Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#31|
Started by #485312 [Ignore] 15,Dec,20 18:50
New Comment Rating: -1 Similar topics: 1.WHY DO PEOPLE COME ON SYD WITHOUT VALID PROFILES???? 2.MERRY CHRISTMAS. 3.What constitutes "World-Famous"? 4.Having Oral Sex Preformed on me by a Priest 5.YouTube can be educational too (let's share videos) Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
at 20 years old, she needs to be either looking for a education or getting a job or getting married so someone can keep her up.
but no, she is out breaking the law.and aint learning her lessons from the punishment either. next time i hope she gets the 6 months in jail. maybe she will start her college course s in there or something productive
They are getting arrested almost every time.
She's doing exactly what she professed to believe in.
If she had quit her cause, you would call her a sell-out.
Instead she shows that she's committed, which you don't like.
On 9 June 2023, Thunberg graduated from high school. In 2023, the University of British Columbia awarded her an honorary Doctor of Laws degree, and the University of Helsinki conferred upon her an honorary Doctorate of Theology.
She is currently enrolled at Stockholm University, pursuing a bachelor's degree in Global Development.
She is doing exactly one of your options; continue her education.
And she didn't pick a subject that would discredit her convictions.
She obviously wants to be a global protest leader for climate action.
A few arrests during protests on her résumé is not a problem for that career.
Since when is the effort to save humanity not "something productive"?
22% of Americans are doing jobs that they self describe as meaningless.
Go talk to them.
only registered users can see external links
Some people care about other things than money.
There is no future in supporting that society.
She can be a little cog in the grinding machine, or she can try to make a difference.
I think she's making a courageous choice.
True, she might be sacrificing her own prosperity, in the goal of preventing
climate catastrophe, and great suffering for many people.
What is the definition of courage, in your opinion?
Isn't it something like; sacrificing, and doing something hard, for a good cause?
why not work a good paying job creating alternative energy sources or similar? be prosperous and contribute towards your goals?
I worry more about America, out of control of anyone.
There are people protesting the actions of China and America too,
but it isn't such a clear problem, with such clear solutions, which clearly isn't addressed enough.
It's nowhere near an "obvious lost cause", it's JUST a political choice.
One individual cannot nearly achieve anything important on her goals, by just working a good paying job creating alternative energy. It's very much debatable
if joining Extinction Rebellion does ANYTHING AT ALL, but she's pretty famous
and is inspiring people. She's also angering lots of people, so I don't know if she's
a net positive, but she's aspiring to be better than just a angry teen. I think she understands that. That's obviously why she's pursuing the bachelor's degree in Global Development. She already has fame, if she combines it with actual skills,
she might very well be that net positive.
Some people are born to lead, others are born to follow. She wants to lead.
Why don't you ask your "leaders" why they do what they do?
Is it maybe because you understand that they're only serving themselves?
less than 7 years and done. millions wasted by citys all over the US
only registered users can see external links
PLEASE note, the bankruptcy was filed in 2023. 3 years after Trump, 1 year before Trump so whos fault>?, not Trumps
No one ever denied that. It's not an economical choice, it's a sustainable choice.
chances are they are also very complicated to work on.
electric vehicles used to be very simple but now they add computers where none are needed
The only reason for why these busses are expensive and less reliable are the batteries.
Trams and trains are extremely reliable electric vehicles.
Electric busses with batteries will become more reliable too.
That requires investments and testing, which is why I support projects like that.
That might be more expensive and problematic at first, but it will be solved.
If you see what's needed to make an electric lawnmower, than I agree
that they are more complicated. To me, that's just problems to be solved.
Gas powered cars broke down all the time too, early in their development.
EV's are still early in their development, so it is to be expected of them.
That's no reason to not do that. Humanity needs to get of fossil fuels ASAP.
Do you know the YouTube channel "Aging Wheels"?
The presenter (Robert Dunn) is very entertaining.
He is who I am referring to for electric lawnmowers being complicated.
