LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 03-03-2013, 07:51 PM   #61
rokytnji
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: AntiX 13 , MacPup,Linux-Lite 2.0, SaliX
Posts: 2,853
Blog Entries: 18

Rep: Reputation: 913Reputation: 913Reputation: 913Reputation: 913Reputation: 913Reputation: 913Reputation: 913Reputation: 913

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xeratul View Post
That's great. In which country/region are you living?

Imagine that in France, it is unlikely possible that they use wind lol
Or nuclear wind mill?
Quote:
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas

The land of Attachment 11994 Just got back from a nice cruising day.

Last edited by rokytnji; 12-04-2013 at 12:00 AM.
 
Old 03-04-2013, 04:55 PM   #62
rigor
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Posts: 161

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
A lot of the problem is when (4) is exploited in the interests of (5). The scientist says (correctly) "Of course, we can't be certain" and the man with the vested interest says "There you are, it's not certain!" If one hears the sort of thing said by climate-change deniers it's seldom careful or logical; often more like the stuff said by evolution deniers (often the same people). And when it's said by those who aspire to high political office (almost always in the USA), the rest of us are going to get heated!

Your medical references bring one round to another point: the precautionary principle. To be allowed to claim that the new drug "works" one need to make a prima facie case, but to claim that it's safe enough to use one needs a lot more evidence. If it turned out that artificial climate change was not happening, we'd have wasted a lot of money. But if it gave the worst case results, the human consequences will be far, far worse.
My feeling is that:
1) Even if the emissions that are claimed to be causing artificial climate change are not causing artificial climate change, they are still not good for Humans to breathe, so either way, we're not wasting money trying to reduce or eliminate them.
2) Quite apart from what seem like twisting what others have said, and what seem like pure insults for the sake of insults, surely anyone who was truly interested in having a meaningful discussion, would have paid much more attention to what they themselves had said than you seemed to, and realized the obvious contradiction in what you said.
I had hopes of a meaningful discussion of this topic, but I now see that was not to be. Unsubscribing from this thread...looking for a thread in which a meaningful discussion can be had.
 
Old 03-05-2013, 02:19 AM   #63
Xeratul
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Debian Land
Posts: 1,389

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji View Post
The land of Attachment 11994 Just got back from a nice cruising day.
Hi,

It is pretty nice to see. In any case, you have no danger of radioactivity for 100-200 years or more.

Look Frenchies. They claim that they have no troubles with their atomic plants (vid in French speaking):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8uyGTTP2sA

Actually there are far more cancers in France in vicinity of nuclear plants (<100 km). Nobody care in France. It occurs later, so Areva claims that's because people are getting old (you know it is easy).

(AREVA has the government in their hand (it's as dirty as nuclear there). This is why you will never find single (real) interest in renewable energies in France. )

Last edited by Xeratul; 03-05-2013 at 02:26 AM.
 
Old 03-05-2013, 04:14 AM   #64
tony21
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3

Rep: Reputation: 0
Well, climate change is a worse problem but one of human cause of that is burning fossil fuel to build power plant. If we want to have the solution in climate change, we should know first how to find solution to its cause.
 
Old 03-05-2013, 05:26 AM   #65
Weapon S
Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Netherlands
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 149
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji
You might end up with something like this
[edit]Whoops I only looked at the "Vivace". The rest I know of. Could use some research.
While I don't intend to question the remuneration of tidal/sea powered solutions, that thing in particular looks like bogus. IIRC there is a math/physics theorem that states you can't extract power from such chaotic motions. (You can damp it, but you won't get power.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rigor
Even if the emissions that are claimed to be causing artificial climate change are not causing artificial climate change, they are still not good for Humans to breathe, so either way, we're not wasting money trying to reduce or eliminate them.
OMG carbondioxide !!11!! ;P
The discussion tends to go to "the bigger picture", because the ramifications of nuclear power are surely global and over a longer period. Problem is: I wouldn't know, you probably wouldn't know, and even experts wouldn't be certain how things turn out on the long run globally. So this sort of discussion has lots of room for personal opinion. That being said, there's also a lot of politics going on, and used solutions always have more disadvantages than proponents want you to believe. I think it's important to look at solving these issues instead of looking at another solution and believing, hoping, praying that it has less disadvantageous side-effects.

Last edited by Weapon S; 03-05-2013 at 05:30 AM.
 
Old 03-05-2013, 04:20 PM   #66
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,463
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 382Reputation: 382Reputation: 382Reputation: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weapon S View Post
theorem
The same that advance circuitry to make it possible.
 
Old 03-06-2013, 02:52 AM   #67
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,899

Rep: Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony21 View Post
Well, climate change is a worse problem but one of human cause of that is burning fossil fuel to build power plant. If we want to have the solution in climate change, we should know first how to find solution to its cause.
Tony, the climate change we are experiencing has an origin in human activity. If you follow the planets natural cycles we should be cooling down right now but the planet isn't. Why? because of an increase in human population and the associated increase in energy usage powered by fossil fuels creating an inbalance in the planet's atmosphere. There are gasses in the atmosphere that should not be there and increased levels of other gasses that are way beyond natural cycles. They are their because of humans, that is the cause.
 
Old 03-06-2013, 11:31 AM   #68
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,463
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 382Reputation: 382Reputation: 382Reputation: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
Tony, the climate change we are experiencing has an origin in human activity. If you follow the planets natural cycles we should be cooling down right now but the planet isn't. Why? because of an increase in human population and the associated increase in energy usage powered by fossil fuels creating an inbalance in the planet's atmosphere. There are gasses in the atmosphere that should not be there and increased levels of other gasses that are way beyond natural cycles. They are their because of humans, that is the cause.
We are smogging s#!t up++! But, to claim we know what trillions of years of systems is supposed to do is the part of evolution where we make more mistakes, like making many things all about money and not life...(healthcare, nuclear, laws; etc.)

Last edited by jamison20000e; 03-06-2013 at 11:35 AM.
 
Old 03-07-2013, 02:00 AM   #69
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,899

Rep: Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
We are smogging s#!t up++! But, to claim we know what trillions of years of systems is supposed to do is the part of evolution where we make more mistakes, like making many things all about money and not life...(healthcare, nuclear, laws; etc.)
It's got nothing to do with evolution, instead it has alot to do with evidence of old climates trapped in ice, and other core samples.
 
Old 03-07-2013, 10:09 AM   #70
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,463
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 382Reputation: 382Reputation: 382Reputation: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
It's got nothing to do with evolution, instead it has alot to do with evidence of old climates trapped in ice, and other core samples.
OK I see good in that. But as humans we theorize to fact and then realize often centenaries later back to theory... and I see the answers already here but controlled for power, like lacking in education is.

Side notes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
From Marijuana: How old can you say humanity is?
Look at how fast electronics move forward in history compared to humankind...

Bigger the city dirtier it seems

Last edited by jamison20000e; 03-07-2013 at 12:49 PM.
 
Old 03-08-2013, 01:32 AM   #71
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,899

Rep: Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
OK I see good in that. But as humans we theorize to fact and then realize often centenaries later back to theory... and I see the answers already here but controlled for power, like lacking in education is.
That is a flaw in the human condition. We treat certain things, using a religious term, as gospel truth (or maybe a better term is incontrevertable truth) then we find out what was truth is just someones theory that has no basis in fact (and I have seen many sprouted on this forum). Unfortunately people think science is fact but a fair proportion of science is just theory sprouted as fact. I was watching a show on Australian TV last week called QandA. A scientist was asked a question about the beginings of the universe and how it could start from nothing. His answer was the use of the word nothing, a word used in scientific literature through the ages, doesn't mean nothing but something. So we change the meaning of a word so we can make it seem as though we have the answers when infact we don't. This, not so, little problem is one of the few thigns that annoys me about science.
 
Old 03-08-2013, 06:38 AM   #72
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,653
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
This, not so, little problem is one of the few thigns that annoys me about science.
You should rather be annoyed about that particular scientist, not about science as a whole. If you really are interested in how it is possible to have a universe popping up into existence I recommend the book "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss, it doesn't need to relable things to explain how it could have worked. I would sent you my copy, but sending things down-under is a little bit to expensive for me currently.
 
Old 03-08-2013, 06:58 AM   #73
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Distribution: OpenBSD, DragonFly BSD
Posts: 1,413

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by rokytnji View Post
I did not read about any of the I like nuclear posts saying, "Yeah, put a dump site in my country or back yard. We could use the money."
No need for that... just keep throwing it into the sea, I'm sure that will work out well...

@k3lt01: It seems we agree in this thread.
 
Old 03-08-2013, 09:36 AM   #74
rokytnji
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Waaaaay out West Texas
Distribution: AntiX 13 , MacPup,Linux-Lite 2.0, SaliX
Posts: 2,853
Blog Entries: 18

Rep: Reputation: 913Reputation: 913Reputation: 913Reputation: 913Reputation: 913Reputation: 913Reputation: 913Reputation: 913
And that is kinda like the crux of the bisquit '.

Everyone wants cheap easy to make power, to power their gear.
When it comes time to take out the trash. "Not in my back yard"

If we kill the Ocean. Oh Baby. Will Earth get even with Us.
Then whether man made or not. The question will be moot.

Last edited by rokytnji; 03-08-2013 at 03:43 PM.
 
Old 03-08-2013, 12:14 PM   #75
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Distribution: OpenBSD, DragonFly BSD
Posts: 1,413

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
The capitalist enterprises behind both fossil fuels and atomic energy don't really care about the planet, global warming, etc... let's be honest about it shall we? To pretend otherwise, to suppose that the big bosses of the major global energy companies are wringing their hands over the future of the planet would be just a little naive... Both sources of energy have the potential to destroy the planet in their own unique ways. If a good proportion of the world switched to atomic in the next few years however, industrial pollution, traffic pollution, pollution from air travel, etc would all still be there and still growing with the population and as countries develop and industrialise.

Everyone should probably read about Fukushima before they decide if nuclear energy is a good/bad thing. It's not making the news these days because there's other sensationalist crap making the headlines.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Restart a user's server, or mass-kill processes ? Sabinou Linux - Security 2 01-30-2013 01:38 PM
LXer: The Nuclear Option LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 03-19-2007 06:01 AM
nuclear energy foo_bar_foo General 103 02-22-2006 10:36 AM
gnome panel went nuclear imbaczek Linux - Software 0 10-08-2004 02:23 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:32 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration