search results matching tag: environmental impact

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (15)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (45)   

5200 Drone light show, Breaking 4 World Records - High Great

cloudballoon says...

These drones light shows are feeling samey-samey real fast, no "wow" factor anymore to me just like fireworks, though they can convey any messages (propaganda?) far more clearly and inventively if done right. But at least these drones get reused events after events. Hopefully the environmental impact is less than fireworks at the end of the their days.

Far less chance of severe mishaps too.

Why Build Higher

Fairbs says...

didn't make it through the entire video, but it made me think of two things...
1 if businesses do environmental impact studies of their entire operations, for most businesses, the employee commute to work is the biggest one
2 urban sprawl creates a kind of regressive tax on poor people; land closer in is worth more forcing relatively poorer people to move farther away and then they are the ones stuck with the longer commute times and the resulting lowered happiness

Bosch self-drive car demo

Babymech says...

This is what I imagine the future of transport will be like - I get in my electric vehicle in the morning, and sit down as it takes off toward the destination I want to go. I spend the ride checking email, listening to music, or just relaxing, as the correct route is dynamically updated to avoid construction, traffic jams, etc. At the end of the journey that's cost me very little, gotten me safely to my destination, and had minimal environmental impact, my vehicle moves on to pick up other passengers BECAUSE IT'S A GODDAMN BUS AND BUSES HAVE ALWAYS WORKED LIKE THIS.

The world's most beautiful sustainable font

MilkmanDan says...

I think I'd have to see it in actual printed form to judge the readability accurately.

BUT, in terms of readability on a display, like the 40" 1920x1080 LCD I'm watching on ... it is quite poor in my opinion. I have a feeling that it would work much better in ink on paper.

33% ink savings sounds pretty good, assuming that the readability on paper is better than a display. That being said, encouraging printer manufacturers to have a more sane approach to refillable ink/toner reservoirs would have a better/bigger impact.

Here in Thailand, where respect for patents / IP is low, (SE Asia is notorious for fake manufactured goods, pirated "soft" media, and hardware hacks / bypasses) I'd guess that around 90% of inkjet printers sold have a tank system glued onto the side with ink lines running into the cartridges from big CYMK reservoirs. I never buy new cartridges unless the print head gets damaged/worn out -- instead, I just buy cheap LARGE bottles of the different ink colors and refill the reservoirs. (Image link of such a setup HERE)

That kind of mod would be a gray or black-market item in the West, but here the laissez-faire attitude about such things has some positive effects. At least, for a consumer (like me), or someone concerned about the environmental impact of all the waste packaging for ink carts (like the dude in this video).

Colonel Sanders Explains Our Dire Overpopulation Problem

gorillaman says...

@RedSky

I'd like to know how you expect to quintuple the availability of every vital resource in the next 50-100 years while somehow reducing the environmental impact of that necessary increase to what you acknowledge needs to be less than the present level. This is supernatural thinking. Corporations don't pollute, incidentally, the fundamental structure of our global society pollutes; which would be no problem whatsoever if there were fewer of us.

It's fine if you'd prefer to just keep the majority of the world in mediaeval poverty, or alternatively impoverish everyone equally; colossally immoral, but by contrast actually physically possible.

Our success as an organism has been implicitly tied to energy availability for our entire history. The bubble of economic and technological advancement we've ridden since the industrial revolution is driven by unprecedented access to energy in the form of irreplaceable fossil fuels. It requires continual investment of energy to maintain. The practical exploitability of wind, solar, wave, geothermal and hydroelectric sources combined doesn't come close, not even close to the demand we'll place on them with population on the scale you're quite comfortable to allow. Fissile materials are limited and similarly irreplaceable; we've been steadily failing to develop fusion power for sixty years.

The innovation of new sources of energy is not guaranteed, unless you have some new breakthrough in physics you'd like to share? Efficiency gains are strictly limited.

If you think we'll have the ability to support billions of people on a sustainable basis at some time in the future, well great, LET'S WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE THAT ABILITY BEFORE WE BET EVERYTHING ON IT.

The Problem with Civil Obedience

chingalera says...

You simply can't SEE a scenario without force, because you've drunk the Kool Aid, Stormsinger, we all have.

Anarcho-Capitalism sounds good in ether, eliminate the state's influence on yer shit. Hire private security firms to dole-out justice, and fuck the police. Sounds REAL good. Privatizing currency structures, anything goes. Sounds righteous and fair-Keeps out gangsters who will eventually become masters.

