduras and belize.  Anyway, you can see on one side of the border is grassland savannah, and the other side is dense forest.
Will I do also.
Oh my god, who the hell cares.

Offline spike43884

  • Bot Overlord
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
    • View Profile
    • OurIllogicalWorld Blog
Re: Interior designers should be dragged out and whipped in public!
« Reply #41 on: November 16, 2014, 05:03:40 AM »
And that, is why I will be an architect people, I only have to read the title and the first line of the first post.
But, dont hate to much on product desginers, hate on interior designers
How many times have you seen on TV, an amazing building (by an architect, because there awesome) then some weird ass interior which looks horrific, or a bedroom which looks ok, then you realise its not got a TV, a WARDROBE or a computer. My bedroom is more space-weird than most of the ones these interior designers work with, and I still have a wardrobe, many cupboards, a computer (with desk), TV on swivel, 2 fishtanks a model railway set, 2 chairs, games consoles...Space on sides for all my junk, a draw for all my various rocks...yeah...
Autism can allow so much joy, and at the same time sadness to be seen. Our world is weird, and full of contradiction everywhere, yet somehow at moments seems to come together, and make near perfect sense.