The gulf oil leak is being plugged

This is a discussion on The gulf oil leak is being plugged within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by Mario F. EDIT: BTW, lets leave thread tags for what they are meant... I grew up on ...

  1. #16
    Ecologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    1,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    EDIT: BTW, lets leave thread tags for what they are meant...
    I grew up on the streets. You and I must have different
    definitions for the word "tag."
    Staying away from General.

  2. #17
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    Yeah, I figured you would ignore my request and chose instead to be a smartarse about it.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  3. #18
    Ecologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    1,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Yeah, I figured you would ignore my request and chose instead to be a smartarse about it.
    I didn't ignore it. From now on, I won't tag my presence
    because I know how much it offends you.

    Even though the feature is rather pointless and nobody
    uses it.
    Staying away from General.

  4. #19
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    I'm actually quite interested as to why my country's main media providers are giving this disaster the lowest coverage you can think of. I'm getting one piece of news every 2 or 3 days. No kidding.

    I have to resort to local cable news to actually keep up to date on what is probably already the largest oil spill of our history and amounting to become the largest oil spill disaster too.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  5. #20
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,590
    And is it safe to assume Ethic that you do not drive a car or operate any motorized vehicle that burns 'fossil fuels' or use anything that requires 'fossil fuels'? Your computer and your home run off of...? And your water comes from pumps who get their electricity from...? And....

    ...you get my point.


    I have a great idea for the greenies among us. I am perfectly ok with you refusing to use any oil or 'fossil fuels'. I think it is quite noble of you to sacrifice for the greater good of the planet. Meanwhile I do not share your sentiments except to say...that it does leave more for me and my prices will go down if you so choose not to be a part of the evil earth killing 'fossil fuel' oil-based economoy.
    So go ahead and protest to your hearts content and do all the green things you can.

  6. #21
    Registered User Sharke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    I just saw a commercial that said, "Chemistry is making the
    world a better place."

    LOL
    Chemistry, industry, technology - the benefits to humankind have been enormous. The Industrial Revolution more than doubled the average life expectancies in Britain and America in less than 200 years and caused the biggest population explosion in human history. I can't remember the exact figures, but it's something like: it took over 100,000 years for the human population to reach one billion. After the Industrial Revolution, successive billions were added in 100 years, then 75, then 50 etc.

    A common response to this is "yes, but is that population explosion a good thing?"

    I guess the answer depends on whether you care about the living standards of humans, because the exponential explosion in population was a direct reflection of the monumental increases in living standards and prosperity which industry gave us. The population exploded because better standards of living slashed infant mortality rates and allowed people to support their families better. So I guess industry is a bad thing if what you want for the human race is a miserable subsistence and children dying by the age of 10, which was the fate of most children in Britain before the revolution.

    Environmental disasters like this oil spill will not have a great effect on the world long term. Oil is a natural substance which breaks down of its own accord, albeit not as quickly as we'd like. Natural habitats will be destroyed but animals adapt and they'll spring up elsewhere. And the chemicals they use to clean up spills are probably more harmful to the environment than the oil itself.

    At the end of the day, what's important is the safety and well being of humans. This consideration comes above the well being of wildlife and the environment. And on a wider note, the net benefits to humanity from the industry which fossil fuels drive far outweigh the downside of rare accidents like this.

  7. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10
    I'll throw in my 2 cents....

    I'm old (46) and I have seen a lot of fads come and go over the years.

    First Global cooling, then Global warming, now it's called climate change
    (well no ____!) we live on a dynamic planet and it will always be changing.

    All of these fads serve one purpose to control people, well actually two,
    they also make the weak minded people feel good about themselves.

    I was green Way before it was fashionable, because I like green (money).
    It seems dumb to me to just waste your money leaving on the lights on etc.


    That being said, I am all for being responsible for ones actions; They had a
    mishap (it happens) now they need to do the right thing and clean up the
    mess or pay someone else to do it for them (new business venture anyone).


    99.9% Of the problems in the word would solve themselves if people
    would just take responsibility for themselves and for their actions.

  8. #23
    Ecologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    1,291
    God, this is going to be so long. Feel free to pass it over.
    I just have to fight for the planet because I'm a planeteer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharke
    A common response to this is "yes, but is that population explosion a good thing?"

    I guess the answer depends on whether you care about the living standards of humans, because the exponential explosion in population was a direct reflection of the monumental increases in living standards and prosperity which industry gave us.
    Actually the answer depends on the amount of knowledge
    one has of the planet, the requirements for the existence
    of life, and the impacts humanity has on the planet. Anybody
    with even a tiny bit of such knowledge would know that a
    "population explosion" isn't a good thing

    To say that an exponential explosion in population is a
    direct reflection of better standards of living is false. Most
    population growth occurs in less-developed countries where
    living conditions are horrible. In more-developed countries
    where the standard of living is high, population growth is
    slow or non-existent. Even in the United States, over the
    last 100 years, the Natural Rate of Increase has dropped
    significantly.

    But that's not to say a high standard of living is a good
    thing; because even though the population isn't increasing,
    the rate of consumption is. 18% of the global population is
    in more-developed countries; yet they consume 30-80% of
    all resources and are responsible for 50-80% of all pollution.
    This "high standard" of living for 18% global population
    comes at the cost of a low standard of living for the other
    80% of the world who live in countries which are cash-poor
    yet resource-rich and are being exploited by the
    developed-countries.

    A "population explosion" is not a good thing for the simple
    reason that the Earth cannot support it at current rates
    of consumption. The natural carrying capacity of the planet
    on a natural, subsistence-based diet is about 10 million
    humans, IIRC. Agriculture obviously increases that considerably.
    However, there's only so much land and freshwater that's
    available to feed all those people by those methods.

    Feeding all those people has devastating effects on the planet.
    It takes between 100 and 500 years for an inch of top soil to
    form. At current rates of farming, we're losing about 1% of
    topsoil per year due to soil erosion, desertification, and
    salination. We come up with little tricks to intensify production,
    such as selective breeding of certain plants that produce
    higher yields, or genetic modification, but once the actual
    farmland is inhosipitable, it ultimately won't matter.

    In addition to that, the land for growing food is in direct
    competition with land for growing biofuels (people love their
    precious automobiles and are unwilling to walk). Since
    Hurricane Katrina (and the resulting spike in oil prices), there
    has been as much land allocated for growing ethanol as
    there is for actual food production. Land for growing food for
    urban populations is becoming so scarce there are actually
    countries that are leasing land from other countries -within
    their borders- simply so they can grow food for their own
    populations.

    Oh, then there's Aquifer Depletion. Of all the water that's
    available on Earth, only 3% of that is freshwater; and of
    that, only 1% is accessible to humans (the remaining would
    be icecaps, etc). There are currently a billion people who are
    without regular access to clean water.

    Not to mention climate change (which is real) is a result of
    a high population and unbalanced lifestyles. It's mind baffling
    how there are actually people who deny its validity.

    So, no. An exploding population is not an accurate reflection
    of a high standard of living; and it can definitely cannot be
    considered a "good thing."The exploding population of Earth
    should be thought of as a cancerous growth that is eating away
    at other healthy tissue.

    Natural habitats will be destroyed but animals adapt and they'll spring up elsewhere. And the chemicals they use to clean up spills are probably more harmful to the environment than the oil itself.
    Organisms just don't "simply adapt" to their environments.
    And they're definitely not just going to "spring up elsewhere."
    (lol wtf). I mean, when the Arctic become so warm that the
    polar bears can no longer survive there, do you think they're
    just going to "spring up" in the snowy mountains of Colorado
    and eat mountain goats?

    Adaptation to an environment is the result of generations
    upon generations of miniscule cell mutations that happen
    to provide a slightly better fitness advantage over the
    ancestral type in the current environment. When a quick,
    drastic change happens to that environment, the animals
    don't have time to change and, as such, will disappear.
    Organisms themselves don't evolve; species do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharke
    Environmental disasters like this oil spill will not have a great effect on the world long term. Oil is a natural substance which breaks down of its own accord, albeit not as quickly as we'd like.
    And what do you mean by long term? Will this oil spill
    have impacts on life 1 million years from now? Probably
    not, because species themselves don't last that long
    (maybe some Cetaceans). But will its effects impact life
    now and in the foreseeable future? Absolutely. The
    environmental impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill
    (which was smaller than the Deepwater Horizon Spill will
    likely end up being) are still present today, 20 years later.
    Deepwater has already impacted humans who make their
    living fishing (even though overfishing is another issue...
    but I'm not going to go into it right now).

