MrFingers

Originally posted by: crazyyaya Got anything against wind power mrfinger? I'd just like to say if anyone has doubts about global warming.you should watch an Inconvient Truth. f it dosen't convince people, nothing will.quote> Dude, are you serious? I watched "An Inconvenient Truth", and I've honestly got to say, I have never seen anything so sensationally [content] Marc in my entire life. "An Inconvenient Truth" is a bigger political stunt than 9/11. If you actually find his "documentary" (boy, is that charitable) informative, then I really am simply going to have to laugh at you. "Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia had the following to say about this; "Al Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak, that they are pathetic. The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.""

as long as your economy has any dependence on international trade or money flows, a worldwide collapse will inevitably affect you.

The way I like to start a city is this; create a central area. Make it mathematically artistic, outline a hexagon or something, give alot of thought to the interior, include a tram (GLR) system, etc. Then build that up. It will be your city center. From there, just start making avenues branching out from it, gradually extending them further as you build more. give yourself plenty of space around your newly developed areas to fatten out later with more transit stuff. Put railways and highways into the center of town in early, so that you can build up around the transit arteries. That makes it seem more realistic. Also, build around the landscape. Think about where a city would likely begin from a geographical point of view. Build your arteries so that they flow around mountains and water. Don't try to make the landscape conform to your city, make your city conform to the landscape. That will also make your city alot more realistic. The trickiest part of starting a city, is how to separate the industry from the residential, whilst keeping it realistic.

Originally posted by: schm0 Nahh, I just wanted to cite an example of a clean, renewable energy source to be used to combat the effects of climate change. I'm actually a supporter of nuclear energy; my uncle is a nuclear engineer. I just don't think that our ultimate energy solution is nuclear energy. Despite what you say, (and you bring up valid points) nuclear technology brings with it political responsibilities (i.e. North Korea, Iran.) Solar power, or any renewable, does not come with these burdens. Also, this was being discussed in a seperate thread. I'd like to keep the focus here. If you haven't already, check out the PBS documentary about climate change and U.S. Policy that I mentioned above. You can even watch the documentary on the site. Even if you don't agree with it, it brings up a lot of new talking points concerning climate change in the past decades in the U.S. I'm interested to hear what you have to say about it. quote> Solar panels are really not that great. 1) They actually cost more to manufacture and maintain, than the energy they produce. 2) They use chemicals such as cadmium (toxic stuff) inside PV cells which has to come from zinc mines. 3) They are harvesting energy from a pretty low dense source. Because of that, solar panels will never be able to produce that much energy, even if they were perfectly efficient. Sun light enters earth's atmosphere at 1.4kW per meter squared. A third of that reaches the surface - 500W per meter squared. So even if you had a perfectly efficient solar PV, a 1GW power plant (below average for even today, let alone the future), it would take up; 10^9 / 500 = 2 million square meters of space. the reality is that solar PVs are not much more than 15% efficient. 4) They only work during the day time. For that reason, you then have to have massive banks of batteries to store energy. More toxic chemicals, more cost. The reality is that solar panels have limited applications to tree hugger home owners, and remote locations. Interesting fact; If you were to have all the energy you ever consumed in your entire life produced by nuclear power, the total waste would fit into a desk side trash can.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa 90% is not the whole town. And I find 90% highly unlikely given that walmart is simply a service industry and therefore not a reason for a town to exist. besides that, people have the choice to move. Show me this town please.quote> Well, I am a guilty exaggerator, but there is never a 100% of anything. It has been a long time since I was back in Oklahoma and I am sure things have changed. If you substitute Wranglers for WalMart and go to Tecumseh, you will see what I mean. Or go to Duncan, where Halliburton is the main employer. Anyhow, my point is that when big business comes in, it is very hard in a small community to NOT have to work for them. As for moving... choice is not the right word. It can cost an arm and a leg to uproot and move somewhere else, especially when you support, for example, a family of 4 on minimum wage and carry more than one job. Barbarossaquote> It doesn't make sense to have a minature town economy supported solely by a tiertary sector industry. think about it. You've got the vast majority of the income coming from one entitiy, and the vast majority of money being put back into it. the net is zero, but then you have to factor in all kinds of things like taxes etc. it just doesn't work. Walmart would be making a serious loss. And ultimately these people can move. We put alot of effort into enabling labour mobility for a reason.

yeah, this idea that education and health care in europe is free is just plain wrong. We pay out of our noses for it with some of the most economically strangling taxes in the world. And these public services are hugely inefficient compared to the private sector. The idea that they are "free" is really foolish.

