Off Topic The Goodhand Arms

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Can someone tell me what is so appealing about Arnold Schwarzenegger? Could it be that he has never taken himself too seriously? He makes me laugh. I love the moment here when he turns to the little girl and asks the leading question, 'you don't like the car, huh?'. And she squeaks back, 'I do like the car'. <laugh>

You must log in or register to see media
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clem Fandango and San Tejón
TheSecondStain said:
But surprisingly no better for the environment, according to the odd test or two. Me? I'm halfway through my last purchase - a book <cracker><bubbly>:emoticon-0167-beer::emoticon-0168-drink<ale><applause>:1980_boogie_down:

You must log in or register to see images


Isn't it ironic that a book on the environment could be better for the environment if it stayed unpublished???
Click to expand...
I'm reasonably happy that a book (made from a sustainable forest of course) isn't that bad for the environment as long as you pass it to someone else and don't burn it if it's crap
 
SaintinSerbia said:
I'm reasonably happy that a book (made from a sustainable forest of course) isn't that bad for the environment as long as you pass it to someone else and don't burn it if it's crap
Click to expand...
Indeed. I did omit the fact that there several more detailed tests which show that a paper book is less worse for the environment than a Kindle/Tablet/Phone version. You can prove almost anything provided you omit facts [like Brexit is a good thing?]. I admit it, I did it on purpose to fit my irony. :emoticon-0136-giggl

Apologies!
 
  • Like
Reactions: davecg69 and SaintinSerbia
ChilcoSaint said:
You’re missing the crucial point that at 20 mph it takes longer to get anywhere than at higher speeds, so overall your fuel consumption goes up.
Click to expand...

Only if his fuel consumption meter read, uniquely perhaps, in litres (or gallons) per minute.

If you get 30mpg at 1mph, you'll use a gallon to drive 30 miles. If you get 5mpg at 100mph, you'll use six gallons. Time taken is not relevant to the calculation.

Vin
 
Marv's bad joke of the day
Theresa may was walking down the road with her pet chihuahua when she found a lamp gave it a rub and a Genie popped out and gave her one wish. Theresa said I would like my dog to win the Greyhound Derby. Don't be bloody stupid said the Genie you need a greyhound for that. As that wish didn't work out I will grant you another wish. Theresa thought for a moment then said I used to be Prime minister for the UK but I would like to have my time over again and run the country so effectively and get such a brilliant deal for Brexit that everyone loved me. The Genie replied Let's take another look at this dog
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7, San Tejón and ChilcoSaint
in reference to the fuel consumption debate: and Brexit

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter / keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davecg69
SaintinSerbia said:
in reference to the fuel consumption debate: and Brexit

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter / keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
Click to expand...

That’s almost like Eric Morecambe “Playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davecg69 and SaintinSerbia
TheSecondStain said:
But surprisingly no better for the environment, according to the odd test or two. Me? I'm halfway through my last purchase - a book <cracker><bubbly>:emoticon-0167-beer::emoticon-0168-drink<ale><applause>:1980_boogie_down:

You must log in or register to see images


Isn't it ironic that a book on the environment could be better for the environment if it stayed unpublished???
Click to expand...

If the books leads to people changing their habits then the enviromemental impact of making the book will be offset. Especially if the wood used to make the paper is sustainably produced. For a book like that , think it would be.

Though personally I try to do my part but I'm not brilliant. I always turn off lights, I never buy plastic bags and just reuse the ones I have (and if I forget them, I'll carry my shopping by hand), I use public transport, I rarely eat beef or steak....

But ultimately corporations need to make the big wholesale changes that'll make a difference. Like packaging, packaging is ridiculous most of the time, electric vehicle charging points need to be way more common place (and electrical vehicles need to massively come down in price) but then the increase in electricity demand needs to be met with increased non carbon or low carbon sources... Including nuclear
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheSecondStain
The UK signs the 2050 Net-Zero Emissions pledge into law.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/28/uk-signs-net-zero-emissions-requirement-into-law/

The UK is the first major economy to commit to a date, however 2050 is pretty much doable by the right technology without even trying too hard provided the political and financial commitment is there. What it does suggest however, is that silly and shameful political stances by the likes of Donald Trump are thrown away, and steady progress will be made towards a cleaner, greener environment. All this matters not one jot unless all the major populations come on board. Pollutants and emissions don't sit nicely at the edge of a country's border leaving everyone else safe, so we all have to do it. But instead of seeing it as a problem, one might see it as an opportunity for jobs and new power tech infrastructure.
Chancellor Philip Hammond said it would cost the economy a trillion pounds. He made no mention that it would, if properly implemented, provide jobs for thousands of people. Who would undoubtedly plough their earnings back into the economy. Hammond also made no mention of the fact that it would cost the UK economy a lot more if we stood by and did nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7
----HistoryRepeating---- said:
2050.
Anybody else feel like its too late. Its started.
Click to expand...
It was actually predicted by a few Victorian scientists, and was first properly noticed in the 1950s, so it certainly has already started. The longer it has been left the higher the cost and bigger the disruption. This experiment that we conduct every day into how much CO2 and HICC agents we can push into the atmosphere to see what results it will bring [?] is over. Or should be. Now it's just fcuking idiotic to continue. Even those with vested interests in continuing in the same old way know that they are living for themselves, today only. When they look down at their young children and grandchildren they know that they are screwing up their future too, just for their own life now. Because they will be dead by the time it gets ridiculous.

So when you say, it's too late, it's started. I was of the very same opinion in the mid-1990s, when I first saw all the mounting data. And I was late to the party. But it's not too late. However, we can't keep putting things off. Everybody has to start reducing their environmental impact. Don't wait to be told. Start now. You will be prepared when everyone else isn't. And there's plenty of information on how to do it underneath your fingertips. You don't have to overturn your life or wear sackcloth clothing. But you can do a lot.
 
I can just imagine us getting to grips with emissions & plastic deposits, then some nob starting a war and setting the oil fields ablaze, and blowing **** up again. Got very little faith left in humanity and its selfish need for destruction. We seem destined to fail, even without the fault lying with the common folk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back