Eliminate compulsory taxation. Good thing. Ombudsman-like dispute resolution rather than laws and a punishment to follow. Sounds fucking SANE to me. Problem is , with all the robots programmed by the state for the past 100 years, it's kinna hard to convince idiots that something like this could work....to free them from the inevitability of the failure of the current paradigm. About the only problems I can see with a switch would be how to maintain environmental impact standards, but these problems' solutions would become evident when people become responsible for themselves, for another's well-being within the social structure, and their own destinies.

Democracy (the meaning, 'rule of the people') has been lost to the rule of a very few, and historically it never works for very long before assholes find a way around it.


You're in a pot of water being slowly heated, Stormsinger-Warm 'n cozy now, melting skin from your screaming carcass later.

Stormsinger said:

Free Market Anarchism...what an oxymoron. You cannot have a free market, without laws to prevent (or authorize) the use of force. Without laws, too many of the big guys would just take what they want, and screw everyone else. At least with a government overseeing things, they have to take the extra step and effort of corrupting/co-opting the mechanisms of government.

Then we can have a bloody revolution, execute the perps, and start a new organization, that can, if we're lucky, last a few decades before the next crop takes over. It's beginning to look like that cycle is about the best we can hope for.

Nestlé Responds to Abby

VoodooV says...

You're not wrong, but I think the main issue is that people are buying into the perception that their water is of higher quality of regular tap water and that isn't necessarily the case.

That and the environmental impact of bottled water far outweighs the convenience of bottled water, but people buy it anyway so you've got the whole issue of profit vs what's actually good for consumers and long term environmental impact

They're cashing in on the ignorance of lots of people

oohlalasassoon said:

To be fair, Nestle's not holding a gun to the heads of those that want to pay literally something around 2000 times more than they need to for bottled tap water. Is Nestle evil for agreeing to fulfill consumers' apparent desire to be thoroughly gouged?

You're not a scientist!

dirkdeagler7 says...

Your fanaticism is in not being able to see that I'm not arguing against you, nor really against your true hurdles (the guy in the video above who will never see the merit in slugs or snails regardless of your evidence). I'm arguing against the need to see the other side as a combatant and instead as a group that has a different expertise and perspective. The 2nd voice in a complex evaluation at a national or global level.

Science minded people can easily project the benefits of research and have a lot of faith in science's ability to provide exponential benefits in the future. It's because this IS the case that this is even a debate. What WE seem incapable of doing is accepting that even exponential benefits and aggregate benefits can fall prey to scope and mass.

People on the other side don't see the long term or the exponential benefits however because theyre not science minded. Their focus has likely been somewhere else like business, healthcare, politics, social issues, etc. and so they will know more about THOSE lasting impacts than science minded people (including you and I). Unless youre suggesting science minded people are more experts on these topics as well?

So when using the explicit or implicit "greater good" as a measure it can be surprising how things unfold. I say "greater good" like that because the idea that the future benefit of current research is worth current spending over immediate problems implies "the greater good of society over time" and if you disagree with that then we can discuss that some other day.

Let me assist you quickly in countering my own comments so you can see why I feel we're not on the same page. The counter to the arguments i've expressed would be that "greater good" evaluation from moment to moment is NOT the correct way to fund research. Because the value that the general population will put on immediate issues (or support through public policy/voting/opinion) will always carry more weight than solving problems in the future (the immediacy bias of humans) it can not be used as a forward thinking way of funding research.

In other words, we don't need to convince people of greater good or of researches value over other uses of resources. The reason is that the only way to properly do science research is as a ongoing project on a mass scale with inter-dependencies that are too complex for anyone but the most informed to evaluate.

Arguing dollars and cents through cost benefit analysis or some other method would ultimately work against research funding, particularly when arguing with business and fiscal spending experts that can play on immediate human need/emotion.

As an aside, i enjoy this discussion but I truly think that there is a miscommunication about what topics you and I are concerned about and what our exact stances on them are. Perhaps this is my fault for not making my stance or opinion more clear because I was not trying to chime in on the debate at large, but chime in on the way people were undertaking the debate.

I believe research funding is even more important than immediate needs and that the justification for them does not have to meet any "greater good" measures because, having studied economics in college, I'm aware of how bad our evaluation of non-concrete goods/services are (ie the evaluation of human life or environmental impacts expressed in real world terms like money).

Because I believe this, I have to accept that it is an IMPORTANT balance to have people as biased in the opposite direction around to offset my opinion and I welcome open discussion (ie without assuming they don't know what theyre talking about from the beginning) with those people because it helps me to feel that our society IS actually meeting the needs of both types of people as best it can.