Originally posted by: BarbarossaThey are forced to work their by their economic circumstances. I am not sure how anyone can say they aren't forced to work there. Believe it or not, there are a lot of poor people in the world. Why are they poor? Likely because their family was poor, they probably could not afford to go to college, and they probably lived in an environment that no one can comprehend unless they go through it. It's kind of like dismissing gang warfare when you never lived in Compton. quote> Forced to work? We are all "forced to work", only in socialist countries can people get away with doing nothing with their lives. But even poor people have a choice of where to work. Go to Oklahoma, my friend. Drive around a bit and you will find a nice, little small town where Wal-Mart employs 90% of the population. The rest work at the post office, the bank and the school. quote> 90% is not the whole town. And I find 90% highly unlikely given that walmart is simply a service industry and therefore not a reason for a town to exist. besides that, people have the choice to move. Show me this town please.

Originally posted by: beebsSo would you say that supply and demand should control the minimum wage? quote> Yes, the price mechanism (capitalism) should control the labour force. Not the minimum wage, there should be no minimum. only a meeting of what people are willing to pay for labour and what people are willing to work for.

Ok, You've cleared that up somewhat for me Nuclear power has a very good safety record (164 times safer than wind power), even including Chernobyl which was an exceptional circumstance. It is the only industry that has all its external costs covered, and its waste products are completely under control. People worry about power plants melting down, but that is actually physically impossible with a negative void coefficient (ie overheating is damped, not propogated). People worry about terrorists taking nuclear waste, but I can think of literally a hundred places that are easier to get radioactive material from. Countless industries use radioactive elements, you've even got some in your own home if you have a smoke detector. People worry about terrorists directly blowing up a nuclear reactor, but they have shielding specifically designed to tackle that threat, in fact they've done experiments and shown that a fully armed fighter jet will not penetrate. People have fears about Nuclear power which are just simply unfounded. They seem to be incapable of differentiating between a nuclear weapon and a power plant. The two are so different, infact the only similarity is the isotope of the fuel. The way nuclear waste is dealt with is a whole new topic, and well dealt with. I would be happy to explain if you want.

Originally posted by: schm0 Originally posted by: coolotter88 FUD about nuclear power is just irrational.quote> "Fear, uncertainty and doubt" is a marketing or sales technique. It is used to provide disinformation or negative "advertising" to sway customers from one company to another. Environmentalists don't need disinformation to prove that nuclear energy, although emitting little to no radiation or harmful emissions, is still very dangerous. The public record on what can happen to a nuclear power plant if it were to have a meltdown, it's vulnerability to terrorist attack, and the dangerous and "what do we do with it now?" attributes of spent fuel rods all make the case for nuclear power and it's drawbacks. quote> you just contradicted yourself. There is a good response to every thing you just said that shows that you are a victim of disinformation.

Originally posted by: Alvo1016 the reason honey bees are dissapering is becaus of GLOBAL WARMING. all this freaky weather is disorienting animals and nature in general throughout the whole world. I live in Manhattan, there was a report of a giant whale that stranded in the brooklyn, gowanus canal! Imagine that! a whale in new york city. (although this could have also been attributed to the recent freaky storm that passed a week ago) still its cause of the weather...quote> PFFFF-hahahahaha!!! Global warming!!! ahahahahahha!!!!!!!!!! [The topic, not each other] Marc

Peta? dead? on the way to a distant planet for good? My GOD!!! What is this dream!?!!!?!

belfastuniguy, I am strongly against the national minimum wage, simply because it hurts most the people it is trying to help. Very simple supply and demand. When you introduce a price floor, you create a gap between demand and supply. hence there is less labour demand, and more labour supply. and that equates to people out of work.

Originally posted by: football_fever I'm not saying 100% of the population works at walmart, but many many small towns have a huge percentage. Walmart won't move in unless there's people to put out of business in the first placequote> rephrase; Walmart won't open business in a town unless there is business to do.

Originally posted by: football_fever Hey, guess what? No one is forcing them to work there!quote> What about when Wal-Mart moves into a small town and puts everyone else out of business, and Wal-Mart is the only place to work? quote> I'll bet you $1000 you cannot find a town who's sole source of employment is a walmart store.

I love it how people portray Walmart employees as victims of coporate domination. Hey, guess what? No one is forcing them to work there! Walmart is successful because it aggressively cuts its costs. They have worked out their human resources sector to be the minimum possible that still attracts labour. It's not barbaric rape of the working class, it is the smart way to run a business. They have $20 billion because they worked hard for 50 years building a successful business, and that money is theirs, not yours. If you go around punishing, demonising, and stealing from anyone who creates a successful business, then I have no idea how you can then expect to have a successful country.

I'm doing relativity at the moment at uni, and we could get there almost instantly, from the perspective of the traveller, if we could travel near the speed of light.

Barbarossa, Blaming people's misfortunes on other people's fortunes is another classic socialist trait. I mean, honestly, the idea that someone can make an honest buck is just unthinkable. Especially when you've got socialists running around trying to "redistribute" the wealth.

I actually don't understand why you find this interesting They find these kinds of things all the time, and will go on finding them all the time. Even if it is the closest planet to us that is like ours, that doesn't matter until we want to travel to one.

Originally posted by: zelgadis Originally posted by: coolotter88 did I say billion? I meant million....1.9 million people. imagine if all those people didn't have jobs.quote> Heh heh. I think the Walton family can dip into their $20billion dollar fortune to give some of those workers a raise. And it needn't be anywhere near the 1.9 million people total who work there. Just the lowest-paid ones. ISFquote> This is an extremely socialist trait. He's got more money, he can give me some. I'm sorry, but I'm willing to bet a lot that the Walton family can make better use with $20 billion than 1 million consumers. The 1 million workers will just put the money back into the system, where as the Walton family, proven to be entrepreneurial and competent, will invest that money and create something new.

Originally posted by: Micah Just curious, what is the difference between communism and socialism?quote> Socialism is basically democratic communism.

first of all, go here; https://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=23&threadid=88176&enterthread=y and get some modifications to the game. then hit us back.

very nice belfastuniguy. looks like washington DC.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I voted capitalism simply because it allows people to achieve goals, wealth and careers through merit and hard work that they may not have otherwise have been able to achieve if everyone was 'equal'. I don't agree with socialism, I'm perfectly happy to pay taxes so that people who are not as well-off get support and can live and have enjoyment in life. I'm not however in favour of a welfare system that does not make people find jobs and allows them to be lazy, which I'm sorry but alot of people on welfare are. Everyone, well at least the majority, in this world want to better themselves some of us may have been born into a world where we can do as we please and not worry about money etc etc. Thus capitalism systems allow people to do that and better their lives. The capitalist system has flaws like everything else but it is much better than socialist economics (I'm also an economist so I knoe social economics don't work as people always imagine). quote> Is it 800,000 people in the UK who are on long term financial benefits? Your willingness to pay taxes to help the poor gain a footing can be easily translated into a donation to a private charity. Especially with the extra money you would have from the abolishment of the welfare state.

Originally posted by: beebs There are many good things about Capitalism and there's many good things about Socialism.. there's a reason why no country in the world operates under a 100% Capitalist economy (no, not even the US is completely capitalist) or 100% Socialist/Communist.quote> I would agree with that. But anything you "socialise" is no longer operating under capitalism. therefore they are mutually exclusive. sure there are certain merit goods, like education and street lighting, which a capitalistic free market would not adequately provide. BUT, that just requires some minor government encouragement, not an industry state take-over.