Blah blah. Chewing on names. Pure onanism.
241 karma · joined April 2, 2009
So I'd use a social way to make all the structure accountable. A "real time" way of figuring out how any portion of the money deposited in the bank is being used, and the possibility to opt-out with one's money if, say, high executives have deep pockets or they invest in coal, oil, weapons, etc. (via funds, etc.)
If one's using, say, Django, our experience tells us that mod_wsgi + Apache are the way to go. Otherwise, you'll see that Nginx page consistently and will lose focus on the idea itself.
It would be great if he can confirm so.
The Google Video link: http://tinyurl.com/yd5ptt6
I bring some facts: France generates almost all its electricity from nuclear power. It's not "green" if you want (your response will bring that) but it doesn't emit CO2 and it's there. Read Stewart Brand.
As said in another comment, Spain procudes 15%-50% energy from wind (I repeat, from wind, today).
Tomle: even if we account that all EVs are filled by electricity that comes from coal, their efficiency decreases dramatically the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. It's just CO2 from production, not from constantly burning. Cities are also better off, without smog and several diseases. Less geoestrategic issues and probably less was, but you probably don't care.
And if you live somewhere like Spain, where in windy days daily electric production for the whole country increases from around 30% wind energy to a mix that reaches sometimes 50%, you are likely to pay way less for moving and be way more sustainable than with your tar sands clunker.
If you do want links with data for all the things I say here, I can look at them for you. I write about this, so I know what I'm saying.
Anyway. Go burn some gasoline, my friend.
Tar sands are a huge issue in this picture. Just in there, north of your border.
Which is why I explain the rest. Read the RE<C and be cool.
What the graphic is telling us is, no matter how big the effort is to switch to renewables+ev's, etc., the fast growth of emerging economies, less prone to become green as fast as, say, EU, will lead to a sustainable and even increasing use of fossil fuels.
The best scenario, in my opinion: fossil fuel prices skyrocketing + some political agreements to boost smart subsidies where there are needed, to make renewables cheaper than coal. As Google.org says, RE<C (where "RE" is renewables and "C" is coal.)
60% of EU budget goes to farmers subsidies. USA subsidizes also monocrops such as corn (leading to massive use of corn syrup, packaged food, boosting obesity.)
So less subsidies to lobbies and more to renewables. And more electric cars on the roads.
I've driven some cool EV's and I only say this: it's really fun. Waiting for the 4 new Renaults to come in 2011-2012 and, specially, a smaller-cheaper version of the Tesla Model S.
All that said, I don't own a car.
Does that fact have anything to do with the battle between Starbucks and Ethiopian local coffee producers around the right of using the names of the different local coffee beans?
We decided to marry and try to create a site by ourselves. We believe in simple life and try to be frugal. Downshifting. No more commutes and stupid meetings; no more work on something we don't believe in.
We have spent more money than we got in return. But, you know, we don't need lots of money to live more than comfortably. We don't own a car and don't spend a lot of money in things like taxis or buying stuff. We buy a few things that have quality and try to increase their life span. In clothes, but also in computers, etc.
Our website is light and uses AWS-EC2. Even in there we want to be frugal.
Maybe, just maybe, our site will become profitable. If not, we are creative and love to stay together, so we'll figure it out.
Isn't it wonderful to feel one is owner of his/her plans?
Thanks for sharing that anyway.
First of all, I want to make clear I use more space than the proposals of Tumbleweed Tiny House, but I respect the concept and I think it makes us all think about our behaviors and the consequences of them.
I live in an old apartment in a pedestrian street, at the center of Barcelona. I'm occupying an apartment that has had people on it for centuries, and use resources in a pretty frugal way, just because my "pursuit of happiness" happened to evolve in a dense Mediterranean city, where public transportation are a matter of convenience, not class. The apartment is fairly big, yes, and it does have a terrasse. I also have 2 kids. The rest of the apartments of the building are being used by young students and similar. Several people in every apartment.
I wanted to make clear that I think dense cities are the response to some of the main issues of the world that affect all of us. Your attittude affects me, and mine has an impact in you.
I also believe, like Sterwart Brand, that slums are not necessarily bad for humanity (http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_proclaims_4_environme...). And we are late for a bucolic return to nature the Thoreau way.
Owning more stuff and being able to acquire it are both a consequence related to the industrial revolution (via the Illustration, blah blah) and we all agree "progress" permitted human societies to increase all conditions, including living expectancy.
I don't want to theorize about how the idea of "public opinion" (via Adam Smith and the like) was created, or how the School of Frankfurt related mass media and modern press to "opinion leaders" and how these models "influenced" in all of us.
I would disagree with your last point, when you relate owning stuff with success. It's the same point of view an emerging new world is having, by relating happiness with their will to imitate America and Europe after World War 2.
Sadly, there's not enough "stuff" (in terms of "World", and there's nothing else yet to live in as mortal human beings) for 2 more billion of "new rich" people, if they happen to follow the western way. These people are buying their cars and increasing their footprint (and "foodprint") just right now.
The thing is that relating "happiness" and "success", "American dream" and "Pursuit of Happiness" to modern consumption was greatly influenced by certain campaigns. There's no signs in anthropology that relate owning more "stuff" to being "better" or being "happier".
I recommend to dig in:
- GDP: on how the concept of GDP and GDP per person are flawed and do not equal to "wealth". A recent post in HN was saying that Mississipi is richer than Europe (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=811365). Relating wealth and happiness to GDP (gross consumption, in general terms) is a big mistake, explained by a lot of people. I just don't have the time to look for the referrals just now (I'd do it upon request).
- Documentaries "The century of the self" (You'll find them in the Internet). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
- The paragraphs on the relationship about the vision of America as a car country with houses and no public transportation, in the book "Fast Food Nation".
- I could go on and on, but It's not a matter of creating an opinion, but making my point.
And I also think frugality and small are the new "coolness" (which is also created-influenced artificially). You'll (we all) be soon influenced by that, and you won't know why, but it will happen, because the consumption push will bring other ways of more responsible consumption.
And there's no necessity to make bad products for the earth.
See, for instance:
- Cradle to Cradle concept.
- Embodied energy concept.
That should tell us something. I wish I had more time to elaborate. Having a big house, a personal trainer, 5 sports cars, etc., is becoming a sign of cheesiness.
Hear the drums?
I didn't understand kirstendirksen was actually blaming consumption as is. Overconsumption, owning "stuff", more is better, bigger is better, double is better, etc., is a relatively new social push. Difficult to be really concise and short here. We all are here in a conversation that needs "information", "facts", "decisions", etc.
My advice is don't be opinionated before the fact, avoid being defensive when possible, don't stay with asumptions. Asumptions are not facts. "Consumption" is not good or bad. Then, if you relate owning or buying or collecting stuff with things such as happiness, well.