|
I agree with Jayx1! (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jchung52 |
| The area is already considered a dead zone. This will no doubt stop its reversal. Also, so much for BP's enviro-friendly approach.. |
|
|
| cammaxwell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
Hm...
You get married - 2 people
Have 2 kids - 4 people
They each have 2 kids, then you and your wife die - 6 people.
Each of those 4 kids have 2 kids, then your kids die - 12 people.
Each of those 8 kids have 2 kids, then your grand children die - 24 people.
So uh.... No, having 2 kids is NOT sustainable. And that doesn't even count the spouses of your children, which would put the people count at well over 48, all starting with you having 2 children.
The ONLY "sustainable" number of children to have is One. |
Hmm.....no, that isn't how it works and is misleading actually.
You get married - 2 people
Have 2 kids - 4 people
They each have 2 kids, then you and your wife die - 6 people.
No, because your kids have spouses too and you’re forgetting to deleted those numbers as you go along. You’re also forgetting to delete the original parents and grandparents of the first two, so the number seems to be getting larger while it should be remaining constant.
Example: Smith Family
Ages 60-70 = 2 people
Ages 30-40 = 2 people
Ages 0 -10 = 2 people
(as the old one's die the younger one's move up)
What you described is a pyramid, which has to double every level down. That would be every person having two kids by themselves.
Now, I'm not disagreeing with the fact the "current" level of our population isn't too large already. Just saying your math is incorrect and misleading here. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
Let me put it to you this way - you don't right a pendulum by swinging it all the way to the other end of its arc. |
the other end would be zero government and total anarchy. I dont advocate for that. But it could happen if they push people too far. Thats whats called a revolution. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
I get the feeling that you could (and probably will) argue until the gas runs out.
Seems to be the way of the world. We'll do a great job of talking ourselves out of existence, everyone's personal liberties fully intact. |
considering that mileage has been increased due to consumer demand, id say progress is being made. Im old enough to remember the gigantor cars of the 70s and 80s that would make SUVs look like Tonka trucks |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
Let's see what's in the news today!
US military joins Gulf of Mexico oil spill effort
The US military has joined efforts to stop an oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico as fears rise about its scale.
Five times as much oil as previously thought could be leaking from the well beneath where a rig exploded and sank last week, US officials said earlier.
The slick is 45 miles (72km) by 105 miles (169km) - almost the size of Jamaica - and heading for the US coast.
A third leak has been discovered, and a fire-fighting expert said the disaster may become the biggest oil spill ever.
"Probably the only thing comparable to this is the Kuwait fires [following the Gulf War in 1991]," Mike Miller, head of Canadian oil well fire-fighting company Safety Boss, told the BBC World Service.
"The Exxon Valdez [tanker disaster off Alaska in 1989] is going to pale [into insignificance] in comparison to this as it goes on."
Scientists say only a quarter of local marine wildlife survived the Exxon Valdez disaster.
Some 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons) a day were now thought to be gushing into the sea 50 miles off Louisiana's coast, said the US Coastguard's Rear Admiral Mary Landry.
If those estimates are correct, the slick could match the 11m gallons spilt from the Exxon Valdez within two months.
The scale of the operation to contain the oil slick and protect both the US coastline and wildlife is unprecendented, with the military and other government agencies collaborating with BP - which had hired the sunken rig -and industry leaders.
Despite efforts to burn off the oil, the crews here are now battling against the odds.
The US Coast Guard's discovery of another leak spewing oil from the collapsed rig has many here bracing for an environmental disaster on a huge scale.
An estimated 5,000 barrels of oil a day are now pouring into the Gulf of Mexico and forecasters say a new weather front could push the slick towards this coastline at an even faster rate. The state of Louisiana is now asking for emergency assistance as the oil slick draws closer.
It now seems inevitable that Louisiana's coastline will be hit and at least another two states could be affected.
Welcoming the US military's offer of help, BP's Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said the company would take help from anyone to combat the spill, but gave no specifics of what form that help might take.
Efforts to stem the flow are being complicated by the depth of the leak at the underwater well, which is about 5,000ft (1,525m) beneath the surface.
