Two sides to every story

morbiuswilters

@dhromed said:
That problem would be most especially solved with a couple mini nukes.
Like how the most effective way to be comfortable around women is to ~~have sex with women~~ have the bitch get you another goddamn beer?

FTFY

bstorer

@morbiuswilters said:

@Lingerance said:
@dhromed said:
That problem would be most especially solved with a couple mini nukes.
Like how the most effective way to be comfortable around women is to ~~have sex with women~~ ~~have the bitch get you another goddamn beer~~ skin them and turn them into a large, overstuffed chair, complete with ottoman and cup holder?
FTFY

dhromed

@Lingerance said:

@dhromed said:
That problem would be most especially solved with a couple mini nukes.
Like how the most effective way to be comfortable around women is to have sex with women?

That analogy is not valid.

Your women problem and women solution are not of the same form. Having sex with women is a side effect of being comfortable, and being comfortable is a side effect of having sex with them. It is not a chicken & egg problem because:

a) there are numerous ways of entering this side-effect feedback loop from the outside, such as beer, existing friends, or, indeed, mini nukes.
b) there are numerous side effects to both the having sex and the being comfortable.

As such, the dichotomy you describe as being exclusively connected (of which chicken/egg problems are a subset) is entirely false.

In the case of mini nukes, we have a classic problem-solution combination, in that the problem is basically the inverse statement of the solution. There is no chicken and egg problem; merely the omittance of a side-effect problem or intermediate problem, namely: how to get more mini nukes. It is a tactical omittance for rhetorical effect, but is it technically true:

Problem: no mini nukes
Solution: get more mini nukes

So lack of mini nukes is kind of like deciding regex is a good solution to your problem, but it is certainly not analogous to the women-effect as you describe it.

You may, however, rephrase it:

Problem: no nookie
Solution: get off your ass and procure yourself some nookie, bitch

You may argue that I am confusing the terms "solution" with "goal", and you would be right because I just like to sound smart, but that nevertheless does not negate the fact that a lack if mini nukes would be perfectly solved with mini nukes.

Someone_You_Know

@dhromed said:

@Lingerance said:
@dhromed said:
That problem would be most especially solved with a couple mini nukes.
Like how the most effective way to be comfortable around women is to have sex with women?

That analogy is not valid.
Your women problem and women solution are not of the same form. Having sex with women is a side effect of being comfortable, and being comfortable is a side effect of having sex with them. It is not a chicken & egg problem because:
a) there are numerous ways of entering this side-effect feedback loop from the outside, such as beer, existing friends, or, indeed, mini nukes.
b) there are numerous side effects to both the having sex and the being comfortable.
As such, the dichotomy you describe as being exclusively connected (of which chicken/egg problems are a subset) is entirely false.
In the case of mini nukes, we have a classic problem-solution combination, in that the problem is basically the inverse statement of the solution. There is no chicken and egg problem; merely the omittance of a side-effect problem or intermediate problem, namely: how to get more mini nukes. It is a tactical omittance for rhetorical effect, but is it technically true:
Problem: no mini nukes
Solution: get more mini nukes
So lack of mini nukes is kind of like deciding regex is a good solution to your problem, but it is certainly not analogous to the women-effect as you describe it.
You may, however, rephrase it:

Problem: no nookie
Solution: get off your ass and procure yourself some nookie, bitch
You may argue that I am confusing the terms "solution" with "goal", and you would be right because I just like to sound smart, but that nevertheless does not negate the fact that a lack if mini nukes would be perfectly solved with mini nukes.

Marry me.

bstorer

@Someone You Know said:

Marry me.

It's going to take a few mininukes to convince dhromed. But not many, because he likes dicks.

dhromed

Mini-nukes are like osmotically swollen penes.

so yea.

Someone_You_Know

@bstorer said:

@Someone You Know said:
Marry me.
It's going to take a few mininukes to convince dhromed. But not many, because he likes dicks.

Ah, dowries. Just like the good old days, only with more nukes. And dicks.

@toshir0 said:

@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
I won't even go into the user who wanted to know why they couldn't print a video.
That's what you get with stupid Adobe specs permitting to embed videos in PDFs : dumb users wanting to print it...

The logical end result is users wanting to print their operating system. Get one to work and they want all the rest.

*sigh*

undrline

@rad131304 said:

@undrline said:
At least in the US, green is the color of money; I'm with you on green-tinted-lenses. Don't get me started on how bad the proliferation of CFLs is for the environment!

Shenanigans. Unless you've got another problem with them, besides Mercury.

The article you quoted, while from what I would deem a reliable source, only touches on a few of the issues, and doesn't delve very deep. Yup, mercury is just a small piece, and the article doesn't dissuade me. The main issue I take with the article is that it only addressed the end-consumer perspective, and not the full product-lifecycle (from production to safe disposal or recycling). I give it credit for thinking about the impact of a coal plant trying to light the bulb, but that's the kind of scope it should've applied to the entire life-cycle impact, as well as proliferation.

I've yet to see a good article about the subject. The information is always piecemeal. A good article should talk about:

energy/toxins that go into producing the bulb and recycling the bulb
the so-called "rebound effect" (people tend to consume about 25% more when a technology increases the efficiency of consumption)
the failure rates

people tend to throw out bulbs the same way they do disposable batteries, rather than disposing of them properly
(taking into account the exponential new proliferation we've seen, this is where mercury concerns me)
under less than ideal conditions: if a unit is supposed to out-perform over its useful life, then when that useful life is cut short by breakage/factory error/etc
the industry adjustment in recycling/disposal facilities in relation to the volume that need to be recycled (too many facilities cause waste, too few cause waste)

more than one study about usability (the article you quoted only talked about one study, regarding the technical quality of light)

light spectrum (there are CFLs with better light spectrums out there, but you have to look for them ... how does a bad spectrum affect the length of use?)
energy saving techniques (there are CFLs that work with dimmer switches out there ... some have been shown to use more electricity than their counterparts at 50% luminescence where this would have been an energy saving technique for incandescent bulbs)

as I said above, it should follow different kinds of bulbs (LEDs, incandescents, etc) from start to finish, and should take it out at least one degree to involve the facilities that make it all happen (for example: the power-plant that powers the recycling facility, or the bulldozers working at the landfill where it gets dumped)

Look, I don't think CFLs are bad. I don't even think I have enough facts to make a decision. I think that everything has its trade-offs. If you put up a wind turbine, it will probably kill some endangered birds. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use wind turbines. You put a solar farm on your rooftop, then you've probably stripped a coastline somewhere of silicates to build the solar panels. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use solar energy. That's all I'm sayin'

Medezark

@undrline said:

@rad131304 said:

@undrline said:
At least in the US, green is the color of money; I'm with you on green-tinted-lenses. Don't get me started on how bad the proliferation of CFLs is for the environment!

Shenanigans. Unless you've got another problem with them, besides Mercury.

The article you quoted, while from what I would deem a reliable source, only touches on a few of the issues, and doesn't delve very deep. Yup, mercury is just a small piece, and the article doesn't dissuade me. The main issue I take with the article is that it only addressed the end-consumer perspective, and not the full product-lifecycle (from production to safe disposal or recycling). I give it credit for thinking about the impact of a coal plant trying to light the bulb, but that's the kind of scope it should've applied to the entire life-cycle impact, as well as proliferation.

I've yet to see a good article about the subject. The information is always piecemeal. A good article should talk about:

energy/toxins that go into producing the bulb and recycling the bulb
the so-called "rebound effect" (people tend to consume about 25% more when a technology increases the efficiency of consumption)
the failure rates

people tend to throw out bulbs the same way they do disposable batteries, rather than disposing of them properly
(taking into account the exponential new proliferation we've seen, this is where mercury concerns me)
under less than ideal conditions: if a unit is supposed to out-perform over its useful life, then when that useful life is cut short by breakage/factory error/etc
the industry adjustment in recycling/disposal facilities in relation to the volume that need to be recycled (too many facilities cause waste, too few cause waste)

more than one study about usability (the article you quoted only talked about one study, regarding the technical quality of light)

light spectrum (there are CFLs with better light spectrums out there, but you have to look for them ... how does a bad spectrum affect the length of use?)
energy saving techniques (there are CFLs that work with dimmer switches out there ... some have been shown to use more electricity than their counterparts at 50% luminescence where this would have been an energy saving technique for incandescent bulbs)

as I said above, it should follow different kinds of bulbs (LEDs, incandescents, etc) from start to finish, and should take it out at least one degree to involve the facilities that make it all happen (for example: the power-plant that powers the recycling facility, or the bulldozers working at the landfill where it gets dumped)

Look, I don't think CFLs are bad. I don't even think I have enough facts to make a decision. I think that everything has its trade-offs. If you put up a wind turbine, it will probably kill some endangered birds. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use wind turbines. You put a solar farm on your rooftop, then you've probably stripped a coastline somewhere of silicates to build the solar panels. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use solar energy. That's all I'm sayin'

Well, the new "miracle" idea of giant wind farms and wave/tide energy farms scares the crap out of me. It's not "free" energy, by any means. All of those wind turbines and wave energy harvesters are removing energy from the ocean currents and air flow patterns they intercept, thus altering them in ways we can not fully calculate.

SQLDave

@Medezark said:

@undrline said:
@rad131304 said:

@undrline said:
At least in the US, green is the color of money; I'm with you on green-tinted-lenses. Don't get me started on how bad the proliferation of CFLs is for the environment!

Shenanigans. Unless you've got another problem with them, besides Mercury.

The article you quoted, while from what I would deem a reliable source, only touches on a few of the issues, and doesn't delve very deep. Yup, mercury is just a small piece, and the article doesn't dissuade me. The main issue I take with the article is that it only addressed the end-consumer perspective, and not the full product-lifecycle (from production to safe disposal or recycling). I give it credit for thinking about the impact of a coal plant trying to light the bulb, but that's the kind of scope it should've applied to the entire life-cycle impact, as well as proliferation.

I've yet to see a good article about the subject. The information is always piecemeal. A good article should talk about:

energy/toxins that go into producing the bulb and recycling the bulb
the so-called "rebound effect" (people tend to consume about 25% more when a technology increases the efficiency of consumption)
the failure rates

people tend to throw out bulbs the same way they do disposable batteries, rather than disposing of them properly
(taking into account the exponential new proliferation we've seen, this is where mercury concerns me)
under less than ideal conditions: if a unit is supposed to out-perform over its useful life, then when that useful life is cut short by breakage/factory error/etc
the industry adjustment in recycling/disposal facilities in relation to the volume that need to be recycled (too many facilities cause waste, too few cause waste)

more than one study about usability (the article you quoted only talked about one study, regarding the technical quality of light)

light spectrum (there are CFLs with better light spectrums out there, but you have to look for them ... how does a bad spectrum affect the length of use?)
energy saving techniques (there are CFLs that work with dimmer switches out there ... some have been shown to use more electricity than their counterparts at 50% luminescence where this would have been an energy saving technique for incandescent bulbs)

as I said above, it should follow different kinds of bulbs (LEDs, incandescents, etc) from start to finish, and should take it out at least one degree to involve the facilities that make it all happen (for example: the power-plant that powers the recycling facility, or the bulldozers working at the landfill where it gets dumped)

Look, I don't think CFLs are bad. I don't even think I have enough facts to make a decision. I think that everything has its trade-offs. If you put up a wind turbine, it will probably kill some endangered birds. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use wind turbines. You put a solar farm on your rooftop, then you've probably stripped a coastline somewhere of silicates to build the solar panels. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use solar energy. That's all I'm sayin'

Well, the new "miracle" idea of giant wind farms and wave/tide energy farms scares the crap out of me. It's not "free" energy, by any means. All of those wind turbines and wave energy harvesters are removing energy from the ocean currents and air flow patterns they intercept, thus altering them in ways we can not fully calculate.

Clearly all people in the world should kill themselves. That's the only way we can be sure we don't have a negative impact on the environment. Of course, there will be a short-term impact while life forms which thrive on decaying tissue (flies, scavengers, probably some microorganisms, etc.) suddenly find themselves at a smorgasbord, but eventually things will even out and the earth can go on to lead a nice, peaceful existence free from all human-related stressors. A true ZERO carbon footprint!

bstorer

@SQLDave said:

Clearly all people in the world should kill themselves. That's the only way we can be sure we don't have a negative impact on the environment. Of course, there will be a short-term impact while life forms which thrive on decaying tissue (flies, scavengers, probably some microorganisms, etc.) suddenly find themselves at a smorgasbord, but eventually things will even out and the earth can go on to lead a nice, peaceful existence free from all human-related stressors. A true ZERO carbon footprint!

Sounds good to me. Let's do it right now! Oh, you know what? I forgot something in the other room. No, no, don't bother waiting. You go ahead and start with out me. I'll catch up.

Someone_You_Know

@bstorer said:

@SQLDave said:
Clearly all people in the world should kill themselves. That's the only way we can be sure we don't have a negative impact on the environment. Of course, there will be a short-term impact while life forms which thrive on decaying tissue (flies, scavengers, probably some microorganisms, etc.) suddenly find themselves at a smorgasbord, but eventually things will even out and the earth can go on to lead a nice, peaceful existence free from all human-related stressors. A true ZERO carbon footprint!
Sounds good to me. Let's do it right now! Oh, you know what? I forgot something in the other room. No, no, don't bother waiting. You go ahead and start with out me. I'll catch up.

Worked for the Individual Eleven.

PJH

@SQLDave said:

Clearly all people in the world should kill themselves.

Or stop breeding. (Not quite the site I was originally looking for, but thought I'd cause some mischief.)

SQLDave

@PJH said:

@SQLDave said:
Clearly all people in the world should kill themselves.
Or stop breeding.

No no no. Even if we did, the remaining humans would have multiple severely detrimental impacts on Ms. Earth for decades to come. We MUST off ourselves IMMEDIATELY for her sake. And if you disagree, then you're clearly in the pocket of the oil companies.

morbiuswilters

@PJH said:

@SQLDave said:
Clearly all people in the world should kill themselves.
Or stop breeding. (Not quite the site I was originally looking for, but thought I'd cause some mischief.

I love the rich vein of racism that underlies most "zero population growth" movements. White, western countries are generally maintaining steady population or even in decline. No, the sinners in the Church Of Zero Population Growth are those darned brown people who are going to eat up all the worlds food, drink up all the water and use up all the electricity. Of course, it's not that we don't love brown people, we're just looking out of their own good. It's just like how we need deer hunters to cull the population so the poor, dumb animals don't starve to death.

And it seems absolutely unthinkable that people in third-world countries might actually want children. Only white, western people want to be parents. Poor, unfortunate, brown people are burdened with all of these mouths to feed. It's in our their best interests if we discourage them from breeding. And if that means their economies never develop? Well, consumerism is a soulless void; just look at this iPhone, $6 "fair trade" latte, stylish clothing and Prius. No, those poor souls are better kept from the corrupting influences of capitalism. They really are better off with their poverty, their backwards cultures, their pointless wars and their dysentery; it's more authentic that way. And Lord knows the entire reason for brown people to exist is so decadent, retarded Westerners can feel good about themselves for preserving antiquated, primitive cultures in stasis as a type of postmodern curiosity--the "enlightened" resurrection of Victorian freak shows.

Of course, it doesn't matter that zero population growth scaremongering has no basis in fact or science; that all "research" behind it is shoddy and biased. Reason is nothing more than a historical artifact--a useless, vestigial knickknack--in a world where truth is whatever you can convince someone of and reality nothing more than a construct of clashing narratives.

Don't mind me, I'm just bitter.

b_redeker1

@morbiuswilters said:

Don't mind me, I'm just bitter.

Bitter is an acquired taste. Me, I like bitter morbs.

Zemm

@morbiuswilters said:

White, western countries are generally maintaining steady population or even in decline. No, the sinners in the Church Of Zero Population Growth are those darned brown people who are going to eat up all the worlds food, drink up all the water and use up all the electricity. Of course, it's not that we don't love brown people, we're just looking out of their own good. It's just like how we need deer hunters to cull the population so the poor, dumb animals don't starve to death.

I catch the train to work. Most of my fellow passengers should stop breeding. I SAID STOP IT! NOT ON THE TRAIN! Ugh...

(Bogans. You'd probably call them white trash)