448191

The British accent makes it funny. But I love British humour so it's turned into partly Pavlov effect

Oil "does" nothing. Hmaybe it'll reflect a little light and emit an odour. But that's pretty much it. And that's the core difference, although I can think of few other fundamental ones that make your comparison completely meaningless. For example for oil to be worth that much, all other sources of energy or the knowledge who to exploit them need to be non-existent. So yeah -- if you compare the labour it *saves* with raw manual labour in the stone ages, then maybe you'd get to 25k hours. But in the stone ages an hour of labour more or less equated to half a carrot, so there you are.

It's indeed hardly nothing to joke about, rather plenty. Cause it is utterly ridiculous to compare fuel with manual labour. To level the field for the comparison the wage would have to be half a carrot.

Oe, Oe, I got another one. A computer has the power to do the math of a trillion people in an hour (give or take ). So a PC should cost 10 Trillion Dollars! Mhawahahahaha..

I got a good laugh out of that. I bet the barrel came up with that one!

Hello, hello, is this thing on? You can't drive a car on coal! Oil is hardly used for electricity production, almost all oil goes into transport. Ergo, to improve energy independence you have start driving electric. If you want to burn some freaking coal to compensate for the increased electricity requirement, go ahead. It is still a mayor improvement.

Realistically, you guys don't have that much oil, and you'll need it. I don't see airplanes flying on electricity in the near future.

That seems overly pessimistic. Bad shroom trip?

But seriously. Who is advocating "lets buy oil from foreigners instead of burning coal". Nobody I heard of. And you can't drive your car on coal. And a nuclear reactor under the hood seems a little risky. You can drive a car on electricity. Only little oil is actually used for production of electricity, the bulk of it is used to power your cars, the trucks that bring your food to the supermarket and plane that flies to your parents-in-law. I understand perfectly that you can't use renewable energy as a drop in replacement for dirty energy euh clean coal. But it will take a while before everybody drives electric so you have time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Electricity_Production

"clean coal"? Is that like dry water? But seriously, that's more bullcrap. With coal and that drop of oil you'll run out in a couple decades, centuries max. Stuff that doesn't run out is sun, wind and flowing water. At least not for a couple of million years probably.

Well your statement wasn't really referencing location... but sure, let's throw that into the mix. You say that's not stereotyping, but between that and telling me to grow up, you sort of failed to mention how that's not stereotyping. My interpretation of stereotyping is this: take a commonly held belief about a certain group and apply it to an indivdual or distinct group of individuals. I say you'll find more America hating Muslims than America hating Americans. Maybe in the strictest sense that is stereotyping (or maybe not), but more importantly it's realistic. I have seen and heard Muslim people complain and bitch about the US, burn the US flag. There were a lot of them. Hence, many. I do not say "all Muslims hate America", or "if you're Muslim you must hate America". Hell, you wont even hear me say "if you're Muslim, you *probably* hate America". Because I don't know the probability of that, "many" is not a meaningful quantification. I can't make a quantification cause I don't have statistics. I can only make a relative quantification based on probability and the acknowledgment of the existence of xenophobia and say you'll find more America hating Muslims than America hating Americans. That really doesn't say much about Muslims nor Americans, only that they're human. Most people like their own culture more than other ones, that is pretty god damn obvious. So what? But it *is* however relevant to discussion whether this was an inside job or done by Muslim extremists. Because it makes the latter more likely. I said fuck. Boohoo, you crybaby. Good excuse to sit in a corner crying and further ignore anything I say. Considering you implied I am a racist and a retard, I am being very, very mild. The "fuck" wasn't even about you as a person, though if you insist that can be arranged. No, the "fuck" was about you feeling the need to mention you are white; thinking that I would care is retarded and insulting. You feeling the need to say that "ALL Muslims are not this or that" is even more retarded and insulting. I am not fucking stupid, I understand the concept of an individual. And every religion has extremists? No shit Sherlock. World shocking news. But apparently actually reading is too much to ask and it didn't get through the stupid filter of your own prejudice. You don't take the trouble to actually read and interpret what I said, no, "somebody said *something* about Muslims so it must be Islamophobia". Where the fuck do I say that "ALL Muslims are like that"?

abazoskib, why you feel the need to mention you're a white Muslim is beyond me. Like I give a fuck. I try not to discriminate at all, but I definitely wont do it based on the colour of your skin (on a side note I do oppose all religion, Muslim, Christian and Jew alike, in case you wonder -- if that insults you go be insulted somewhere else). And NOBODY said ALL Muslims are this or that. ALL Muslims have only one thing unavoidably in common: that they're Muslim. Don't be a retard. Fact of the matter is many Muslims have an issue with the US. They don't burn US flags because it looks so pretty. And that's not just from images from CNN. I got Muslims in my proverbial backyard talking about throwing bombs on the US. And to a degree, I can't even blame them (talking about it, doing it or even actively advocating it is a different story of course). I'm European and no fan of the Bush administration either (although burning the flag seems over the top -- I'l stick with bashing the Republicans, no worse than the average American Democrat). We'll have to see to what degree Obama can live up to expectations but so far he gets the benefit of the doubt. And CV, to say you'll find more America haters in Muslim countries than in the US is hardly stereotyping. That's realistic. Likewise, you'll find more Muslim haters in America than Muslim haters in Muslim countries. Duh. Grow up.

Aaaah. So *that* is sarcasm.

Pff, hell no. They're religious heroes in their own eyes and many other Muslims. The ones that killed themselves most probably believed that when you give your live for Islam, you go heaven with virgins and the whole shebang. They had motive, opportunity and even confessed to it cause they're damn proud of it. While it may be possible to find some Americans without moral objections to kill thousands of Americans, you are definitely going to have no trouble whatsoever finding Muslims without objections to it. And it's not like hijacking a plane was an incredible feat before 9/11. In fact, even a crazed ex-FedEx employee with no training whatsoever managed to do it in 1994 (wanting to crash it into FedEx HQ).

If you have valid arguments to downplay the effects of CO2 increase, fine, but what you're saying is just a big load of bullcrap. No arguments whatsoever. All you said is you don't believe it because there are politicians that say it is so. That, sir, is retarded. I have to restrain myself not to make remarks about evolution being a myth, proven by the existence of people using the words "bad guys" in a non-fictional and non-humorous context. Oh. Sorry. Maybe not.

That's ridiculous. Your point?

Btw, cags, Babylon 5 was awesome, but the conclusion sucked. It was pretty clear that the writers didn't think that far ahead. But that's the trouble with many shows. The conclusion of BSG sucked too. SG1 didn't really have one. It should have ended after the Goa'uld saga but instead it dragged on. SGA felt like "been there done that" way to soon. K. Done bitching now.

And almost 7 billion of us, expected 9 billion by 2040.. Yeah that stuff is not going to make a dent. You have to think big cause that is just a lot of trouble with too low a return. Personally I have high hopes for green energy and electric transportation. Especially the latter. The fact that we're still driving cars based on exploding goo is ridiculous.

I rarely watch TV on my TV. Downloading is much more convenient and no commercials. Btw, off topic, what's with the word "quaint"? I think the only thing I would really ever label quaint is the word itself.

..and then it failed and borrowed money from China to pay Al Gore to create the global warming faux so people would leave their Dodge for a Prius, to save oil. Riiiight. Is it so hard to believe that there are paranoid religious people capable of crashing a damn plane into a building? They hate you, you know. In fact no country likes America that much. The world can take only so many "fuck you" before they start to resent you. It's all the Republican's fault of course.

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant" No kidding. The composition of the atmosphere still changes. "97% of the CO2 released into the air is from natural sources. Mankind is thus responsible for 3%." That's actually worse than I thought. That's a 2.9% increase in the overall level of CO2 caused solely by humans. With the world becoming more industrialized with the second, what will it be in 2030? 10%? What about 2060 (I'd be 88, with grandchildren probably)? 30%? "the 0.04% of the atmosphere that’s comprised of carbon dioxide" But 1% can already have an effect human physiology. Of course relatively that would still be a massive increase, but while we're putting things in perspective.. "As a greenhouse gas, CO2 is a weak agent. The most powerful contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor, which is responsible for 95% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect" Without the greenhouse effect the average temperature on Earth would be -18 C. It is currently 15 C. This is a difference of 33 C, yet only a couple of degrees more or less has a mayor effect. "The Climate Changes. The Earth has constantly gone through periods of warming and cooling. The recent warming trend (which has now reversed – average world temperatures have been falling for the last decade) is not outside the natural variation that’s been observed in the geologic record." This is true. If the earth may very well be warming by natural or outside influences. Then it would have happened anyway. The supposed recent drop in average temperatures may be just a coincidence (only a tiny negative fluctuation would be needed to cancel out the current proposed level of man-made global warming) or the effect of "global dimming". Truth is nobody really knows. What we do know is CO2 levels have been rising. And that humans produce a lot of CO2. Almost 3% of all, even. The only conclusion is that the presence of humans is having an effect of the earth's atmosphere. What it's effects will be no one can conclusively predict. But I don't think it is unreasonable to say that when left unchecked at some point is going to have a negative effect on human life. Maybe as soon as 20 years from now or as late as 1000 years, who knows. Will it cause global warming on a scale that we can clearly measure (0.5 over a century is just too close to call)? It sounds plausible to me.

Since when is "religion" capitalized? Anyway, I have theory of my own. There was this rich Saudi kid that, like much of the Arab world, came to believe that America represented a threat to Muslim beliefs. He then started using his money to set up a terrorist network. He collaborated with some religious guys and created a network of cells by recruiting in different countries at Mosques and such. The organization behind it became to be known as "the base". He recruited some guys stupid and indoctrinated enough to give their live to kill as much "dogs" as possible. They trained for the mission and crashed two planes in American buildings of strategic and psychological importance. The End.

Supposedly the temperature over the last century was on average 0.5 C higher than the century before. With fluctuations over 36500 days you can't realistically "notice" the temperature going up or down. Anyway, whether you believe in global warming or not, it doesn't hurt to air on the side of caution. Also I really haven't heard any believable counter arguments. I mean, nobody is disputing that CO2 levels are rising. So what's the deniers arguments? That too much CO2 isn't harmful, ever (aside from global warming, acidification of water and in the extreme, breathing difficulties -- although I imagine countless other issues would arise before the latter)? That the amount of CO2 produced by humans is and always will be at a level that the earth can cope with (I don't see how if we keep cutting trees)? Really the only sensible argument you can make is that isn't so bad yet. Well then. Lets keep it that way. Even if we all start driving electric right now, it could take a century or more before we're anywhere near CO2-neutral as a species. And electric cars are way cooler than primitive internal combustion engines.

So let me get this straight: You believe Israelis hired Muslims to blow up stuff for some extra cash? LMAO. I bet Tony Blair was the mastermind behind it all. You know, cause the queen wants her colony back.

so?