Weather forecasters have meanwhile warned that changing winds could drive the oil slick ashore by Friday night. Its leading edge is now only 20 miles (32km) east of the mouth of the Mississippi.
A coast guard crew has set fire to part of the oil slick in an attempt to save environmentally-fragile wetlands.
The "controlled burn" of surface oil took place in an area about 30 miles (50km) east of the Mississippi river delta.
But Mr Miller warned that burning off leaking oil was not a long-term solution.
"The object of this game is to shut off the flow," he said.
Engineers are working on a dome-like device to cover oil rising to the surface and pump it to container vessels, but it may be weeks before this is in place.
It is feared that work on sealing the leaking well using robotic submersibles might take months.
BP is also working on a "relief well" to intersect the original well, but this is experimental and could take two to three months to stop the flow.
President Barack Obama had been briefed on the new developments, and BP has welcomed the offer of assistance from the defence department to help contain the spill.
Seventy vessels - oil skimmers, tugboats barges and special recovery boats that separate oil from water - as well as five aeroplanes were working to spray dispersants and round up oil, BP said.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said the top priority was "to protect our citizens and the environment".
With the spill moving towards Louisiana's coast, which contains some 40% of the nation's wetlands and spawning grounds for countless fish and birds, it was hoped a "controlled burn" of oil contained by special booms would limit the impact.
Environmental experts say animals nearby might be affected by toxic fumes, but perhaps not as much as if they were coated in oil.
On Wednesday afternoon, BP and coastguard boats swept the thickest concentrations of oil into a fire-resistant boom.
This was then towed to a five-mile "burn zone" set up inside the slick, where it was set alight shortly before nightfall.
----------
Now, you could argue that the spill is *only* the size of Jamaica, that since it isn't taking place in Canada that our government has no jurisdiction over it, and that some of that oil might have ended up being used to put together bicycles and to help raise pasture-fed cattle.
But you'd be altogether missing the point. |
just think of the oil that was used to make the plastics in your computer, the rubber on your bike tires and the apholstery in your living room.... not to mention the fuel in the bus you take.
u should feel incredibly guilty right now!!!!! |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
considering that mileage has been increased due to consumer demand, id say progress is being made. Im old enough to remember the gigantor cars of the 70s and 80s that would make SUVs look like Tonka trucks |
Now your arguments are simply borderline retarded. I don't have Canadian stats handy, but in the U.S. there are more than twice as many passenger vehicles on the road now as there were in 1970 - do you honestly think that mileage improvements have somehow offset that number? If that's the case, why isn't oil production in decline? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| ^ average mpg in US 1978 = 18, average in 2009 = 30... so not quite but close. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
not to mention the improvements in the formulation of gasoline. Namely the elimination of lead.
But those are just, shall we say, "inconvenient truths" LOL |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
^ average mpg in US 1978 = 18, average in 2009 = 30... so not quite but close. |
I take it you're factoring in the difference in the amount of time said vehicles were/are in use on a day-to-day basis?
By all means, keep splitting hairs as a way to defer personal accountability - it's what makes the world go 'round! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Awesome commentary from Joe Warmington on the madness and the hypocrisy of all the bans in toronto:
| quote: | “Some animals are more equal than others” — from George Orwell’s Animal Farm.
If you idle your car for more than 60 seconds while picking up your kid from school you soon could be hit with a $125 fine.
But in the Socialist Republic of Toronto it soon may be OK to raise chickens in your backyard and harvest fresh eggs each morning, too.
Some turkeys on council call it progress. The coyotes and foxes are in favour.
Let’s bring outhouses back, too. It would save on water and you could fertilize the backyard for the planting of wheat!
Since we already have the hogs at the helm, the chickens were not going to be far behind in this Orwellian Animalism world that is today’s Toronto.
“Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend” was one of the commandments in Animal Farm, once the human farmer was run out of the barn.
Like Orwell wrote in 1945, the pigs in 2010 really are in charge. Your job is to keep filling their trough as they selectively decide which animals the rules apply to!
Meanwhile, as of April 1, to create the illusion of being green, Ontario’s fools in government quietly snuck in a new recycling tax on every electronics purchase.
This comes from Premier Dalton “Big Brother/Dad” McGuinty who regularly flies on a carbon-emitting jet for China to foster deals with a country that pays slave wages to make products so potentially hard on the environment that the green police are charging us to dispose of them before we have even opened the box they are in.
Why doesn’t he make China pay a recycling tax?
I bought a DVD player for $72.97 and by the time the GST of $3.79, PST of $6.06 and “environmental handling fee” of $2.75 was applied, the total bill was $85.57. Don’t forget the extra five cents for the plastic bag.
That’s an extra $12.65 going to government. Maybe they could use it to hire someone to read the “206-page” sex education curriculum to the premier “who hasn’t read it.” He’s probably too busy counting all of our money.
“Ontarians are seeing death by a thousand tax hikes,” said Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation.
His list of “eco taxes” introduced during the past 24 months includes new hydro-reading smart meters, levies on tires, paint, computers, TVs, telephones, audio and video players, cameras, radios, speakers, personal handheld computers, copiers and scanners.
The whopping HST will arrive July 1 which will add taxes to gasoline, diesel, propane, home heating fuel, electricity, natural gas, TV, phone and Internet service, hair cuts, fees for lawyers, accountants and mechanics, ballet lessons, rink rental fees, tailoring, magazines, mutual funds, massage, train, plane, bus and taxi fares, vitamins, dry-cleaning, grass cutting, snow removal, camping, firewood, meals under $4, new homes over $400,000, gym fees, renovations and Christmas trees.
But this recycling fleecing is grabbing money from people who may never recycle the item they just bought. “This is a hidden tax grab,” said Gaudet. This shameful tax will see $23-$45 added for computers and $17-$34 for TVs and will collect “$105 to $210 million from consumers.”
And who is getting their grubby hands on this cash? Some mysterious outfit called the Ontario Electronic Stewardship, whose website says it’s “the Industry Funding Organization for the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Program Plan” and that “companies that make and market electronic products in Ontario are the stewards of OES.”
Gaudet says, this new tax collector is an “unelected and unaccountable body.”
You can smell the manure. We’d call the police but they are busy handing out tickets for talking on the cellphone while driving.
Orwell would laugh at our “livable city” where you can smoke all the illegally obtained dope you want in front of police in a public square, but try that with a legal, ultra-taxed cigarette at a sports field, or within nine metres of a building’s entrance, and the communists will hand you a ticket.
“All animals are equal” but as the pigs in charge of the Animal Farm ultimately decided, “some animals are more equal than others.”
But somebody has to pay for councillors’ squirrel and bunny suit rentals! |
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
I take it you're factoring in the difference in the amount of time said vehicles were/are in use on a day-to-day basis?
By all means, keep splitting hairs as a way to defer personal accountability - it's what makes the world go 'round! |
i agree... lets all defer personal responsibility! Let the government decide everything for you instead!! |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
I take it you're factoring in the difference in the amount of time said vehicles were/are in use on a day-to-day basis?
By all means, keep splitting hairs as a way to defer personal accountability - it's what makes the world go 'round! |
You asked a question, which I answered. It's funny that you assume I'm deferring personal responsibility and that you also assume that I do not support environmental causes or the environmental movement et al. You have absolutely no knowledge of my position, actions, or opinions. The truth of it all is that you have a little bit of understanding on one subject that you're clearly quite passionate about but not enough that you can actually make a persuasive argument so rather then doing so you attack anyone that does not express unquestioning support for your position and try to characterize them in a way that marginalizes them. Go ahead, demonize anyone that has a different view; however, that tactic will accomplish nothing but enforcing the view people like Jayx1 already hold of your ilk and strengthening their resolve to resist you and dismiss you out of hand. I liken people taking your approach to the idiots holding protest signs outside the security zone for a G8 Summit... you're so ineffectual and incapable that the best way to effect change you can think of is to hold up a sign and chant a slogan that will be ignored almost entirely. If you want to effect change then you need to be able to work with people; taking an adversarial approach accomplishes nothing. |
|
|
|
|
