Damn this country and its foolishness! We need fuel efficient cars, like, 20 years ago, we need green technologies, we need to look foward to carbon sequestration methods, ugh. Damn, this really ruins my night. Way to go USA, another failure to protect the future.
I think we need to do what we did post WWII, pull ourselves back in, focus on the homeland, and fix our situation. Not only are we a detriment to ourselves, we are becoming a detriment to the environmental status of the whole world. Its time we get cracking on improving our efficiency.
Shouldn't this be in the 'off topic' section unless it has an OS/2 connection that I am unaware of? ???
Perhaps you should investigate the situation more before condemening America. 8)
I just commented on the article that was posted on the home page, and it put it here by default.
I am investigating the situation, I am an environmental science student and this is sorta my life :\
We use about 30% of the worlds energy while we are about 5% of the world's population. We could stand to streamline our consumption a little, and invest funds in green tech vs military tech. Granted, I like being secure and having a fully funded and developed military force, but they cant fight the coming wave of issues due to pollution :\ I think the Netherlands (and their green plan) are a great place to look to for inspiration for how we should start comporting ourselves.
Hell, even if we just replace every SUV with a large sedan or CUV we could greatly reduce our petrol consumption.
Quote from: BigWarpGuy on 2008.02.04, 20:06:46
[...]
Perhaps you should investigate the situation more before condemening America. 8)
...I *think* you mean the U.S.A, do not you ??? Because
America represents the {set} of unordered elements ("countries") referred to as America --with no specific reference to any of the individual elements.
That is, America = American_Continent = {Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, U.S.A., Canada, ...(all other elements)}
And if you refer to the U.S.A., hummm ...it is becoming more like a police state. On the Internet side, the RIAA, search engines and business monopolies, and the National Security Agency/Department of Homeland Security, all battle for possession of the users' private data. As is usually the case with knowledge, technology can be made to good use for the humans as in collaboration and social networking; but it can also be used as a tool of assault on the civil rights (like privacy) of an entities' constituents --under the pretext of "protection." Under this kind of protection schemes, the average citizen is confused about who to fear the most: the proganda disseminated by its rulers or Chertoff's Inquisition-like witch hunts that simply point fingers to the weaker inhabitants layer of the capitalist pyramid.
No doubt, if other countries in America had the technology that the U.S.A. possess, those would be engaged in exactly the same process of data mining for control over their constituents. For an man of religious inclination like yourself, might I recommend Dostoevsky's
The Brothers Karamazov, especially the section in the middle:
The Grand Inquisitor?
It is just too bad that the Constitution of the U.S.A. is being ignored in its references to Jefferson's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) self-evident inalienable rights of the individual statement ...possibly MS showed the way by its forceful imposition of WinXX on the very face of every individual computer user :).
Those bastards are corrupt to the core.
People will follow leaders, give up their rights, (and their lives), for one reason only; threat from outside attack, hence the constant string of fake wars, (ala Orwell's 1984; "is it East-Asia or West-Asia we're at war with this week?)
If you want to eliminate war and still control the people you have to have a replacement for war/terror.
The replacement for war , (as discussed ad naseum, by all the big boys going back over the past 100 years), will be the war on the environment, and all ready we are giving up the rights that our grandfathers and ancestors died to ensure we'd have.
Keep the people confused, infighting over petty shit, and distracted with dumbed-down movies, books, radio, TV and a broken down OS' that takes all your spare time to keep running. i.e. windows. (It's no accident that it's a POS) .
The war on the environment includes doing things like increasing fuel, (electricity, etc.), costs and decreasing supplies.
They been doing it for hundreds of years and we fall for it each and everytime, for no one will read history, and it works EVERY TIME! Every serious student of history knows this, and must deal somehow, with the fact that the masses do not!
