LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
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 03-17-2005, 08:09 PM   #91
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 3,178
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 138Reputation: 138

Quote:
It won't happen at once. People didn't stop riding in horse and buggy all at once and they won't stop using oil all at once either. The world is not some perfect place where you can snap your fingers and change things overnight. The only reason that dependance on fossil fuels will end is because something better comes along.
Read again. If not at once, then in stages. I said the "process" has to start now.

Quote:
You are trying to push your values on me. If it helps you sleep better at night I'm a bad man that uses oil, shoots animals, and eats red meat. Probably all things you think need to end and no matter how bad you want them to they won't until I decide not to.
What's this stupid obsession with being "good" or "bad"? That has been the typical reaction in this thread. I'm not trying to push values on anybody but I merely made a statement.

I don't think you people even bother to understand that I speak entirely as a neutral trying to approach the issue in a more holistic way rather than the reactionary way that most people have.

The real question I address is not whether oil is drilled now at Alaska. Sure I disagree with it and the debate will rage on, but I talk with an eye on the future. You are turning a deliberate blind eye to all the valid issues raised by me while picking on some isolated statements taken out of context.

Why should everybody be "for" or "against" rather than weigh the pros and cons of a situation in a balanced, non-partisan manner? That approach has been lacking in this thread.

Whenever a valid and serious point has been raised, the "pro" side has risen up and indulged in name-calling and mudslinging showing a real lack of depth in the arguments and a real lack of understanding of the implications of this rather complex subject.

As I said, it was too much to expect of me, I know.
 
Old 03-17-2005, 08:22 PM   #92
BajaNick
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: So. Cal.
Distribution: Slack 11
Posts: 1,737

Rep: Reputation: 46
So if I do tar I always have to use -xvf and when Its a tar.bz I have to use tar -xvzf, right?
 
Old 03-17-2005, 09:27 PM   #93
Blinker_Fluid
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Clinging to my guns and religion.
Posts: 683

Rep: Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Harishankar
Read again. If not at once, then in stages. I said the "process" has to start now.



What's this stupid obsession with being "good" or "bad"? That has been the typical reaction in this thread. I'm not trying to push values on anybody but I merely made a statement.
Just having flashbacks to the bear hunting thread where you compared all hunters to serial killers.

Quote:
Originally posted by Harishankar
I don't think you people even bother to understand that I speak entirely as a neutral trying to approach the issue in a more holistic way rather than the reactionary way that most people have.

The real question I address is not whether oil is drilled now at Alaska. Sure I disagree with it and the debate will rage on, but I talk with an eye on the future. You are turning a deliberate blind eye to all the valid issues raised by me while picking on some isolated statements taken out of context.

Why should everybody be "for" or "against" rather than weigh the pros and cons of a situation in a balanced, non-partisan manner? That approach has been lacking in this thread.

Whenever a valid and serious point has been raised, the "pro" side has risen up and indulged in name-calling and mudslinging showing a real lack of depth in the arguments and a real lack of understanding of the implications of this rather complex subject.

As I said, it was too much to expect of me, I know.
Valid issues?
Only one you have brought up is there is a finite supply
or are you talking about these:
Quote:
Do any of you seriously believe that fossil fuels will be around for ever?
No and I don't think I will be around forever either. I'm sure by the time I'm gone technology will have advanced and the future will be doing more with less.
Quote:
Is it not prudence to conserve the fossil fuels and concentrate more on technology that will allow the world to shed the dependence on oil?
Is it prudent to use what is available? Is it prudent to get oil from an area that the US has political control of?
Quote:
Are short term economic benefits more important than long-term freedom from energy crises?
So not drilling in Alaska is going to free us from this energy crisis?
Quote:
Are you willing to pay the price today for the sake of improving your quality of life and the quality of life of future generations by investing in clean, renewable energy sources that won't pollute the environment?
So what do you propose? I'm all for wind/hydro/nuclear but then I have to deal with Ted Kennedy not wanting wind turbines where he can see them from his boat, The Sierra Club trying to drain Lake Powell (One of the larger hydro-electric production areas in the western US), and you can pick your organization for the nuclear power. When you come up with a wind turbine that is powered when I drive my car around let me know and I'll be all for it. Of course then you will have someone complain that the wind turbine that powers the car does something they don't like.


