Y2HH

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 09:16 AM) As for the bolded, I had forgotten the name of the book you were referring to, then found it - the Dust to Dust study. Problem is, a wide variety of scientific studies by various institutions and universities, that were actually peer-reviewed and handled scientifically, completely debunk this claim. I particularly like how this DTD study puts the cost of production of a Prius at $286,000 (LOL). I still think its not an apples-to-apples comparison, but overall, its obvious that the majority of studies conducted in a professional way make it clear that the higher levels of pollution and indirect cost of manufacturing hybrids, is outweighed by the reduction in pollution and gas use during its lifetime. While I think claims like a Prius cost 286k are just ridiculous -- those batteries ARE made of very rare materials.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 08:28 AM) Where do you get this idea that it is being done as a favor to them? Its not. Its a favor to Americans, because it creates jobs. Of course they will make a profit wherever they can - I WANT them to do that. Doing a domestically-oriented cash for clunkers program isn't corporate charity, its an economic safety net for the country. And its temporary, not 10 years long. I'm not saying it's 10 years long. I'm saying we protect them NOW, in the short term, and 10 years later they turn around say "f*** you...all those jobs are gone now...", thanks for the help, suckers! And then China has a bunch of new jobs! In a global economy, protectionism has no place. Hey, f*** the US trying to save the environment...that's not OUR problem. I thought we've moved past that line of thinking already. If we are going to do the same things the rest of the world does, we may as well just close the borders and tell them all to die. While you don't call it charity...I do. These companies got themselves into this mess with bad management, and even worse treatment of their employees...and now that they're in trouble, we'll save them in the guise of creating or saving jobs, which really weren't saved anyway? /me points to the 10%+ unemployment rate, which is really upwards of 20% counting the people that have just given up looking for jobs. Well, we didn't protect...and I think we will still be fine.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 08:25 AM) That was an almost Kap-worthy rant - both in its grandeur, and its departure from reality. First, what is really "self-reassuring" as you put it, is the people who choose to believe they have no impact on their environment. They are then further reassured by politicians who make up all manner of ridiculous things to bolster this belief, because its the easier, lazier one to take. Its the one that says "no really, you can do whatever you want, without consequences". Its idiotic on its face to believe that humans don't effect their environment in a signficant way. And you cited a whole bunch of reasons for it in your own post. Now, some people do actually live under an illusion of greendom, because they are misinformed - but they are at least aware of reality, and trying (though often failing) to act affirmatively to help things. And your idea that little things don't help is patently absurd. Of course they help. This sort of absolutist, dismissive attitude you take on things like polls, or scientific data, is right out of the GOP playbook - lay waste to all data as subjective, thus allowing you to believe whatever you want, regardless of fact. Everything that is an action of CONSERVATION, helps (note: not the same as ENVIRONMENTALISM, though related). Keeping lights on less of the time, using a timed thermostat, recycling, using less plastic whenever possible, using CFL's (which have less and less mercury, and new ones have NONE)... all these things make a difference, and if everyone did them, it would make a HUGE difference. But, it makes everyone feel better to say, eh, since you cannot save the world youself, you might as well not bother trying. Instead, what is true here, is that people don't necessarily see the full consequences of their actions. They see that a hybrid car uses less gas and pollutes less - which it does - but are blissfully unaware of the fact that the batteries in that car are more environmentally costly than normal ones. Now, I have read articles on this, and your statement that the batteries require more pollution than what you save in output from the car is bunk. For one thing, you cannot make a true apples-to-apples comparison anyway, since mining consequences are different than gaseous air pollution. But it also focuses on only one aspect of the positives of hybrid use - pollution. Using less gas, which means less oil, has additional positives - LOTS of them. You want to make everything black and white. You have this odd belief that if you can't go all the way and save the world, then don't bother trying. That is utterly absurd logic. I'll keep doing the little things, because I know it makes a difference. You want to call that being on a high horse, fine, whatever makes you feel better. If you want to give up, that saddens me, but I can't stop you. Like I said, note that I will use 3 water bottles for every 1 you save. I will heat my house to 100 degrees day and night. I will waste aerosol sprays, and do everything in my power to undo everything you try to conserve. As for hybrids...LOL. Note there are many stories on this: http://www.caradvice.com.au/39714/hybrid-v...hortage-report/ Way to go...environmentalists! You traded one finite resource (oil) for a BUNCH of even MORE finite resources...a lot of which we have no idea what kind of damage they will even cause in the long run yet. Oh, and Northside...I was only kidding with my rant. It's just that this back and fourth bickering is getting old now...so I had to say it.