Expect more of the same as well as an eventual and total reduction in your privacy until your rights have been reduced to those of a slug, and before too long, you'll think that's only right and proper. Why do you think all the GD cameras are being put up every where? It has nothing to do with traffic crimes, nothing to do with crime in general and everything to do with what you are doing at every minute of the day, awake, asleep, picking your nose, or having intimate moments with someone that you care a great deal about.
WRT fuel efficient cars, it isn't very hard to fit it in there, and to precipitate that I'll tell you of the year 1900 when 60% of the cars on the road were electric and gas powered cars were under 40%.
They've fooled you. They have fooled us all.
Also, fuel efficiency in modern cars hasn't been so low since the 60s; if there was a problem it wouldn't be that way, I can assure you. Those at the top all suffer from a certain mental ailment, but killing themselves off is not part of it, to the contrary, they wish to preserve themselves at all costs.
Don't give up your rights, and don't buy into their BS.
The reason it doesn't matter if they give up low CO2 emission plants is that CO2 and global heating are tied in tight together, but not for the reasons you might think.
Most of the CO2 on this planet, (and far exceeding ALL OTHER FORMS OF CO2 EMISSIONS), is the ocean. When the ocean is cold it gives off less CO2, when it's heated it gives off more.
Large bodies of water are notoriously difficult to heat... or cool. For this reason there is a 200-400 year lag between atmospheric heating and CO2 emissions.
What this means, is that the increase in CO2 emissions that we now see were caused by the hot period that occurred several hundred years ago. You know, the time period that you read about in high-school history when houses in Europe, (including England), were built without stoves or fireplaces of any sort, because it was too damn hot? They did all cooking outside.
So, since CO2 emissions are caused BY atmospheric heating, (and not the other way around), then there isn't any reason what-so-ever, why they shouldn't close down a low CO2-emission plant.
They know this full well, and they know full well that you do not. And they like it like that.
Think.
Why is it that those that rule us always seem to be doing things that are a) contrary to what we are being told, and b) appearing as detrimental to us all, unless we give up more rights? Regardless of what happens on a national or world scale, how come the solution is always that a) it costs us money and b) we have to give up rights?
Think.
Why is it that taxes NEVER go down, and rights are NEVER given back when the so-called crisis is over? And why is there ALWAYS another crisis raring to go, the very moment that the last one has ended? It simply cannot be coincidence and reading about the past shows that it is not.
History is a straight line. The direction we are moving in is an arrow. Sight down that arrow to see where we are headed. You'll quickly see that that arrow points directly at you.
Think.
P.S. This topic is "on-topic" every where.
P.P.S. Read Orwell's 1984. If you can't get a copy, I'll make a copy available to you.
http://www.gizmag.com/californias-5-megawatt-solar-farm-receives-final-approval/8751/ (http://www.gizmag.com/californias-5-megawatt-solar-farm-receives-final-approval/8751/)
"February 4, 2008 Cleantech America Inc. has received formal approval from the California Public Utilities Commission for its CalRENEW-1 solar facility. Due to begin operation in the spring of 2009, the plant is the largest utility-scale photovoltaic (PV) solar facility being developed under California's Renewables Portfolio Standard program. ... "
The Smart Fortwo is being sold in the USA. http://www.smartusa.com (http://www.smartusa.com) It is a very fuel efficient little card that is really neat.
Zapworld http://www.zapworld.com/ (http://www.zapworld.com/) has some very interesting electric vehicles.
There are plans to bring the Obvio 828 and 012 to the US and it uses a flex fuel system where one can chose either gas or ethanol. http://www.obviousa.com (http://www.obviousa.com)
I have a Yahoo group on fuel cell powered vehicles. There is much news and devleopment on fuel cells.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fuelcelvehicles (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fuelcelvehicles)
Cheverolet has plans to introduce the Volt in 2010.
http://www.thetorquereport.com/2007/03/gm_targets_2010_for_production.html#more (http://www.thetorquereport.com/2007/03/gm_targets_2010_for_production.html#more)
http://www.thetorquereport.com/2008/02/chevy_camaro_hybrid_in_the_wor.html (http://www.thetorquereport.com/2008/02/chevy_camaro_hybrid_in_the_wor.html)
The new Cheverolet Camarao will be a hybrid. It would be even cooler if the gas part was a flex fuel system.