And for Nick, to untar the tar.bz it's tar -jxvf
 
Old 03-17-2005, 09:37 PM   #94
rjcrews
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 193

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Blinker_Fluid

So what do you propose? I'm all for wind/hydro/nuclear but then I have to deal with Ted Kennedy not wanting wind turbines where he can see them from his boat,...
LOL! (thats not legal in a internet forum, to point liberal hypocrites like that)

I have nothing to contribute to this thread, but I did hear 2 older guys at work arguing about SUVs wasting gas. Then I come in here and see this thread.

Im highly "conservative" but i dont drilling in alaska is the answer. I think we should put wind turbines in ALL of Ted Kennedy's back yards. And maybe some of the liberal enviromentist champions should stop driving SUVS and flying. And maybe we should end NASCAR.

Really though, until we move off of oil powering our cars we have a problem. I think Alaska will be preserved for strategic reasons....
 
Old 03-17-2005, 10:17 PM   #95
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 3,178
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 138Reputation: 138
Thanks for pointing out older threads to support your arguments, Blinker-Fluid. That shows me that you're running out of ammo in this one

Fact is, the issues I've raised are quite valid. You're just refusing to see them through non-partisan eyes.

Let's leave aside the question of whether I support or oppose the drilling of oil in Alaska and concentrate on some main points of my previous argument.

Valid issues? There's more than just the question of finite supply here:
  1. Environmental concerns are very real and have not been addressed satisfactory by the pro-group. Burning more and more fossil fuels will release more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increase global warming which is already at a dangerously high level. Sadly nobody seems to care about the growing size of the ozone hole over the Antartic region. I guess that most people prefer watching re-runs of trashy sitcoms to the educational programmes of Discovery or National Geographic channel.
  2. The replacement technology you so desire to replenish current energy demand is not going to drop down magically from the sky one fine day. The push to drop fossil fuel dependency is hard work and has to start today for you to attain freedom from an energy crisis in the next several decades.
  3. The political will to deal with this problem in the long term is missing and quite understandably so. There is simply no political gain out of promoting something that will benefit your country 50 years from now.

Don't for a moment believe that purely technological shortcomings are responsible for the current state of affairs. There is very little political will to move away from oil dependency because it is a known fact that the big oil companies are powerful politically in the US.

You know what I find more disturbing than anything else? It's not so much whether you support or oppose the proposed oil drilling in Alaska. It's the reactionary attitude (you're 100% wrong, I'm 100% right) that some people have on this issue that worries me. Totally blinding yourselves to real issues and taking sides, there has been very little productive talk in this thread. Assuredly, some people cannot do this because they simply aren't capable of it.

I accept that short term goals are important. But why not take an opportunity like this to address the long-term concerns of energy as well as the environment? Why shouldn't people start demanding that alternative energy sources start being used more and moer in a big way? Whether you drill for more oil in Alaska or not, the long-term issues I have mentioned have to be addressed at some point or the other. All I'm saying is that the sooner the better.

I'm not for a moment saying that we're going to be free of oil dependency in the immediate future. But all the efforts have to be made to slowly make the changeover and the process must start today. Time is running out... whether you like it or not.
 
Old 03-17-2005, 11:09 PM   #96
BajaNick
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: So. Cal.
Distribution: Slack 11
Posts: 1,737

Rep: Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally posted by Blinker_Fluid
So what do you propose? I'm all for wind/hydro/nuclear but then I have to deal with Ted Kennedy not wanting wind turbines where he can see them from his boat.
I am considering a proposal to convert all fossil fueled vehicles over to hamster power! With the correct hamster and hamster powered wheel mated with your current transmission we can end pollution, stop green house gases, and help the hamster community regain its status as king of the rodents, Damn Rats are so popular.
 
Old 03-17-2005, 11:46 PM   #97
BL/|CK S3RP3NT
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally posted by Donboy
Damn tree huggers. LOL!
I would call him a person with a brain, and you a conforming idiot. Sorry if that offends you, but that is simply my opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Donboy
Dude, we need all the oil we can get. Have you seen the price of gas lately? Holy crap.

I wuv the whittle animals too, but hey, screw em. They can go live in Canada. It's just a short gallop away for them.
Here's a little quote for you. I hope it's not too complicated for you to understand:
"Only when the last tree has been felled, the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, will you realize that you cannot eat money." --- Cree Indians

Last edited by BL/|CK S3RP3NT; 03-17-2005 at 11:47 PM.
 
Old 03-18-2005, 12:07 AM   #98
Blinker_Fluid
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Clinging to my guns and religion.
Posts: 683

Rep: Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Harishankar
Thanks for pointing out older threads to support your arguments, Blinker-Fluid. That shows me that you're running out of ammo in this one

Fact is, the issues I've raised are quite valid. You're just refusing to see them through non-partisan eyes.

Let's leave aside the question of whether I support or oppose the drilling of oil in Alaska and concentrate on some main points of my previous argument.

Valid issues? There's more than just the question of finite supply here:
  1. Environmental concerns are very real and have not been addressed satisfactory by the pro-group. Burning more and more fossil fuels will release more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increase global warming which is already at a dangerously high level. Sadly nobody seems to care about the growing size of the ozone hole over the Antartic region. I guess that most people prefer watching re-runs of trashy sitcoms to the educational programmes of Discovery or National Geographic channel.
  2. The replacement technology you so desire to replenish current energy demand is not going to drop down magically from the sky one fine day. The push to drop fossil fuel dependency is hard work and has to start today for you to attain freedom from an energy crisis in the next several decades.
  3. The political will to deal with this problem in the long term is missing and quite understandably so. There is simply no political gain out of promoting something that will benefit your country 50 years from now.
So the issue is global warming?
Please fill us in on what we have to do to raise the temperature 1 degree. I was up visiting my folks this winter and it was -35F I really think that -30F would be a much more comfortable temperature so please let me know how much more oil I have to burn to raise the temperature. My trashy re-run hasn't covered what it takes to raise the temperature but I'm positive that a fine outstanding channel like the Discovery or National Geographic has this information to the barrel of oil. Come to think of it my trashy re-run mentioned that there might just be a natural change in the temperature from year to year but I'm sure you can account for this and be able to tell us what it would take to raise the temperature a couple degrees.

Quote:
Originally posted by Harishankar
Don't for a moment believe that purely technological shortcomings are responsible for the current state of affairs. There is very little political will to move away from oil dependency because it is a known fact that the big oil companies are powerful politically in the US.

You know what I find more disturbing than anything else? It's not so much whether you support or oppose the proposed oil drilling in Alaska. It's the reactionary attitude (you're 100% wrong, I'm 100% right) that some people have on this issue that worries me. Totally blinding yourselves to real issues and taking sides, there has been very little productive talk in this thread. Assuredly, some people cannot do this because they simply aren't capable of it.
The real issue... this thread is about drilling for oil in Alaska. The rest has been a side-show.
Here's my question: Why is drilling in Alaska different from drilling anywhere else? You can talk about all kinds of things here.
Politics? (hmm drilling in a place that is stable politically there is no way that will work.)
Environmental? I'm sure wildlife only exists in Alaska. National Geographic has bears catching salmon everytime I turn it there while looking for my favorite re-run.
Economic? Jobs created? This thread already mentioned this and I think we agreed that everyone was going to work for free so no new jobs were going to be created...
 
Old 03-18-2005, 12:22 AM   #99
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 3,178
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 138Reputation: 138
Quote:
So the issue is global warming?
Please fill us in on what we have to do to raise the temperature 1 degree. I was up visiting my folks this winter and it was -35F I really think that -30F would be a much more comfortable temperature so please let me know how much more oil I have to burn to raise the temperature. My trashy re-run hasn't covered what it takes to raise the temperature but I'm positive that a fine outstanding channel like the Discovery or National Geographic has this information to the barrel of oil. Come to think of it my trashy re-run mentioned that there might just be a natural change in the temperature from year to year but I'm sure you can account for this and be able to tell us what it would take to raise the temperature a couple degrees.
That shows how little you really know about global warming. It is not just about rise in temperatures but an imbalance of nature that will increase the chances of wild fluctuations in weather patterns all over the world, increase in destructive power of storms and cyclones, the rising of sea levels that will dangerously affect coastal cities of the world, harsher seasonal variations and a general disruption of the current eco-balance.