What I don't do is raise my nose at them as being uninformed and incapable of understanding the issues at large because I believe they do, but with a different process all together which still has value. I also don't assume that my fact and science based arguments will always win out over arguments with immediacy and immediate human benefit (which are very difficult to put a value on).

I apologize for harping on greater good, but it was being thrown around and wielded (even if implicitly) as though it was a single edged sword when it is in fact a double edged sword when the issue is viewed with the proper scope. I also didn't feel the need to be yet another voice clamoring for science funding when the opposite side had little to no presence. Group think is dangerous and without voices to temper the enthusiasm it's easy to forget that debates have 2 sides and both typically have merit even if the other side wouldn't care to admit it.

bmacs27 said:

@dirkdeagler7

You keep saying I'm being fanatic, or aggressive. Nothing in that quote could be construed as such. It was a direct response to the following quote from your previous post:

"Explain to someone who has no insurance or has a problem with medical bills or has no job or has family members fighting abroad or is getting foreclosed on....that we need to spend money to better understand hermaphroditic snails and the intricacies of their mating rituals in order to better understand evolution and reproduction to maybe one day apply that technology to genetic research or fertility programs."

Presumably you would also argue that they would not be convinced by the need to study the intricacies of sea-slug gill withdrawal reflexes. Your posts seem to suggest that someone other than scientists (some vaguely defined "greater good") should be dictating which specific research aims should be funded. You suggest we should be "asking" these people if that money should be spent.

My contention is that scientists have spent their (already meager) funds with remarkable efficiency. My example was meant to illustrate that asking lay people what science should be funded is likely to have prevented some of the most critical research of the last century from ever having taken place. They don't understand the broader impacts of the research, and thus lack the expertise necessary to evaluate its merit. Sure, someone in pain will probably balk at those sorts of studies. However, if you ask them "are you glad someone did the necessary research to develop ____insert_medical_procedure here____," then I think you'll find they're happy their forefathers spent a few pennies studying snails. The fact is the reverse argument does not hold up. We all, scientists not withstanding, are experts in basic human needs and suffering. For many, scientists that's what drove us to the work. You act as though we can not evaluate the merit of research with respect to the larger picture. I think you're wrong. We do it all the time.

Also, I'm a bit insulted by your reference to people with medical bills, or family members fighting abroad as I fall into both categories. We all have our cross to bear. I don't think I'm alone in responding "I'll be fine, spend the money on the future."

Why Soldiers Seem to Fire when They Can't See Their Enemy

Tokoki says...

I'm willing to bet that the environmental impacts take a backseat when you're in the middle of a firefight.

Heck, just playing paintball, I use the same doctrine...

mikeydamonster said:

Not to mention the environmental impact of throwing tons of lead into random shit, and the safety impact of unexploded ordnance. Kinda crazy.

Why Soldiers Seem to Fire when They Can't See Their Enemy

mikeydamonster says...

Regardless of if it's correct in combat (I too would feel safer spraying down the dark corners with molten streams of hot death), the amount of munitions in general that are laid down blindly in modern warfare still amazes me.

http://nation.time.com/2012/04/02/bullets-by-the-billions/

Dats a lot o' shootsin'! Not to mention the environmental impact of throwing tons of lead into random shit, and the safety impact of unexploded ordnance. Kinda crazy.

FOX explains $4 gas when Bush was president

ChaosEngine says...

>> ^conan:

I'd give my left arm for 4 USD a gallon. Right now we're at 7,57 USD a gallon (1,50 EUR per liter). And that's for diesel, which is subsidized over here. I'm happy i don't need Super (Premium you call it i think), regular isn't sold here anymore.


Yeah, I really have no time for americans complaining about gas prices. Forget a hybrid or a diesel, just buy a small car.

And OT: my main issue with hybrids is their environmental impact. Sure on road, they're a great idea, but not so much once you amortise the energy cost of the life cycle of the vehicle. You want to be environmentally friendly and save money. Buy an oldish car with a small engine.

Republicans and Science: It's Lose-Lose

DerHasisttot says...

To answer your assumption that green regulations will hurt economies, well-spoken QM, I present Germany! Working economy, job growth and sinking emissions. 20% of Germany's electricity is green: wind, biomass, solar. It's a growing field of industry here and in the USA. How did Germany do it? Regulations and Incentives.
In reply to this comment by direpickle:


>> ^quantumushroom:

Assuming for a moment that man-made global warming is demonstrably proven.
1) The socialist scientitians claim they know the precise temperature (range) that the earth is supposed to be over the next 100 years and
Scientists believe that they can determine roughly the temperature that the Earth would tend to be at, absent human influence, and that there is an ideal temperature range for the way human civilization is presently organized and

2) they can set this desired temperature through taxation and regulation of industry.

that regulations and taxes on emissions and other things can provide an economic incentive for industries to develop systems that have less of an environmental impact.