Oh, also note, that if you want to watch BluRay, now or in the future, you NEED 1080P. So do not get a 720P television thinking someday you'll watch BlueRay on them...you may as well just use a unconverted DVD.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 08:08 PM) Thats not even remotely true, LED's right now look nicer than regular LCD's and Plasma's but cost a significantly amount more. If you arent looking to spend that kind of money though Id suggest a Panasonic plasma, they will be a better picture for a longer time than any regular lcd and actually are more energy efficient now as well. Yes, it *is* remotely true. LEDs do NOT look better than my new Samsung Plasma -- at BEST, they could match current plasma or 120hzLCD in terms of visual quality, but at a premium of 1500$ and possibly in a smaller size. I know because I had one...and returned it for the Plasma I now own...which I will not be returning, because it's that much better, it's bigger, and it was way cheaper. I repeat, someday you will be right...but right now LED TV technology is in it's infancy, it has it's problems, and it's too expensive. Problems that have long been worked out of LCD 120hz, Plasma, and DLP televisions. If I was to recommend anything to someone right now, either get a current generation Plasma or a current generation LCD @120hz. And don't believe the screen burn hype when it comes to Plasmas...that's a thing of the past. They have many built in protections against this now. This is the TV I currently own...it's a bit expensive for Plasma because it's current generation...but I couldn't pass up the fact that it's 1.2" thick. http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/tv-vide...type=prd_detail

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 07:58 AM) I think in that case, it would have been. Its no different that the tax incentives that every country, including this one, give to businesses to set up shop there. Japanese and Korean car companies got tax incentives to set up those plants, which create jobs. This is just on the consumer side instead of the supplier side. Its also not permanent, and it would ALSO benefit those car companies from Japan, Korea, Germany and others who make cars here. No one would get overly upset about that, there wouldn't be some huge tariff war because of it, and the other countries would do the same thing anyway (and are). In general, I'd agree that protectionism, can be bad. But I think you need a bit of it, at times, to protect your country from big harm. Here is the problem with protectionism. Say we protect these American companies, or companies doing business here in America...fine. I agree this sounds great on the surface. But let's fast forward 10 years. Let's pretend its 2019...and everything is going well, everything is recovered. Now what? I'm glad you asked...so I'll tell you what... The same companies we protected during a crisis will begin to raise their prices to increase their profit margins...because they can...I mean, after all...people have money again! Oh, and if that's not enough, they start shipping the jobs overseas for cheaper labor, kinda like they've been doing, because Americans get paid too much. This is the problem with protectionism in regard to privately owned businesses. This is the exact kind of crap that happens in the long term. We protect them now when they need us, but when they don't need us, BELIEVE ME, they'll do whatever they can to make more money off of you/save themselves money. f*** protecting private companies.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 11:40 AM) Indeed. Just look at California, uncontrolled immigration has worked great. Low unemployment, budget surplus, a cool Governor. Win. Well, they DO have a cool governor.

Yea, I have to say, the longer you guys drone on about this environment bulls*** the more I yawn. It's the most hypocritical stupid crap I've EVER had to listen too. Especially since it's all self-reassuring, "I'm better than you" and "I care more than you" bulls*** so many of you love to talk about but not actually do jack s*** about. Look around your desk right now -- that computer you're typing on -- you can't even imagine the amount of pollution that was caused just to get to where that computer is now in terms of speed, etc. And I'll guess it wasn't your first computer/cell phone/other crazy pollution causing device, either. That pen/paper/water bottle -- tons more. 99% of the garbage you don't need in your houses, but have and use every day...that's right...tons more. You b**** about it, you think we should do more about it...yet you set ZERO example of saving the trees and continue to consume the very things you supposedly hate, you continue to buy them, and you continue to fund this pollution crazy economy/world. Ohhhhh, I'm so f***ing proud of you, you bought a hybrid car -- too bad the batteries in them are worse for the environment than the gas you saved. Oh, and those batteries HAVE TO BE REPLACED someday. That's an unfortunate side effect of batteries...someday, they will go into a landfill. Good job. Ohhh, you installed mercury filled light bulbs in your houses to save energy...too bad when those do burn out you added a bunch of mercury content to the earth. Good job. My point is, the small changes you think you've made have done nothing, because honestly, you don't really care...it's just another thing you can hang your hats on because you have nothing else to do. Either shut off your computers, go live in the middle of no where in Alaska in a rustic shack without electricity or heat...or shut the f*** up and get off your high horses. The real sacrifices we would have to make to TRULY make a dent...no American is going to make them. And that's a fact. Every water bottle you guys don't use, I'm going to use 3 of from now on. Just to erase any difference you tried to make.

That's called protectionism, and it's not a very good idea. If we did that the world would cry foul -- as a matter of fact, they did when they started talking about the stimulus a long time ago.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 01:39 AM) Why are you always so convinced of an ulterior motive? Do you really think 100 people sat down and worked out this crazy plan where 41 of them were going to vote against the bill and 59 of them would vote for it. So then in an effort to secure all necessary votes a bunch of senators would get fat paychecks for their constituents. But, for how incredibly complicated a plan like that is and how organized/intelligent those 100 people would need to be, they write a terrible healthcare bill for yucks just to say they passed something so they can all get reelected. I think the US Senate are much better at their jobs than people give them credit for (especially individually), but I can assure you that body doesn't work well together on anything... much less a crazy tinfoil hat plan like what you're suggesting. Votes in the house and senate are often bought at the 11th hour after a simple phone call or backstage chat -- a promise made in return for said vote. So yes, it does work that way. I know because I'm not only politically active and go to such parties, but I'm also personal friends with a current congressmen...I see how these things go down. It's not that 100 people sit down together and write out some devious plan...it's that they KNOW the current amount of votes they have vs the amount they need -- they then look at those who they think they can 'turn'. Funny that they know they have 59 votes without Lieberman, right? No...they KNOW exactly who they have and where they have them...now to get that other vote, who can they possibly convince (aka BUY off) in exchange? Also, how important is this bill to them? It may be very important to the president, but it may not be very important to EVERY democrat that has to vote for it. That's how the business of politics works.