    Biomagnification of the hydrocarbons (which are
    carcinogenic) and metals within the oil, or the chemicals
    used to disperse the oil (although I'm sure the EPA took
    into account the solubility of any such chemical) may emerge
    as a result of this oil. They become higher in concentration
    as they travel up the food chain; which is the same thing
    that happened with DDT (another failure of chemistry)
    and is why Inuit women are the only class of women in
    the world who are told not to breastfeed their babies.

    At the end of the day, what's important is the safety and well being of humans. This consideration comes above the well being of wildlife and the environment. And on a wider note, the net benefits to humanity from the industry which fossil fuels drive far outweigh the downside of rare accidents like this.
    To say that humans are somehow more important than
    wildlife is pretentious, uneducated and irresponsible.
    Whether you want to believe it or not, humans are animals;
    and just like any other animal, they depend on a stable
    ecosystem to survive. The track humanity is on is unsustainable
    and if it continues as it is, it will be disastrous.

    Think about the bees. I don't know if you keep with nature
    news, but bee colonies are disappearing at an alarming rate
    and scientists don't know why (though biocides, climate
    change, etc are likely causes) . Bees are important pollinators
    in agriculture, dude. Without them, food production will be
    much, much more difficult.

    Humanity is on the brink of extinction. And we totally
    deserve it!

    //edit: I seem to have gotten a tad bit carried away.
    Last edited by Cheeze-It; 05-27-2010 at 03:12 PM.
    Staying away from General.

  9. #24
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,590
    Ethic, why do your posts only go about 1/4 of the way over on the page? Very annoying.

  10. #25
    Registered User Sharke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    God, this is going to be so long. Feel free to pass it over.
    I just have to fight for the planet because I'm a planeteer.
    As opposed to a humaniteer. That much is evident.


    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    Actually the answer depends on the amount of knowledge
    one has of the planet, the requirements for the existence
    of life, and the impacts humanity has on the planet. Anybody
    with even a tiny bit of such knowledge would know that a
    "population explosion" isn't a good thing

    To say that an exponential explosion in population is a
    direct reflection of better standards of living is false. Most
    population growth occurs in less-developed countries where
    living conditions are horrible. In more-developed countries
    where the standard of living is high, population growth is
    slow or non-existent. Even in the United States, over the
    last 100 years, the Natural Rate of Increase has dropped
    significantly.
    What else is a population explosion a direct result of? Before industry, the population was kept in check for a number of reasons, most of them bad (to someone who cares about humans), i.e. very high infant mortality and a low birth rate due to the fact that adults could barely afford to feed themselves, let alone start a family. I will repeat: when the infant morality rate drops and the birth rate rises, the result is a population explosion. I don't know what kind of person would be horrified at the idea of a low infant mortality rate, but at least now I have a name for them: "planeteers."

    Most population growth occurs in less developed countries - not because they are poor, but because they are becoming more prosperous. As a country becomes more prosperous - especially as it leaves behind the dreadful standards of living of the past - their population level will grow exponentially for the reasons stated above. But that does not mean it will rise indefinitely - as you point out, the population of prosperous nations tends to level out. This happens for a number of reasons, but mainly because people have more to occupy themselves than simply having children. They have careers and interesting leisure pursuits. They want families, but are educated enough to work out that there's a limit to the number of children you can support and still lead a prosperous lifestyle.

    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    But that's not to say a high standard of living is a good
    thing; because even though the population isn't increasing,
    the rate of consumption is. 18% of the global population is
    in more-developed countries; yet they consume 30-80% of
    all resources and are responsible for 50-80% of all pollution.
    This "high standard" of living for 18% global population
    comes at the cost of a low standard of living for the other
    80% of the world who live in countries which are cash-poor
    yet resource-rich and are being exploited by the
    developed-countries.
    It is simply not true that a high standard of living for one country "comes at the cost of" a low standard of living for the rest of the world. In fact the standard of living in developing countries (emphasis on the word "developing") has been increasing as a direct result of them taking advantage of the technological developments of the West. I'm not just talking about medical developments, although that's a huge part of it. For example, oil was nothing more than a virtually worthless black goo in the ground before the West invented the technology to refine and use it in combustion engines. I also take issue with the negative intention behind the word "exploit." The meaning is not necessarily negative. It simply means "to utilize." I own a business which employs 12 people. I exploit their labor (otherwise why would I hire them), but they also exploit the fact that I have started and grown a business which hires people. It is certainly true that some people in third world countries are exploited for the cheap cost of their labor - and if they are working in especially terrible conditions, you have a responsibility to boycott that product and persuade as many people to do the same (do you own an iPhone?). Yet in many cases, Western companies pay well over the national average wage in these countries - which is why the locals flock there for employment. Nike, for example, was at one point paying 6 times the average wage. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me where these folks would be working if Western countries didn't invest in their countries, or why such countries have such a high rate of population growth.

    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    A "population explosion" is not a good thing for the simple
    reason that the Earth cannot support it at current rates
    of consumption. The natural carrying capacity of the planet
    on a natural, subsistence-based diet is about 10 million
    humans, IIRC. Agriculture obviously increases that considerably.
    So why mention it?

    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    However, there's only so much land and freshwater that's
    available to feed all those people by those methods.
    Which is why the methods will improve. Humans are incredible creatures and the power of the human mind is nothing short of spectacular. Human knowledge is not static. Technology is not static.


    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    Feeding all those people has devastating effects on the planet.
    It takes between 100 and 500 years for an inch of top soil to
    form. At current rates of farming, we're losing about 1% of
    topsoil per year due to soil erosion, desertification, and
    salination. We come up with little tricks to intensify production,
    such as selective breeding of certain plants that produce
    higher yields, or genetic modification, but once the actual
    farmland is inhosipitable, it ultimately won't matter.
    Where is your evidence that the ingenuity of human science won't solve all of these problems? They're working on it as we speak.

    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    In addition to that, the land for growing food is in direct
    competition with land for growing biofuels (people love their
    precious automobiles and are unwilling to walk). Since
    Hurricane Katrina (and the resulting spike in oil prices), there
    has been as much land allocated for growing ethanol as
    there is for actual food production. Land for growing food for
    urban populations is becoming so scarce there are actually
    countries that are leasing land from other countries -within
    their borders- simply so they can grow food for their own
    populations.
    So campaign to end the ridiculous practice of growing bio-fuels and campaign for more nuclear energy. Let's start making more efficient use of the matter around us.

    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    Oh, then there's Aquifer Depletion. Of all the water that's
    available on Earth, only 3% of that is freshwater; and of
    that, only 1% is accessible to humans (the remaining would
    be icecaps, etc). There are currently a billion people who are
    without regular access to clean water.
    And those people who are without regular access to clean water are in that situation because they are poor. What these people need, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is more capital investment. It doesn't matter what percentage of the earth's water is freshwater by the way...you're simply using that measurement for dramatic effect because it yields a low percentage. What matters is the absolute quantity of fresh water available.

    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    Not to mention climate change (which is real) is a result of
    a high population and unbalanced lifestyles. It's mind baffling
    how there are actually people who deny its validity.
    There is a school of thought that says climate change is the result of human lifestyle, yes. There is also a school of thought which says that climate change is a natural process, always happens and will not be stopped even if we dismantle all of the earth's industry and go back to a lifestyle of primitive subsistence. There is also a school of thought which says that the planet is nowhere near the kind of danger that the Chicken Lickens of the AGW movement say it is. The problem with those who claim to "love" the earth is that this purported "love" is thrown into doubt every time they reflexively reject any good news about the planet. Put it this way, if you claimed to love a person who was dying in hospital and you were subsequently told that there was a good chance that the diagnosis was wrong - and your subsequent reaction was to attack the doctor who told you and call him a liar and a paid corporate stooge, I would have to question whether or not you really loved that person. There is considerable doubt as to the validity of the methodology and results of the so-called "science" behind AGW - what's baffling to me is the extent to which AGW supporters are prepared to deny the validity of the doubt in many cases. One would be forgiven for thinking that there was some kind of alternative motive behind their crusade. Indeed it is a little curious how those most devoted to campaign to decimate economic growth are most often of a leftist - and frequently outright socialist - persuasion. Gotta rein in those evil capitalists, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    So, no. An exploding population is not an accurate reflection
    of a high standard of living; and it can definitely cannot be
    considered a "good thing."The exploding population of Earth
    should be thought of as a cancerous growth that is eating away
    at other healthy tissue.
    Wow, I'm really learning a lot about the nature of these so-called "planeteers" and their perception of humanity tonight. Who would have thought, my fellow humans are nothing but a "cancer" and their increased rate of survival is a terrible, terrible thing!


    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    Organisms just don't "simply adapt" to their environments.
    And they're definitely not just going to "spring up elsewhere."
    (lol wtf). I mean, when the Arctic become so warm that the
    polar bears can no longer survive there, do you think they're
    just going to "spring up" in the snowy mountains of Colorado
    and eat mountain goats?
    "lol wtf" is not an argument, I have no idea what it's doing in this discussion. Organisms might not always adapt to their environments in the short term, but they most certainly do in the long term...or perhaps you'd like to give us a few examples of current species which bypassed the evolutionary process and were dumped straight onto the planet "as is."


    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    Adaptation to an environment is the result of generations
    upon generations of miniscule cell mutations that happen
    to provide a slightly better fitness advantage over the
    ancestral type in the current environment. When a quick,
    drastic change happens to that environment, the animals
    don't have time to change and, as such, will disappear.
    Organisms themselves don't evolve; species do.
    If that "quick drastic change" happens across the whole region of the world in which these animals exist, then it could spell disaster for that species - unless of course a small minority of them happen to possess traits which enable them to survive such a catastrophe, in which case the species lives on in a stronger form. But localized disasters, as rarely as they occur, are not the end of the world. You know that.


    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    And what do you mean by long term? Will this oil spill
    have impacts on life 1 million years from now? Probably
    not, because species themselves don't last that long
    (maybe some Cetaceans). But will its effects impact life
    now and in the foreseeable future? Absolutely. The
    environmental impacts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill
    (which was smaller than the Deepwater Horizon Spill will
    likely end up being) are still present today, 20 years later.
    Deepwater has already impacted humans who make their
    living fishing (even though overfishing is another issue...
    but I'm not going to go into it right now).
    20 years is a minuscule period of time. The effects of the Exxon Valdez spill are not as pronounced now as they were 15 or 20 years ago. Those whose livelihoods have been affected by the BP spill are entitled to sue BP for compensation, as I hope they will.

    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    Biomagnification of the hydrocarbons (which are
    carcinogenic) and metals within the oil, or the chemicals
    used to disperse the oil (although I'm sure the EPA took
    into account the solubility of any such chemical) may emerge
    as a result of this oil. They become higher in concentration
    as they travel up the food chain; which is the same thing
    that happened with DDT (another failure of chemistry)
    and is why Inuit women are the only class of women in
    the world who are told not to breastfeed their babies.
    Like I said, they should do what they can to salvage as much oil as possible and leave the rest to disperse of its own accord. As for DDT, you might call it a "failure of chemistry," I tend to take the alternative view and call its banning one of the most devastating pieces of legislation in human history - 3 Billion People And Counting.


    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    To say that humans are somehow more important than
    wildlife is pretentious, uneducated and irresponsible.
    On the contrary. It's simply stating a fact. The concept of "value" cannot have meaning without human beings to perceive it. I am a rational human, of course I believe that humans are more important than wildlife. I don't think that's pretentious, uneducated or irresponsible at all. I think it's pretentious to claim that anything has an inherent value separate from the existence of humans. Being a humanist, I also think that this preposterous viewpoint is highly irresponsible.

    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    Whether you want to believe it or not, humans are animals;
    and just like any other animal, they depend on a stable
    ecosystem to survive. The track humanity is on is unsustainable
    and if it continues as it is, it will be disastrous.
    Humans are not "just like any other animal," don't be ridiculous. The intellectual distance between us and the most similar animal to us (monkeys) is immeasurable. The intellectual distance between us and most animals is even larger. I don't think humanity is unsustainable at all. Nor do I believe we are headed for disaster. I will however leave the Paul Ehrlichs of this world to continue amusing us with their seemingly endless and tales of doom and gloom which never come to fruition.

    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    Think about the bees. I don't know if you keep with nature
    news, but bee colonies are disappearing at an alarming rate
    and scientists don't know why (though biocides, climate
    change, etc are likely causes) . Bees are important pollinators
    in agriculture, dude. Without them, food production will be
    much, much more difficult.
    Yes, I'm familiar with bees. They have been affected by a virus called IAPV, the spread of which can be stopped by the practice of irradiating beekeeping equipment to stop it spreading from colony to colony. It's not the first time a species has been badly affected by a virus or a parasite and it won't be the last. What it also isn't is the end of the world, er...."dude."

    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    Humanity is on the brink of extinction. And we totally
    deserve it!

    //edit: I seem to have gotten a tad bit carried away.
    You surrrrre did. Humanity is not on the brink of extinction and we don't deserve it. We are a wonderful, miraculous species and I'm extremely optimistic about the future. You, however, should renounce every single last scrap of modern technology and disappear into the wilderness.

  11. #26

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    To be honest it really bothers me seeing pictures of it on fire. There's this one picture where the structure is enveloped in smoke save the helicopter deck above the bridge, which is where I last was to get a ride in shore on one of the helicopters.

    Summer 2008, pics I took while Deepwater was drilling exploratory wells, 180-220 miles offshore.
    Attached Images Attached Images      
    I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.

  12. #27
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545
    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    putting anything into the air that doesn't belong
    there isn't good
    I guess we'd all better stay away from Mexican food then! LOL!
    "I am probably the laziest programmer on the planet, a fact with which anyone who has ever seen my code will agree." - esbo, 11/15/2008

    "the internet is a scary place to be thats why i dont use it much." - billet, 03/17/2010

  13. #28
    Ecologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    1,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    Ethic, why do your posts only go about 1/4 of the way over on the page? Very annoying.
    Because it's more efficient for someone who has
    a widescreen monitor. I'm saving such people
    energy by not having to move their eyes.

    I have calculated that based on the way I format
    my paragraphs, I save the average reader about 3
    calories. I assume each of my posts will average
    about 10 million unique readers over the years;
    which ultimately converts into 30 million calories
    not exerted in shifting one's eyes the entire length
    of a 14" monitor.

    A single cow is about 650,000 calories of meat,
    which means I am saving the consumption of
    about 47 cows.

    I'm just doing my part to make the world a better
    place.

    Sharkie, I will respond to you eventually. I got
    stuff to do.
    Last edited by Cheeze-It; 05-30-2010 at 02:01 PM.
    Staying away from General.

  14. #29
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    Because it's more efficient for someone who has
    a widescreen monitor. I'm saving such people
    energy by not having to move their eyes.
    THAT'S WHY I HAVE A WIDESCREEN MONITOR, YOU CRETIN!

    Your angle of vision is much greater horizontally than vertically, so you have this backward. Shorter lines mean more eye movement (which helps people who don't read as much focus*). It's also more scrolling, and I guarantee that is a far greater caloric expense.

    Anyway, moving is a good thing. If you want to save cows, eat fish instead.


    * such people can always narrow the browser window
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  15. #30
    Ecologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    1,291
    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    THAT'S WHY I HAVE A WIDESCREEN MONITOR, YOU CRETIN!

    Your angle of vision is much greater horizontally than vertically, so you have this backward. Shorter lines mean more eye movement (which helps people who don't read as much focus*). It's also more scrolling, and I guarantee that is a far greater caloric expense.
    Okay. Switch "eyes" with "neck." Long monitors require
    one to move their neck. My posts don't. Yeah.

    It's actually a habit I have developed and is so ingrained
    to my essence that I don't see it changing. However, my
    lines have gotten longer over the years.

    August 28, 2001

    I was on break last week at work (that doesn't
    sound right), and I saw a snail moving. I came
    back a few hours later for my second break, and
    saw that the snail hadn't moved very far. Snails
    move very slow
    See.
    Staying away from General.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. What about the oil crisis?
    By VirtualAce in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-23-2008, 09:12 AM
  2. Question regarding Memory Leak
    By clegs in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12-07-2007, 12:57 AM
  3. One now owns an automobile!
    By cboard_member in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-22-2007, 05:34 PM
  4. Peak Oil
    By Speedy5 in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-16-2004, 09:18 AM
  5. How can you reason with this madman?
    By EvenFlow in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 10-11-2001, 06:51 PM

Tags for this Thread


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21