Power: Gore Mansion Uses 20x Average Household

soulsinging · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Sigh...you have both more capital and access to more equipment than Christian Friedrich Schönbein did in 1840. He invented the fuel cell.

"Most of the capital"??? Capital is limited only to the amount of labor that supports it. So, people can sit around and do nothing whilst complaining about others who "control capital", or they can simply generate new capital through their own efforts.

What resources do you need? Exxon et al controls much of the oil, but the whole point here is to get away from oil, right?

The "cultural problem" you refer to is the attitude that demands existing industries be responsible for their own demise. In the context of solving global warming, existing industries are an irrelevancy. They've already failed. Your desire for progress relegates them to relics of the past, so long as they refuse to innovate. They don't stand in your way. Your reliance on them is what stands in your way.

tech is a bit more complicated than it was in 1840. im not sure what a fuel cell is (i was an english major) but i know that it's tough to invent a hydrogen powered car if you don't have a car or a few dozen to experiment with. those are expensive. as are most of the components. as are most of the tools you need to do proper research on such dangerous and volatile chemicals as hydrogen. most high schools can't even afford a basic physics set for their lab... you're telling me it's easy for a private citizen to sit down and invent a new car from scratch? how many people and how much money went into the model-t? and how much prior technology did he take advantage of (no doubt before patent laws were as effective as they are now)? this stuff is expensive and improving on existing technology demands access to the current technology, access that will not be granted due to concern over trade secrets and profits. only ford could fiddle with a ford, and so on and so forth. innovation is dependent on the owner of the patent. thus, to "innovate" on a gas-powered car a private citizen first has to invent and build their own car... a pretty expensive investment right there. the cost is other-worldly.

yes, these industries are on the brink of demise. but they can avoid that by getting in on the new technology. you're not asking them to sign their own death warrant, you're asking them to be ahead of the game enough to remain relevant... which requires forward thinking american companies wont do becos of the focus on present profits. i am not advocating laws forcing them to do such research, but i dont know why you've got your panties in a twist about a group of private citizens trying to convince them it is in their best interests to get to work on this technology. isn't that what you're all about? free market pressures? i can assure you one thing, if japan comes up with a cheap renewable-source car first, america as a whole is goign to be in some serious economic trouble. encouraging exploration of such technology is not just idealism, it's smart business and also good defense strategy.

farfromglorified wrote:

I don't have any problem with Al Gore or other's messages about wise consumption. I have a problem with Al Gore's unwise consumption coupled with that message.

i never saw you express a problem with ted haggard and his hypocrisy. or rush and his. it seems like you only have a problem with hypocrisy when the hypocrite disagrees with you. both of the previous two are trying to restrict your freedom just as much (and it seems even more so) than al gore ever would. but, as per usual, the only thing that seems to get your attention is when someone comes after your bank account. for all your talk about freedom, that seems to be the only freedom you give a damn about.

angelica · February 2007

RainDog wrote:

I still believe that it won't be something developed in someone's basement on their own dime - but rather through research and development done by many individuals (I'm not too clear on the definition of "handful"; so we could be talking about the same number) and funded by many more, through both the public and private sector. It will then create a ripple that will stretch out and make the solution "industry wide." When it reaches that stage, the technologies will be readily available and affordable enough for the average consumer.

I completely agree RainDog. I'm guessing farfromglorified won't, however, as it would muddy his individualistic position, where the individual alone gets full credit for the invention. I like how you showed the interactive nature of our environment by your view. Besides that, I see how the individuals involved in such inventions are molded by the very cultural and societal impacts that permeate our society, in very deep and complex ways.

And farfromglorified, yes, the individual in this scenario is a key piece of the puzzle, yet he/she is not the puzzle--the puzzle has numerous components.

soulsinging · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

I have no desire to string up Al Gore. And let me say that I think Al Gore should have every right to use every bit of electricity that someone is willing to sell him.

I simply don't trust Al Gore. That's it.

fair enough. im not about to run out and put up solar panels or anything myself. but i dont think him encouraging people to be conscientious about their energy use is a bad thing by any stretch, regardless of what he's doing.

MakingWaves · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Fair enough. If that happens, I certainly can't fault Al Gore for doing it. But just remember saying "I'm in the process of converting my house to solar power" is emissions negative. Actually doing it is emissions positive.

Can't argue with that either.

monkey spanker · February 2007

"I'll ask you too: if the scientists are wrong, why are you attempting to conserve and live more efficiently...?"

i don't like high energy bills. thats just common sense as well.

farfromglorified · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

tech is a bit more complicated than it was in 1840. im not sure what a fuel cell is (i was an english major) but i know that it's tough to invent a hydrogen powered car if you don't have a car or a few dozen to experiment with.

Hehe...then how did the car get invented in the first place?

those are expensive. as are most of the components. as are most of the tools you need to do proper research on such dangerous and volatile chemicals as hydrogen. most high schools can't even afford a basic physics set for their lab... you're telling me it's easy for a private citizen to sit down and invent a new car from scratch?

No, it's not easy. It's exceptionally difficult.

how many people and how much money went into the model-t?

Lots, I'd assume. You could research here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T

and how much prior technology did he take advantage of (no doubt before patent laws were as effective as they are now)? this stuff is expensive and improving on existing technology demands access to the current technology, access that will not be granted due to concern over trade secrets and profits. only ford could fiddle with a ford, and so on and so forth. innovation is dependent on the owner of the patent. thus, to "innovate" on a gas-powered car a private citizen first has to invent and build their own car... a pretty expensive investment right there. the cost is other-worldly.

The cost isn't "other-worldly". The cost was paid for here, on this world.

yes, these industries are on the brink of demise. but they can avoid that by getting in on the new technology. you're not asking them to sign their own death warrant, you're asking them to be ahead of the game enough to remain relevant... which requires forward thinking american companies wont do becos of the focus on present profits. i am not advocating laws forcing them to do such research, but i dont know why you've got your panties in a twist about a group of private citizens trying to convince them it is in their best interests to get to work on this technology. isn't that what you're all about? free market pressures? i can assure you one thing, if japan comes up with a cheap renewable-source car first, america as a whole is goign to be in some serious economic trouble. encouraging exploration of such technology is not just idealism, it's smart business and also good defense strategy.

Of course it is. But my "panties are in a twist" not about "free market pressures". Those pressures existed before Al Gore et al and will continue to exist when they find some new doomsday to harp about.

What I don't like are the unstated threats of these people. The references to "swift action". The allusions to legislative controls.

i never saw you express a problem with ted haggard and his hypocrisy. or rush and his.

Who is Ted Haggard?

And Rush is a fool. His idiocy exceeds Al Gore's, if that's what you're looking for from me there.

it seems like you only have a problem with hypocrisy when the hypocrite disagrees with you. both of the previous two are trying to restrict your freedom just as much (and it seems even more so) than al gore ever would. but, as per usual, the only thing that seems to get your attention is when someone comes after your bank account. for all your talk about freedom, that seems to be the only freedom you give a damn about.

????

soulsinging · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

No, it's not easy. It's exceptionally difficult.

Lots, I'd assume. You could research here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T

The cost isn't "other-worldly". The cost was paid for here, on this world.

Of course it is. But my "panties are in a twist" not about "free market pressures". Those pressures existed before Al Gore et al and will continue to exist when they find some new doomsday to harp about.

What I don't like are the unstated threats of these people. The references to "swift action". The allusions to legislative controls.

then you see my point... it's exceptionally difficult and expensive. maybe not other-worldy, but prohibitively expensive to all but the most privileged. this isn't something someone can do in their basement like in the 1840s. the cost is extremely prohibitive and most people are forbidden from even attempting by patent laws. the people who currently own the technology are the only ones allowed to mess with it, and they refuse to. it's not so simple as "if you want alternative energy, go invent it." there are a whole LOT of things preventing that from happening.

also, key word being "allusions." there is nothing on the table so far as i know, so what's the worry? let the market pressures work. perhaps if the self-righteous folks like you acknowledge the validity of their concerns, the difficulty they face in doing anything about them, and are willing to come to the table for some meaningful discussion on the issues, they won't feel like they have no recourse but legislation. but when the only people with the money and technology to do anything about it say, essentially "go fuck yourself hippies" without even listening with an open mind... well, they're going to use the nuclear option.

ted haggard is another of the ilk of jenkins, lahaye, and robertson... people who are striving to regulate the most intimate details of your life on "moral" grounds. yet i've never once seen you enter such a thread and go to bat to combat that deprivation of freedom. the only time you get involved is when your wallet is at stake. it makes all your high-brow rhetoric about freedom look pretty flimsy... becos the only freedom you seem to truly give a damn about is the freedom to stuff your purse to overflowing.

farfromglorified · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

then you see my point... it's exceptionally difficult and expensive. this isn't something someone can do in their basement like in the 1840s.

Hehe...of course it is. Just because something is "difficult and expensive" doesn't preclude one from doing something in their basement, soulsinging.

The creation of Microsoft Windows was "difficult and expensive". Yet it was done in a garage. The creation of FedEx was "difficult and expensive". Yet is was done in a dilapidated Little Rock hangar. The hybrid car itself was invented in a small car factory by Ferdinand Porsche when he was in his early 20s.

the cost is extremely prohibitive and most people are forbidden from even attempting by patent laws. the people who currently own the technology are the only ones allowed to mess with it, and they refuse to. it's not so simple as "if you want alternative energy, go invent it." there are a whole LOT of things preventing that from happening.

There are more things preventing it than even you think. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. It just means that only the best amongst us will do it.

And yes, repealing all patent laws and protections would be a big help!

also, key word being "allusions." there is nothing on the table so far as i know, so what's the worry? let the market pressures work. perhaps if the self-righteous folks like you acknowledge the validity of their concerns, the difficulty they face in doing anything about them, and are willing to come to the table for some meaningful discussion on the issues, they won't feel like they have no recourse but legislation. but when the only people with the money and technology to do anything about it say, essentially "go fuck yourself hippies" without even listening with an open mind... well, they're going to use the nuclear option.

Hehe....the people who will solve this problem don't need me, soulsinging. You either.

farfromglorified · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

ted haggard is another of the ilk of jenkins, lahaye, and robertson... people who are striving to regulate the most intimate details of your life on "moral" grounds. yet i've never once seen you enter such a thread and go to bat to combat that deprivation of freedom. the only time you get involved is when your wallet is at stake. it makes all your high-brow rhetoric about freedom look pretty flimsy...

Are you talking about evangelicals who want to ban me from sleeping with some dude, or saying "Jesus Christ" when I see some idiotic argument on this board? I've certainly made posts here rejecting bans on same-sex marriage and the sale of certain drugs and abortion. Didn't you start that thread about banning "indifference and jealousy" that I posted in???

Look, liberals argue with me. The moronic "moralists" tend to ignore me. So it stands to reason that most of my posts will be found in the latter.

becos the only freedom you seem to truly give a damn about is the freedom to stuff your purse to overflowing.

:rolleyes:

If I wanted to stuff my purse, I'd just fall in love with any politician who would steal your money and give it to me.

soulsinging · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

And yes, repealing all patent laws and protections would be a big help!

would you be for or against this?

soulsinging · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Are you talking about evangelicals who want to ban me from sleeping with some dude, or saying "Jesus Christ" when I see some idiotic argument on this board? I've certainly made posts here rejecting bans on same-sex marriage and the sale of certain drugs and abortion. Didn't you start that thread about banning "indifference and jealousy" that I posted in???

Look, liberals argue with me. The moronic "moralists" tend to ignore me. So it stands to reason that most of my posts will be found in the latter.

fair enough.

farfromglorified · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

would you be for or against this?

100% completely for it.

soulsinging · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

100% completely for it.

that doesn't violate your ideals that people shouldn't be able to freeload off the work of others?

farfromglorified · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

that doesn't violate your ideals that people shouldn't be able to freeload off the work of others?

No. Why would it?

My ideal is that people shouldn't be able to steal the work of others. You cannot steal an idea, soulsinging. You cannot steal a concept.

If I build a car, and you steal it, I no longer have that car. You've deprived me of it. However, if I think of a car and you do too, you haven't deprived me of anything.

soulsinging · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

No. Why would it?

My ideal is that people shouldn't be able to steal the work of others. You cannot steal an idea, soulsinging. You cannot steal a concept.

If I build a car, and you steal it, I no longer have that car. You've deprived me of it. However, if I think of a car and you do too, you haven't deprived me of anything.

business profits if i build a car exactly identical to yours and sell it myself.

inmytree · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

You cannot steal an idea, soulsinging. You cannot steal a concept.

what about patents...?

edit: I should have said...

what about music rights...?

farfromglorified · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

business profits if i build a car exactly identical to yours and sell it myself.

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?

farfromglorified · February 2007

inmytree wrote:

what about patents...?

edit: I should have said...

what about music rights...?

What about them? No, I don't support "music rights" in the sense that a record industry has any right to proclaim something as "stolen" when they've been deprived of nothing.

Collin · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

This isn't complicated, people.

True.

Al Gore is telling you that you are producing emissions at a dangerous level.

I think we are producing more emissions than necessary.

He is telling you, in effect, that you are a criminal.

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

However, he is producing more emissions than you are, not even counting his world tours and such.

He is indeed a hypocrit.

And when a rapist damns you for rape, he's exposed a severe moral contradiction. And all evil stems from moral contradictions.

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.

farfromglorified · February 2007

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.

Cool. I'm down with this post.

Power: Gore Mansion Uses 20x Average Household

Comments

Categories