Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

How long did it take from the first atom bomb to Three Mile Island?
How long did it take from the first V-2 launches to the Moon landing?
How long did it take from ENIAC to the Internet?
How long did it take from the VCR to Blu-Ray?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

You've sold me! Every social program that I benefit from that you intend to cut can go die by the side of the road! I've always thought I could be rich, and your unceasing drive to fuel my outlandish dreams that I may ever benefit from tax cuts for the wealthy makes me froth at the mouth in RED, WHITE, and BLUE! Never let the American Dream die, because if we can't delude ourselves, we're going to fall prey to the Reds and the towelheads!

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Better than what I said:

We shouldn't try to push desktop computing. We should just refine typewriter technology.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I get to be the kettle, because I have the bigger spout.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

rofl

I enjoyed this line. Thank you, sir.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

It's not your fault Jubber, you're just educated stupid.

Drominar, Petrous, Chronowrench

The thing that gets me is that the letter itself --- with 16 goddamn signatories --- is so fucking poorly written, even by Murdoch's faux journalistic standards. Out of 16 educated scientists, you'd think that at least one would have the sense to have someone review the piece before sending it in to the WSJ. And yet it's written as if it were a slightly-above-average high schooler's research paper.

THE BEST PART OF THIS (rollback) IS THAT THIS THREAD CAN BECOME THIS AGAIN



AND GO.

still makes me laugh.

Don't mean to resurrect a dead argument thread, but I just remembered (through studying for the MCAT) that the global warming problem isn't just about CO2 emissions but also because of NO (nitric oxide). The article uses CO2 plenty of times and states that global warming (a product of BOTH CO2 and NO emissions) is exaggerated when only looking at CO2. Well yeah, of course it's going to be exaggerated when you remove a large portion from the equation. Not saying that the actual written argument is wrong, but the strong implications of the article are basically flat-out lies.

Nerd time. CO2 is a greenhouse gas in that it essentially acts as a barrier to reflected energy from the sun (similar to a greenhouse, or "hot house"). That's one way to raise global temp - prevent incoming energy (heat) from being reflected back into space. NO is a catalyst for O3 (ozone) degradation. It basically lowers the amount of effort O3 needs to put into itself to degrade into O2. The O3 layer reflects a large amount of the incoming energy from the sun before it reaches earth (lest we end up like Mercury). That's another way to increase global temperature - making the protective layer thinner and allowing more energy in. Taken together, you get global warming. It's not enough to just look at the more familiar product of exhaust.

Just sayin.

/nerd

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

The problem is that it's a complicated subject, but people want simple answers, which is why such a stink is made about carbon dioxide to the exclusion of other contributing factors. I don't believe it was the individuals who wrote this article who originally placed the heavy emphasis on carbon dioxide, they're just responding to projections based on, among other things, that heavy emphasis. Too much is made of projections which only turn out to be in error years after they're made. I'm all for spewing less bullshit into the atmosphere, and keeping things as pristine as possible, but not to the degree that turns society on its head, especially if our impetus for doing so are doomsday prophecies.

In other news, the DoE apparently thinks $50 dollar light bulbs are "affordable." I appreciate that one of the requirements was that the winning bulb had to be made in the U.S.A, but $50 does not represent an "affordable" light bulb when traditional bulbs cost less than $1. If anything, the prize just shouldn't have been awarded.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

That very article you cited says the $50 bulb lasts 30 times as long, maybe longer, than the $1 bulb. The article then says (almost word for word) "BUT GOVERNMENT IS EVIL SO BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH"

That very article you cited says the $50 bulb is actually comparable to bulbs on the market.
The article then says (almost word for word) "BUT RICH PPL CAN EXPLOIT CHINESE PEASANTS AND DUMP SHIT IN THEIR RIVERS SO WHY SHOULD WE GIVE AMERICAN WORKERS JERBS"

What the article doesn't say is that LED bulbs use only a fraction of the energy of incandescent and fluorescent bulbs. When energy is factored in, the bulb is actually way, way, cheaper than anything on the market.

Funny how the super biased left wing American media doesn't volunteer that curious little fact and instead claims the job-killing, anti-American commie lightbulb will lead us all into Anthem-like destitution.

Wait, what was Anthem about again? I don't remember.

So...the article tries to cover up the truth with semantics, which is...that for maybe, at extreme most, a 50% increase in the cost of lightbulbs, we could give American workers jobs AND save the environment, and the US government has found a way to do it. Man, sounds horrible.

So...yeah. You're trying to sound reasonable but in reality you're not actually being reasonable, you're just trying to make your brainwashing sound reasonable.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I remember when those swirly "last forever" bulbs came out, they were great cheap and i still have them lasting.

then GE got a hold of them and now they suck very closely as much as the old ones did.

UR A COMMIE

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

$50 bucks a bulb is a huge capital cost if one looks to replace the lightbulbs in their house.

There's 17 bulbs in my house, which equates to $850.

Even after eliminating lesser used bulbs in lamps, etc, it only drops to $700.

That's a lot of money to invest for a loss.

What's the reduction in energy consumption used by these bulbs?