"This Electric Mower is Great! Until it Isn't..."
only registered users can see external links
"Spent $1500 to Fix Ryobi's Mistake"
only registered users can see external links
"This was Bugging Me So I Fixed It"
only registered users can see external links
--------------------------------------- added after 7 minutes
Liver transplants weren't always successful, but advancements in medicine have significantly improved outcomes over time. While the initial success of liver transplants was limited, advancements in surgical techniques, immunosuppressant drugs, and patient care have dramatically increased the survival rate and quality of life for transplant recipients.
Now, they practically warranty that the patient will live at least 5 yrs and many live a full life.
The moral is don’t give up. The end results are what matters.
BTW, why are you so against replacing internal combustion engines?
let the person who earns their wages buy what they wish with their money. and a city or state or government should be good stewards of the money they take from the people. it should be invested in what is reliable ,long lasting and quality built. not someone's science experiment.
the ford 300 inline 6 engine will easily go 400,000 miles with some Maintenace. that's why ups ran them for decades. why is it the governments have to invest in junk?
your lithium mining employees children and pollutes the ground water and is difficult to recycle.kinda like that nuclear waste you are so fond of.
only registered users can see external links
why should i want to glow in the dark so you can put coal miners out of a job?
As far as you wanting to drive a polluting hunk of iron, there's nothing I can do about it. Nor do I like anything that endangers mankind.
Nuclear energy produces radioactive waste
A major environmental concern related to nuclear power is the creation of radioactive wastes such as uranium mill tailings, spent (used) reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes. These materials can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years.
Fossil fuels have significant negative environmental impacts, including contributing to climate change, air and water pollution, and resource depletion. Burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, leading to global warming and extreme weather events. They also cause air pollution with harmful pollutants like particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, impacting public health. Extraction and transportation can damage ecosystems, contaminate water, and disrupt habitats.
The environmental impacts of human sexual activity are multifaceted, ranging from waste generated by contraceptives and sexual health products
1. Waste Generation:
Contraceptives, including condoms, and other sexual health products like lubricants, generate packaging waste that ends up in landfills.
Longer-term contraceptive options like IUDs and implants can have less waste, but still come with their own risks and potential for environmental impact.
so uh, it may be best for you to stp having sex and walk everywhere you go if you don't want to endanger mankind.
into a negative for humanity.
If I thought that nuclear power would have enough benefits towards the survival of humanity, I would take the downsides of the nuclear waste for granted, but I think it's not the smartest direction to take. It's not renewable, it's also a fossil fuel, it's very expensive and dangerous, and most importantly, it doesn't combine with the irregular supply of solar and wind well. I prefer to invest money wisely, and investing in nuclear energy is not. It will only make the energy transition more expensive, slower and cause more downsides.
The argument that ..... is ending up in landfills is never a good one.
The basis for everything should be recycling. If they are making stuff that isn't recycled properly, then that should be priority one. Circularity is part of sustainability.
The number one issue with fossil fuels is that it's not recycled at all; we use it and then it's gone. The only thing we are doing is trying to find new sources that are not gone yet, which is increasingly more difficult.
I think CAT is at a stage when contraceptives are not needed anymore.
I didn't think I also needed to give you sexual education, phart.
protection is not just to prevent babies in modern times. it also prevents those things that ajax and sandpaper won't remove.
as for energy, i would rather see time and money spent on geothermal. nothing to recycle. Recycling cost alot of money and creates pollution during material transport and reforming.
just 55 degree air that can assist in heating or cooling of anything from rooms on up.
How can that ever be better than extracting the useful resources out of waste
and re-using it? All useful resources would just be depleted very soon.
In most cases, recycling costs much less energy and creates much less pollution than making the materials from scratch.
In The Netherlands we are recycling glass since 1972. Organized recycling of paper started around 1916, but in the 70s the national system was introduced. Cans were removed from waste starting in the 80s. In the 90s aluminum recycling was improved and currently about 75% of all aluminum is extracted from our waste.
rebuild a engine or electric motor instead of grinding and melting and repouring metal.
geoengineering
is this even ethical?
It's solving a problem by reducing the symptoms,
instead of eliminating the root cause.
Ethical? What do you think we have done to the world?
What makes meddling with nature ethical or not?
We meddled with nature to get to this point,
so when is ethics at risk if we try to reverse it?
