Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#32|
Started by #485312 [Ignore] 15,Dec,20 18:50
New Comment Rating: -1 Similar topics: 1.WHY DO PEOPLE COME ON SYD WITHOUT VALID PROFILES???? 2.MERRY CHRISTMAS. 3.What constitutes "World-Famous"? 4.Having Oral Sex Preformed on me by a Priest 5.YouTube can be educational too (let's share videos) Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
the global average temperature obviously wasn't -5°F.
That would have caused a global mass extinction event.
we are tired of hearing the whining
only registered users can see external links
instead of depending on government to make changes, make the changes on a smaller scale
"Be the mayor that makes buses electric; be the CEO who ends fossil fuel dependence; be the school that puts (up) solar roofs," he said."
buses don't work but why not put solar panels on a school roof? why not the private companys that want change just do it themselves?
When something big needs to happen, private industry is never up to it.
When there is a war, you don't ask private industry to defend you.
Climate change will be more damaging than any war ever in history.
But we need everyone, to DEFEND humanity from climate change.
It's the most important priority that humanity has ever faced.
That's what government is DESIGNED for; do the things that people don't do
on their own, for the benefit of all people.
What would be the most important industry to not give away to private ownership?
AKA, what industry would you prefer to be owned and controlled by the government?
How about manufacturing weapons of war, that you don't want your enemies to have?
Lets say that climate change is the crisis that scientists tell you it is?
Why would you trust every business owner to prevent it from happening?
Do you understand what a conflict of interest that is to a business owner?
On the one side, they want to make the most profit as possible, but on the other side they need to plan for a future that threatens everyone, including their business. Meanwhile, they have to compete with other businesses. That gives an incentive
to go for the short-term profit, and delay planning for the oncoming threat.
The businesses who do start planning for the oncoming threat, are in a disadvantage against their competition, that don't. It's an incentive to delay the long-term thinking
as much as possible, like a game of chicken.
How about we let government create a 'level playing field', so there is no incentive
to delay the long-term thinking as much as possible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe is planning to invest an extra €800 Billion into the defense industry. I'm incredibly annoyed that they are thinking about just giving away that money, to make it more advantageous for the wealthy to invest in it. Fuck that! They should buy public ownership of the military industrial complex, so it is under democratic control and not act as another cash cow for the wealthy, to become even more wealthy. The taxpayer pays for the military equipment, so stop enriching the wealthy with the taxpayer's money.
of course europe is pissed off they are being expected to pay for their own defense. it takes away money from their pet projects
you just sold us the weapons. That's not just by our choice, that's how you wanted it
for many decades.
How does our price of gas relate to this? That's a private industry in my country, just as much as in the US. The taxes on gas are used for investments in renewable energy and as an incentive for people to buy fuel economic cars.
We do pay for those weapons that go to Ukraine. What the US pays is mostly an imaginary value; you donated almost expired munition to the Ukrainians, and calculate it at full price. If would have cost you money to discard of it. Meanwhile, Europe does pay the full price. Even then, Europe committed around $198 billion and the US only around $175 billion. That's to protect ourselves from your worst enemy, after WWII. The United States played a leading role in the creation and development of NATO. Only very recently did you start reconsidering that arrangement. Of course you wanted us to spend more, mostly on weapons Made in America. We already spent 3 times more on defense than Russia. That should be enough. We are happy to pick up the tap for Ukraine, but the US doesn't want to deliver. Now we have to invest in our own military industrial complex. It's not just the money, but also the time.
It's not a smart strategy for you, because it will create another superpower, that doesn't do your bidding anymore.
But why don't you tell your side of the story. How did the US defend Europe?
What wars did you do to defend us, and were not intended to maintain your position as the worlds strongest superpower?
The US is the biggest supplier of arms in the world. You cannot just cut Europe off, from a 80 year old history of weapon manufacturing deals, and expect Europe to CATCH UP in a few years.
HOW can you not understand that?
Do you ever THINK, before you say something?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ChatGPT:
1. U.S. Weapons Production Policy
- Domestic preference laws: The U.S. has longstanding policies like the Buy American Act and Defense Production Act prioritizing U.S. manufacturing for military needs.
- National security rationale: Ensures control over supply chains, reduces dependence on foreign suppliers, and protects sensitive technology.
- Major systems: Most advanced weapons (nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, stealth fighters) are entirely U.S.-built.
2. Allied Weapons Programs
- Export and joint programs: Allies like the UK, Australia, Japan, and NATO partners often buy U.S. systems (e.g., F‑35 fighter jet), but some parts are made jointly or domestically in partner countries.
- Offsets and licensing: Allies sometimes manufacture components locally under U.S. licenses (e.g., Israeli or Japanese modifications).
3. Exceptions and Foreign Inputs
- Certain subsystems or raw materials (e.g., rare earth elements, semiconductors) are sourced internationally.
- Some allies sell weapons to the U.S. (e.g., Sweden’s Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle) if they meet standards.
4. Military-Industrial Complex Influence
- The term refers to close ties between the Pentagon, defense contractors, and lawmakers, leading to:
- Lobbying for domestic production to protect U.S. jobs and congressional districts.
- Pressure on allies to buy U.S.-made systems for interoperability (e.g., NATO standardization).
Bottom Line:
- The U.S. strongly prefers and incentivizes domestic weapons production and export of U.S. systems to allies.
- But it does not absolutely forbid foreign-made weapons — though sensitive tech (e.g., stealth, nuclear) is tightly controlled.
- Many allied militaries use a mix of U.S. weapons and domestically developed systems.
It has been occurring for thousands of years, possibly since the Sun formed about
4.6 billion years ago. There is direct evidence for that existing the last few centuries
and indirect evidence going back millennia.
Scientists have been tracking and counting solar cycles accurately since 1749.
Solar cycle 1 began in 1755. Solar Cycle 25 (current cycle) began in December 2019,
with solar maximum officially reached around October 2024. Activity is expected to decline as we move toward the next solar minimum in the late 2020s. (11 x 25 = 275 years)
That's 25 accurately documented solar maximums, where all life on earth didn't end.
only registered users can see external links
Can you learn the difference between science and click bait?
Have you seen any real scientists warning about this?
Maybe some that warned to more closely monitor the power grid, to reduce damage.
No serious scientists predicted life on earth ending from the solar cycle, in 2025.
It's still possible that the sun will ever burb out a solar flare that ends all life, but life has persisted for about 3.5 to 3.8 billion years. The most powerful recorded solar flare is the Carrington Event of 1859, a massive solar storm that disrupted telegraphs and caused auroras worldwide. Even that event, far smaller than an extinction‑level event would need to be, did not cause biological harm on a global scale.
Earth’s cosmogenic isotope records (carbon‑14, beryllium‑10) show large solar particle events, around 774 CE and 993 CE (also called the Miyake events). These are the strongest known solar particle events in the last ~10,000 years, and there is evidence
they had measurable effects on Earth, but no evidence of mass biological harm or extinction‑level damage.
It would be an incredible coincidence if the sun ended all life on earth during our lifetimes. If all life on earth were to be wiped out in the coming 40 years, it would at least 99.99999% certain be human made.
only registered users can see external links
If you don't believe it, go find the evidence that shows he's wrong.
due to ananas's link, when 1 of these comes up used, um, 7k off? would be handy for sure.and easy to work on. so glad that concept is finally coming back to American thinking.
With many cities in Europe putting in emission zones, small start up companies
might be interested in something cheap to transport stuff around in those emission zones, since the big brand vans are still too expensive.
It's clear that your billionaires are worrying to completely miss the trend, but it will be
a tough competition against China.
If you keep putting up tariffs, Europe will do the same, and Amazon has no chance
to sell these electric trucks to Europe.
U.S. Port Collapse: 50,000 Containers COLLAPSE –
America’s Supply Chain Is BREAKING
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
at 20 years old, she needs to be either looking for a education or getting a job or getting married so someone can keep her up.
but no, she is out breaking the law.and aint learning her lessons from the punishment either. next time i hope she gets the 6 months in jail. maybe she will start her college course s in there or something productive
They are getting arrested almost every time.
She's doing exactly what she professed to believe in.
If she had quit her cause, you would call her a sell-out.
Instead she shows that she's committed, which you don't like.
On 9 June 2023, Thunberg graduated from high school. In 2023, the University of British Columbia awarded her an honorary Doctor of Laws degree, and the University of Helsinki conferred upon her an honorary Doctorate of Theology.
She is currently enrolled at Stockholm University, pursuing a bachelor's degree in Global Development.
She is doing exactly one of your options; continue her education.
And she didn't pick a subject that would discredit her convictions.
She obviously wants to be a global protest leader for climate action.
A few arrests during protests on her résumé is not a problem for that career.
Since when is the effort to save humanity not "something productive"?
22% of Americans are doing jobs that they self describe as meaningless.
Go talk to them.
only registered users can see external links
Some people care about other things than money.
There is no future in supporting that society.
She can be a little cog in the grinding machine, or she can try to make a difference.
I think she's making a courageous choice.
True, she might be sacrificing her own prosperity, in the goal of preventing
climate catastrophe, and great suffering for many people.
What is the definition of courage, in your opinion?
Isn't it something like; sacrificing, and doing something hard, for a good cause?
why not work a good paying job creating alternative energy sources or similar? be prosperous and contribute towards your goals?
I worry more about America, out of control of anyone.
There are people protesting the actions of China and America too,
but it isn't such a clear problem, with such clear solutions, which clearly isn't addressed enough.
It's nowhere near an "obvious lost cause", it's JUST a political choice.
One individual cannot nearly achieve anything important on her goals, by just working a good paying job creating alternative energy. It's very much debatable
if joining Extinction Rebellion does ANYTHING AT ALL, but she's pretty famous
and is inspiring people. She's also angering lots of people, so I don't know if she's
a net positive, but she's aspiring to be better than just a angry teen. I think she understands that. That's obviously why she's pursuing the bachelor's degree in Global Development. She already has fame, if she combines it with actual skills,
she might very well be that net positive.
Some people are born to lead, others are born to follow. She wants to lead.
Why don't you ask your "leaders" why they do what they do?
Is it maybe because you understand that they're only serving themselves?
less than 7 years and done. millions wasted by citys all over the US
only registered users can see external links
PLEASE note, the bankruptcy was filed in 2023. 3 years after Trump, 1 year before Trump so whos fault>?, not Trumps
No one ever denied that. It's not an economical choice, it's a sustainable choice.
chances are they are also very complicated to work on.
electric vehicles used to be very simple but now they add computers where none are needed
The only reason for why these busses are expensive and less reliable are the batteries.
Trams and trains are extremely reliable electric vehicles.
Electric busses with batteries will become more reliable too.
That requires investments and testing, which is why I support projects like that.
That might be more expensive and problematic at first, but it will be solved.
If you see what's needed to make an electric lawnmower, than I agree
that they are more complicated. To me, that's just problems to be solved.
Gas powered cars broke down all the time too, early in their development.
EV's are still early in their development, so it is to be expected of them.
That's no reason to not do that. Humanity needs to get of fossil fuels ASAP.
Do you know the YouTube channel "Aging Wheels"?
The presenter (Robert Dunn) is very entertaining.
He is who I am referring to for electric lawnmowers being complicated.
"This Electric Mower is Great! Until it Isn't..."
only registered users can see external links
"Spent $1500 to Fix Ryobi's Mistake"
only registered users can see external links
"This was Bugging Me So I Fixed It"
only registered users can see external links
--------------------------------------- added after 7 minutes
Liver transplants weren't always successful, but advancements in medicine have significantly improved outcomes over time. While the initial success of liver transplants was limited, advancements in surgical techniques, immunosuppressant drugs, and patient care have dramatically increased the survival rate and quality of life for transplant recipients.
Now, they practically warranty that the patient will live at least 5 yrs and many live a full life.
The moral is don’t give up. The end results are what matters.
BTW, why are you so against replacing internal combustion engines?
let the person who earns their wages buy what they wish with their money. and a city or state or government should be good stewards of the money they take from the people. it should be invested in what is reliable ,long lasting and quality built. not someone's science experiment.
the ford 300 inline 6 engine will easily go 400,000 miles with some Maintenace. that's why ups ran them for decades. why is it the governments have to invest in junk?
your lithium mining employees children and pollutes the ground water and is difficult to recycle.kinda like that nuclear waste you are so fond of.
only registered users can see external links
why should i want to glow in the dark so you can put coal miners out of a job?
As far as you wanting to drive a polluting hunk of iron, there's nothing I can do about it. Nor do I like anything that endangers mankind.
Nuclear energy produces radioactive waste
A major environmental concern related to nuclear power is the creation of radioactive wastes such as uranium mill tailings, spent (used) reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes. These materials can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years.
Fossil fuels have significant negative environmental impacts, including contributing to climate change, air and water pollution, and resource depletion. Burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, leading to global warming and extreme weather events. They also cause air pollution with harmful pollutants like particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, impacting public health. Extraction and transportation can damage ecosystems, contaminate water, and disrupt habitats.
The environmental impacts of human sexual activity are multifaceted, ranging from waste generated by contraceptives and sexual health products
1. Waste Generation:
Contraceptives, including condoms, and other sexual health products like lubricants, generate packaging waste that ends up in landfills.
Longer-term contraceptive options like IUDs and implants can have less waste, but still come with their own risks and potential for environmental impact.
so uh, it may be best for you to stp having sex and walk everywhere you go if you don't want to endanger mankind.
into a negative for humanity.
If I thought that nuclear power would have enough benefits towards the survival of humanity, I would take the downsides of the nuclear waste for granted, but I think it's not the smartest direction to take. It's not renewable, it's also a fossil fuel, it's very expensive and dangerous, and most importantly, it doesn't combine with the irregular supply of solar and wind well. I prefer to invest money wisely, and investing in nuclear energy is not. It will only make the energy transition more expensive, slower and cause more downsides.
The argument that ..... is ending up in landfills is never a good one.
The basis for everything should be recycling. If they are making stuff that isn't recycled properly, then that should be priority one. Circularity is part of sustainability.
The number one issue with fossil fuels is that it's not recycled at all; we use it and then it's gone. The only thing we are doing is trying to find new sources that are not gone yet, which is increasingly more difficult.
I think CAT is at a stage when contraceptives are not needed anymore.
I didn't think I also needed to give you sexual education, phart.
protection is not just to prevent babies in modern times. it also prevents those things that ajax and sandpaper won't remove.
as for energy, i would rather see time and money spent on geothermal. nothing to recycle. Recycling cost alot of money and creates pollution during material transport and reforming.
just 55 degree air that can assist in heating or cooling of anything from rooms on up.
How can that ever be better than extracting the useful resources out of waste
and re-using it? All useful resources would just be depleted very soon.
In most cases, recycling costs much less energy and creates much less pollution than making the materials from scratch.
In The Netherlands we are recycling glass since 1972. Organized recycling of paper started around 1916, but in the 70s the national system was introduced. Cans were removed from waste starting in the 80s. In the 90s aluminum recycling was improved and currently about 75% of all aluminum is extracted from our waste.
rebuild a engine or electric motor instead of grinding and melting and repouring metal.
geoengineering
is this even ethical?
It's solving a problem by reducing the symptoms,
instead of eliminating the root cause.
Ethical? What do you think we have done to the world?
What makes meddling with nature ethical or not?
We meddled with nature to get to this point,
so when is ethics at risk if we try to reverse it?
Geoengineering isn't unethical in my opinion, it's just a waste of resources
to focus on symptom control. It's only a delay, which requires more resources,
to eventually fix the root cause. It's not "bad", it's just not smart.
instead of curing cancer, we treat it,
Still, your health care system is causing too many people to die of cancer, who could be saved. Most of them die because they don't have the money to pay for what they need. Many die of untreatable cancer, because they didn't go to the doctor when their first symptoms were showing, because you don't go to a doctor for mild symptoms in a system like yours where everything is expensive.
If you think that health care providers are treating people, instead of curing people, for a money incentive, that's your own fault for supporting a system with a money incentive.
Returning to climate change. Yes, that's exactly what geoengineering is: treating symptoms, instead of curing the cause. The cause is our dependence on fossil fuels
and YOUR reluctance to cure that dependence. Renewable energy is the cure.
Partial remission: The cancer is still there, but it's smaller or less active.
Complete remission: No signs of cancer can be detected.
When a patient enjoys many years of "complete remission", they can be considered "cured".
What you might refer to is that they need regular checkups for the rest of their lives. That's because the cancer itself might be completely gone, but the very likely predisposition for the specific type of cancer is in their DNA for ever. Those people are just one mutation in one cell away, from the cancer re-emerging.
--------------------------------------- added after 12 minutes
While a cancer patient may be considered cured after 5 years or more of complete remission, meaning no signs of cancer are detected, it's not impossible that some cancer cells could still remain in the body. These cells may be dormant, too small to be detected by current testing methods, or have developed a resistance to treatment. The possibility of future recurrence, even years later, is why the term "cured" is often avoided, and doctors instead use terms like "remission" or "no evidence of disease".
Cancer cells aren't normally present in everyone's body, all the time. However, cell mutations that could lead to cancer happen fairly often in our bodies. Cells are constantly dividing, and during this process, DNA mistakes (mutations) can occur.
We all experience mutations and possibly the beginnings of cancer frequently,
but a healthy immune system and good DNA repair usually stop it; when these defenses fail — due to genetics, environment, aging, or random chance —
cancer can develop.
Most of these mutations are harmless or are repaired immediately by the body’s repair systems.
Some mutated cells might start behaving abnormally, but they usually don't reach the point of becoming full cancer unless ADDITIONAL mutations accumulate.
The immune system is constantly monitoring for abnormal cells — this is called immune surveillance.
When an abnormal or precancerous cell is detected, immune cells (like natural killer cells and T-cells) will usually destroy it.
Some mutated cells might temporarily evade detection and survive, but without enough harmful changes (mutations in key genes like tumor suppressors and oncogenes), they typically don't cause serious problems.
There is some evidence that very early cancers can exist "silently" for years and either stay dormant, regress, or eventually progress, depending on complex factors like immune strength, environment, and genetics.
Why do some people get cancer and others don't?
This happens because of a complex interaction of several factors:
- Genetics: Some people inherit mutations (like BRCA mutations) that make cancer much more likely.
- Environment: Exposure to carcinogens (like smoking, radiation, UV light, certain viruses) increases mutation rates.
- Aging: As we age, DNA repair mechanisms become less efficient, and mutations accumulate over time.
- Immune system health: A weaker immune system (due to age, illness, or certain medications) may be less able to catch and destroy abnormal cells.
- Random chance: Even without clear risk factors, random mutations during cell division can sometimes just add up the wrong way.
Of course it's not a cure for everything, it's just absolutely vital to prevent
major climate catastrophe.
It's not even clear if it would be enough to completely transition to renewable energy within the absolutely minimum possible time-frame, starting today. It's possible that humanity has already condemned itself, by acting too slowly.
It's like waiting a year before you start the chemotherapy.
It could be too late, no matter how aggressive you attack the cancer.
New Comment Go to top