Vivi's back!

[Christopher McCandless]

Ok, here is what Greenpeace has to say. How much of it are you going to ask me to disprove?
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear

[Lucifer]

Lots of the so called green methods are not as green as people like to make out, and they are certainly not reliable. The green groups seem to have an idealistic view of what is actually possible.

i've read it, countless times - i've been a member for decades.

how does that prove your claims in the quotation above?  and if i wanted to debate nuclear power, i'd be doing so in the nuclear power thread, so i'm not interested in your "proving" why nuclear power is or isn't a good thing.  please address my point above, and stick to it.

[Christopher McCandless]

It shows that they are making an assumption that we can do without nuclear power, and also if you break it down shows an awful lot of doom mongering, and sensationalism.
Now the next set of stuff:
Wiki shows the issues with biofuels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuels#Current_Issues_in_Biofuel_Production_and_Use
I quite like this section on intermitability of power from wiki as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Intermittency_and_variability
That shows that wind is not a stable power source. With nuclear you have a guaranteed power supply at least, with wind you run the risk of brown outs.
I shall do some more digging and post some more stuff in abit.

[Lucifer]

please do.  i'm afraid wiki isn't the be all and end all of references.  i'd like some unbiased political commentary, from reputable sources, for a start, since what i'm asking is a political issue, rather than an environmental one.  and please note the last part - i did ask you to back up your claims about "idealism", not give me evidence for or against the use of alternative technology.  so i don't need anymore refs. like the ones you provided. 

[Christopher McCandless]

This report on degrees might intrest you, I wonder what you will make of it:
http://tpa.typepad.com/waste/files/noncourses_report_2007.pdf

[The_P]

This report on degrees might intrest you, I wonder what you will make of it:
http://tpa.typepad.com/waste/files/noncourses_report_2007.pdf

If it requires Abode, you can fuck off.

[Lucifer]

i'm not wading through 30 pp. of yawnfest, ta.  but it sounds familiar - every so often, someone gets exercised by it.  boris johnson did, a few months back.

as far as i'm concerned, seeing as how students now have to fucking well pay for higher education, it's a consumer's market, and they can demand what they want, and expect to get it.  how can you put a value on a "subject"?  i'm a subscriber to the "trained minds" school, personally, but that's no longer possible, given the introduction of fees.  after all, a lot of the people who whinge about "non-subjects" have Classics degrees.  irony, anyone?

[Christopher McCandless]

i'm not wading through 30 pp. of yawnfest, ta.  but it sounds familiar - every so often, someone gets exercised by it.  boris johnson did, a few months back.

as far as i'm concerned, seeing as how students now have to fucking well pay for higher education, it's a consumer's market, and they can demand what they want, and expect to get it.  how can you put a value on a "subject"?  i'm a subscriber to the "trained minds" school, personally, but that's no longer possible, given the introduction of fees.  after all, a lot of the people who whinge about "non-subjects" have Classics degrees.  irony, anyone?

I would say classics is a waste of time myself, but at least it shows that someone has undergone difficult academic study. But some of these courses do make me laugh. What annoys me is I am effectively paying for them through my top up fees. Outdoor Adventure and Philosophy anyone? Or how about Equine Psychology?

[The_P]

How can you define a "classics" degree? Old fashioned tutoring with the cane or summat?

If she's hawt, then I'm definitely a naughty boy. 

[Christopher McCandless]

How can you define a "classic" degree? Old fashioned tutoring with the cane or summat?

Lol, its Homer and his Illiad and that lark i think. Studying all the greek and roman stuff.

[Alex179]

Homer was awesome.   Epic shit.   Both the Iliad and the Odyssey, I had to read that shit in High School.   Antigone was also good by Sophocles.

[Lucifer]

i don't think anything should have a value ascribed to it.  people should be able to study the classics, or fine art or anything else.  just because there isn't some sort of economic outcome, doesn't mean it isn't valuable. 

who was it said that you need to feed the soul as well as the body?

anyway, it IS about the depth and rigour of the academic work, not the subject.  (which is what "trained minds" is about, if anyone had bothered to check up on it).

[Christopher McCandless]

i don't think anything should have a value ascribed to it.  people should be able to study the classics, or fine art or anything else.  just because there isn't some sort of economic outcome, doesn't mean it isn't valuable. 

who was it said that you need to feed the soul as well as the body?

anyway, it IS about the depth and rigour of the academic work, not the subject.  (which is what "trained minds" is about, if anyone had bothered to check up on it).

Exactly why these courses in the report are nonsense. They require little intellectual ability to complete, for those students that bother to stay at the end. The economics do matter, at the end of the day why should I be paying top up fees to subsidise all these courses that have no or very little benefit to the tax payer, some of these are taken purely as a hobby, rather than meaningful study.

[Lucifer]

what's wrong with studying something for the sake of it?  you're going down the route of "meaningful" again.

and besides, have you ever paid taxes?  cos your top up fees do'nt go to subsidise anyone else's tuition fees, oh daily mail reader.

[Christopher McCandless]

what's wrong with studying something for the sake of it?  you're going down the route of "meaningful" again.

and besides, have you ever paid taxes?  cos your top up fees do'nt go to subsidise anyone else's tuition fees, oh daily mail reader.

Nothing at all. What is wrong is everyone else paying for them to do such a course. Courses that effectively are invitations for people to drink for 3 years certainly should not be run.

Yes, I have paid taxes before. I shall be paying even more in the future. As for my top up fees subsiding someone else, yes they do. The government pays around £5500 for each student (per year) in addition to the unis getting top up fees. If the non-courses were cancelled there would be money availiable to reduce top-up fees. By quite a bit, as well.