Geoengineering isn't unethical in my opinion, it's just a waste of resources
to focus on symptom control. It's only a delay, which requires more resources,
to eventually fix the root cause. It's not "bad", it's just not smart.
instead of curing cancer, we treat it,
Still, your health care system is causing too many people to die of cancer, who could be saved. Most of them die because they don't have the money to pay for what they need. Many die of untreatable cancer, because they didn't go to the doctor when their first symptoms were showing, because you don't go to a doctor for mild symptoms in a system like yours where everything is expensive.
If you think that health care providers are treating people, instead of curing people, for a money incentive, that's your own fault for supporting a system with a money incentive.
Returning to climate change. Yes, that's exactly what geoengineering is: treating symptoms, instead of curing the cause. The cause is our dependence on fossil fuels
and YOUR reluctance to cure that dependence. Renewable energy is the cure.
Partial remission: The cancer is still there, but it's smaller or less active.
Complete remission: No signs of cancer can be detected.
When a patient enjoys many years of "complete remission", they can be considered "cured".
What you might refer to is that they need regular checkups for the rest of their lives. That's because the cancer itself might be completely gone, but the very likely predisposition for the specific type of cancer is in their DNA for ever. Those people are just one mutation in one cell away, from the cancer re-emerging.
--------------------------------------- added after 12 minutes
While a cancer patient may be considered cured after 5 years or more of complete remission, meaning no signs of cancer are detected, it's not impossible that some cancer cells could still remain in the body. These cells may be dormant, too small to be detected by current testing methods, or have developed a resistance to treatment. The possibility of future recurrence, even years later, is why the term "cured" is often avoided, and doctors instead use terms like "remission" or "no evidence of disease".
Cancer cells aren't normally present in everyone's body, all the time. However, cell mutations that could lead to cancer happen fairly often in our bodies. Cells are constantly dividing, and during this process, DNA mistakes (mutations) can occur.
We all experience mutations and possibly the beginnings of cancer frequently,
but a healthy immune system and good DNA repair usually stop it; when these defenses fail — due to genetics, environment, aging, or random chance —
cancer can develop.
Most of these mutations are harmless or are repaired immediately by the body’s repair systems.
Some mutated cells might start behaving abnormally, but they usually don't reach the point of becoming full cancer unless ADDITIONAL mutations accumulate.
The immune system is constantly monitoring for abnormal cells — this is called immune surveillance.
When an abnormal or precancerous cell is detected, immune cells (like natural killer cells and T-cells) will usually destroy it.
Some mutated cells might temporarily evade detection and survive, but without enough harmful changes (mutations in key genes like tumor suppressors and oncogenes), they typically don't cause serious problems.
There is some evidence that very early cancers can exist "silently" for years and either stay dormant, regress, or eventually progress, depending on complex factors like immune strength, environment, and genetics.
Why do some people get cancer and others don't?
This happens because of a complex interaction of several factors:
- Genetics: Some people inherit mutations (like BRCA mutations) that make cancer much more likely.
- Environment: Exposure to carcinogens (like smoking, radiation, UV light, certain viruses) increases mutation rates.
- Aging: As we age, DNA repair mechanisms become less efficient, and mutations accumulate over time.
- Immune system health: A weaker immune system (due to age, illness, or certain medications) may be less able to catch and destroy abnormal cells.
- Random chance: Even without clear risk factors, random mutations during cell division can sometimes just add up the wrong way.
Of course it's not a cure for everything, it's just absolutely vital to prevent
major climate catastrophe.
It's not even clear if it would be enough to completely transition to renewable energy within the absolutely minimum possible time-frame, starting today. It's possible that humanity has already condemned itself, by acting too slowly.
It's like waiting a year before you start the chemotherapy.
It could be too late, no matter how aggressive you attack the cancer.
um, a rich man that liberals hate backed this company. let's see how it works out.
20,000 after tax breaks, might be feasible for the average suburban dweller
So the earth is farting and killing it's self
Methane emissions are called one of the "climate tipping points".
It's a temperature increase to a certain level, that results in a release of stored carbon dioxide or methane, or resulting in a process that releases carbon dioxide or methane into the atmosphere, resulting in more climate change, without direct emissions from humanity.
One example is wild-fires. Climate change increases the odds of drought in many parts
of the world. Drought often results in wild-fires, releasing massive amounts of stored CO2 into the atmosphere, resulting in more climate change, increasing the odds of drought, increasing the risk of wild-fires, etc..
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
It turns out the chance of that is 0.0017%. It will get lower, with more accuracy.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I guess you forgot, because you were distracted by the next fear inducing story.
That's the media distracting you from real problems, with outrage and panic 24/7.
Scientists were not panicking, the media was. Their intent is to lower your confidence
in science, for when scientists are actually sounding the alarms, ..... which they are!
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Where's it going to land no one knows!
It just requires more science to determine the actual size and the the actual risk.
It's 7 years away. That's more than enough time to plan a mission to change the trajectory, if that's needed. They will know more certain if it's needed, in a few years time.
A risk of hitting Earth of 2.3% is still very low. Then there's still a 70% chance it hits water. This rock is pretty big, but not so big that it will cause very destructive tsunamis. It can also just hit a desert or a forest. Unless it hits a populated area, the damage is manageable. They could calculate what would cost more, the mission to change the trajectory or the maximum damage it can possibly cause. What would it cost to rebuild, if it, by a ridiculously small chance, hits Monaco, Hong Kong, Singapore, London, Amsterdam or New York. That would only be material damage, because they can calculate exactly where it hits, enough time upfront to evacuate the area.
Of course the value of the destruction of a highly developed areas isn't just financial. People losing their homes, even when they are rebuild, is a human disaster. There would always be irreplaceable losses. Humanity should never choose to let a meteorite hit, if they chance of it hitting is very high, just to save some money. If the chance goes up, humanity should come together to fund the mission to prevent it.
Then there is a third consideration; this asteroid is still small enough to consider the damage of the impact acceptable. But, at any time in the future could we discover an asteroid that would cause massive or global devastation. Then humanity has no choice but to prevent collision with Earth. The experience from deflecting this smaller rock from hitting could be vital for the future.
By the way, this has almost no relation with climate change, other than that
it's a big problem that science could prevent.
The one you were talking about would have an impact of about 15 megatons of TNT.
A difference by a factor of 5 million smaller.
Not fun to have it land on your head, but not a planet-killer either.
If it's one with an iron core, you can forget about that.
It would require landing on it and drilling into it.
It's way more reliable to just nudge it into anther trajectory.
only registered users can see external links
(and mass, if it has the same density as Earth).
Additionally, that will nudge the Earth out of it's stable orbit around the Sun,
probably on a collision course with Mars or Venus. Or if we don't hit any other planets, either move the Earth away from the Sun altogether or burn up in the Sun.
If you want to push the Earth North or South, we might move outside the ecliptic plane around the Sun, possibly into the orbits of lots of comets. It would also make Elon Musk unhappy, because it would make it more difficult to reach Mars.
Even if you expected to break again after we avoided that space rock, the energy needed to do even a fraction of what you proposed would be way more than all the energy stored in all the reserves on Earth and even all carbon stored in life on Earth. It would be more lethal to life than the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs.
And how do you want to do it? Fly a rocket with a tow rope into space and pull
the Earth away? If you are doing it in atmosphere, you're pushing against the air,
which is also in orbit around the Sun. It's like pushing a truck, with a propeller,
from the inside of the container.
I hope you were joking.
if you watch the movie,they build rocket engines in antartica and tap into the natural gas and oil to burn to move the earth a bit, we loose the moon, but we are saved from the space rock. it's mostly meant to be a joke that i mentioned it.
We might need to directly tap into the energy of the sun, with a Dyson Sphere,
to even have the energy to move Earth any significant distance. It has a mass of 1.31664252×10^25 pounds. When we could do that, we would be able to move asteroids of that size like ping-pong balls. We are talking about 2032, not 3032.
Seeing how you lot are running things, you can forget about those scifi ideas, because you need humanity to still be around for that and organized as a big global civilization. A hand-full survivors on Greenland are not going to cut it.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
New Comment Go to top