QUOTE (chwhtsox @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 04:03 PM) I won't kick off the LCD vs Plasma thread (again) because it appears LED has them both beat. I personally live and die by Samsung, Sony is obviously top of the line and pricey. I hear Vizio offers a good product with really good prices but I don't know that from experience. As far as the question regarding normal TV picture, that will be fixed with an HD subscription. I don't even know what normal TV looks like on mine because there's no need to watch it. Pretty much every channel offers HD now and if you watch any sporting event in anything but HD your TV should be taken away from you by force. LED may have them both beat -- someday -- but right now LED's do NOT have them beat. First and Second generation techs are often "good" but nowhere near as good as they will be when they mature, and this is where bigger screened LED's are right now. A really good plasma or non LED will look superior right now, simply due to the more mature technologies behind them. Not to mention the bang for the buck you'll get right now. If you want LED, look to pay 2.5k+ (if not more) if you don't want really crappy tech stuffed into the box.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 11:57 AM) Factually incorrect. You are hanging everything on the single year, 1998, El Nino year record which we're going to break this year or next year, and which I think was broken in 1 of the 3 main temperature recording models anyway. On average, the 2000's were significantly warmer than the 1990's. 8 of the 9 warmest years in recorded history were from 2001-2008, the only other year near the top is 1998. The remaining years in the 1990's are in the next group. You must note I said "warming trend", that very data shows what I said was in fact, factually correct. Based on the 1990's, as the years went on, the temp tended to rise -- peaking in the early 00's and going back down, hence why 2008 was ranked near the bottom since the early 90's. I didn't say it wasn't hotter -- I said the trend of rising temps stopped, and it did. Cutting out 2005 and 1998, being odd years, the trend reverses itself, as shown by 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, being in order of decreases. If you look at the 90's data, they are almost always on the rise as the years progress.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 07:36 AM) I'm really, honestly, sad, that you feel this way. You are way too smart to honestly believe that all 100 Senators and all 435 House Reps are these scum-sucking fleabags you characterize them as. Its ridiculous. You can take any 535 people on earth, and you get a variety pack of morality. Same goes for these guys. You seem to forget these are people, not robots programmed by evil coders at the RNC and DNC. Its easier to think that way, but I can tell you without any doubt whatsoever, that these people are not all evil. A few are evil, many are just bad, some are good. While you may be right, it's apparent you are only right about a minority of them, which is whats truly sad. I'm sure there are a few of the 100 senators that aren't. And I'm sure there are a few of the 435 house reps that aren't. That doesn't change the fact that the other 90% of them play politics and care about saving their jobs more than they care about doing whats right for the people/nation. The problem is, a overwhelming majority of them ARE scum-sucking fleabags, and in the case of such majorities -- a few GOOD apples cannot UNSPOIL the bunch.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 08:58 AM) So the melting glaciers worldwide and increased ocean temperatures are due to a cooling trend? This is the typical response I expect these days, a counter argument that had nothing to do with what I said in the first place. Rather than giving you a reply to your non reply, I'm going to simply ask -- am I lying about the data comparison from the 90's to the 00's? Yes or no? The 90's showed a clear warming trend -- FACT. The 00's did not -- FACT. You can twist this all you want with responses to questions that weren't asked, but those two facts remain.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 07:05 AM) You're linking to a page dated October 2, 1997. How about some more recent data and analysis? That's because the 90's data showed a clear warming trend, I believe it was one of the hottest decades ever on record, but since the 90's ended, the data no longer shows that trend continuing despite emission increasing worldwide, so data in the 00's is counter to the data in the 90's -- thus it's more convenient to ignore it and point to data from 97. That said, while I'm not as big of a believer in this as many, I do believe we have a contribution to climate change, I just think humans and their infinite egos like to believe our impact is much MUCH greater than it actually is. I also think when the infinite equation was originally written, changing factors such as the life on Earth and it's contributions to these changes were taken into account by mother earth...and promptly dismissed in a "Meh" fashion. Each person should do whatever they can to help, but I wouldn't change your entire life over it, either. Also, educate yourselves, this is the utmost importance. For example, recycling plastic does NOT help. It causes MORE pollution to recycle plastic then to create NEW plastic combined with incinerating the old plastic. Recycling, for things that actually SAVE money/resources, is WORTH MONEY. This is why they pay you for your used aluminum, however, you never get a penny for your used plastic. Ask yourselves why this is. The answer is because they can't turn a profit from it, because it costs more in time/energy to recycle it thus no profit. The answer to this is simple, however people don't wanna hear it: STOP USING THINGS BOTTLED IN PLASTIC. PERIOD. No, instead, we continue to use them thinking that recycling them makes a difference, when it doesn't. Now, you can tell this to a "recycler" and they'll say you are crazy. They won't go research it or anything, they'll just dismiss you as a republican nut job.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 08:48 PM) I'm not playing a game, I was trying to make a point and I think you got it. That line that 2k5 mentioned is intentionally blurred all the time for political reasons and it gets old after a while. Oh, I see now.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 09:46 AM) The sad thing is...everything in their data has been redone, probably a dozen times over. Good, so they won't have a problem redoing it a 13th time, then.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 06:23 PM) I dont even like DukeNukeEm, just the name. I really dont like videogames much except for WoW. The 5 mans are fun too, some of the more difficult encounters I've had to tank. And why do you have a 14 year old gurl as an avatar?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 06:52 PM) If the administration is smart, they know 100% that failing to pass a health care bill destroys them in next year's elections. Eventually, they will do whatever it takes to get a bill through. It may be such a bad (aka Lieberman authored) bill so as to just make everything worse, but they'll get something passed. Yea...and this sort of politics bothers me. Pass something...pass anything...just pass it! Either way I think they get destroyed in next year's elections.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 05:43 PM) Icecrown Citadel is super awesome. 4 loot pinatas then a boss that eats souls. Being that this filibuster nonsense is less important than wow...I'm going to just forget the whole thing. It really wasn't that important, I was just pointing out that he was trying to pass this WHILE a democrat actually controlled the big seat...and I'm not even a democrat. For that matter, I'm not a republican either, I think they're stupid, too. And I've only done the first 5 man in Icecrown -- I haven't been playing much anymore. Don't forget, I played since 2004 -- and was raiding when 40 mans were still around. I deserve a break. I'm really looking forward to Cataclysm though. P.S. Duke Nuke'em forever is NEVER coming out, vapor ware boy.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 05:28 PM) A executive veto is like a Filibuster on crack. Your post makes no sense. It makes perfect sense. It had nothing to do with executive vetos, either. WoW players.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 11:58 AM) I don't particularly disagree with any of your individual points here - I think you are right about them. I just don't find it to be the earth-shattering discovery that its being made out to be. There is a unison chorus of thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed scientific pieces all saying that, yes, the climate is changing with a rapidity and consequence that we need to heed, and yes, there is SOME EXTENT of human causality (how much is, of course, up for debate). So I am supposed to believe that is all B.S. because some scientists were snarky about FOIA requests in an email? Well I agree it's not earth shattering -- I just wish it hadn't happened. I just don't see a place for this type of thing in science. Once it's in there, we'll never get it back out because it'll start becoming "accepted". There are certain members of society you trust at their word, and scientists are one of these objective parties, or at least I thought they were. Even when the science disagrees with their politics or beliefs, they'd trust the science, and report it unvarnished...the way it was supposed to be.

This is not dead.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 03:58 PM) Actually, he proposed it in 1995. While in the minority. He proposed it while a democrat was President and in the minority. Fixed.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 07:19 PM) Wouldn't that... be... umm... socialism? Aren't social programs supposed to be the devil, or the downfall of humanity, or something? I don't get what you're saying Socialism is not the same as having programs for those in actual need. I think that is just being civilized. It's easy to play the game you're playing here, so I won't feed the beast. But no, social programs != socialism.