All this shows you have not been watching Discovery channel or National Geographic

Let me put it differently. Rather than being reactionary and saying "stop the oil drilling in Alaska" though I am against it in principle. I said, "Let's start looking for other energy sources other than oil at least today."

Whether you like it or not, global warming is not only about a small rise in temperature. Its impact will be environmentally disastrous when the ozone layer depletes. Thinking about such things will not make you feel good, but I can tell you, it's the truth.

The increase in sun's UV rays penetration will cause more people to get skin cancers and related diseases. Polluting the atmosphere by burning more oil will lead to this depletion of the ozone layer. All I say is, let's decrease this polluting by starting to embrace new technologies.

Obviously I'm wasting my time saying all this, but it's not addressed to the politicians who will do nothing about it but mouth all kinds of feel-good statements. I'm addressing this to concerned citizens regardless of their political affiliations or nationalities to do something about this rather than moan and cry when it's too late.
 
Old 03-18-2005, 02:09 AM   #100
Marius2
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: Munich
Distribution: SuSE 9.2, 10.2, 10.3, knoppix
Posts: 276

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by KimVette
Socialism: liberals want the government to fund everything, not realizing that this is why they have a tax rate higher than 50% and services suck (especially health care. Need an operation to clear your artery? Get on that eight-year waiting list, unless you're a higher-office government official, in which case you get it immediately)
To put it plain and short: liberalism is the opposite of of socialism. Liberals want as few government and as low taxes as possible, and put the emphasis on the individual and the market. In other words: *you* are a liberal. And me too, but I'm feeling ashamed to be waving the same flag as you. But don't let yourself be confused by such unimportant details as correctly used terms.

Quote:

I understand both completely, thankyouverymuch.
The only thing you obviously understand is exposing yourself to public laughter.


Sorry for not being overly polite, but this "liberals want to control everything" rubbish is making my adrenaline level going straight through the roof.
 
Old 03-18-2005, 02:50 AM   #101
al_periodical
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: singapore
Distribution: redhat9
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: 0
Harishankar ,

Quote:
I'm addressing this to concerned citizens regardless of their political affiliations or nationalities to do something about this rather than moan and cry when it's too late.
i'm afraid that those enviromentalist might channel or divert their frustrations of failures in their developed homeground towards those developing and under-developed countries where in their current levels of development,it is a luxary for them to be consious of their or rather others enviromental issues.Because they might not be able to survive as a nation if they stop developing in the " traditional way".
That is why in many of the cases in the developing and the under-developed countries , i support building of nuclear reactors,oil drilling ,deforestation and heavy engineering industries provided the motivations is towards self-reliance and self-efficiency as a truly independent nation.

i would like to listen to your ideas about these.
 
Old 03-18-2005, 07:07 AM   #102
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 3,178
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 138Reputation: 138
Quote:
i'm afraid that those enviromentalist might channel or divert their frustrations of failures in their developed homeground towards those developing and under-developed countries where in their current levels of development,it is a luxary for them to be consious of their or rather others enviromental issues.Because they might not be able to survive as a nation if they stop developing in the " traditional way".
That is why in many of the cases in the developing and the under-developed countries , i support building of nuclear reactors,oil drilling ,deforestation and heavy engineering industries provided the motivations is towards self-reliance and self-efficiency as a truly independent nation.
Actually there's a myth prevailing in the developed countries that using eco-friendly options as far as energy is concerned is always a costlier option than choosing traditional means of energy production. This can be proven wrong in a few cases.

Take for example the traditional Indian bio-gas plant. Now many villages use this technique where the dung of cows and animals are put in a pit and allow to ferment with water, thus producing bio-gas which is a mixture of methane, butane and other hydrocarbon gases which can be used for cooking and lighting up houses. The technology is very much there. The supply of fuel is unlimited (cow's dung). The only problem would be maintenance and some types of bio-gas plants allow this too to be easier.

There are also wind-mills used in windy areas that can help small farmers generate enough energy to work their water pumps to water their fields. Talk about an instantaneous source of energy.

In a land like India where the sun shines hot and brightly 10 months of the year, there is plenty of scope for using Solar Power efficiently and cheaply in many avenues.

