Can you beat the system?

This is a discussion on Can you beat the system? within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Your footprint is 2.87 planets 18% 21% 30% 31% We've also calculated your carbon footprint, which is 11.59 tonnes per ...

  1. #16
    &TH of undefined behavior Fordy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    5,789
    Your footprint is
    2.87 planets

    18% 21% 30% 31% We've also calculated your carbon footprint, which is 11.59 tonnes per annum

    The solution is simple... conquer more planets!

  2. #17
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    The solution is simple... conquer more planets!
    Hehe. That was my motto in Spore.


    It's saying that if everybody lived the lifestyle you live,
    it would take 2.39 planets worth of resources to support
    them.
    I understood this already. Still a load of garbage.

  3. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    399
    I'm not sure how I got 4 percent in travel since I answered no to all the travel related questions. I also got 45 percent in "Stuff" for some reason even though I haven't bought anything in the past year.

    I would consider myself an environment friendly person, but organizations like these are just clueless most of the time.

  4. #19
    Registered User kryptkat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    638
    no. the game would not click through to the rest of the questions. it did not work. if the game had worked it might have been diff. meow.

  5. #20
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    >>It's saying that if everybody lived the lifestyle you live,
    it would take 2.39 planets worth of resources to support
    them.

    I understood this already. Still a load of garbage.
    Apparently you do not understand. The US represents 5% of the worlds population, yet we consume 33% of the resources. So someone or something accounts for that. Maybe it is someone else?

    The point is, if everyone lived like you, the world would have to produce 139% more stuff. I don't see what's so unbelievable about that, it is undeniably true that most people in the modern west, and America in particular, live a lifestyle far, far above the global average.

    This is not even a question of whether you want to "believe" it or not. It is basic and irrefutable math -- although this survey may or may not represent it accurately, it is still true that the earth does not produce enough to provide your lifestyle to everyone. 2+2=4.
    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

  6. #21
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    This is not even a question of whether you want to "believe" it or not. It is basic and irrefutable math -- although this survey may or may not represent it accurately, it is still true that the earth does not produce enough to provide your lifestyle to everyone. 2+2=4.
    But "everyone" doesn't use 33% of the world resources. So your math is useless. As is this whole exercise. Math is not irrefutable. It lies. And its ability to lie is entirely defined by its axioms. The fact that people are taking as irrefutable truths, untested axioms is what makes math lie with all its teeth.

    Furthermore, as far as I know there is no global shortage of resources. That thought is so 90s. On the contrary, we keep stockpiling resources. It is very clear to anyone who cares to look with their eyes open that globally we aren't consuming more than our planet can give us.
    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.

  7. #22
    Ecologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    1,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post

    Furthermore, as far as I know there is no global shortage of resources. That thought is so 90s. On the contrary, we keep stockpiling resources. It is very clear to anyone who cares to look with their eyes open that globally we aren't consuming more than our planet can give us.
    Then you should probably read more. Oceans are over-fished;
    fertile land for agriculture is almost gone to the point where
    wealthy nations have even been leasing land from poorer
    nations in order to grow food for their people. Aquifer depletion
    is a huge problem itself.

    It's actually terrifying how little people seem to know about
    not only the natural, living world; but the effects mankind has
    had on it. There are examples of past civilizations collapsing
    because their populations exhausted their resources; yet
    for some reason, people think it can't happen to us simply
    because we've invented iPods and are obviously smart enough
    to solve every problem! They've put too much faith in the
    capabilities of man, and it's ultimately going to lead to their
    downfall.
    Staying away from General.

  8. #23
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Hmm... maybe you should do the reading. Where's your sources for this information, btw?

    You are right. It is indeed "quite terrifying how little people seem to know about
    not only the natural, living world; but the effects mankind has
    had on it. [sic]". And I'll add, it's sad how much misinformation people like to spread from hearsay and "well known studies".
    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.

  9. #24
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    Heh. If it was up to these types they wouldn't allow us to hunt deer in my home state. Talk about running out of resources. The deer are so dumb that they would overpopulate to the point they would consume every last source of food and water in the area and then would begin to die off due to starvation. Human induced population controls are what keeps them alive or they would just breed out of control.

    Math can lie when the formula is wrong and the inputs are wrong. If those are wrong, or one of those is wrong then all the outputs are wrong. But if it is more convenient for people to think that humans are destroying poor earth then so be it. For me I believe technological advances pave the way to a brighter future. Others may feel that sticking our head in the sand, building mud huts, not using electricity and eating dirt is the wave of the future.

  10. #25
    Ecologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    1,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Hmm... maybe you should do the reading. Where's your sources for this information, btw?

    You are right. It is indeed "quite terrifying how little people seem to know about
    not only the natural, living world; but the effects mankind has
    had on it. [sic]". And I'll add, it's sad how much misinformation people like to spread from hearsay and "well known studies".
    Everything you've spouted has been ill-supported
    and anecdotal. So if anyone is spouting "misinformation"
    it's you (such as the huge impact turbines have on
    bird populations; or the deforestation that results)

    Here's a fantastic, well-sourced, free book that not
    only recognizes problems, but provides elegant
    solutions to them. It's updated yearly with new
    data. One of the versions was required reading in
    one of my Biology (ecology) classes.

    http://www.earth-policy.org/images/u...es/pb4book.pdf

    Or maybe you should try the Jared Diamond books,
    notably Collapse. Right now I"m reading 1491 by
    Charles C. Mann about pre-Columbian American
    civilizations' impacts on the environment.

    There's plenty of sources regarding overfishing and
    soil erosion.

    But not that it matters; because you probably won't
    accept anything that is in opposition to your viewpoints
    as valid. You see a pile of fish at your local grocery
    store and assume all is well. Your "eyes are open" eh?


    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    Heh. If it was up to these types they wouldn't allow us to hunt deer in my home state.
    That's not true at all and you shouldn't stereotype
    people. No Wildlife Biologist or Ecologist is against
    all forms of hunting (certain animals, of course). First,
    Wildlife Biologists are more often than not employed
    by governmental organizations which rely on hunting
    usage fees for revenue.

    Second, they know the benefits of hunting and
    recognize that man is, indeed, a hunter. Don't lump
    all Environmentalsts in with the pseudo-activist PETA
    puppets. I, for one, totally support the right to hunt,
    although I do take issue with sloppy hunters that rely
    on high-tech gadgets and weapons to get their kill
    and have absolutely no appreciation for the life they're
    taking. You know, the people who call animals "dumb"


    The deer are so dumb that they would overpopulate to the point they would consume every last source of food and water in the area and then would begin to die off due to starvation. Human induced population controls are what keeps them alive or they would just breed out of control.
    The deer overpopulate because man has either
    fragmented their habitats (suburban sprawl) or
    removed their natural predators from the ecosystem
    completely. It has nothing to do with the IQ of
    the animal (lol).

    I find it hilarious, however, that you're calling Deer
    dumb because their population tends to exceed
    carrying capacity sometimes; while not reflecting on
    the current human population.
    Staying away from General.

  11. #26
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    Hehe. I do like bantering with you but your posts are soooo annoying. I know you explained why they appear to be from a newspaper column but could you please at least attempt to fill up the window just a bit?

    Anyways I've said enough and we are getting off the topic a bit here. We could banter back and forth all day and end up in the same place so why do it other than it's fun. Back to the issue I really feel that the 'survey' is mathematically flawed.

  12. #27
    Programming Ninja In-T...
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by ethic View Post
    I, for one, totally support the right to hunt,
    although I do take issue with sloppy hunters that rely
    on high-tech gadgets and weapons to get their kill
    and have absolutely no appreciation for the life they're
    taking. You know, the people who call animals "dumb"
    I have to agree with that. I hate it when people go "hunting" with all the fancy little gadgets that technology brings us. What is the challenge of that? You call that hunting?
    Give me a break...
    The Indians used to hunt with nothing more than a bow and some arrows, and wearing nothing but a loincloth. Now people are using high-powered sniper rifles with customized scopes, tree stands, full-camo, and the whole works. Then they call deer dumb because the people are too far away for them to detect the danger in time (though people still miss all the time) and escape. If you want to hunt for real, ditch the modern crap, and go stalking some deer trying to make as little noise as possible, and see how easy it is.
    I bet you 2-1 that the deer detects you long before you're able to line up a good shot with a bow and arrows.
    What a lazy bunch of people the modern age has brought us...

    The deer overpopulate because man has either
    fragmented their habitats (suburban sprawl) or
    removed their natural predators from the ecosystem
    completely. It has nothing to do with the IQ of
    the animal (lol).
    I agree totally.
    I find it hilarious, however, that you're calling Deer
    dumb because their population tends to exceed
    carrying capacity sometimes; while not reflecting on
    the current human population.
    True, very true...
    Humans tend to group together in one place, and before long, the population has grown to way too more than the piece of land that was selected can support, resulting in all sorts of issues and problems.
    Last edited by Programmer_P; 06-19-2010 at 08:16 PM.
    I'm an alien from another world. Planet Earth is only my vacation home, and I'm not liking it.

  13. #28
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    The Indians used to hunt with nothing more than a bow and some arrows, and wearing nothing but a loincloth. Now people are using high-powered sniper rifles with customized scopes, tree stands, full-camo, and the whole works. Then they call deer dumb because the people are too far away for them to detect the danger in time (though people still miss all the time) and escape. If you want to hunt for real, ditch the modern crap, and go stalking some deer trying to make as little noise as possible, and see how easy it is.
    I bet you 2-1 that the deer detects you long before you're able to line up a good shot with a bow and arrows
    I never mentioned how I hunt in any of my posts. You assumed I use sniper scopes and land mines to kill my prey.

    'Hunting' is far more adventurous when you don't rely on the gadgets. I stand by my statement that deer are pretty dumb animals. Cows certainly come in first as the dumbest of them all. Good eating in both cases, though.

    But, whatever, back to the survey.

  14. #29
    Programming Ninja In-T...
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    I never mentioned how I hunt in any of my posts. You assumed I use sniper scopes and land mines to kill my prey.

    'Hunting' is far more adventurous when you don't rely on the gadgets. I stand by my statement that deer are pretty dumb animals. Cows certainly come in first as the dumbest of them all. Good eating in both cases, though.

    But, whatever, back to the survey.
    Actually, I wasn't really talking about you at all. I was speaking (typing) in a general sense.
    I know about the way most Americans hunt, and I was just expressing my own feelings on that subject.

    And just the thought of hunting (or trying to hunt) a deer with a land mine made me CUAL (Crack-Up-And-Laugh). Hahaha, made my own acronym...

    EDIT: But if the shoe fits, wear it...
    Last edited by Programmer_P; 06-19-2010 at 09:27 PM.
    I'm an alien from another world. Planet Earth is only my vacation home, and I'm not liking it.

  15. #30
    Ecologist
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Utah.
    Posts
    1,291
    This post is dedicated to Bubba.

    Some Hunter-Gatherer societies (The San) hunt through persistence hunting, which is thought to be the oldest method used to hunt. Basically they chase their prey until their prey becomes too exhausted to run any further and collapses. Then they stab it with a spear say a prayer, and eat it. There's a hypothesis that human features were selected for because they allowed us to endurance run. We can't run as fast as other species, but we can run much further. Less energy is required to move two legs than four, so we can keep it up.

    Here's a David Attenborough segment from the documentary Life of Mammals explaining it.

    YouTube - Human Mammal, Human Hunter - Attenborough - Life of Mammals - BBC

    Now that's awesome.
    Staying away from General.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. File System Implementation
    By dodgeviper in forum C Programming
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 01:04 PM
  2. Using system icons
    By @nthony in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-13-2007, 07:56 PM
  3. Functions
    By aznballerlee in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-24-2006, 05:20 PM
  4. Linux database system needed
    By BobS0327 in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-11-2006, 04:56 PM
  5. BIOS system and memory allocation problem
    By beely in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-25-2003, 07:12 AM

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