IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Closed TopicStart new topic
> Where can I find the old rules on the Internet?
Teux
post Aug 8 2006, 08:09 PM
Post #51


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 20-July 06
Member No.: 8,921



32 Acres here, 7.3 planets

I gotta tell you, it doesn't bother me at all that I live better than most people on the planet. I'm going to take advantage of what living in this rich nation has to offer, as long as I can.

I would think that most of us would live as high a lifestyle as possible, given available resources and personal wealth. I doubt that most people living in poor countries would act any differently, given the opportunity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SirKodiak
post Aug 8 2006, 08:17 PM
Post #52


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 3-May 04
Member No.: 6,298



QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
QUOTE (SirKodiak @ Aug 8 2006, 02:53 PM)
Keep in mind that your current machine has already been produced.

In most cases, so has the new one.

Yes, but if I don't buy the new one, someone else can, which means a different new one doesn't have to be purchased. It's not like all the washing machines that will ever be made have been manufactured, and are waiting around for us to pick them up, so we might as well go get them now. What we buy has an affect on what is manufactured.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Aug 8 2006, 08:32 PM
Post #53


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,013
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



That's true. However, you cannot factor in the cost of disposing the old machine unless you're planning to keep your old machine forever or you're reasonably certain that the cost will decrease (in which case you can only factor in the deduction, not the entire value). As long as you are going to throw that machine away at some point in the future, for the purposes of the cost/benefit analysis you're throwing it away right now.

Large efficiency gains are rarely outweighed by other considerations for items lasting a decade or more.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shrike30
post Aug 8 2006, 08:47 PM
Post #54


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,556
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 98



I'm a little dubious of the math here. I live in a 4 person house, we have energy conservation in place, it's got less than 1500 square feet, and that's still eating up 3.5 of my allocated 4.5 acres?

The fricking house was built in 1923, and has been redone with good insulation and a number of other ecological upgrades. How does it warrant 3.5 acres of land being used up?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wireknight
post Aug 8 2006, 10:34 PM
Post #55


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 527
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,118



I find it telling that this quiz only measures waste produced and transportation costs. If my energy usage was factored in, I'm sure I would need a planet just to myself, made entirely of coal and oil.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eyeless Blond
post Aug 9 2006, 12:15 AM
Post #56


Decker on the Threshold
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,922
Joined: 14-March 04
Member No.: 6,156



Yeah, that quiz does make a lot of assumptions, many of which are probably false. And mfb's absolutely right that 4.5 is a false standard. It is, however, going to become more and more important to lower our footprints as large countries like China and India gear up and start becoming even bigger polluters than we are. Eventually so many people are going to be living like we are now that it's going to affect everyone's quality of life. It's already starting, and it's going to get much worse before people like Teux wise up, if they ever do.

As for solar panels, yeah, they're not for everyone, that's true. But they kinda are for everyone in southern California, and for most of the people in the southwest US, which is all I was really thinking about at the time.

By the by, my score? 13.5 acres. Hey, I never said I wasn't part of the problem, just that the problem isn't solely or even primarily the fault of oil companies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Aug 9 2006, 12:25 AM
Post #57


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242



interesting, from copyright to enviroment...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Aug 9 2006, 12:26 AM
Post #58


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,013
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Aug 8 2006, 07:15 PM)
It is, however, going to become more and more important to lower our footprints as large countries like China and India gear up and start becoming even bigger polluters than we are bomb developing countries back to the stone age

Fixed that for you :)

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Adam
post Aug 9 2006, 01:13 AM
Post #59


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 3,929
Joined: 26-February 02
From: .ca
Member No.: 51



Fixed this thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Closed TopicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st April 2026 - 12:37 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.