And I'm the one who's insane? Insanely entertaining, yes. Willing to wreck the global economy further than these Keynesian retards already have? Nope.

I believe that regulations intended to prevent global warming will hurt economies and industries worse than doing nothing. An impartial group should study the potential effects of both before we make sweeping decisions.


Republicans and Science: It's Lose-Lose

direpickle says...

>> ^quantumushroom:

The enviro-Statist alarmists failed to ensnare public opinion, proving once again the people are smarter than kenyan kings.


Why do you talk like this? If you're really voicing your opinions, you're only hurting your case by filling every comment with rambling about Kenyans and Statists and Keynesians. Let me help you out.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Assuming for a moment that man-made global warming is demonstrably proven.
1) The socialist scientitians claim they know the precise temperature (range) that the earth is supposed to be over the next 100 years and
Scientists believe that they can determine roughly the temperature that the Earth would tend to be at, absent human influence, and that there is an ideal temperature range for the way human civilization is presently organized and

2) they can set this desired temperature through taxation and regulation of industry.

that regulations and taxes on emissions and other things can provide an economic incentive for industries to develop systems that have less of an environmental impact.

And I'm the one who's insane? Insanely entertaining, yes. Willing to wreck the global economy further than these Keynesian retards already have? Nope.

I believe that regulations intended to prevent global warming will hurt economies and industries worse than doing nothing. An impartial group should study the potential effects of both before we make sweeping decisions.

Bill Nye Explaining Science on Fox is "Confusing Viewers"

packo says...

capitalism is doing a dandy job undermining itself atm... it needs no help, other than what the banks/politicians (primarily Republicans, but also Democrats) are already contributing

it is quite simple to look back at history (which extends beyond 6000 yrs), and by looking at historical trends to extrapolate what future trends should be, to quite accurate degree

no one is saying taxes and regulation DIRECTLY affect the temperature... and if you believe that the left actually think that, you need to do a little introspection... however, again looking at history you can see that taxes/regulation are able to focus/define/direct economy and industry... its exactly what brought the US out of depression for example... so if your goal is to reduce environmental impact of industries that are leading sources of pollution, or to spur innovation/creativity in new, less harmful technology... taxes/regulation is how you do it

if you leave it up to the private sector alone, what motivation do they have to not do business as usual? the current US/World economy is less driven by innovation as it is driven by profit... someone comes up with a good idea? buy them out or leverage them out of the market if it competes with your product (or better yet buy their product, but sit on it... why bother going through the expense of changing systems)... the US has been brainwashed into thinking Capitalism is wringing every last drop of blood out of a stone, rather than creating new markets/fields

there has been alternative energy source vehicle technology for DECADES, yet they are just trickling into the market now... and its not because people haven't asked for it, its because profit is shortsighted and definitely not philanthropic... its because people stopped buying American gas guzzling penis extensions and started looking at the more economical foreign offering... industry couldn't predict that a shrinking middle class and rising gas prices would change the market... but change was there, so they might as well throw in that environmental issue people have been worried about for the past 50yrs

and when someone starts touting capitalism and poo pooing marxism, socialism, and the like... that's when I know I've been introduced to an idiot... you do realize your quality of life, your standard of living, services you consider essential, etc come from those ideals AS WELL AS Capitalism...

right?

and one or the other, on their own, taken to the Nth degree, are just as horrific as the other

an idiot who hasn't thought for themselves is QUITE ready to start cheering for one side or the other

Aelita Andre - Prodigy of Color

bobknight33 says...

Very good point.

I do not have an extra room for her to become a prodigy. I would need some OBAMA Stimulus money for an add on. If I can have my daughter use a shovel to paint with would she qualify for one one of those shovel ready jobs? Would I need to get an environmental impact study done? Probably not.

Oh well, I guess my litter girl will have to settle in being average.

>> ^legacy0100:

>> ^bobknight33:
Thats not an talented / inspired work of art. Its a kid who is given a room to freely trash with paint and give an large art-board to paint on.
Heck my daughter does that on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. If I gave her own room that she could trash with paint and give her a large art-board to paint on she could do the same.

Well, you should give her a room to play with and see what she can come up with. I mean, this girl is being praised as a prodigy for god sakes, just because she's given the right environment.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon