The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

Umm...................
There is a reason why they are called PRIVATE MESSAGES

[Womble]

Umm...................
There is a reason why they are called PRIVATE MESSAGES

It's probably not so that one could gratuitously attack people while maintaining an appearance of decency in public. Otherwise I may have been misled about the purpose of that particular feature.

[Gatefan1976]

It's probably not so that one could gratuitously attack people while maintaining an appearance of decency in public. Otherwise I may have been misled about the purpose of that particular feature.

Oh come on man
I did not pick on you, I did not pick on LtColCarter either, I merely stated that if it happened in private, you should keep it there.

[Coco Pops]

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...e-world-to-see

That is a bit unsettling. A government can do this. Isn't this kind of like rewriting history and not including the parts that make you look bad?

[Coco Pops]

btw has Bush ever been indicted for his Patriot/Homeland Security Acts?

No, but he, Tony Blair, and John Howard should all be in the Hague for the lies that led to Iraq

[garhkal]

I, umm, I don't know if you are being obtuse here dude, or I am explaining myself -really, really- badly.
You make 2 billion a year, making super sauce. Dude comes up with better sauce. Rather than loosing your 2 billion in sauce, you give him 10 million, buy his patent and bury or use his sauce.
This is what oil companies do to alternate energy inventors -all- the time.

and what I am saying is if HE's made something better, then its gonna prompt ME to redesign MY formula to regain that top spot.

What that article was saying is that you can't preemptively sue. You have to have an actual case, that is a victim. Once a school system looses funding, then there is a case and then you can sue. If the government makes an unconstitutional law, you can't sue until that law impacts someone and thus they sue. That's how it works.

Doing a quick google search, i see several mentionings of 'pre-emptive lawsuits...
Yes they often fail/get tossed out, but that doesn't mean they don't happen..

[thekillman]

I think the discussion of alternative energy fails to mention one thing:

Even if we can't make cars run on anything but oil (In itself an inaccurate statement), changing our powerplants to something that IS green would already make a HUGE difference.

But more than that, there's the underlying assumption that cars need to travel a thousand miles on a tank. For most purposes a hundred or two is OK. Travelling from work and back hardly takes you across the country. That leaves mostly trucks requiring a custom solution. In-road recharging is being looked at as we speak. If a truck can simply drive over an inducting piece of road, it can stay on the road effectively indefinitely.


Also, Ian-S, we're not in a technological rut, we're at a height.


Lastly, as an engineer i can confirm that if someone else has an idea for a better recipe, it will get bought out. There's basically no limit to the cheap-skating companies will do. If it can be done for less, even if the result is arguably worse, it will be done.

[Gatefan1976]

and what I am saying is if HE's made something better, then its gonna prompt ME to redesign MY formula to regain that top spot.

Really?
You are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to re-tool, redesign, and renegotiate your pre-existing infrastructure, rather than spend 10 million to make the problem never exist.

Never go into business dude.
I applaud your honesty, but I would not invest in your company.

[thekillman]

Really?
You are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to re-tool, redesign, and renegotiate your pre-existing infrastructure, rather than spend 10 million to make the problem never exist.

Never go into business dude.
I applaud your honesty, but I would not invest in your company.

Agreed.

I really really wished the world worked like that, but i've seen more promising projects turned down for less. If there's a cheaper option, they'll take it.`

I've seen big companies even buy smaller competitors just to stay ahead. When you have an effective monopoly, you're not going to give it up.

[Gatefan1976]

Agreed.

I really really wished the world worked like that, but i've seen more promising projects turned down for less. If there's a cheaper option, they'll take it.`

I've seen big companies even buy smaller competitors just to stay ahead. When you have an effective monopoly, you're not going to give it up.

And the truly tragic part, it is the monopolies who are in the best position to advance societies.

[Annoyed]

I think the discussion of alternative energy fails to mention one thing:

Even if we can't make cars run on anything but oil (In itself an inaccurate statement), changing our powerplants to something that IS green would already make a HUGE difference.

But more than that, there's the underlying assumption that cars need to travel a thousand miles on a tank. For most purposes a hundred or two is OK. Travelling from work and back hardly takes you across the country. That leaves mostly trucks requiring a custom solution. In-road recharging is being looked at as we speak. If a truck can simply drive over an inducting piece of road, it can stay on the road effectively indefinitely.


Also, Ian-S, we're not in a technological rut, we're at a height.


Lastly, as an engineer i can confirm that if someone else has an idea for a better recipe, it will get bought out. There's basically no limit to the cheap-skating companies will do. If it can be done for less, even if the result is arguably worse, it will be done.

Ok, here we go again.
1st, Enviros oppose any technology that generates additional energy, be it Nuclear, Hydro, wind (if if it's not practical) and such. Can you name even 1 energy generation technology that the enviros don't oppose?

2nd, 200 - 300 mi or so range limit is fine for automobiles/trucks. Recharge time is 10 minutes at a gas station and you start over. Recharge time on electrics is 6-8 hours depending. Totally unusable.

[thekillman]

And the truly tragic part, it is the monopolies who are in the best position to advance societies.

In a sense, in a sense not. It's better for a monopoly to mine the market dry before moving to greener pastures.

But yea, significant developments can be made if a company decides it's worth it. Look at SpaceX. Landing a rocket was considered impossible. Or government examples in the Apollo Program or Manhattan project. And if Shell decided tomorrow that renewable energy was worth it, then it would in fact be worth it. Economy of scale does a lot to push normally unprofitable technologies profitable. Just look at solar panels. Price is dropping and the efficiency is only increasing. There's plenty of roof to be tiled with these things (though hopefully soon in a more aesthetically pleasing form), plenty of energy to be generated. There's more energy required during the day anyway.

Furthermore, the market does a lot to suppress green energy. Now that america is using more oil, coal is cheaply dumped on the market, meaning there's no reason to use greener alternatives. Development in this area can easily be suppressed by keeping the oil prices low. Like what's happening now.

It's a pipedream -one nobody is pushing for- to replace everything tomorrow. But it's equally a pipedream that it can't be done. If we banned the construction of new fossil fuel plants (coal, oil, gas) today, and let what's already built run it's natural course, then in ~30-40 years it's all gone due to natural replacement of the infrastructure. Interestingly, 2050 a very feasible target for 80-100% renewable energy.

[Gatefan1976]

Ok, here we go again.
1st, Enviros oppose any technology that generates additional energy, be it Nuclear, Hydro, wind (if if it's not practical) and such. Can you name even 1 energy generation technology that the enviros don't oppose?

"Eviro's" don't oppose Nuclear, Hydro etc, they oppose it not being implemented safely. For example, they don't oppose Hydro "because Hydro", they Oppose the building of dams which damage the environment.
Basically, they don't want us to make the same mistakes.

2nd, 200 - 300 mi or so range limit is fine for automobiles/trucks. Recharge time is 10 minutes at a gas station and you start over. Recharge time on electrics is 6-8 hours depending. Totally unusable.

Most vehicles being used -right now- on the road will not travel anywhere near 300 miles in a day, or have to tow 2 ton trailers, or whatever your current "but but" is. In other words, Most vehicles on the road can be safely replaced with Electric. People who need more on a regular basis could easily use Hybrids, and vehicles such as long haulers could stay petrol/gas for now as there is no viable replacement for them.
Totally usable.

[Gatefan1976]

In a sense, in a sense not. It's better for a monopoly to mine the market dry before moving to greener pastures.

I was merely looking at the -ability- to do good, not weather the company would actually do it killman

But yea, significant developments can be made if a company decides it's worth it. Look at SpaceX. Landing a rocket was considered impossible. Or government examples in the Apollo Program or Manhattan project. And if Shell decided tomorrow that renewable energy was worth it, then it would in fact be worth it. Economy of scale does a lot to push normally unprofitable technologies profitable. Just look at solar panels. Price is dropping and the efficiency is only increasing. There's plenty of roof to be tiled with these things (though hopefully soon in a more aesthetically pleasing form), plenty of energy to be generated. There's more energy required during the day anyway.

Furthermore, the market does a lot to suppress green energy. Now that america is using more oil, coal is cheaply dumped on the market, meaning there's no reason to use greener alternatives. Development in this area can easily be suppressed by keeping the oil prices low. Like what's happening now.

It's a pipedream -one nobody is pushing for- to replace everything tomorrow. But it's equally a pipedream that it can't be done. If we banned the construction of new fossil fuel plants (coal, oil, gas) today, and let what's already built run it's natural course, then in ~30-40 years it's all gone due to natural replacement of the infrastructure. Interestingly, 2050 a very feasible target for 80-100% renewable energy.

Agreed

[thekillman]

Ok, here we go again.
1st, Enviros oppose any technology that generates additional energy, be it Nuclear, Hydro, wind (if if it's not practical) and such. Can you name even 1 energy generation technology that the enviros don't oppose?

I don't see the connection between this statement and mine. In my experience, environmentalists oppose literally anything, and won't rest until we're cavemen again.

2nd, 200 - 300 mi or so range limit is fine for automobiles/trucks. Recharge time is 10 minutes at a gas station and you start over. Recharge time on electrics is 6-8 hours depending. Totally unusable.

Never heard of the fast charger developments? I see the Tesla Model S brought it down to 5 hours, and this will only decrease. Furthermore, night time charging seems to be the preferred method.

I've also seen plenty of replaceable battery packs, but it doesn't seem like there are practical results from that. In maybe 5 years, we'll get closer to this.



As to your totally unusable argument:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinform...ter4.cfm#fig46

This data suggests that some 60-70 percent can be serviced with a mileage of 200 on an electric car, then recharge it at night.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/ri...ection_02.html
Furthermore this article suggests that a daily trip is around 50 miles. A 200-mile capable electric car can last four days without recharge in this case. Literally your mileage may vary from person to person, but suggesting that electric cars are useless significantly overestimates the average person's commute.

If this transition is made, then clear gains can be made (about 70% reduction in fuel usage based upon vehicle miles), as the graph indicates.

So my original point stands: if we can make the daily commute electric, we can make massive strides. We don't need to make all traffic electric tomorrow to make big strides. If average joe goes to work in an electric car, it would already replace the majority of car use.