At 7/9/07 04:10 PM, WadeFulp wrote: "Let's conserve man! Save the Earth man! Let's go on a 5 hour road trip to show our support man!" Way to burn gas hippy.

Calling someone a "hippy" is a lame excuse for an ad hominem argument, when you're too insecure about your own argument to go on its persuasive power alone. Same goes for "redneck" or any other shit like that.

At 7/9/07 05:03 PM, BananaBreadMuffin wrote: That is fucking bullshit. The UK leg of Live Earth was held in Wembley Stadium.

That wasn't the only concert. Many required cars, etc, to get there. Who's to say people didn't drive to the train stations to get on a train to see the UK concert? Also more weight on the trains, buses,etc, being packed with people, means more energy has to be used than if the trains and buses were lighter. I don't know about the UK, but some places increase train runs and buses when their are large events. Not to mention the private planes used to fly in the performers, like Madonna with her crew of 100 all flown in on private jets, etc.

At 7/9/07 05:06 PM, Bolo wrote: Calling someone a "hippy" is a lame excuse for an ad hominem argument, when you're too insecure about your own argument to go on its persuasive power alone. Same goes for "redneck" or any other shit like that.

My argument must be pretty solid if that's the biggest flaw you can find with it. Sorry I called them a hippy. So then they are just people who think they are conserving, when they aren't.

At 7/9/07 05:03 PM, WadeFulp wrote: How are LED lights VERY bad for your vision? Sure, you don't want to stare right into the emitters, just as you wouldn't want to stare into any really bright light source, the sun include. I'll stare into an LED before I start into the sun.

LED's in car head lights are being used by Audi or someone, I'm not sure if I'd want to be driving into that, but for street lights you wouldn't be looking into the LED's, you'd just see the light being cast onto the road, and that won't hurt you.

I think it's a brilliant idea to use them for street lights, but I mean that I'll never use them in my headlights or household. So many people think "Oh, replace all lights with LED!" and that makes me scared. :[ I like my vision, I don't want to slowly lose it because offices and stuff use LEDs. :'[

As far as energy conservation goes, I think that "turn your shit off for 5 minutes" had the right idea, but it should have been for, oh, say, 10 hours, since you use more energy to turn the stuff on and off. It'd be neat to see how little electricity and power is used if people would turn everything off for 10 hours.

Also, I don't see why we don't start investing in solar power. Everyone says "blah blah too expensive to install blah," but HELLO, we're spending 80 billion a month in Iraq to get their oil... if we put that money towards solar power, we wouldn't NEED oil. Global Warming basically = more sun, so yay, more power!

I know, I'm probably wrong about mostly everything, I don't know much about politics and science, but those are my two cents, for what they're worth.

Two cents?

Well yeah it was pretty funny to see all of that electronic equipment being used in a huge event that was telling us to conserve energy. But it was pretty entertaining and I liked watching it (at least in Japan and Tokyo ), of course though the fact is all the energy wasted over that 24 hours completely ruined the point they where trying to make. Al Gore didn't help much either. They could have found a much better way to do the concerts.

At 7/9/07 04:52 PM, WadeFulp wrote:

At 7/9/07 04:47 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: not true Master Wade

Of course some energy use could be looked up,

of course it is standard procedure for them to do that Master Wade

but I said all of it. Are you going to find everyone who drove to that concert and log their gas use? Like I said, there's no way to collect and know the complete total.

I never said anything about finding that out

Also we can't know the power used by everyone watching TV, as different TV's use different amounts of power etc

yes to many Variables but we could compare and chart surveys those who are energy efficient and who isn't.

Also we can't possibly know how much power will be conserved as a direct result of people reponding to what they learned from those concerts.

A estimation is better than nothing at all

and I Would like to finish a previous post of yours obvisously to type faster than I do and post quickly and Effeciently (another joke!!)

I
I
V

At 7/9/07 04:46 PM, WadeFulp wrote: I'd also like to add while some people like to look down on Capatalism, free markets, etc, it's not maybe all that bad. People want to conserve. They want to spend less money on electric bills, water bills, fuel bills, etc.There is a big demand for appliances, cars, etc, that will do the job while being more efficent.

yes knowing how ignorant people they would probbly relize the extra 00'son thier energy and monthly bills that is the price of ignorance

This means there is insentive for companies to do their own research to develope more and more efficent products. You think they will make a washing machine that use more water and expect people to buy it over one that does the same job, but uses less water and power and saves the consumer money? Most people will spend a little more upfront on an appliance if it will save them in energy costs in the long run. I recently got a new washing machine and dryer that should pay for themselves in a couple years with the energy they will save.

And give CEOS of those corporations and companies new ideas to make products that are more efficient using products for the Consumers, even though they still have money in thier wallets but not as much

We don't need big concerts to encourage this time of behavior. The market drives this behavoir. People want it, the market will respond. Those who don't respond, those who continue to make products that waste, won't be in the market for long.

yes maybe have small confrences at your local city hall to give more awareness and have people come in at your local school for science and home economics to aware the younger people of this generation

On top of this we do have government regulations that force companies to make more efficent products, but almost always the companies exceed these regulations. Just like with car saftey, most cars exceed government standards, because they aren't worred about government standards, they are worried about another company having better safety ratings and they know consumers will go for whoever has the best safey ratings.

ahh yes coroprations need to either register stately or federaly I can't remeber car safety regulations does sometimes interfeers with more efficency thats when you have to get them both in the green zone (joke lol I just relized it)

At 7/9/07 05:09 PM, EcilaSrennah wrote: I think it's a brilliant idea to use them for street lights, but I mean that I'll never use them in my headlights or household. So many people think "Oh, replace all lights with LED!" and that makes me scared. :[ I like my vision, I don't want to slowly lose it because offices and stuff use LEDs. :'[

I'd really like to see you back up these claims. Do you have any credible articals you could link to about LED's damaging vision? Where have you heard this? Yes, green and blue LED's can be bad, but the new LED's are white, and they keep getting whiter. Also you're not considering the improvements made in LED's, and the future improvements that maybe made. Hopefully they will be able to develope LED's that put out full spectrum lighting, minus harmful UV, etc. At that point they should be fine for indoor use.

At 7/9/07 05:15 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: I never said anything about finding that out

EXACTLY, but I did and you said not true. Of course SOME usage could be documented, but not ALL of it, and I was saying there isn't anyway to know the TOTAL. I didn't say there wasn't a way to find out part of the total....

yes to many Variables but we could compare and chart surveys those who are energy efficient and who isn't.

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

A estimation is better than nothing at all

There's no way to estimate it. You'd have to know ever single person who watched that concert and follow their energy use and compare it to how they were living before. IMPOSSIBLE!

DO NOT DOUBT MASTER WADE OR ELSE YOU WILL BE EXILED WITH THE PUNISHMENT OF BANNATION FROM THE BBS!!!

At 7/9/07 05:23 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: DO NOT DOUBT MASTER WADE OR ELSE YOU WILL BE EXILED WITH THE PUNISHMENT OF BANNATION FROM THE BBS!!!

Haha, I don't ban people for not making any sense, I'll just try and point out they aren't making any sense. :)

They don't give 2 shits about the Earth, they care about how many 0's are in their paychecks.

At 7/9/07 05:20 PM, WadeFulp wrote:

At 7/9/07 05:15 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: I never said anything about finding that out

EXACTLY, but I did and you said not true. Of course SOME usage could be documented, but not ALL of it, and I was saying there isn't anyway to know the TOTAL. I didn't say there wasn't a way to find out part of the total....

oh my bad

yes to many Variables but we could compare and chart surveys those who are energy efficient and who isn't.

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

ahh but what about some that of the energy that WAS DOCUMENTED?

There's no way to estimate it. You'd have to know ever single person who watched that concert and follow their energy use and compare it to how they were living before. IMPOSSIBLE!

a general survey is a good start or we can go to the broadcast station to find out

At 7/9/07 05:09 PM, EcilaSrennah wrote: Also, I don't see why we don't start investing in solar power. Everyone says "blah blah too expensive to install blah," but HELLO, we're spending 80 billion a month in Iraq to get their oil... if we put that money towards solar power, we wouldn't NEED oil. Global Warming basically = more sun, so yay, more power!

Well, from what I hear, the production of solar panels is pretty nasty and produces toxic waste, etc. So you're screwed no matter what you do. :) Current solar panels aren't that efficent and it would take a lot of them and more money than we have for them to replace fossil fuels. However, if they can improve on solar panels and reduce the costs, and produce less waste in their creation they could be a good thing. They can be useful for heating water though.

At 7/9/07 05:30 PM, WadeFulp wrote:

At 7/9/07 05:23 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: DO NOT DOUBT MASTER WADE OR ELSE YOU WILL BE EXILED WITH THE PUNISHMENT OF BANNATION FROM THE BBS!!!

Haha, I don't ban people for not making any sense, I'll just try and point out they aren't making any sense. :)

oh I was refering to Banana Bread and Grammer

do not provoke the wrath of Fulp, Wade's attack is SWIFT AND ANAL!!!

At 7/9/07 05:36 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: a general survey is a good start or we can go to the broadcast station to find out

I guess if you surveyed a couple thousand people who attended or watched that concert and admitted to making changes directly based on what they learned you could try to see what kind of difference it made. Although you'd have to include people that watched the concert that didn't change ther ways. Basically a random sample of people who watched the concert full of people who did learn something and changed, and those who didn't learn anything, or didn't change, or were areadly practicing these things already.

You could then see out of that sample how much energy was conserved and try to apply that to an estimate of the total audience.

It would be a big under taking because you'd have to calculate their prior engery used based on their bills, if they keep records, etc.

At 7/9/07 05:37 PM, WadeFulp wrote: Well, from what I hear, the production of solar panels is pretty nasty and produces toxic waste, etc. So you're screwed no matter what you do. :)

Whaaaaaat? I didn't know they created waste. :'[ There goes my hopes for a perfect future.

That's a good point there, but Metallica's playing, so the Earth can take this one for the team.

At 7/9/07 05:44 PM, EcilaSrennah wrote:

At 7/9/07 05:37 PM, WadeFulp wrote: Well, from what I hear, the production of solar panels is pretty nasty and produces toxic waste, etc. So you're screwed no matter what you do. :)

Whaaaaaat? I didn't know they created waste. :'[ There goes my hopes for a perfect future.

But even if the production created toxic waste and stuff like that, wouldn't the energy saving costs be better in the long run if more people used them? It seems reasonable.

At 7/9/07 05:37 PM, WadeFulp wrote:

At 7/9/07 05:09 PM, EcilaSrennah wrote:

Well, from what I hear, the production of solar panels is pretty nasty and produces toxic waste, etc. So you're screwed no matter what you do. :)

I heard something about that on a program on TV.

Current solar panels aren't that efficent and it would take a lot of them and more money than we have for them to replace fossil fuels.

those are the shity common solar panels your talking about that any consumer can buy on the market dont fall for it they waste more energy than they make.

However, if they can improve on solar panels and reduce the costs, and produce less waste in their creation they could be a good thing. They can be useful for heating water though.

NASA is on a $2 Billion project for that for space projects they have gotten relativiley better.

So very true.

No shit, Wadey.

I find it funny though that there all "PROTECT MOTHER EARTH, NOW EXCUSE ME WHILE I DRIVE MY RENTED HUMMER TO MY PRIVATE JET TO MAIMI TO SMOKE MARIJUANA AND SNORT COCAINE.."

Got to love how the world runs, eh?

At 7/9/07 05:44 PM, EcilaSrennah wrote: Whaaaaaat? I didn't know they created waste. :'[ There goes my hopes for a perfect future.

Remember "For ever action, there is an opposite and equal reaction."

Almost all these things, solar panels, wind farms, hydrogen, etc, has some kind of down side.

Here are some quotes:

"the manufacturing process for making solar panels generate a lot of toxic metal waste, which stays dangerous forever and never goes away. The solar panels themselves must be disposed of eventually. It is impossible to guarantee that solar panel toxic wastes can be isolated from human populations for the next million years. Since the solar panel toxic waste problem cannot be solved, then solar panels should not be made in the first place.

We have already seen the environmental destruction caused by windmills. Not only are they an eyesore and a blight on the landscape, they kill birds and other flying wildlife that happen to go near them. They generate a pitifully small amount of electricity for their size"

Nuclear power is probably one of our best solutions at the moment. The waste can be re-used, renewed, and eventually becomes safe.

Yeah, some of the artists do play there and don't 'get paid,' but they are just doing it to attract the 'save the earth' crowd. It's really just a big whole greed issue :(

Lol,most of the artists there drive Hummers and SUVs

Wowza, Wade!

Okay Wade, I'm going to ask you a few simple questions:

Did you think that Vtech Rampage was in good taste? I doubt you did, yet you still generated ad revenue from it.

Would you encourage more cartoons like Vtech Rampage, knowing that it would increase traffic? Once again, I doubt you would.

Why did I ask this? Because promoting the user-submitted content on this site is part of your job description, just as performing concerts is part of a musicians job description. Musicians might promote conservation in the same respect that you'd find games like Vtech Rampage in bad taste.

what is your view on Ethenol fuel Master Wade? you think its good low emmissions and its made out of corn.

Uhh...Wade???You Feeling Ok?

At 7/9/07 05:55 PM, Zerostar wrote: Why did I ask this? Because promoting the user-submitted content on this site is part of your job description, just as performing concerts is part of a musicians job description. Musicians might promote conservation in the same respect that you'd find games like Vtech Rampage in bad taste.

What?! How does that relate at all? I'm not saying we shouldn't let people have the freedom to express their views and then letting them express their views on NG.

I'm calling out the musicians for telling us to conserve while they aren't practicing what they are preaching.

At 7/9/07 06:02 PM, WadeFulp wrote:

m calling out the musicians for telling us to conserve while they aren't practicing what they are preaching.

Just like in Where Is The Love by Black Eyed Peas!

:D

At 7/9/07 06:02 PM, WadeFulp wrote: What?! How does that relate at all? I'm not saying we shouldn't let people have the freedom to express their views and then letting them express their views on NG.

I'm calling out the musicians for telling us to conserve while they aren't practicing what they are preaching.

I think it was a lame attempt to diss you, lover.
Blank post.