Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: RFIDs Revisited

  1. #11
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    That is interesting. I grew up amongst the demostrations and hatred spit upon the nuclear power plants in the USA. Even in Ohio a very very populous state, a nuclear power plant that was to feed 1/4 of the state was eventually backed out and turned into coal. You should see the smoke that thing puts out. I even saw some signs hanging from bridges on Motorways in England. Yeah let's bow to a small minority of idiots. And now most of them or like, oops. Perhaps we made a mistake. Movies coming out of Hollywood didn't help either. There are dangers inherent in technology, how many people have been killed in plane crashes? The impact of a super powerstation tossing acid smoke into the air in one area, multiplied by thousands could have talready surpassed he same impact of a total meltdown? Even 3 Mile island is a joke compared to what they made it out to be, back in the 70s. I think given the time span and extreme research in the technology we could have overcome even the low risk items? Who knows, but that is the slippery slope BS I was talking about.

    And among all that, they make the SUV an issue. Is it really feasible to sustain cities on wind power? Some punk as evironmentalist was trying to get me to sign a petition to start a porject here. There are already a couple and I asked him some details and he got pissed I was not going to sign his petition without some answers. But if it's really feasible then I could support that notion. They have been around for decades but do they really produce?
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    634
    Hollywood uses technology to make its movies seem more exciting that they actually are, they rarely use technology in a good light, technology in films is protrayed to the common man as the root of evil, the causer of doom. To a certain extent I can undertstand this becuase when you start talking about the real uses of technology you inadvertinly gonna end up talking in a documentary style of film, these types of films arent great at pulling crowds and certainly theres isnt as much mechadise sold for none action films.

    The chernobyl disaster aided the enviromentalists as it gave them something to say was wrong, up until then there hadnt been anything like this in the energy industry (there is something in the states that happened i think, although im un sure of whether it pre-dated chernobyl). Its only recently that they havent used it as a reason not to use nuclear power, although i think that if push came to shove they would. Chernobyl only occured anyway becuase of tests being conducted to see what the limit was (guess what they found them alrite), not becuase of some underlying inherintly dangerous process that wasnt known about.

    I want to see the world use more renewable, im no hippy but i think if we're to survive its defiantly important that we start using more renewable and more nuclear, theres an interesing article in the magazine that i recieve cos of the professional body im a member of regarding using nuclear as a suitable means to ease global warming, if I can get it online ill provide you with the link if your interested, or scan it if i cant get it online. I think is becoming accepted amoungst professionals and techno biased people that is a viable solution if managed correctly, but living in a democratic society means that we cant start throwing up power stations everywhere.

    As I said before the problem with renewable is the space it takes up, 75% of this earth is water, not all of that is sea, infact a large portion of it isnt. so mooring things at sea isnt viable as it would create problems for marine life, becuase if you were to use solar and moor large banks of solar arrays at sea youd need massive areas to be covered,

    entire earth = 164 Watts per square meter over a 24 hour day, thats 84Twatts per day, the earth uses 10Twatts, so the earths surface is 10^15 m^2 so 10TW/ 164 = 60000000000 m^2, which is well over half the planet so that means that youd cover in solar cells to generate the required amount of power of the world. imagine transimitting power from a mesh of panels like that around the world!

    wind turbines generate more for the amount of space they take up, theres problems with this.

    If the world continues to use all the electrical products its using now theres no way in my eyes that itll be possible to rely on renewable energy, nuclear solutions will need to be sort. Yet some people dont understand these caculations and expect miracles to happen, cos they dont understand the issues surrounding the consovation of energy.

    my calculations assumed a perfect day and no loses, which of course there are so the actually size needed would be even larger!

    If a new technology is developed thats renewable and will sustain the world, when its found and implemented im all for it so bin the nuclear, but its not gonna happen (so he says). we'll see anyway, we'll have to keep in touch then in 10years time when all fossil fuels have run out and the earth is suffering power failures we can sit back and say i told you so..

    ohh yea this page is pretty cool, its about chernobyl its unrelated to what ive said here but its quite interesting. www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/

    i2c

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    314
    Regarding the world adopting the Orwellian view, in the UK there is the RIP act, in the US the patriot act, and the Sanders ammendment to the Patriot act (whcih stops the Govt from getting records from book stores and libraries), was defeated in the house, so whats next? We now have Biometrics for Visa visitors coming into the states (haven`t all these folks already gone through a background check?) so maybe it isn`t such a giant leep to some kind of tagging. I think it was Jefferson who said that in times of war there is always a greater erosion of freedoms then is needed (or something similar). People like to feel safe (even if its completely misguided), so sacrificing your freedoms to catch all the bad people seems to be a fair trade..

    As for technology alone solving our problems, I don`t think that is realistic, people control how the technology is used and many of those in power are more motivated by money then the greater good, so sure, we can make fuel efficient cars, but hey, we can also drill all over Alaska and have our own oil which can keep all those gas guzzling cars on the road for afew years.. and just because people have always been starving does that mean that we can`t try to help them out a bit? In the U.S food is abundant, you walk into applebees and are given a chicken sandwich that could feed 4 people, so maybe a little less gluttony could help out?

    technology is always abused it seems, people with good intentions create stuff which then gets warped by those with the cash. Shortcuts are taken which turn safe (ish) technologies into dangers (3 mile island, chernobyl) so as long as we continue chasing the eternal buck its never going to be as easy as we would like to think.

    Apolgies if this jumps around a bit, its early and I have hangover..
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •