Power: Gore Mansion Uses 20x Average Household

trappedinmyradio

Collin wrote:

True.

I think we are producing more emissions than necessary.

He's telling me I should be more economical. And guess what? I agree with him. I should.

He is indeed a hypocrit.

Moral contrdiction or not, if a rapist damns me for rape, he's still right. Rape is a horrible act that should be punished and I would damn him and want to see him punished.

So yes, Al Gore is a hypocrit and I think he should live by his word too.

i am down with this diggity dog too.

sonicreducer

hypocrite or not, al gore has raised awareness,...

what really bothered me was how the whole movie was about how bad it was, but he spent less than five minutes talking about what to do to change it,...

we need a "conserving for dummies" handbook put on national news so everyone can realize how easy it is,...

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

But those "business profits" aren't mine, soulsinging. That money belongs to neither me or you. It belongs to the people who buy our cars, up until the point they exchange it with either of us.

If you can build a car exactly identical to mine, what right do I have to 100% of the value of that car?

i dont know, but this is an interesting concept. it kinda evens the playing field a bit in a way your previous ideas have never indicated. the downside is that the effect of this would likely be that nobody would be willing to put in the work to innovate becos once they did and incurred the expense of discovery, someone else could cop their work and deprive them of the fruits of their labor.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

i dont know, but this is an interesting concept. it kinda evens the playing field a bit in a way your previous ideas have never indicated.

Hehe...a world where everyone has no default obligation to one another and the freedom to chose their desired paths and goals never struck you as "evening the playing field"??? Perhaps you should have just asked the question you did above, as opposed to constantly accusing me of waxing pointless philosophy or lining my pockets or worshipping Ayn Rand

the downside is that the effect of this would likely be that nobody would be willing to put in the work to innovate becos once they did and incurred the expense of discovery, someone else could cop their work and deprive them of the fruits of their labor.

So in other words people will refuse to acquire some value because it would prevent them from acquiring limitless value? Why don't you test that theory? Start a bank and then fill your vaults only halfway. Tell everyone. And see if nobody ever tries to rob you.

However, certainly investment will take on new risks in the absence of legal monopolies on thought. But there will always be value in innovation itself, and money always follows value. Furthermore, you'll further encourage non-commodity innovation, the kind that actually moves the world forward.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

If he does 1000 times more in mind and body internationally than the average do nothing bigmac stuffing SUV owner....then what's the net effect again?

incessant whining about it?


riiiight.....big picture

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...a world where everyone has no default obligation to one another and the freedom to chose their desired paths and goals never struck you as "evening the playing field"??? Perhaps you should have just asked the question you did above, as opposed to constantly accusing me of waxing pointless philosophy or lining my pockets or worshipping Ayn Rand

So in other words people will refuse to acquire some value because it would prevent them from acquiring limitless value? Why don't you test that theory? Start a bank and then fill your vaults only halfway. Tell everyone. And see if nobody ever tries to rob you.

However, certainly investment will take on new risks in the absence of legal monopolies on thought. But there will always be value in innovation itself, and money always follows value. Furthermore, you'll further encourage non-commodity innovation, the kind that actually moves the world forward.

true, it would kinda defuse materialism. and your limitless freedoms always focused on making sure that no one ever denies you the fruit of your labor... i assumed this would extend to products of your labor in the form of patents and invention. it's not an altogether unreasonable logical leap given that the subject of patents has never really come up before. i like any idea that might take down the current capitalist structure we have.

ThumbingMyWay32

There no way I could talk about Al Gore for this long and be happy about it.

Ahnimus

Gore or Obama would have my vote
The rest of you must be snortin' coke

Haha, I made a funny!

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

true, it would kinda defuse materialism. and your limitless freedoms always focused on making sure that no one ever denies you the fruit of your labor...

Hehe...no.....my "limitless freedoms" don't alway focus on making sure no one ever denies me the fruit of my labor. This board, however, is full of people trying to steal that labor. You don't talk veggies at the slaughterhouse, if you catch my drift.

i assumed this would extend to products of your labor in the form of patents and invention.

Tell me, would you declare potential apples the property of an orchard that kept its seeds sitting in a warehouse? I would hope not.

The fruits of your labors are the products you create, not the products you might happen to think of. If you think of a car, you can own that thought all you want. But if I then think of that same car, that particular thought is mine while your thought is still yours. Patents declare a bullshit monopoly on thought by pretending that one can be deprived of a thought.

it's not an altogether unreasonable logical leap given that the subject of patents has never really come up before. i like any idea that might take down the current capitalist structure we have.