This is the tip of the iceberg of what is happening in the USA about a cleaner future. One can not change the past but one can work on the future. 8)
Thanks, BWG. I dont know how Ben can deny our detrimental impact upon the world, but everyone has their own view of the world, and I suppose I dont see through the same eyes he does. However, I am insulted about the insinuation that I need to read and learn to think for myself :\ In any case, w00t to the Smart (I want desperately the Diesel-electric hybrid :D ) and the Chevy Volt. The Tesla is also a very impressive little sports car as well. We are dabbling right now, but the point is, we could be much further along if people would just open their eyes a little to the problems at hand.
I apologize if I had insinuated anything that might be contrived as insulting. It was not my purpose. I just wanted to point out that while the USA is big on pollution there are those in the USA who are working to solve it.
Car companies need to sell vehicle that people want to buy. If they can make 'going green' desirable, there will be more people that would be interested in it. There is also a need for car companies to make cars safe but that safety adds weight to the vehicle which means lower fuel economy. Not evey one needs or can use a small vehicle so it is not always the answer. Car companies have to balance what the customer wants, want the DOT requires and what is good for the enviroment. There are some small companies that are also doing their best to help the ecology with hybrid, ev or high mpg vehicles; making them three wheels instead of four so there are less saftey restrictions.
http://www.rqriley.com/xr.htm (http://www.rqriley.com/xr.htm) http://www.ravencar.com (http://www.ravencar.com) A couple of examples.
About computers and energy; the British government actually demands an energy declaration of hardware bought to their departments where it states the amount of energy used by the system. Guess that this a little step to at least make people aware of the energy consumption of system.
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.02.04, 22:47:15
I dont know how Ben can deny our detrimental impact upon the world,
I don't recall denying anything, rather, I put things in perspective.
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.02.04, 22:47:15
but everyone has their own view of the world, and I suppose I dont see through the same eyes he does.
OK.
Let me elaborate
it's not my point of view of the world, rather the point of view of those that rule us, for they write about it in their own books,
(as in, written by them that rule us).
What's the difference?
Consider this; if I'm in my basement making noises and working hard and two people walk past and hear the noise, they can offer "opinions" on what I am doing. However, should I come out and tell them what I'm doing in there, then it is no longer
their opinion as to what I'm doing, rather,
they now know for certain.
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.02.04, 22:47:15
However, I am insulted about the insinuation that I need to read and learn to think for myself :\
Man, you're sensitive. I'll try to take that into account and my apologies for not being more sensitive myself. And further to that...
I was indicating that
everyone in general, should read and think about where we came from, where we are, and
everyone in general should make themselves aware of what's going on.
This affects us all more so than most will ever realize. And why is it that we don't? Because they spend vast sums of money to make sure that we are looking elsewhere while they stick it to us.
Remember the OJ Simpson fiasco? Did you ever wonder why such a thing was blown so massively out of proportion? Search around and find out what else of
real significance, was going on at the same time. Remember Maria Shrivo? Do you know what else was going on at that time that was far more important? They distract you with one hand while the other hand brings in the knife, and cuts away your rights. Remember the big year 2000 nonsense? What else was going on at that time? You need to know.
Everyone should take a look around and consider
why all the changes that are going on
right now,
are going on right now. And look at how they relate to each other and at the picture it is painting, a picture that all of us should have a say in, for as of right now, we do not.
Look at the movies, look at TV, look at the fiction, look at the cartoons, the comics and the Video games. All of them show a common theme, one of a great lessening of respect for the human individual. Everyone of these depict a serious invasion and grotesque destruction of the human being, both in body and in soul. We are being cheapened and degraded. Why? Could it possibly be natural? I do not think so.
We sit down and eat our supper while watching our fellow humans being blown into hi-resolution bits and pieces... as entertainment.
Why?
It is no accident.It is no accident that the environment is being raised
above the status of humans.
Maurice Strong was approached by a reporter a fews years back at an Earth Summit meeting. The meeting was on the rights of the air, the earth, animals, water, trees and everything that relates to the environment.
The reporter asked him,
"Mr. Strong. I've heard you say a lot about rights for nearly everything, but I didn't hear you say anything about human rights." To this, the very old and very powerful Mr. Strong said;
"You'll wish you had the rights of a tree by the time we are finished."Be very concerned when animals and trees have more rights than you do and be very concerned about anyone, that trys to bring that about.
Now, anyone hearing that cannot help, but think, if they have any concern for others, for their families, and for themselves, for these people
do not make statements lightly, and they have the power to do exactly what they want. And the past shows that they do.
Be concerned. For you are being blindsided again by the Global Warming fiasco. You'd better find out what they're up to, for you can bet you bottom dollar, that you'll be on the loosing end.
And keep in mind...
The EU did not come about by accident, and it
did not come about by the will of the people, in fact, in came about in
spite of the wishes of the people for it was voted down, yet, the EU exists. How? Why?
Be concerned, for North America is next and traitors fill
all of our governments... all of them... and it's damn near a done deal.
I can see how your perspective holds merit, but I feel like the rights of human beings will count for naught if the world we inhabit is devoid of all its biodiversity and functions/values, like we are currently making it. We are not seperate from the natural world, we are connected in so many ways to it that our future depends on it, and as such, we need to protect it to ensure that our future is protected.
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.02.04, 23:57:59
I can see how your perspective holds merit, but I feel like the rights of human beings will count for naught if the world we inhabit is devoid of all its biodiversity and functions/values, like we are currently making it. We are not seperate from the natural world, we are connected in so many ways to it that our future depends on it, and as such, we need to protect it to ensure that our future is protected.
I agree.
Back in the early 1900s the elite's flunkies,
(heavily lead and funded by the Tax Exempt Foundations), first came up with the idea of replacing
warfare/terrorism as a control method on the masses, with an environmental crisis, the latter to be kicked off in the late 70s. However, there was a cooling trend at that time and all the TVs and newspaper, (and even the Smithsonian Institute, complete with massive, high-budget, display), got in on the scam and told us how very sure they were that we were entering into a Small Ice Age, due to all the effect CO
2 was having on the atmosphere...
Time passes...
The cooling trend turns to a warming trend and after a short period of time,
(for they know how short peoples memories are), they restart the scam, using virtually the same words, the same displays, the same groups, swapping out the term "Small Ice Age" for "Global Warming",
(The video of Connie Chung announcing the Ice Age, is available on the internet), caused by CO
2 emissions.
In the elite's books they speak of
pollution at the same time, as part of the same plan.
They said that they would "create laws for industrial pollution control" and "not enforce them" so as to "allow the pollution levels to build up to add merit to our claims of a coming global disaster" of course, perpetrated by the people for they always blame everything on us. The technique for doing this is as old as time. It is called the Dialectic, in general, and the Higalian Dialectic specifically.
What this means is that they create the problem, to provide the solution. The solution
is the purpose of the problem. Then they make the people
demand that government do something about it and fix it, thus, reluctantly, the government brings in the laws to do it. AND, most importantly, satisfying the will of the people. Except, it isn't the will of the people, it is out and out manipulation of the masses. And always they do it by taking away rights and money... always money, always rights, always the people giving them up and always the government keeping them. Always.
President Roosevelt said back in the 30s, "the government always implement laws for
a very good reason. However, there's the
very good reason, which we tell the public, and then there is the
real reason, which we never speak of openly."
In this case the "really good reason" is to save the planet... from us, and the "real reason" is to take away your rights.
These bastards are clever, but their technique is old, and well documented.
Everyone should know them. Knowledge of these techniques negates their effectiveness, putting you back in power.
Whoa. That's alot to digest, I am going to have to do some research based upon what you have provided for me here.
My issue is that hybrid is not "going green" They only make a considerable reduction in emissions if they are used on open roads, in traffic they are no better then any other car. Not to mention that battery technology is very poor. My car has 152,000 miles on it, if it was a hybrid the batteries would have failed quite some time ago and I would be getting worse mileage simply because my car would be dragging around heavy batteries and generators.
Not to mention the environmental impact that disposal of the batteries create.
The most important thing we could do is work on alternate forms of power, and at the same time reduce the amount of fuel consumed until a viable alternative is found. Hybrid is more or less trying to accomplish that, however it is quite possible to have less enviromental impact even with standard fuels (VW TDI engines get the same if not better mileage without the batteries and with the 2008+ emission systems have less emissions then a toyota prius) Not to mention that these cars could be modified (no official words on if it is usable on this fuel without modification yet) to run on biodiesel which is mostly used cooking oil from fast food restaurants. The only adverse effect from this is a strange "mcdonalds fry" odor which the cars tend to make.
I acknowledge we are making an impact on the enviroment, however I do believe alot of the facts are misrepresented to serve a particular sides arguments.. the thing which stands true is that the average American would benefit greatly from American energy independence.
Quote from: BigWarpGuy on 2008.02.04, 23:00:01
I apologize if I had insinuated anything that might be contrived as insulting. It was not my purpose. I just wanted to point out that while the USA is big on pollution there are those in the USA who are working to solve it.
Car companies need to sell vehicle that people want to buy. If they can make 'going green' desirable, there will be more people that would be interested in it. There is also a need for car companies to make cars safe but that safety adds weight to the vehicle which means lower fuel economy. Not evey one needs or can use a small vehicle so it is not always the answer. Car companies have to balance what the customer wants, want the DOT requires and what is good for the enviroment. There are some small companies that are also doing their best to help the ecology with hybrid, ev or high mpg vehicles; making them three wheels instead of four so there are less saftey restrictions.
http://www.rqriley.com/xr.htm (http://www.rqriley.com/xr.htm) http://www.ravencar.com (http://www.ravencar.com) A couple of examples.
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.02.05, 02:03:57
Whoa. That's alot to digest, I am going to have to do some research based upon what you have provided for me here.
Yes, it surely is.
Let me know here, or PM me, if you think I can be of any help.
Everyone should know and understand this.
Robert, like you, I dislike hybrids. However, going straight out hydrogen (the only viable course in my eyes) is years off, necssitating a complete rework of the fuel and energy infrastrucutre of the US. Hybrids serve as a good stop-gap measure and a means to slowly get people accomodated to the differences that hybrid/alt fuel vehicles will bring. Still, they are a stop-gap, a way to ease the transition. We can not get complacent and not progress to alt-fuel, this must be a transition period only, no more.
Quote from: Ben on 2008.02.05, 01:20:59
Everyone should know them. Knowledge of these techniques negates their effectiveness, putting you back in power.
Very well put, Ben.
If only more of us stateside would pay more attention to what's being done to us instead of wondering what Britney Spears is going to do next, perhaps this place wouldn't be going to hell in a handbasket.
Your post made me think of Occam's Razor. If only more people were as succinct as you in their thoughts. :)
--Sean
Quote from: sdennis on 2008.02.05, 14:11:34
Quote from: Ben on 2008.02.05, 01:20:59
Everyone should know them. Knowledge of these techniques negates their effectiveness, putting you back in power.
Very well put, Ben.
If only more of us stateside would pay more attention to what's being done to us instead of wondering what Britney Spears is going to do next...
--Sean
Woah, what? What's Britney doing next? Did I miss something?!?!?! :o
Seriously though, excellent points, both of you.
Here's something to consider (as I've read both sides of the
Britney Spears global warming debate), with what is being described here as a naturally occurring "phenomena" (I hate the use of that word because we simply dont understand something), wouldn't our impact on global warming be even more important?
To me, it's not whether we caused the problem, but that the problem is a cycle (in that the more CO2 from the ocean, the hotter the climate, meaning more CO2 released from the ocean), thus our contribution may be exacberating the normally occurring phenomena since it is feeding into a cycle. I'd prefer to see how our "involvement" impacts the normal cycle of such things - and thus be able to better determine how negligible (or not) our impact is... but there seem to be varying conflicting studies on that as well. Leaving me no one to believe. Some can be dismissed outright obviously - but the problem I have seen is that some on both sides are funded by those who benefit from the answer such as Way-Out-There-Environmentalists on our impact on the scenario on one side, and the Coal Industry on the other.
Too many questions, too much propaganda and not enough facts....
Quote from: sdennis on 2008.02.05, 14:11:34
Quote from: Ben on 2008.02.05, 01:20:59
Everyone should know them. Knowledge of these techniques negates their effectiveness, putting you back in power.
Very well put, Ben.
If only more of us stateside would pay more attention to what's being done to us instead of wondering what Britney Spears is going to do next, perhaps this place wouldn't be going to hell in a handbasket.
Your post made me think of Occam's Razor. If only more people were as succinct as you in their thoughts. :)
--Sean
Thanks, Sean.
However, I have to add that this whole thing is tied into the global agenda and is not tethered souly to the U.S. It will effect, and is effecting, everyone, everywhere. Their plans are the same, their means are the same, with local variations. They speak about it in their own books, and amongst themselves, and laugh at us for being so easily conned.
The problem is, through the use of all media,
(keep in mind that media is the fourth estate of government, which means a branch of the government), they've retarded the human instinct for self-preservation that would normally have us
up in arms and fighting mad at what they are doing to us as a species.
(George Bush senior once told a reporter that "They would hang us from the lamp posts if they knew what we had done"). [Why would he say that? What are they up to?]. But they figured out a long time ago, that if they could move slaughter and mayhem into our everyday life, and make it normal, that we would loose the instinct to protect ourselves.
This has been accomplished.
The elite,
(and in particular, the UN), take polls every year. One of them was designed to see if the masses would follow the government and, to what point.
The results of these polls indicate that most people,
(87-93% depending on the poll), at this point in time, would blindly follow the government in
any direction that it leads them even over a cliff! Just like lemmings. All the time refusing to believe anything serious or detrimental is happening to them in their lovely, protected world, until
just before they impact at the bottom... which is too late to do anything other than to
wheeze out a brief scream. But you see, the people are not being protected; they are being fattened.
As long as the people have what Lord Bertrand Russell termed "enough bread and circuses" the lack of which he attributes as the cause of the downfall of the Roman Empire, people do not care what their government is doing. Whether it's slaughtering innocent couples and their familiies, old ladies and babies in their cribs, people will sit in front of the box watching it all unfold as entertainment, having their brains sucked out, as they suck in the pablum.
This leaves the remaining 13-7% who still have free thought and the survival instinct, to do something about it. A tough job to say the least. But definitely do-able.
And make no mistake about it, if people knew what was really going on, they would jump into their cars, and run down every
GD politician and
Corporate Fascist that they could find, for the oaths of these monsters, are not to the people, but to their own group to the exclusion and detriment, of all others. This means to the detriment of you and me.
There's some more food for thought... and it ain't pablum.
Quote from: RobertM on 2008.02.05, 19:13:29
To me, it's not whether we caused the problem, but that the problem is a cycle (in that the more CO2 from the ocean, the hotter the climate, meaning more CO2 released from the ocean), thus our contribution may be exacberating the normally occurring phenomena since it is feeding into a cycle.
OK.
I need to elaborate on what I only implied in my previous posts. CO
2 gases have little to no impact on global warming and little to no negative impact on the world. There is some room for debate, but there are no indicators that it has a serious impact. The CO
2-is-bad-for-the-earth myth is a red herring, a distraction, just like OJ Simpleton, and the others.
Quote from: RobertM on 2008.02.05, 19:13:29
I'd prefer to see how our "involvement" impacts the normal cycle of such things - and thus be able to better determine how negligible (or not) our impact is... but there seem to be varying conflicting studies on that as well. Leaving me no one to believe. Some can be dismissed outright obviously - but the problem I have seen is that some on both sides are funded by those who benefit from the answer such as Way-Out-There-Environmentalists on our impact on the scenario on one side, and the Coal Industry on the other.
Too many questions, too much propaganda and not enough facts....
There is no doubt that we, as a species, emit gases and pollute. There is no doubt that we should fix it. It should also be kept in mind, that this problem is
not that big. We see it more, because we live in the middle of it. We think it's more because the government Propaganda Network,
(which is HUGE and has virtually unlimited funding), tells us it's worse, that it's big. And we believe it without much thought. They have too few people cleaning up the city so it looks dirty. They park the big plants on our doorsteps so we always get a good lung full of pollution. They jam us into little apartments so that over population seems obvious.
To get back to CO
2 gases, fixing this smaller problem easy. However, there simply isn't any government will to do anything about it. Keep in mind, that what they
are doing is
taking our rights and our money,
under the guise of putting it to good use in environmental improvement. Have you seen any environmental improvement? Do giving up rights or your way-to-hard-earned money ever bring about the spoon fed solution? If the government were serious about fixing environmental problems, they would simply enforce the laws
that are all ready on the books, on the pollution makers,
(the big corporations), develop alternate fuels, free people from massive supply projects like electricity and gas,
(setting us up in our own houses with our own power source, our own gardens and everything that we need. Why haven't they done this if they serve us?)Make no mistake about it; we serve them, for
their masters are the corporations, not you. You have a right to vote and nothing else,
(and even that is seriously in question). The fact that the government chooses to do nothing against the corporations and everything against us, is a key indicator as to what they are really up to and what our position in society really is. I bring to your mind the President Roosevelt quote I made a few posts back. And always remember that
actions speak louder than words. This means that
what they are doing show
what their intent is and is
all important.
Words from them, mean nothing, especially with politicians. And we all know this. Think about it. Act upon it. You are your own hero. Not them.
I allude back to what I said in a previous post now, for a little clarification on the s
eemingly complex term of the Dialectic. It is not complex; it is simple. To make it clear I give you the following;
A shepherd has two dogs. From his vantage point on the hill looking down on his herd of sheep, he decides that he wants to move them. He moves into the right location from on high, one dog at his feet, the other positioned a little way off. At the right moment he gives the signal to the far dog and it charges down the hill barking all the way, driving the herd one direction. But the shepherd doesn't want the herd to go to far that way so, when the timing is right, he sends in the other dog from the opposite side and, corrects the course of the herd guiding it skillfully onto the right path. The path is of shepherd's choosing not the herds.
The shepherd is the elite. The dogs are the two experts,
(ha!), on TV. We are the sheep. Our conclusions from the debating/charging experts/dogs, is the course that they have steered us, that the elite want.
And I assure you!
It is not in that direction, that you want to go! They
cherry-pick what information they will give you and what they will not give you, making sure that your conclusions are the ones that they want you to have. Do your own research. Make your own thoughts. Come to your own conclusions. Turn off the TV. They tell us it's TV "programming" and they laugh at us when we don't get it, for surely they are "programming" us.
We are the sheep.
Do you want to be a sheep? The world is setup to make not thinking easy, and thinking hard. Thus the slope to sheep-dom is easy. But the choice is always yours. And it is a choice. Make no mistake about it; it is a choice.
Henry Kissinger: "Those who turn over the ruling of their lives to someone else is no better than meat upon the table."
Read.
Think.
Live.
Thought is what separates us from the sheep.
Why turn thought off?
(By thought I mean you creating thought, rather than juggling the thoughts that they give you.)It's hard for those who do not think, to think. Hard. Not
too hard.
Are you a sheep?
