So the land development, building and fueling/mining of a nuclear power plant is free of emissions? What about waste disposal and decommissioning? Bremnet speaks the truth, albeit in a markedly sarcastic way. Car emissions come from energy production. Electric cars simply have their energy production out-sourced. Things become interesting at a local level with electric transport because you can potentially choose how your energy is produced. But you'd better believe that coal and oil is still powering all things electric in the majority of households, including recharging batteries.

I am a huge proponent of nuclear power, though I really wish LFTR's would come into production especially considering it's organic safety features and relative fuel abundance.

Since we're on the subject of electric cars, don't forget that the production of batteries and electric motors is very expensive. I'm not necessarily talking about monetary costs, but rather cost in resources and energy. Again, I support the development and usage of electric vehicles but dare not ignore their true cost.

>It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits.

You have so much more power to control your resource usage than the government. Don't rely on them for a solution. You can choose what you eat (agriculture is a huge resource spender), how you travel (walk or take public transport), what and why you buy (industry is another big spender), and your home resource usage. Don't pass the buck and blindly empower the government when it's our responsibility.

Now if only the planet was run on pancake power. Then, surely, I would be the true master of Earth.

*edit*

BTW, great video and awesome car. Would love to give it a go (as with all Audi Rx cars

>> ^bcglorf:

Well, nuclear is there to make electricity and vehicles emission free. If the greens hadn't worked so hard to ensure that nuclear power was stopped the 41% for electricity and whatever chunk of transportation is vehicles would all be gone.
But fine, is you wanna be sarcastic how about you chime in with a better solution. You hear plenty of chicken little's running around crying it's time to panic. You hear plenty of talk about reducing our emissions. You don't hear nearly so much about how to do that. It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits. Without nuclear power for electricity production and switching large parts of transportation over to electricity, what is left? Are we just to stop using transportation and electricity all together I suppose?

>> ^bremnet:
Yes, so true. Just look at all of the countries signing up for new nuclear power plants. Oh, and of course, those who generate their electricity today with that peskily cheaper natural gas from shale gas will likely just shut that down. Forgot to ask, how do we generate the electricity to charge our batteries? If you say anything that involves rubbing balloons in ones hair, well that's just too clever! Let's see - in 2009, 41% of global CO2 emissions were from the generation of electricity and heat, and only 23% for transport per the IEA report (that's all transport - cars, trucks, buses, seagoing vessels, trains, planes) so let's call your 30% a rounding error. By 2015, it is estimated that the total CO2 emissions from seagoing vessels will surpass that for all land based automobiles, so can we get a video of an electric cargo ship instead of this car? Pretty sure they have those, right? If we have electric vehicles, and have to generate more electricity ummm... (head explodes). Top marks for enthusiasm, but I'm afraid we're going to have to keep you back for another year to re-teach math and energy balance.

Well, nuclear is there to make electricity and vehicles emission free. If the greens hadn't worked so hard to ensure that nuclear power was stopped the 41% for electricity and whatever chunk of transportation is vehicles would all be gone.

But fine, is you wanna be sarcastic how about you chime in with a better solution. You hear plenty of chicken little's running around crying it's time to panic. You hear plenty of talk about reducing our emissions. You don't hear nearly so much about how to do that. It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits. Without nuclear power for electricity production and switching large parts of transportation over to electricity, what is left? Are we just to stop using transportation and electricity all together I suppose?


>> ^bremnet:

Yes, so true. Just look at all of the countries signing up for new nuclear power plants. Oh, and of course, those who generate their electricity today with that peskily cheaper natural gas from shale gas will likely just shut that down. Forgot to ask, how do we generate the electricity to charge our batteries? If you say anything that involves rubbing balloons in ones hair, well that's just too clever! Let's see - in 2009, 41% of global CO2 emissions were from the generation of electricity and heat, and only 23% for transport per the IEA report (that's all transport - cars, trucks, buses, seagoing vessels, trains, planes) so let's call your 30% a rounding error. By 2015, it is estimated that the total CO2 emissions from seagoing vessels will surpass that for all land based automobiles, so can we get a video of an electric cargo ship instead of this car? Pretty sure they have those, right? If we have electric vehicles, and have to generate more electricity ummm... (head explodes). Top marks for enthusiasm, but I'm afraid we're going to have to keep you back for another year to re-teach math and energy balance.

More like "Guards shoot warning shots from a cargo ship" - completely diferent.

The pirates never made it onto the ship and they were never shot.

You misunderstand, QM. I didn't post to mock. I truly am curious if this would be appealing to our staunch libertarians on the Sift.

I thought those comments I posted were amusing. I don't think it will work for a host of reasons, but I am more interested in how it MIGHT work and if someone else sees the same possible flaws as I do.

For example... domestic workers. Probably can't afford to get out there on their own. Most likely can't afford to leave on their own. So once they are there... what protections? Any? Should there be? What if they lose their job? Caveat emptor -- don't go unless you can get yourself home?

All is fine and well if you are wealthy. What happens if you aren't? Because there is no welfare, there are no regulations, right?

But I'm not interested in what I think -- what do others think?



>> ^quantumushroom:

"A pirate's dream: a static object in international waters with a very high concentration of very wealthy people. Good luck with all that!"
It's a pirates dream until they realize the entire island is armed, and instead of water hoses peeing down from cargo ships they're being sprayed with napalm gel from flamethrowers. Yo ho ho!

Now Boards, you asked this question with the intent to mock the concept, and that's your right. Forget pirates, if The Island worked the federal mafia would move the Navy in the next night in the name of 'fighting global warming' or some scam.

"A pirate's dream: a static object in international waters with a very high concentration of very wealthy people. Good luck with all that!"

It's a pirates dream until they realize the entire island is armed, and instead of water hoses peeing down from cargo ships they're being sprayed with napalm gel from flamethrowers. Yo ho ho!


Now Boards, you asked this question with the intent to mock the concept, and that's your right. Forget pirates, if The Island worked the federal mafia would move the Navy in the next night in the name of 'fighting global warming' or some scam.

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

>> ^sme4r:
A desk job? That really sucks, he must have saved the British government a cool million dollars or (or like 6 pounds, 7 quid these days) and some shame by landing it on a boat rather then crashing it out at sea.>> ^oritteropo:
One of the comments tells the rest of the story:
"In 2007, Britain’s National Archives released a number of Royal Navy files, and the second inquiry report was finally made public. Noting that Watson had completed only 75 percent of his training before he had been sent to sea, the board blamed Watson’s inexperience, and his commanders for assigning him an airplane “not fully prepared for the sortie,” a reference to radio problems. Nonetheless, Watson was reprimanded and given a desk job.


Well sort of, He saved the plane (Good) he saved his life (Great job) but as for money.
When the Alraigo, with the jet atop the containers, docked at Santa Cruz de Tenerife, a horde of reporters was on hand. The ship’s crew and owners filed a salvage claim and were awarded some £570,000 ($1.14 million at the time) as compensation for the “rescue.” When Watson returned to the Illustrious, a Board of Inquiry essentially did nothing. But when the Illustrious returned to port, Watson underwent a second Board of Inquiry.
It kind of sucks that the Capt of the cargo ship was more interested in the salvage claim than anything else. (This is my personal opinion and it may be that the capt was a good guy but instead of waiting for the royal navy he made damn sure he got to a friendly port to guarantee his money.)


Do you have any idea how much a Harrier costs?

Cheers

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
*quality

>> ^sme4r:

A desk job? That really sucks, he must have saved the British government a cool million dollars or (or like 6 pounds, 7 quid these days) and some shame by landing it on a boat rather then crashing it out at sea.>> ^oritteropo:
One of the comments tells the rest of the story:
"In 2007, Britain’s National Archives released a number of Royal Navy files, and the second inquiry report was finally made public. Noting that Watson had completed only 75 percent of his training before he had been sent to sea, the board blamed Watson’s inexperience, and his commanders for assigning him an airplane “not fully prepared for the sortie,” a reference to radio problems. Nonetheless, Watson was reprimanded and given a desk job.



Well sort of, He saved the plane (Good) he saved his life (Great job) but as for money.

When the Alraigo, with the jet atop the containers, docked at Santa Cruz de Tenerife, a horde of reporters was on hand. The ship’s crew and owners filed a salvage claim and were awarded some £570,000 ($1.14 million at the time) as compensation for the “rescue.” When Watson returned to the Illustrious, a Board of Inquiry essentially did nothing. But when the Illustrious returned to port, Watson underwent a second Board of Inquiry.

It kind of sucks that the Capt of the cargo ship was more interested in the salvage claim than anything else. (This is my personal opinion and it may be that the capt was a good guy but instead of waiting for the royal navy he made damn sure he got to a friendly port to guarantee his money.)

A quid and a pound are the same thing. Pence are cents to the british.

>> ^sme4r:

A desk job? That really sucks, he must have saved the British government a cool million dollars or (or like 6 pounds, 7 quid these days) and some shame by landing it on a boat rather then crashing it out at sea.

Your video, Sea Harrier makes emergency landing on a cargo ship (1983), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

A desk job? That really sucks, he must have saved the British government a cool million dollars or (or like 6 pounds, 7 quid these days) and some shame by landing it on a boat rather then crashing it out at sea.>> ^oritteropo:

One of the comments tells the rest of the story:
"In 2007, Britain’s National Archives released a number of Royal Navy files, and the second inquiry report was finally made public. Noting that Watson had completed only 75 percent of his training before he had been sent to sea, the board blamed Watson’s inexperience, and his commanders for assigning him an airplane “not fully prepared for the sortie,” a reference to radio problems. Nonetheless, Watson was reprimanded and given a desk job.

Ok, yes that was bad ass. but I really hate to say it. Everything in the video is something already seen in a star wars film.

Dude with a red face fighting with a light saber staff thing.

Droids with duel blasters.

Chase through an asteroid field.

Fast ugly tough cargo ship owned by a smuggler with gun ports on top and bottom. (They just need to name it the Aluminum falcon)

Big triangle shaped ships.

Mentor Jedi dieing while rookie lives.

Flying through some kind of structure.

The disturbance in the force pause and sad face.

Storm/clone troopers.

Smuggler saves the day. But, I will admit this one makes Han Look like a whiny little girl.

An R2D2 wannabe

and the escape in to hyperspace.

And apparently I'm not the only one to see this as several people already pointed it out.....
Whats truly sad is I don't have a computer that will run the game. So, I'll have to miss this one.

@freernuts

I question why you're saying anything to me about humour, as I'm not questioning your quote of Dft, which I'm assuming was your crack at being funny.

What I am correcting, however, is you saying that the C-130 and AC-130 are cargo ships, whereas one is military transport, and the other is a gunship. I don't see how who owns it is relevant, as the U.S.A. is not the only country in the world that owns them.

Your points seem to be non-sensical and irrelevant to the video, or really anything i've said, so i'm just going to move right along to bigger and better things.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The smoke looks like the Grim Reaper.


Totally! And "Angel" pattern? More like Angel of Death. [insert anti-war, anti-Republican, hooray anarchy rant]

>> ^Shepppard:

For the record: There's a difference between a C-130, and an AC-130.
A C-130 "Hercules" is just a regular troop/supply transport, whereas an AC-130 "Spooky" is flying gunship.
There doesn't seem to be any visible guns, so I'm going to wager a guess that this is just a C-130


It's a cargo ship...