Hehe...there's nothing capitalistic about patents, just like there's nothing capitalistic about corporate welfare.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Tell me, would you declare potential apples the property of an orchard that kept its seeds sitting in a warehouse? I would hope not.

not sure what you mean there. so... i dont know?

farfromglorified wrote:

The fruits of your labors are the products you create, not the products you might happen to think of. If you think of a car, you can own that thought all you want. But if I then think of that same car, that particular thought is mine while your thought is still yours. Patents declare a bullshit monopoly on thought by pretending that one can be deprived of a thought.

i gotcha, but im thinking more about theft of trade secrets than simultaneous original ideas. you labor to learn or discover how to build a car, someone buys it, then builds an identical one and sells it. they dont have the independent thought, they just steal yours. or at least that's the philosophy of patents. i see what you're saying and kinda like it, but as someone pointed out, it causes some problems... like a novelist. i write a book and someone buys a copy, re-types it and then sells it to others as their own book. how could any artist ever make a living if their were no protection on the originality of their artistic ideas? you'd never know if shakespeare actually wrote what his name was put on... wait a minute but you get the idea... what do we do about that?

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...there's nothing capitalistic about patents, just like there's nothing capitalistic about corporate welfare.

i dont know about that. it seems to me that patents are what prop up the capitalist system.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Al Gore can carry out intellectual and comprehensive discussions on nuclear energy, energy alternatives, and and the net impact on the planet

George bush can't pronounce nuclear...


hmm...

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

not sure what you mean there. so... i dont know?

i gotcha, but im thinking more about theft of trade secrets than simultaneous original ideas. you labor to learn or discover how to build a car, someone buys it, then builds an identical one and sells it. they dont have the independent thought, they just steal yours.

How do you "steal" an idea???? How can you take an idea out of my brain and deprive me of it?

or at least that's the philosophy of patents.

The philosophy of patents is idiot-ism

i see what you're saying and kinda like it, but as someone pointed out, it causes some problems... like a novelist. i write a book and someone buys a copy, re-types it and then sells it to others as their own book. how could any artist ever make a living if their were no protection on the originality of their artistic ideas? you'd never know if shakespeare actually wrote what his name was put on... wait a minute but you get the idea... what do we do about that?

What do we do about that??? Perhaps we don't buy knock-off novels.

Now, what do artists do about that? Understand the value of their labor, of course. A novel, meaning a copy of a written text, has little value. The original, however, can have immense value. An artist who produces a valuable art is wise to withhold release in an attempt to maximize profit, meaning to release it only if the value they desire to gain is available before reproduction is possible.

i dont know about that. it seems to me that patents are what prop up the capitalist system.

Odd since successful capitalistic practice predates them.

Patents prop-up a system of maximizing profits by preventing others from exercising their free rights to create and to work.

LikeAnOcean

Al Gore is a tool. He's the lesser of two evils.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

How do you "steal" an idea???? How can you take an idea out of my brain and deprive me of it?

The philosophy of patents is idiot-ism

stealing a process or whatever. i dont know. bottom line is person one put in a lot of thought to come up with something. i can kinda see why they wouldnt want freeloaders making money off their work. doesn't mean i agree with it as has been established

farfromglorified wrote:

What do we do about that??? Perhaps we don't buy knock-off novels.

Now, what do artists do about that? Understand the value of their labor, of course. A novel, meaning a copy of a written text, has little value. The original, however, can have immense value. An artist who produces a valuable art is wise to withhold release in an attempt to maximize profit, meaning to release it only if the value they desire to gain is available before reproduction is possible.

yeah but to most citizens, they wouldnt even be aware that they are buying a knock-off novel. occasionally it'd be tough to verify.

as to the rest... that's my point. i dont think there's any way to to gain any sort of value. the way technology is, the second that manuscript left your hands the whole world could have it free. you couldn't even sell it to publishers cos they'd cease to exist since none of them would be able to put a stop to unauthorized publication. it means release ceases to be valuable, no matter how long you withold it. you'd be basically turning back the clock to patronage.

farfromglorified wrote:

Odd since successful capitalistic practice predates them.

Patents prop-up a system of maximizing profits by preventing others from exercising their free rights to create and to work.

i thought that's what capitalism was... maximizing profits

RolandTD20Kdrummer

helping planet v.s. going to war......seems obvious which should take precedence.... :rolleyes:

musicismylife78

its more than that....
He says he pro-environment yet...
he supports NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO and the FTAA. What the hell does he think these things do? Does he think they encourage environmentally friendly practices?

He isn't a pacifist, he supported Clinton's decision to wage war in Bosnia and Kosovo. What the hell does he think war does? Does he think that war helps the environment?

He is for "reform". So he supports recycling, and changing some laws and buying fuel efficient cars, but as far as the glaring fact that we will ALWAYS have an anti environment climate as long as capitalism exists. He is pro development, pro buisness, and all that. He doesnt suggest we tear up the concrete and the roads. He supports building new roads...progress rolls along...as more of nature is murdered by humans


Al Gore is a complex human. He deeply cares about the environment, thats not in question. The question is, is he willing to change HIS lifestyle and if elected president is he willing to question the basic ideas of civilization...ie the need to build more things, to expand, to engage in imperialism

Lets face its...recycling isn't stopping the global charge that is rapidly murdering mother nature. We need both people willing to recycle and engage in reformist actions...and al gore is this in spades. He is a reformer. But the question remains, is a reform all we need in terms of saving the environment? Is reforming some laws really going to stop corporations from moving to other countries where lower environmental standards persist, will reform save our endangered species, will reform stop old growth forests from being cut?

We need in addition to reformers, we need revolutionaries, people willing to stand up and say "hell no I aint going to do this anymore, I will not follow your rules". We need fred Hamptons, and Malcolm X's and Ward Churchills, and Noam Chomskys, and so on.

We need revolution.

The world will continue to be in peril and in danger until people wake up out of this deep sleep. Youth will remain at war with the adult culture, until this death and violence ceases. We are at war. But it aint with alqeada. We are at war with adults and their instituitions. They think they can continue to send us to die in Iraq and kill our planet. They dont think we will fight back. We are at war, and until we have control of the system, I am not sitting back. Until we control things and baby boomers are forced to do what we tell them and do things how we tell them, only then will I rejoice.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

stealing a process or whatever. i dont know. bottom line is person one put in a lot of thought to come up with something. i can kinda see why they wouldnt want freeloaders making money off their work. doesn't mean i agree with it as has been established

You can't steal a process. Look, let's say I came up with the idea for an assembly line, and it's going to change the world because I'll be able to produce things 100 times faster and better than anyone else. Let's say I blab it to the world, and then somebody copies it and does something slightly different that makes them 105 times faster and better. They haven't deprived me of a thing. I still have my idea. They've simply rendered my idea relatively worthless.

Now, if I come up with that same idea and build a factory, and they storm the gates and steal my machinery, then they've deprived me of something.

yeah but to most citizens, they wouldnt even be aware that they are buying a knock-off novel. occasionally it'd be tough to verify.

Umm...how do you know you're not buying knock-off novels now?

as to the rest... that's my point. i dont think there's any way to to gain any sort of value. the way technology is, the second that manuscript left your hands the whole world could have it free.

Then refuse to release it until you can get enough value from people. Again, the real value of a nearly infinitely copy-able resource is near zero. If you think you should be able to sell something worth $.02 for $50, then patent law is definitely for you.

you couldn't even sell it to publishers cos they'd cease to exist since none of them would be able to put a stop to unauthorized publication. it means release ceases to be valuable, no matter how long you withold it. you'd be basically turning back the clock to patronage.

Patronage made sense in an era when art was limited and the market was slim. Eliminating patent/copyright/trademark law doesn't return artists to the time of partronage. It simply puts them in a place where their products would be sold based on their actual worth.

i thought that's what capitalism was... maximizing profits

You wouldn't be alone.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Funny....the title of this thread should say

"Gore Mansion accomplishes 20x more than Average Household"

and yes he needs a lot of resources to accomplish such a monumental seemingly impossible task.


WTF do you think it takes to convince the entire world of something?

a quick pat on the back and psssssst hey buddy pass it on?

It hilarious to read how people envision the reality and scale of some things and put merit to their apprehension

farfromglorified

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

WTF do you think it takes to convince the entire world of something?

Hehe...apparently 20 rooms, 8 bathrooms, a guest house and 221,000 kwh / year of electricity, which I'm sure is used to power Al Gore's weather-predicting supercomputer.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

1. Umm...how do you know you're not buying knock-off novels now?

2. Then refuse to release it until you can get enough value from people. Again, the real value of a nearly infinitely copy-able resource is near zero. If you think you should be able to sell something worth $.02 for $50, then patent law is definitely for you.

3. Patronage made sense in an era when art was limited and the market was slim. Eliminating patent/copyright/trademark law doesn't return artists to the time of partronage. It simply puts them in a place where their products would be sold based on their actual worth.

1. becos i know random house wouldn't let anyone but themselves publish joseph heller's novels.

2. the thing is, the art could be worth more than $.02, it's just that somebody else is taking it... it could be that the average worth of your book to readers is $9, but this person can make photocopies and sell them for $8 and make thousands of dollars on something worth thousands of dollars while you, the creator of the book starves to death.

3. their products would not be sold at worth, they would be sold at the bare minimum of the cost of production without regard to the actual value. as i noted above, even if someone thinks something is worth $10, they're not going to pay $10 to the original author when they can pay $5 to the guy who copied it, esp if they dont even know who the author is. bands can get around this becos they play live concerts that allow them to earn money beyond the actual song on cd. authors can't really do the same. for that matter, how would you feel if someone advertised as pearl jam, promoted a show, and you bought a ticket and went to find out that it wasn't ed and the group but some impersonators. do you think the people touring as lynyrd skynyrd now are lynyrd skynyrd? it's ripe for deception. i guess id draw a line between patents and intellectual property law basically.