on a more serious note, I would invest in fusion rather then space. But hey, lets see what he does before judging. He is a far better president as he was a minister.
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Little Paul
on a more serious note, I would invest in fusion rather then space. But hey, lets see what he does before judging. He is a far better president as he was a minister.
lol
the mud-throwing has begun ![]()
I think a sollution would be global, not local. Tough the people might go local, hence not solving the problem.
"Hydro - The most efficient kind, Build a Dam on a river"
I agree with that. Unfortunately its limited to certain areas.
"Nuclear - Fission of course, it will still keep us out of the dark for another 20 years until we develop tethered Wind generators"
but fission takes a long time to build, plan and bring forth the energy it took to make. So its a long term, and not a short term sollution.
"The problem is the number of battery recharge cycles. This is around 500."
Theoreticly but its much much ower in reality. Partly because of errors but also because of wrong usage.
@han:
"The solution is a massive ramp up of hydro and nuclear power"
what kind of hydro and nuclear power? (fission or fussion?)
"Huge investment in Battery technology"
I don't know if it can stretch very far but there already is a huge increase in research.(for electrical bikes and cars). For now I'm dissapointed in what they acchieved. The best weight/performance ratio doens't live very long.
"Plug in hybrids only."
between wich energy scources?
he names a monopoly as an excuse
but hey whats in a name*
*answere: the worst widespread OS in modern history
.... In fact the "o" in OS can be left out.
I disagree. As we have little real figueres about it, wich I agree is an outrage, it is debated wheter it is peak or pre-peak. But it can't be post-peak as the production is still around its highest level in the history of humankind.
So take the old debate all over again: is it peakoil we are facing or not? I know your opinion about that but now I wonder what is your sollution to the problem if it is Han? (I don't mean this ironicly)
"Oh, and not all communists are left-wing."
That is debateble. If a communist is a self-proclaimed communist then yes. Otherwise you have an uncommon definition for left. But to your defence its a stupid generalisation anyway.
I share BW's feeling of hatred towards the art classes as well btw. Such things should only be done voluntarely. I was lucky enough not to have philosophy. ![]()
@Fool,
i.m.o. posting insults or pointing at others to justify the insults doesn't make it less spam. Thats still ok if thats not the only thing you do in an entire thread.
"How so? Even if it doesn't serve any direct practical purpose, it can still broaden your mind. If there's one thing we don't need, it's narrowminded or mentally inflexible people."
Well, its perhabs to complicated for my english vocabulary but here it comes. There are many good things about learning something let us try to debate a few important ones.
practical purpous
Not knowing something you should about a subject can lead to a wrong immage or narrowminded people as you describe but it doesn't necessarely go the other way around. Knowing something doesn't mean you can think broad about a certain subject. I can learn what smilies IC currently has but if I never see nor use them its practicly useless. You could argue it brings "insight" and method to learn, wich brings me to another point but I'll post about it later when I have more time.
age and devellopement
You devellop your mind by learning. It is prooven to a certain extend(not scientificly i.m.o. but ok) or lets say it is semi-prooven that people without education potentially have lower IQ's. Again here you don't know were it stops or begins and if it is true the other way around. Personally,I believe keeping your mind busy with wathever thinking excercise will keep your mind sharp later on. Starting with an education when you are little however is a different matter but I wasn't talking about that.
I'll post the rest later like "insight and method to learn".
"Acquiring knowledge can never be a waste of time."
huh? I disagree firmly and this is comming from someone who never stoped learning even after school.(evening school and such)
"neither israel nor iran have nuclear warheads that strong to cause that amound of EMP"
Israels nuclear arsenal is partly secret. Thermalnuclear boms give less emp I thought? Could be wrong.
Anyway, I was talking longterm. They only have to make one or 2 of the bigger nukes for this purpous.
@firewing:
"don't be fools, no legitmate administration can use nuclear weapons in a conflict. the worlds reaction would be extreme and nobody can risk that."
read my post above and argue about the different points then.
@skoe:
"I don't think it'd be that severe"
only shielded electronics will survive in about 1/2 of the globe dependant where you fire it. How can't it be that severe?
we face this problems tough:
-one nuclear into the admosphere would practicly kill all electronics because of an EM-burst bringing half the world back to the stoneage. (2 counts for the entire world)
-nuclear radiation would spread
-other alarm systems might go off
-all recources in the area might be out of range for a long time
On a more serious note, and despite my surprise, I have to admit I got the same feeling sometimes. I would tell you stalin/hitler/nero/jacktheripper is a goodlooking peacfull warm guy who would never hurt a fly if you were my boss and I need promotion and don't give a damn even if he was my neighboor. I would analyze the cost/gain factor like I do with anything. I analyzed rather then sympathized with others emotions. Out of self intrest I don't bring this forth in RL. So maybe this thread proves me an answere as well.
8: (<-double point) yes you can.
I wouldn't like iran to have nuclear weapons and I hardly ever defend isreal in this forum. (tough I condemn the holocaust but thats something different)
Imagine:
A cold war status like between the soviets and the US. The "we die, you die" principle.
Why would it be far more risky for iran/israel:
There isn't a whole ocean between them. They don't have nuclear submarines and represent a smaller area.
-> low reaction time
They have a far bigger chance of flying over each other territories by accident. Or "invading" by accident.(especially the countries who lie next to it and could be related to iran)
-> territorial mistakes
Any madman with a little knowledge and some recources can launch a small unarmed rocket wich is a possible nuke for the enemy (maybe not from iran itself but still)
-> incidents
There always is the additional risk of a hardware failure or person to get trough the safety precautions and can actually launch such a system wich increases by every one such system in the world.
-> risk of accidential launch
The last one is greatly increased by the low reaction time.
5: how many people were interrogated
6: In what country?
7: was it taken by you? ![]()
only 2 competitors. Not enough to start a game with. Pity.
you mean the "pakt van staal en kolen"?
@einstein:
Seems like it. I knew it was bad but not that bad. Now you know why some countries south of you do well economicly ![]()
It wasn't me...
http://www.deredactie.be/cm/de.redactie.english/news/080619_coke
seems like a long underestimated amount of users cause public amazement.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Little Paul
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.