Are your thoughts really yours?
Do you follow the course they put you on?
Do you choose between the five lines of thought that they give you, thinking you have chosen your own thoughts? Did you originate them? Or did you select from pre-selected choices.
In the Soviet Union, five pre-approved presidential candidates where given to the public to give the public the illusion that they choose their own leaders. Regardless of who was elected the party agenda was carried out.
Do you think it's any different here?
Do you see a change in course with a change in government?
Thomas Jefferson: "
When one party is voted out, and an opposing party is voted in, you are in a defacto dictatorship."
Are we in a dictatorship?
Are you thinking your own thoughts now?
Due to the nature and depth of some of what has been posted in this thread, and just in case any of this has tickled anyone's interest, sparked a few questions, or has caused a desire to look further into any of this, you can;
- PM me here at the forum or
- Send me a private E-mail, for my E-mail address here is valid and working.
I can provide further information and/or references, and/or responses to reasonable requests.
I really don't think hydrogen is a viable alternative. It is energy intensive to create, hard to store, dangerous and think about the cumulative effect of the worlds cars expelling that much water on a daily basis.
I also dislike the environmental argument of the limited supply of fossil fuels. If the "experts" were right we would have run out of fuel (and natural gas) almost 40 years ago. Ben made a good point about the fact that this keeps coming back every few decades.
Quote from: Saijin_Naib on 2008.02.05, 04:31:56
Robert, like you, I dislike hybrids. However, going straight out hydrogen (the only viable course in my eyes) is years off, necssitating a complete rework of the fuel and energy infrastrucutre of the US. Hybrids serve as a good stop-gap measure and a means to slowly get people accomodated to the differences that hybrid/alt fuel vehicles will bring. Still, they are a stop-gap, a way to ease the transition. We can not get complacent and not progress to alt-fuel, this must be a transition period only, no more.
Right, I am fully aware of this. I think one of two things: Our technology is keeping us afloat, or the fuel "scarcity" estimates are just a means for the Oil companies to control the market.
Also, hydrogen is being split with greater efficiency. A news item here last week featured a story about how a research group can now hydrolize water with about 83% efficiency, and expect to see 96% at the end of 5 years. Very viable. Browns gas is no more volatile than regular gaseous petrol :\
Hello,
>the cumulative effect of the worlds cars expelling that much water on a daily basis
As you produce hydrogen by water, you are using as much water as you produce. And in an "hydrogen-world" you produce hydrogen by solar-energy.
Greetings.
Thomas
Quote from: Robert Deed on 2008.03.06, 23:57:25
I really don't think hydrogen is a viable alternative. It is energy intensive to create, hard to store, dangerous and think about the cumulative effect of the worlds cars expelling that much water on a daily basis.
Actually, it is very cheap to produce... the technology is not yet available widely though. Many breakthroughs were done this year that make separating water into hydrogen and oxygen very cost effective. One such was recently covered on some big science site and that article was covered on slashdot.
Oddly, with all the money fossil fuel companies are supposedly spending on such research, it was a college who figured out this newest method.
Sorry, here are some links I quickly found... there are even more stories out there... I think some are /.'s RSS feeds...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Frss.slashdot.org%2F~r%2FSlashdot%2Fslashdot%2F~3%2F237083602%2Farticle.pl&ei=Wa_QR6rWEKS-iwG5peV2&usg=AFQjCNFSlRrKsR-6F17SVQYaqwlJlXjBKQ&sig2=wZXNNTD-Foz7y9d-SkQi3g
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhardware.slashdot.org%2Farticle.pl%3Fsid%3D08%2F02%2F27%2F1834219%26from%3Drss&ei=cK_QR8rGMqjiiAH48cFf&usg=AFQjCNE-D_Vs71IC9DmlgWRpGWWhZoEBqA&sig2=rkr1o5B6EYGGDCuUz9-_AA
or check out this link and check the first two:
http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=hydrogen+site%3Aslashdot.org&btnG=Search