Use Google and kill polar bears. [Archive]

Skud

12th Jan 2009, 02:32 AM

all i have to say is i dont like hippies. technically humans are a worse environmental hazard than most of the things they worry about. 6.5 billion people producing CO2 24/7.

take every little thing combined times a couple of billion. Ecological balance...when one species becomes too successful, Mother Nature finds a way to set it straight...bacteria, viruses, starvation, warfare, etc., and, yes, ozone depletion to give em all an extra punch...Not to sound too Grim Reaper, but the hard times are still around the corner. Earth won't go away, though. :D

BigTwinky

12th Jan 2009, 08:42 AM

If a Google search adds this much CO2 I bet a gaming session just as much. Maybe a tax on high end video cards will solve the problem. :roll:

Actually, they do touch on this in the article.

Nicholas Carr, author of The Big Switch, Rewiring the World, has calculated that maintaining a character (known as an avatar) in the Second Life virtual reality game, requires 1,752 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. That is almost as much used by the average Brazilian.

I am not tech savy enough to know if FPS gaming requires more or less server power compared to this "Second Life" game or compared to WoW.

While I'm all for looking at finding ways to help the environment, I find there are more important things they should be spending their time on. If google wasn't there, people would have to drive to a library and would probably be using up more CO2 on that drive that Google's servers do looking stuff up.

There is a great point made in the article though

?It tells us how much energy westerners use on entertainment versus the energy poverty in some countries.?

I find this is a very true statement not just for power consumption but consumption in general like food, cars and many other material things.

Dead...Again

12th Jan 2009, 10:33 AM

I find this is a very true statement not just for power consumption but consumption in general like food, cars and many other material things.
This is true, but are we supposed to care? Should we feel guilty and not take advantage of the things available to us?

Hammy

12th Jan 2009, 11:28 AM

Look- they have thousands of theories on what killed the dinosaurs right?

Impact Theory
Dramatic Vulcanism
Sea Level Changes
Earth Orbital Changes
Passing Through a Gamma Cloud
Solar Eruption
Disease Theory
Climate Change

Why are we so different? We're going to overpopulate the world, occupy as much freespace as we can, attempt to feed the world on whatever we can grow or herd, and then- when the world has fewer spiecies to buffer us from viral outbreak, we are going to get hammered and die out.

The dinosaurs, in my perfect theory, after ravaging the landscape, were wiped out by infection, famine, and extreme cold or heat in climate change (take your pick).

Funny part is, when the climate changes on earth, it wouldnt matter if man were here or not, it's not dependent on C02 emissions either, it's dependent on a complex cycle of micro-ecology sewn togeather by MANY different variables of which none of us can control.

So when you say Global Warming, Climate Changes, Save a Frog, Save a Bear, and etc. I just roll my eyes. When you can get 50% of the world population to give up the land they own in order to move into multi-level buildings so that we can have more free land for animals to exist in- then I will care about the polar bears. Until then, so what?

mapes

12th Jan 2009, 11:45 AM

This is a stupid article. If people are concerned about how much CO a google search takes they should instead off themselves to prevent further global warming coming out of their stupid mouths and save the rest of the world from both they're hypocrisy and global warming.

BigTwinky

12th Jan 2009, 11:47 AM

This is true, but are we supposed to care? Should we feel guilty and not take advantage of the things available to us?

Absolutely not. I enjoy my things as much as the next guy. I don't always have to have the latest and greatest, but if this is something someone needs to feel fulfilled in their life, more power to them.

I do admit that the reasons that motivate me to save energy and more financial that environmental and the reasons I chose not to pollute (take my bike vs my car when I can) are more personal health than environmental. The environment is always part of that.

Should you totally stop using all man made power to show support for those in third world countries? No. If someone truly wanted to show support, help build a green infrastructure in the places where they need stuff.

I just roll my eyes. When you can get 50% of the world population to give up the land they own in order to move into multi-level buildings so that we can have more free land for animals to exist in- then I will care about the polar bears. Until then, so what?

I read this over a few times and I don't understand what you are trying to say. Well, I do, but its a bit confusing. The point is that you just don't care about those polar bears and other endangered animals because you will never convince 50% of people to sell their land to move vertically. I'm seeing it as you feel its the greater species survives and if by expanding this means that other species die off, well, too bad.

Where I am not convinced is that what the planet is going through is fully caused by humans. Who is to say that its not its natural course? While humans could and probably are accelerating the whole by adding non-natural crap into the mix, I'm thinking the planet is just going through its normal cycles. I'm sure that when the planet froze over and killed the dinosaurs, there were some species, the less adaptable ones, that died off first. That could just be the case for the polar bears.

So I don't think humans are 100% responsible, but I think they have some blame to take in the unatural speeding up of the process.

So then why should I care about the polar bears if they are going to die off anyways from the planet's natural cycle? I care because I don't find that its right that one's good makes bad for another.

But hey, I'm not an expert, I don't watch Discovery 24/7.

I have more to say but for some reason, its just not coming out properly. I hope what I typed made sense, had to do it over a few times. Warrior needs food!

Hammy

12th Jan 2009, 12:06 PM

Absolutely not. I enjoy my things as much as the next guy. I don't always have to have the latest and greatest, but if this is something someone needs to feel fulfilled in their life, more power to them.

I do admit that the reasons that motivate me to save energy and more financial that environmental and the reasons I chose not to pollute (take my bike vs my car when I can) are more personal health than environmental. The environment is always part of that.

Should you totally stop using all man made power to show support for those in third world countries? No. If someone truly wanted to show support, help build a green infrastructure in the places where they need stuff.

I read this over a few times and I don't understand what you are trying to say. Well, I do, but its a bit confusing. The point is that you just don't care about those polar bears and other endangered animals because you will never convince 50% of people to sell their land to move vertically. I'm seeing it as you feel its the greater species survives and if by expanding this means that other species die off, well, too bad.

Where I am not convinced is that what the planet is going through is fully caused by humans. Who is to say that its not its natural course? While humans could and probably are accelerating the whole by adding non-natural crap into the mix, I'm thinking the planet is just going through its normal cycles. I'm sure that when the planet froze over and killed the dinosaurs, there were some species, the less adaptable ones, that died off first. That could just be the case for the polar bears.

So I don't think humans are 100% responsible, but I think they have some blame to take in the unatural speeding up of the process.

So then why should I care about the polar bears if they are going to die off anyways from the planet's natural cycle? I care because I don't find that its right that one's good makes bad for another.

But hey, I'm not an expert, I don't watch Discovery 24/7.

I have more to say but for some reason, its just not coming out properly. I hope what I typed made sense, had to do it over a few times. Warrior needs food!

I want everyone to know that I respect this opinion very much, and I wish I could find the 'perfect balance' to make this possible for myself. BUT- by my way of thinking- my survival is very important to me. If by giving up certain things, my survival becomes difficult, and those who do not give up are not having a hard time surviving, then why should I abstain?

Thats pretty much in a nutshell my position.

Trooper110

12th Jan 2009, 12:07 PM

It's nature, survival of the fittest. If the polar bears wanted to multiply and be fruitful they should have developed intelligence. Yes, it sucks that we're wiping out these species, but honestly, other than a source of food or something to go and see, what do we get? It's possible with some undiscovered species that we'd find a cure for cancer, or HIV, or whatever, but for the most part, we're just doing as nature intended. The trouble is going to start when we make large portions of the earth untenable and start having trouble feeding our population. At which point we innovate, move on, or die off in massive numbers. I'm not sure that unless we had some huge doomsday that the human race will ever cease to exist, but if that were the case it could take a good long time to recover.

BigTwinky

12th Jan 2009, 01:14 PM

I want everyone to know that I respect this opinion very much, and I wish I could find the 'perfect balance' to make this possible for myself. BUT- by my way of thinking- my survival is very important to me. If by giving up certain things, my survival becomes difficult, and those who do not give up are not having a hard time surviving, then why should I abstain?

Thats pretty much in a nutshell my position.

I think everyone can agree that they would do what they need to do to survive. Its in our nature to do so. I would as well.

However, you have to qualify your definition of survival. I don't know your situation Hammy, so I am not assuming anything, just stating out a general question. Webster states that survival is the act or fact of living or continuing longer than another person or thing. Its something that is down to its basic level. I don't see how one's survival is linked to them owning a Hummer or other gas guzzling / higher emition vehicle.

So going with the "my survival above all else" idea, if people can do things to help some other species survive, all the while not doing anything to limit their survival, then why not? If ditching that "bad for the environment" car for something more economical in gas and better for the environment, then why not? Granted, cost is an issue with the green car technology being only recently accessible.

And in line with the original post, one' survival should not be determined or impacted by the amount of google searches.

linemanstud

12th Jan 2009, 02:54 PM

BigTwinky

12th Jan 2009, 03:03 PM

If none of it affects you and you have nothing relevant to contribute, then enjoy your hermit life

mapes

12th Jan 2009, 03:20 PM

none of this is gonna really effect me because i plan on being a hermit in the mountains with my shotgun and some chickens. if humanity wants to kill itself and then get ulcers because of it, i say let it.

The problem is climate change affects everyone and not just the polar bears. I honestly don't think that curtailing my Google searches is the answer. I honestly don't think the problem is insurmountable I just think these types of articles are stupid.

RyeWhiskey

13th Jan 2009, 08:12 AM

So as you most of you put it, we are not responsible for the Globe warming and its' just a cycle, explain why the mountainous icecaps are nearing depletion and/or gone in the span of 100 years or less, ones that were around for generations. Just a cycle?

Twinky's points are about the best so far. Survival isn't about having what you want how you want it, survival is ensuring your longevity and health, yada yada. See the thing about this is you never know what is actually happening until it happens, then one side can say to the other I told you so. So in the end, we as ignorantly possible go about what we do best, and that's producing more trash than we need, and consuming more per individual than we should, Hey Great! Let's wait to do something until most things are gone, life is worse than we expected than decide that we should have done something sooner.

Of course it needs to be the same for everyone, I can't see doing something while others don't.

BigTwinky

13th Jan 2009, 08:27 AM

So as you most of you put it, we are not responsible for the Globe warming and its' just a cycle, explain why the mountainous icecaps are nearing depletion and/or gone in the span of 100 years or less, ones that were around for generations. Just a cycle?

Yes it could be. No one really knows as no one was here the last time it happened.

Saw a show about hurricanes and how their patterns cycle. In the 70s, things were pretty quiet on the east coast when in the decades past, they had some pretty bad hurricanes (just no data to capture and analyse) so people started to re-migrate back to the coast thinking the worse is over.

Then in 1992, Andrew hit and did some major damage so scientists started to study hurricanes, how they are composed and their patterns for emerging even more closely. They started doing geological studies to try and find a pattern that would of been shows by taking an 8 foot soil sample or studying the lines of a tree trunk.

And they all agree that the strenght of hurricanes are on a cycle. When we had 1 bad one a year, we now have 2-3 bad ones a year. Thing is, is it the same cycle that is coming back? or are the hurricanes going to be twice as strong as in the 50s, and then again, is that the normal cycle?

Coming back to the ice caps melting...who is to say that they aren't supposed to naturally melt at a rate of say 5% every 50 years? Prior to the colonisation of the Americas, we had no idea how things were. And while I agree that humans are doing damage, who is to say that we are simply not changing that 5% avery 50 years to 5.005% every 50 years?

Those numbers are totally made up, just using them for an easy example.

I honestly think that humans are doing more damage than that and I feel that any damage we can avoid doing, while not impeeding our own survival, the better. And anything we can do to help another species, just as "some" of us try and do to help other humans, we should. I'll buy that beggar a lunch one day because I feel I can spare that $6.99. But really, i could be using that 6.99 for something for myself. I try to apply the same thing to other species, other animals, whether they be dogs, cats, birds, pandas, bears, giraffes or whatever in some shape or indirect form.

I feel that not doing so is just a selfish as not wanting to help other humans who are on hard times.

I'm not extreme about it, I don't have the resources to be. I also want to live my own life comfortable and happy. But if a minor change in what I do can contribute, I'll do it. Probably a bit selfish on my part in going with the thought that if everyone did a bit, it would make a big difference, so I content myself with just a bit. But hey, at least its a bit.

Dead...Again

13th Jan 2009, 11:25 AM

I agree with a lot of what you say BigTwinky. A few of my thoughts:

I do not think the majority of the climate changes are man-made. We know for a fact that the earth goes through natural cycles. From looking at the ice cores it is obvious that the earth's temperature was already on an increase before the Industrial Revolution. We may be (and probably are) accelerating the process, but I don't think we have the knowledge to accurately gauge the extent of that acceleration.

I do think we should try to decrease CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Even if we aren't the primary cause of climate change, the pollution can't be good. That being said, I do not think we should sign the Kyoto Protocol or take drastic measures that would hurt our economy and our country. We should concentrate on researching methods for cleaner power plants, cars, etc. We need a smooth transition to cleaner technologies.

Regarding the polar bears, there is one thing I don't understand (and it goes back to the survival discussion): why haven't the polar bears migrated if their survival is being threatened? Normally, when a species faces a changing environment that threatens their survival, they try to find a more suitable habitat. The polar bears do not appear to be doing this. Does that mean they are too dumb to adapt? Or maybe they aren't as threatened as we think? At any rate, they make a nice poster child for the environmental nuts...

RyeWhiskey

13th Jan 2009, 01:02 PM

Sorry, we have made an impact on our environment whether we want to say we did or not. Ignoring the fact that we have changed our environment doesn't make it so we didn't. Our actions in the last 200 years have accelerated the hand of nature. Go visit a rock quarry and say we haven't changed anything, witness the destruction of the rain forest to say we haven't changed anything. Dumping toxic sludge into our water cycle hasn't changed anything? A trash vortex twice the size of texas swirling in the ocean? Natural? Cmon, it's killing all types of marine life, they eat it, we eat. Coral reefs are disappearing, animal life is disappearing, all this at a more accelerated rate than before. We ARE creating our problems. You think it's natural that 60 years ago you could see across Beijing, and now you can't see barely anything? Give me a break, not accepting that we are IMPACTING our environment negatively is part of the problem.

We are terraforming the planet and ruining it along our way. Creature comforts are the reason? Development, it's odd since we are not really moving up, we are after all human, and with that, we will always be prone to ruin.

Reason's we don't acknowledge our process in ruining the environment range from not wanting to change, to not caring, to not wanting to accept responsibility. Habitual nature and a tendency to innate laziness are culprits, along with greed of money.

PS, I'd be happy to have few of the creature comforts that exist today. I of course was born in the wrong time period, and I believe nature looks better than concrete.

Sirex

13th Jan 2009, 01:33 PM

If thats just a search... imagine what the google banner ad's use up...

BigTwinky

13th Jan 2009, 01:40 PM

Regarding the polar bears, there is one thing I don't understand (and it goes back to the survival discussion): why haven't the polar bears migrated if their survival is being threatened? Normally, when a species faces a changing environment that threatens their survival, they try to find a more suitable habitat. The polar bears do not appear to be doing this. Does that mean they are too dumb to adapt? Or maybe they aren't as threatened as we think? At any rate, they make a nice poster child for the environmental nuts...

I'm thinking its like wondering why Beluga whales haven't adapted / migrated to the changes in their habitate. Because they can't. Can't ask a fish to walk on land.

And as another random thought....maybe the polar bears WOULD adapt if they had the natural time to adapt to the changes in the climate as per the planet's natural cycles.

The acceleration in the ruin of the planet caused by humans has made it so that the polar bear (and even the Beluga) can't adapt fast enough. But if you take humans and our waste and environmental destruction out of the equation, maybe the polar bears would be able to live in warmer climates. Then I guess we'd call them Whatusedtobepolar bears.

linemanstud

13th Jan 2009, 11:02 PM

I'm thinking its like wondering why Beluga whales haven't adapted / migrated to the changes in their habitate. Because they can't. Can't ask a fish to walk on land.

And as another random thought....maybe the polar bears WOULD adapt if they had the natural time to adapt to the changes in the climate as per the planet's natural cycles.

The acceleration in the ruin of the planet caused by humans has made it so that the polar bear (and even the Beluga) can't adapt fast enough. But if you take humans and our waste and environmental destruction out of the equation, maybe the polar bears would be able to live in warmer climates. Then I guess we'd call them Whatusedtobepolar bears.

I don't think it is an issue of polar bears not being able to adapt. They don't just live on the ice. They live in parts of Alaska where there is no snow for 4 months out of the year. They live in parts of Canada that are like that too. I think that the big issue with the polar bears is that a lot of them live on all those islands north of Canada and are not able to migrate to places where food is more plentiful.

BuzzSaw55

14th Jan 2009, 10:49 PM

google is denying claims

Google denies CO2 search claims (http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/20393/21417/google-denies-co2-search-claims.phtml)

Joe

Duke{CLR}

15th Jan 2009, 09:00 AM

I love some of the comments that were posted to that article.

mapes

15th Jan 2009, 01:51 PM

If thats just a search... imagine what the google banner ad's use up...

Excellent point... Let alone what driving a car to a library, plus all of the power to light the street lamps and signal lights along the way, plus all the power to operate the libraries computer to check out a book, plus how much power it takes to power a copy machine to photo copy said book....

Thats why this article is dumb..

Hammy

15th Jan 2009, 05:52 PM

google is denying claims

Google denies CO2 search claims (http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/20393/21417/google-denies-co2-search-claims.phtml)

Joe

To respond to such a stupid comment is to declare yourself worse!

Anyways-- Where do all the dead Polar bears go? I think one would fit in the lobby of our office over here....Can I get one stuffed, standing on his hind legs, big growl and arms raised, with a sign hanging around it's neck that says:

This Polar Bear was made possible by Google

mapes

15th Jan 2009, 06:28 PM

I want a polar bear rug...bawnt chika bow bow:wink:

Kaeben

19th Jan 2009, 08:52 AM

the part i find funny is people are talking about survival when really they want to keep their quality of life. If you stop driving and start cycling to work then you loose some quality but you GAIN in survival you get fitter and most likely live longer.
If we kill of the polar bear for example its not just a case of "oh well its gone i wont miss it" but you doin that could cause fish population to increase which will the affect everything else its a chain reaction
Kaeben

BigTwinky

19th Jan 2009, 11:38 AM

the part i find funny is people are talking about survival when really they want to keep their quality of life. If you stop driving and start cycling to work then you loose some quality but you GAIN in survival you get fitter and most likely live longer.

Sounds like you are saying that quality of life - lazyness. How does driving to work improve my quality of life? The argument can be made that cycling makes me physically healthy and that not only increases my chances of survival, but it also improves my quality of life as I can do more things that I would, being healthier, able to take treks in the woods and so on, while I am alive.

But I don't get how driving improves one's quality of life. Its a luxury (that many people take as a right) that many use to get from point a to point b. Driving for some means 2-3 hour commutes to get to work. How does that improve quality of life when they can get a job nearby and only commute for 20 mins?

If we kill of the polar bear for example its not just a case of "oh well its gone i wont miss it" but you doin that could cause fish population to increase which will the affect everything else its a chain reaction
Kaeben

Good point. That is what has happened with the seal hunt situation. Humans killed off a huge chunk of the killer whale population. So much, that the seal population has exploded in numbers. Their huge numbers have other environmental issues so to help control the issues that we created by killing off the majority of their natural predators, we have to kill the seals ourselves.

Now lets not get on the whole "save the seal" discussion please. It was just a concrete example of a potential chain reaction when one predator drops in numbers.

Will this happen to polar bears? I don't know. If they eat fish, then there will be more fish on the market and the price of your favorite fried fish dish at Red Lobster will come down.

Hmmm...not a good argument...kill the polar bears to bring down the price of fish at Red Lobster.

mapes

19th Jan 2009, 08:45 PM

Sounds like you are saying that quality of life - lazyness. How does driving to work improve my quality of life? The argument can be made that cycling makes me physically healthy and that not only increases my chances of survival, but it also improves my quality of life as I can do more things that I would, being healthier, able to take treks in the woods and so on, while I am alive.

But I don't get how driving improves one's quality of life. Its a luxury (that many people take as a right) that many use to get from point a to point b. Driving for some means 2-3 hour commutes to get to work. How does that improve quality of life when they can get a job nearby and only commute for 20 mins?

Depending on where you live cycling could actually cut your rate of survival.

Good point. That is what has happened with the seal hunt situation. Humans killed off a huge chunk of the killer whale population. So much, that the seal population has exploded in numbers. Their huge numbers have other environmental issues so to help control the issues that we created by killing off the majority of their natural predators, we have to kill the seals ourselves.

Now lets not get on the whole "save the seal" discussion please. It was just a concrete example of a potential chain reaction when one predator drops in numbers.

Will this happen to polar bears? I don't know. If they eat fish, then there will be more fish on the market and the price of your favorite fried fish dish at Red Lobster will come down.

Hmmm...not a good argument...kill the polar bears to bring down the price of fish at Red Lobster.

Funny story about man messing with environments. We were told this story a couple years back while on a diving trip to Niihau. Off of the coast of Niihau (the most eastern Island of the main Hawaiian Islands) there is a small Island about a 4 or 5 acres called Le Hua.

Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=niihau&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&split=0&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=image)

What lived on the Island was birds and some native plants. Well it turns out that some invasive plant species started to grow and take over the island. Someone at fish and game had a great idea to put rabbits or hares on the island. It seemed perfect. The rabbits would survive just long enough and eat all of the invasive plants. What ended up happening instead of the rabbits dying from lack of fresh water they adapted and started to eat the birds eggs for water. That island had blood sucking rabbits! I think the ended up importing dogs onto the island to eat the rabbits. Then the dogs died and the only thing living on the island now is rats.

BigTwinky

20th Jan 2009, 08:00 AM

Thats a pretty funny, cool, yet very Island of Dr Moreau-ish.

Hammy

21st Jan 2009, 02:29 PM

But I don't get how driving improves one's quality of life. Its a luxury (that many people take as a right) that many use to get from point a to point b. Driving for some means 2-3 hour commutes to get to work.

Possessions drive western culture. A vehicle is a possession, and a gateway of freedom. I used to carpool until the guy in IT kept asking me to stay later even though I was driving. No thanks, sitting at my office an extra two hours or having the person come by and ask if we can leave early, go by the grocery, post office, etc. is a giant pain.

How does that improve quality of life when they can get a job nearby and only commute for 20 mins?

Job near your house pays $50k a year. Job that makes you commute 45min each way pays 150k + . So you mean to tell me that you are going to be happy with your nice commute and 2/3 less revenue?

I'm equating Quality of life to freedom of choice in that life. Otherwise, Castro has a good point- his people have a good life, they are alive right?

Duke{CLR}

21st Jan 2009, 02:30 PM

I'm equating Quality of life to freedom of choice in that life. Otherwise, Castro has a good point- his people have a good life, they are alive right?

The also have rice cookers. :2thumbs:

mapes

22nd Jan 2009, 05:59 PM

Hammy

22nd Jan 2009, 06:22 PM

I tend to look at it as just how much is my time worth plus wear and tear on my car...

Excellent way of saying it.
Thats exactly what I mean. Giving up 20k is not the same as giving up 70 - 90k. I'd drive from Mountain View to Sacramento (aka- Sack-Town or Sacra-tomato) every day for 90k additional revenue (even though I dont live in mtn view- but the added revenue would allow us to relocate :D lololol)

But if we are talking about small changes like the one I just did when we moved - hell yah! When the weather gets better I have already bought my laptop packpack so I can ride my bike to work. I went from 50minutes to 6 - 7 stop signs recently. Cost of gas is 20 cents more, sandwiches are like 9 bucks a pop, but then again- I dont drive that far and I go home for lunch everyday- so it doesnt matter how much anything costs.:2thumbs:

BigTwinky

23rd Jan 2009, 09:08 AM

Possessions drive western culture. A vehicle is a possession, and a gateway of freedom. I used to carpool until the guy in IT kept asking me to stay later even though I was driving. No thanks, sitting at my office an extra two hours or having the person come by and ask if we can leave early, go by the grocery, post office, etc. is a giant pain.

Job near your house pays $50k a year. Job that makes you commute 45min each way pays 150k + . So you mean to tell me that you are going to be happy with your nice commute and 2/3 less revenue?

Different strokes for different folks. I highly doubt that the majority of people doing long commutes are doing so for an extra 100k per year. If that is your situation, then I think you are a minority. If I was in your situation, I would do the same as well.

But you are talking to a guy living in Montreal were your average commute to get from the suburban west of the island to the downtown area during rush hour is 1h30 on a good day (and that is no exageration). So 45m is peanuts. :D I think the average commute here is around 1h, one way.

And I would do the same for the carpool thing as well. I value my personal time and if the carpool starts to make it so that I get home 2 hours later than normal because Jimmy Bob needs to pick up a tub of Rocky Road Ice Cream each day, well, I'd re-evaluation the situation.

I'm equating Quality of life to freedom of choice in that life. Otherwise, Castro has a good point- his people have a good life, they are alive right?

To a degree, I agree. Freedom of choice does have a huge impact on quality of life. However, freedom of choice is what will also, for some, bring the quality of life over board into indulgence and waste. And thats the attitude that irks me. When people do that they want to do without care of others (be it people or animals) because they can.

Duke{CLR}

23rd Jan 2009, 10:02 AM

I had no idea this thread would kill as many polar bears as it has. :D

BigTwinky

23rd Jan 2009, 11:10 AM

I had no idea this thread would kill as many polar bears as it has. :D

ROFL!
You win the best one liner of the week Duke!

Duke{CLR}

23rd Jan 2009, 11:14 AM

ROFL!
You win the best one liner of the week Duke!

LOL thanks. :D

Hammy

23rd Jan 2009, 11:49 AM

I was just thinking:

"How many polar bears does it take to get to the center of a Google search?"

BigTwinky

23rd Jan 2009, 12:48 PM

In researching a funny comeback to Hammy's joke, I can upon the following study:

Polar Bears on Thin Ice, Not Really!
NCPA | Brief Analysis #551, Polar Bears on Thin Ice, Not Really! (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/)

A new NCPA study by Dr. David Legates, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research and state climatologist, examines the claim that global warming threatens to cause polar bear extinction and finds little basis for fear. By and large, the study finds that polar bear populations are in good shape.

Legates finds that their claims of an impending, human-induced Arctic meltdown are not supported by the evidence. For example, the Arctic Assessment proclaimed that Arctic air temperature trends provide an early and strong indication that global warming is causing polar ice caps and glaciers to melt. However, current research suggests that coastal stations in Greenland are instead experiencing a cooling trend, and average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased at the rate of 4?F per decade since measurements began in 1987.

In addition, the Arctic Assessment ignored a relatively recent long-term analysis of records from coastal stations in Russia. Russian coastal-station records of both the extent of sea ice and the thickness of fast ice (ice fixed to the shoreline or seafloor) extending back 125 years show significant variability over 60- to 80-year periods. Moreover, the maximum air temperature reported for the 20th century was in 1938, when it was nearly 0.4?F warmer than in 2000. The Russian study concludes that actual temperature measurements do not show the increased warming predicted by computer climate models.

However, even if warming is occurring, it has happened before, as ice cores from Baffin Island and sea core sediments from the Chukchi Sea show. For example, in Alaska, the onset of a warming in 1976-1977 ended the multi-decade cold trend in the mid-20th century and simply returned temperatures to those experienced in the early 20th century. Sharp, substantial fluctuations are typical of the historic pattern of natural climate variability extending back several centuries. And, as expected in response to natural variability, Alaskan ecosystems have responded rapidly and visibly to this recent warmth. By contrast, if the recent warmth were human-induced by constant additions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, responses in the Arctic region would be expected to be gradual and modest when viewed within any short time period.

Duke{CLR}

10th Feb 2009, 09:59 AM

Well check out this article. Maybe Google isn't so bad.

Google taking a step into power metering - International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/10/technology/10grid.php)

Hammy

10th Feb 2009, 01:53 PM

Well check out this article. Maybe Google isn't so bad.

Google taking a step into power metering - International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/10/technology/10grid.php)

Google isnt bad, their direction is great.
The problem is that when you only hire people from Top 25s and have the type of criterias they use to guide a candidate through the first 3 stages of qualification for employment, you get a certain type of lineage and thinking.

They really have a Fraternity/Sororiety line of thinking- except its Geek Greek. Some of these people have no grip on reality due to the lab/library mentality. Look, I have personal friends that work there, and even they will admit that at times "thinking outside the box" can translate into "thinking beyond a feasible reality".

I resent them as a corporate entity, and admire the products they deliver to the marketplace. They are dangerously straying outside core compentencies lately, and the whole polar bear/energy/global guidance arguements are great examples of dangerous straying.

Serve the shareholders- its the core directive of all corporate companies. Even if the lot of them are eco-minded, at the end of the day, the shareholder value per share equity is the only thing that matters.

Companies that have forgotten this litter the business higway, sold, shutter-up, broken into pieces, and dead.