The opportunities are plenty. Accepted that the initial cost of setting up wind-farms or bio-gas plants or solar powered energy stations might be a bit high. But then, the costs of maintaining it over the years are greatly reduced because you don't need expensive fuel to operate a wind-farm or a bio-gas plant. As long as a farmer has cattle and the cattle produce the dung, there is fuel for the bio-gas plant. As long as the wind blows (no problem in windy areas), there is energy to power your pumps.

None of these are expensive once they're set up. They are less expensive to maintain and quite non-polluting (burning bio-gas doesn't produce unburnt carbon particles which can pollute the atmosphere). The only reasons that sometimes these technologies are not used is because some of them require a bit more work to keep them well maintained over the years.

These two are just examples of technologies that can help small communities become self-reliant to a degree when it comes to power. Agreed, they may not deliver a large volume of power which may be required in bigger industries, but by being self-reliant, these people help in cutting down tax-payers' costs which go towards paying their electricity bill (which is subsidized or given free to farmers in many parts of India).

Nature has given many practical avenues for human beings to utilize available energy without having to dig deeper and deeper into the surface of the earth searching for that liquid gold that burns and burns just once producing noxious fumes and polluting the atmosphere in the process. It is just for us human beings to recognize the practical opportunities when they arise and utilize them efficiently *wherever possible*. Mind you, I qualify with "wherever possible".

Nuclear energy is another touchy subject which I shall not comment upon, since that is a totally different subject beyond the scope of this topic.

Finally I'd say just like every drop of water helps, even the smallest ways of achieving a small degree of self-reliance using clean, cheap, renewable and environment friendly options of energy production helps.
 
Old 03-18-2005, 07:56 AM   #103
BajaNick
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: So. Cal.
Distribution: Slack 11
Posts: 1,737

Rep: Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally posted by Marius2
To put it plain and short: liberalism is the opposite of of socialism. Liberals want as few government and as low taxes as possible, and put the emphasis on the individual and the market. In other words: *you* are a liberal. And me too, but I'm feeling ashamed to be waving the same flag as you. But don't let yourself be confused by such unimportant details as correctly used terms.
Then in Germany the word Liberal has a different meaning because here in the U.S., a Liberal is basically the same thing as a socialist, More government, higher taxes and more government control of individual rights.
 
Old 03-18-2005, 08:12 AM   #104
darkRoom
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Valencia, espaņa
Distribution: Slack, Gentoo, Custom
Posts: 162

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Then in Germany the word Liberal has a different meaning because here in the U.S., a Liberal is basically the same thing as a socialist, More government, higher taxes and more government control of individual rights.
Yes the concept is the same but different countries refer to different ideologies with the word 'liberal'.

It always seems the same with political discussions in the US, the most important thing is the party you represent, it doesn't seem to matter what you say as (almost) everyone blindly follows the party line.

If Bush said tomorrow that it would be better to invest in alternative energy as that alone can solve the energy crisis and relieve dependance on foreign oil i don't think any of you would be saying that it would make more sense to go and dig up parts of alaska.
 
Old 03-18-2005, 08:19 AM   #105
Marius2
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: Munich
Distribution: SuSE 9.2, 10.2, 10.3, knoppix
Posts: 276

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by BajaNick
Then in Germany the word Liberal has a different meaning because here in the U.S., a Liberal is basically the same thing as a socialist, More government, higher taxes and more government control of individual rights.
Correct. Sorry I have to say that, but these terms have a universally valid meaning, which can be found, for example, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative
Liberal==socialist is a bad distortion (which derives IMHO from right wing propaganda of the McCarthy era, you know the "war is peace", "freedom is slavery" thing) and plain wrong.
 
  


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
Black Sea oil J_K9 General 14 10-28-2005 07:03 PM
The Iraq War: was it for oil? primo General 51 09-07-2005 01:42 PM
SUSE 9.2 ftp - no software proposal alanbarnard SUSE / openSUSE 3 03-19-2005 01:57 PM
A Modest Proposal shane25119 General 4 09-30-2004 06:24 PM
Alaska Penguin captgoodnight Linux - General 16 09-07-2002 04:01 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57 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
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration