Export thread
Alternative =/= renewable =/= clean
#1
strawman
strawman
It's a bit too late for the recent election, but just keep in mind generally that when someone is trying to get you to vote one way or another on any energy policy, the following are very different things, and cannot be used interchangeably:
Alternative energy
Renewable energy
Clean energy
For instance, if your state votes for a referendum forcing power companies to produce a certain percentage of their energy from "renewable" resources, expect to see a lot of "biomass" energy, which is essentially burning trees in coal plants. The power stations weren't designed to burn plant matter, though, so it's significantly dirtier than the coal they used to burn, even after the conversion.
But biomass is still cheaper than solar and wind power, so that's where the power companies are generally going in order to meet the requirements of the mandate.
Anyway, be careful when approaching energy issues. The waters are muddy.
Alternative energy
Renewable energy
Clean energy
For instance, if your state votes for a referendum forcing power companies to produce a certain percentage of their energy from "renewable" resources, expect to see a lot of "biomass" energy, which is essentially burning trees in coal plants. The power stations weren't designed to burn plant matter, though, so it's significantly dirtier than the coal they used to burn, even after the conversion.
But biomass is still cheaper than solar and wind power, so that's where the power companies are generally going in order to meet the requirements of the mandate.
Anyway, be careful when approaching energy issues. The waters are muddy.
#2
GasBandit
GasBandit
Look out, here comes the unicorn farts.
#3
Bowielee
Bowielee
I honestly am surprised that people would need the distinctions between these phrases explained to them.
#4
Eriol
Eriol
I'm not. How many times have you seen Nuclear Cooling Towers gushing out steam (water vapour) and that being shown as a pollution and/or global warming issue? People are dumb, this doesn't surprise me at all.I honestly am surprised that people would need the distinctions between these phrases explained to them.
#6
strawman
strawman
Yeah, I just wasn't sure how many people would understand that better than =/=.
#7
DarkAudit
DarkAudit
"Clean coal" is just a buzzword invented by the Friends of Coal in order to justify their more destructive practices to a gullible Appalachian populace. don't like mountaintop removal? You're just an America-hating, Obama-loving Commie Muslim terrorist who wants to destroy our "way of life".
#8
blotsfan
blotsfan
Man, you really hate coal
#9
Krisken
Krisken
You tend to hate something when you can see the effects of it in your backyard.Man, you really hate coal
#10
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
So how much closer are we to affordable solar power, like 5 % there? It feels like it hasn't progressed much since I was a kid.
#11
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Wasn't that only, like, three weeks?So how much closer are we to affordable solar power, like 5 % there? It feels like it hasn't progressed much since I was a kid.
#12
strawman
That's even before you consider insolation levels of any given area (ie, arizona = good, seattle = bad), cleaning the arrays, etc, etc, which apply to all solar technologies such as the mirror and furnace arrays that are much cheaper per watt per year than photovoltaic arrays.
This is still more expensive per watt per year than most other energy sources, and right now it's being funded by gov't grants, research grants, and investors under the assumption that the technology will pay off once oil, coal, and other common energy sources quadruple in cost.
As expensive as oil and other non-renewable sources are getting to be, they are still significantly cheaper than any solar technology we might practically put into service.
strawman
Photovoltaic (solar cells) solar power has been holding pretty steady at $4[USD] per watt for small volume (home) systems for many years now. Commercial large scale systems are cheaper, but the price has remained steady. Further, no solar technology at this price point lasts more than 20 years with more than 50% of the original rated output.So how much closer are we to affordable solar power, like 5 % there? It feels like it hasn't progressed much since I was a kid.
That's even before you consider insolation levels of any given area (ie, arizona = good, seattle = bad), cleaning the arrays, etc, etc, which apply to all solar technologies such as the mirror and furnace arrays that are much cheaper per watt per year than photovoltaic arrays.
This is still more expensive per watt per year than most other energy sources, and right now it's being funded by gov't grants, research grants, and investors under the assumption that the technology will pay off once oil, coal, and other common energy sources quadruple in cost.
As expensive as oil and other non-renewable sources are getting to be, they are still significantly cheaper than any solar technology we might practically put into service.
#13
Shakey
Just because something can be done cheaper, doesn't always mean it should.
Shakey
Solar doesn't involve cutting off mountain tops though. Also, solar doesn't always mean solar cells. There's also solar heating panels.As expensive as oil and other non-renewable sources are getting to be, they are still significantly cheaper than any solar technology we might practically put into service.
Just because something can be done cheaper, doesn't always mean it should.
#14
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
How about wind power, how close are we to THAT being affordable?
#15
Eriol
Eriol
If it ever got even a MODICUM of funding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor It's not even "20 years away" perpetually like Fusion. It's WORKED already. The fuel is abundant, it's safe (if it gets too hot, it naturally cools down), and it doesn't cause emissions. Hell, the fuel (thorium) is a BYPRODUCT of other mining and is stockpiled as "waste" that they can't dump.
#16
GasBandit
None of that stuff is even remotely ready for primetime.
GasBandit
So how much closer are we to affordable solar power, like 5 % there? It feels like it hasn't progressed much since I was a kid.
This is what I meant when I warned of incoming unicorn farts.How about wind power, how close are we to THAT being affordable?
None of that stuff is even remotely ready for primetime.
#17
Krisken
Krisken
What jerks, wanting to know how the future energy sources are doing and how far along they are until they replace the shit we've been using for far too long.
#18
GasBandit
GasBandit
... and the reason it's called unicorn farts is because they're as imaginary as they are enviro-friendly.What jerks, wanting to know how the future energy sources are doing and how far along they are until they replace the shit we've been using for far too long.
#19
Krisken
Krisken
Then our world is doomed to world war in the next 100 years over fuel. It's that simple.... and the reason it's called unicorn farts is because they're as imaginary as they are enviro-friendly.
#20
DarkAudit
Welcome to West Fucking Virginia.
Not to mention coal's collapse during the Reagan recession killed my dad just as much as if you'd caved a mine in on him.
DarkAudit
Sago. Upper Big Branch. Don Blankenship buying judges and bragging about it (until SCOTUS told him to cut that shit out). The "Friends of Coal". Mountaintop Removal.You tend to hate something when you can see the effects of it in your backyard.
Welcome to West Fucking Virginia.
Not to mention coal's collapse during the Reagan recession killed my dad just as much as if you'd caved a mine in on him.
#21
Azurephoenix
Azurephoenix
One of the biggest problems with solar and wind is they don't generate steady levels of power (days without wind or days with strong cloud cover for example). How do you make up the shortfall? I've looked into setting up solar power on my own home and the amount batteries I need for backup power when the solar cells aren't up to snuff is hideous (plus I'm not that thrilled with the idea of a whole pile of giant lead acid deep cycle batteries all sitting in my utility area).
#22
GasBandit
Seriously though - Maybe so. Definitely over one thing or another. Natural resources is usually a prime excuse. Or maybe in 100 years we'll have cold fusion or that salt reactor Eriol was linking, or something else we haven't even thought of yet. But that probably won't avert a world war in the next 100 years.
GasBandit
Not only that, but sometimes it's too windy, overloading the grid and stuff starts sploding.One of the biggest problems with solar and wind is they don't generate steady levels of power (days without wind or days with strong cloud cover for example). How do you make up the shortfall? I've looked into setting up solar power on my own home and the amount batteries I need for backup power when the solar cells aren't up to snuff is hideous (plus I'm not that thrilled with the idea of a whole pile of giant lead acid deep cycle batteries all sitting in my utility area).
Ready to wage war over a tank of juice?Then our world is doomed to world war in the next 100 years over fuel. It's that simple.
Seriously though - Maybe so. Definitely over one thing or another. Natural resources is usually a prime excuse. Or maybe in 100 years we'll have cold fusion or that salt reactor Eriol was linking, or something else we haven't even thought of yet. But that probably won't avert a world war in the next 100 years.
#23
Azurephoenix
Azurephoenix
True, but it is easier to mitigate optimal conditions than crap conditions (i.e. shutdown wind generators, cover solar panels, etc). Really though, to do these kinds of power production methods at either the small or large scale requires an insane amount of money and a lot of very thorough planning.Not only that, but sometimes it's too windy, overloading the grid and stuff starts sploding.
#24
strawman
strawman
The systems are designed so that doesn't happen. They change the blade angle to produce less energy when less energy is required, and have a number of fail safes in the design so that even if an individual turbine fails it doesn't harm the grid power - at worst it damages itself.Not only that, but sometimes it's too windy, overloading the grid and stuff starts sploding.
#25
Covar
Covar
I could be mis-remembering, but I heard of people with solar power on houses staying tapped into the grid, allowing them to purchase energy from the power companies when the solar power is unable to meet your houses demand, as well as sell their surplus energy to the power company.One of the biggest problems with solar and wind is they don't generate steady levels of power (days without wind or days with strong cloud cover for example). How do you make up the shortfall? I've looked into setting up solar power on my own home and the amount batteries I need for backup power when the solar cells aren't up to snuff is hideous (plus I'm not that thrilled with the idea of a whole pile of giant lead acid deep cycle batteries all sitting in my utility area).
#26
GasBandit
GasBandit
But it's not that simple. When the power grid in oregon is overloaded and they shut down the turbines, it's california that doesn't get power. And apparently it's even worse in europe.The systems are designed so that doesn't happen. They change the blade angle to produce less energy when less energy is required, and have a number of fail safes in the design so that even if an individual turbine fails it doesn't harm the grid power - at worst it damages itself.
#27
strawman
People who use battery arrays typically want to stay off grid, or want to have power backup when the utility goes down and want to avoid generators.
strawman
That's the primary method in most areas. In many states power companies are required to buy customer generated power at the utility rate, so you can use the power company as your battery for free. Generate more than you use during the day, use more than you generate at night. As long as the power bill doesn't go negative, it's all good. They won't actually pay you for power, though, just reduce your bill by the amount you put back in, so you need to size your solar power to produce less than you use on a monthly basis, and you can get rid of the cost, space, and liability of battery storage.I could be mis-remembering, but I heard of people with solar power on houses staying tapped into the grid, allowing them to purchase energy from the power companies when the solar power is unable to meet your houses demand, as well as sell their surplus energy to the power company.
People who use battery arrays typically want to stay off grid, or want to have power backup when the utility goes down and want to avoid generators.
#28
strawman
The power grid is like a miniature stock market. All the providers want top dollar for their energy, and they want to sell as much of it as they can. Energy they have that they don't sell is lost revenue.
So if you have a power plant that's providing all your local town needs, then someone else sets up a power plant and starts pushing electricity on the grid, unless you keep up pace with them, you will have to lower your output. This translates to lower revenue.
Further, they may be trying to send power to the own beyond yours, who could use it, but their power has to traverse your grid to get there. That's fine on most days, but on hot days when everyone's running their air conditioner, your grid is already at capacity and it can't handle someone else's power.
So they sue you for not upgrading your infrastructure to keep pace with consumer demands and stifling their competition, when your two and your plant were perfectly matched, and they just want to use your electrical freeway to sell to someone else without additional fees.
The wind operators sunk billions into their generators. They don't care if they drive down the cost of electricity, as long as they can sell their electricity. They aren't interested in building reservoirs and using other storage techniques. So they push what power they have available onto the grid whether people are willing to use it or not. And it's not due to wind power itself, or the technology, these are the decisions of the plant operators.
The real problem with wind energy is variability. A nuclear plant runs at 100% or not at all, and it's not an issue of getting someone to take their electricity. But a wind plant might generate 45% now, and 35% in 5 minutes, and 85% briefly, then 25% for an hour, etc.
Users don't have that same pattern. They are pretty consistent in aggregate. So when a wind utility chooses to force all available power onto the grid, some other plant has to reduce their power output to compensate, and they have to do it on a minute to minute basis, constantly adjusting.
Meanwhile the wind plant operator is laughing all the way to the bank and taking utilities to court for not allowing them to take a share of the pie.
But this is no different than the other power plants - it's just that they have a lot more control over their output, so the arguments with others are more easily controlled using contracts.
Wind energy is annoying to "business as usual" but if power companies are smart and play their cards right they can turn it into a benefit for themselves. And that's what's being worked out in the courts right now. Of course they're going to use propaganda to push their position that wind energy is "hurting" the grid if it gives them an edge in negotiations, but wind energy doesn't hurt the gird any more than coal, natural gas, nuclear, or hydroelectric power.
strawman
Ha, that has to do with the inability of the grid to transfer power to places that need it, combined with existing utilities that don't want to sell less.But it's not that simple. When the power grid in oregon is overloaded and they shut down the turbines, it's california that doesn't get power. And apparently it's even worse in europe.
The power grid is like a miniature stock market. All the providers want top dollar for their energy, and they want to sell as much of it as they can. Energy they have that they don't sell is lost revenue.
So if you have a power plant that's providing all your local town needs, then someone else sets up a power plant and starts pushing electricity on the grid, unless you keep up pace with them, you will have to lower your output. This translates to lower revenue.
Further, they may be trying to send power to the own beyond yours, who could use it, but their power has to traverse your grid to get there. That's fine on most days, but on hot days when everyone's running their air conditioner, your grid is already at capacity and it can't handle someone else's power.
So they sue you for not upgrading your infrastructure to keep pace with consumer demands and stifling their competition, when your two and your plant were perfectly matched, and they just want to use your electrical freeway to sell to someone else without additional fees.
The wind operators sunk billions into their generators. They don't care if they drive down the cost of electricity, as long as they can sell their electricity. They aren't interested in building reservoirs and using other storage techniques. So they push what power they have available onto the grid whether people are willing to use it or not. And it's not due to wind power itself, or the technology, these are the decisions of the plant operators.
The real problem with wind energy is variability. A nuclear plant runs at 100% or not at all, and it's not an issue of getting someone to take their electricity. But a wind plant might generate 45% now, and 35% in 5 minutes, and 85% briefly, then 25% for an hour, etc.
Users don't have that same pattern. They are pretty consistent in aggregate. So when a wind utility chooses to force all available power onto the grid, some other plant has to reduce their power output to compensate, and they have to do it on a minute to minute basis, constantly adjusting.
Meanwhile the wind plant operator is laughing all the way to the bank and taking utilities to court for not allowing them to take a share of the pie.
But this is no different than the other power plants - it's just that they have a lot more control over their output, so the arguments with others are more easily controlled using contracts.
Wind energy is annoying to "business as usual" but if power companies are smart and play their cards right they can turn it into a benefit for themselves. And that's what's being worked out in the courts right now. Of course they're going to use propaganda to push their position that wind energy is "hurting" the grid if it gives them an edge in negotiations, but wind energy doesn't hurt the gird any more than coal, natural gas, nuclear, or hydroelectric power.
#29
Bowielee
Bowielee
The main issue is that any form of fossil fuel is completely un-renewable. We WILL run out of natural gas and oil at some point. The problem is that human beings in general tend to be extremely short sighted and don't really care about what happens to future generations.
#30
GasBandit
GasBandit
The sun will also burn out at "some point." People like to portray us as running out of fossil fuels a lot sooner than we will. The main issue is not how much there is, it's how we get to it/retrieve it/process it. And THAT science has shown definite progress over time, leading to discovery of new deposits and new methods of extracting energy from previously untapped resources, such as oil shale.
#31
Bowielee
Bowielee
Yes, the sun will burn out at some point, that's the reason space exploration is actually important for the continuation of our species. We will run out of non-renewable energy, so there needs to be support to find alternatives.
The problem is that the people who are making money hand over fist with these resources want to see those alternatives blocked as it would cut into their profit margin.
The problem is that the people who are making money hand over fist with these resources want to see those alternatives blocked as it would cut into their profit margin.
#32
Krisken
Krisken
Heh, oil shale. At the expense of our drinking water. Yeah, that's a GREAT alternative to working on clean energy.
#33
T
The_Khan
T
The_Khan
step 1) get solar or wind array
step 2) set up hydrogen fuel cell for powering home
step 3) run your pee through electrolysis and produce hydrogen
step 4) drink a tonne of beer.
step 2) set up hydrogen fuel cell for powering home
step 3) run your pee through electrolysis and produce hydrogen
step 4) drink a tonne of beer.
#34
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
Well not so much imaginary, as the government could've invested money in making more efficient fuels. Really their probably is a cost effective way to make these methods , but as long as big oil runs the show it'll be practically forever until actual change.... and the reason it's called unicorn farts is because they're as imaginary as they are enviro-friendly.
#35
strawman
strawman
EARTH FIRST!
(We'll strip mine the other planets later)
(We'll strip mine the other planets later)
#36
Krisken
Krisken
We're the aliens in Independence Day! We're the monsters!EARTH FIRST!
(We'll strip mine the other planets later)
#37
strawman
strawman
We have met the enemy, and it is us. And Lego blocks we accidentally step on. Also Mosquitos.We're the aliens in Independence Day! We're the monsters!
#38
Krisken
Krisken
As Crow said in MST3K
"Mankind you make me want to vomit. Go away. Just go away."
"Mankind you make me want to vomit. Go away. Just go away."
#39
bhamv3
bhamv3
EARTH FIRST!
(We'll strip mine the other planets later)
#40
GasBandit
GasBandit
"Big oil" is actually heavily invested in investigating every possible avenue of energy generation, including wind, solar, hydro, geo, whatever. See, the rub of the problem is we have an insatiable hunger for energy, whatever the source, that supply just can't keep up with demand. It was something like 15 short years ago I was paying 90 cents a gallon for gasoline. We're producing more oil than ever before, but with the ascendance of places like China and India into the first world, prices will continue to skyrocket for it. If there's any way to turn any conceivable source of energy into a profitable enterprise, you can bet "big oil" is investigating the hell out of it.Well not so much imaginary, as the government could've invested money in making more efficient fuels. Really their probably is a cost effective way to make these methods , but as long as big oil runs the show it'll be practically forever until actual change.
20 years ago there was no feasable way to make oil shale affordable at all. I'd say it's a whole lot more conceivable to find clean ways to exploit it than it is to power the nation on solyndra boondoggles.Heh, oil shale. At the expense of our drinking water. Yeah, that's a GREAT alternative to working on clean energy.
#41
Krisken
But lets not turn this into a moronic talking point and get back to the oil shale being affordable. It's affordable due to the rise in the barrel of oil, not because they developed technology to make it easier to get. Also, they aren't doing it in a way that is safe. What you call 'clean', I call problematic.
Krisken
Lets not be stupid and bring up Solyndra. The nation had a better success rate than Bain Capital.20 years ago there was no feasable way to make oil shale affordable at all. I'd say it's a whole lot more conceivable to find clean ways to exploit it than it is to power the nation on solyndra boondoggles.
But lets not turn this into a moronic talking point and get back to the oil shale being affordable. It's affordable due to the rise in the barrel of oil, not because they developed technology to make it easier to get. Also, they aren't doing it in a way that is safe. What you call 'clean', I call problematic.
Saying it is clean doesn't make it so.A 2008 programmatic environmental impact statement issued by the United States Bureau of Land Management stated that surface mining and retort operations produce 2 to 10 US gallons (7.6 to 38 l; 1.7 to 8.3 imp gal) of waste water per 1 short ton (0.91 t) of processed oil shale.
#43
GasBandit
GasBandit
I didn't say it was clean, I said it was more feasible that advances could be made, finding ways to make it cleaner, than it is to think we're anywhere even in the same galaxy as not needing coal or oil thanks to solar and wind, or that we can just throw money at the solyndras of the world and achieve an earth-friendly utopia.[DOUBLEPOST=1352910372][/DOUBLEPOST]Saying it is clean doesn't make it so.
So what you're saying is we've perfected the weaponized earthquake?By the way, ask Youngstown how fracking is working out for them.
#44
Krisken
Krisken
Yes, throw money at. Like waiting for private business to innovate... oh wait, they don't innovate, there's no money in it. All private industry can do is improve upon other ideas when they become successful.
Funny how people forget that our innovations have largely come from government grants or programs when it suits their ideology.
Funny how people forget that our innovations have largely come from government grants or programs when it suits their ideology.
#45
strawman
Innovation has come from garage tinkerers, from corporations, from universities, and from those who have used grants and public funding to power their research.
strawman
It's hard to understand your point with such a mixed level of sarcasm.Yes, throw money at. Like waiting for private business to innovate... oh wait, they don't innovate, there's no money in it. All private industry can do is improve upon other ideas when they become successful.
Funny how people forget that our innovations have largely come from government grants or programs when it suits their ideology.
Innovation has come from garage tinkerers, from corporations, from universities, and from those who have used grants and public funding to power their research.
#46
GasBandit
GasBandit
That is just as selective a memory as you're accusing thereof.Yes, throw money at. Like waiting for private business to innovate... oh wait, they don't innovate, there's no money in it. All private industry can do is improve upon other ideas when they become successful.
Funny how people forget that our innovations have largely come from government grants or programs when it suits their ideology.
#47
Krisken
Krisken
My point is you keep whining about Solyndra, despite the fact that government grants/programs are responsible for some of the greatest breakthroughs in technology in the last 100 years. Even us communicating here wouldn't be possible without them.
Yeah, shit gets made in garages. Then what? Did they develop and sell their new innovations afterward on their own? Through business? No, most of the time through grants from government.
Yeah, shit gets made in garages. Then what? Did they develop and sell their new innovations afterward on their own? Through business? No, most of the time through grants from government.
#48
GasBandit
GasBandit
Gonna need some sources for that, because it does not jibe.My point is you keep whining about Solyndra, despite the fact that government grants/programs are responsible for some of the greatest breakthroughs in technology in the last 100 years. Even us communicating here wouldn't be possible without them.
Yeah, shit gets made in garages. Then what? Did they develop and sell their new innovations afterward on their own? Through business? No, most of the time through grants from government.
#49
Eriol
Eriol
Didn't HP start in a garage? That's just one example, but it comes to mind.
I agree it's through all forms, but to say "majority" one way or another, I dunno. I really don't know where it comes from most of the time.
I agree it's through all forms, but to say "majority" one way or another, I dunno. I really don't know where it comes from most of the time.
#50
strawman
That's so far out of this world I don't even know where to begin to correct this misunderstanding. I can't even imagine how one could possibly come to this conclusion - well, maybe if one was an academic, and only believed that innovation can come from a university that works based on grants.
Welcome to the real world, where if you have an idea you get to pay for its development yourself, or if you can convince someone to invest.
strawman
Are you kidding me? You are saying that the majority of successful businesses in the US are only there because the gov't gave them grants?Yeah, shit gets made in garages. Then what? Did they develop and sell their new innovations afterward on their own? Through business? No, most of the time through grants from government.
That's so far out of this world I don't even know where to begin to correct this misunderstanding. I can't even imagine how one could possibly come to this conclusion - well, maybe if one was an academic, and only believed that innovation can come from a university that works based on grants.
Welcome to the real world, where if you have an idea you get to pay for its development yourself, or if you can convince someone to invest.
#51
Gared
In fact, as Steinman put it so succinctly, the only time you go from conception of an idea directly to government grant is if you're a university or government research facility. Anyone else has to prove that they can operate the business on their own, usually for a period of 3 years, before they even qualify for government grants. I know, because I researched government grants as well as small business loans when I was considering starting a business a while back.
Gared
Apple supposedly also started in a garage. Microsoft didn't start in a garage, but it was damn close. How many of the major automotive companies started because one guy had an idea and started building cars in his shed? I'm pretty sure that's how Mercedes-Benz started, and though they eventually failed, it's how Hudson Motor Co. and DeLorean got started as well, and also several of the European "track day" auto companies - and you can bet that the EU isn't handing out research grants to Ariel (makers of the Atom) and their ilk.Didn't HP start in a garage? That's just one example, but it comes to mind.
I agree it's through all forms, but to say "majority" one way or another, I dunno. I really don't know where it comes from most of the time.
In fact, as Steinman put it so succinctly, the only time you go from conception of an idea directly to government grant is if you're a university or government research facility. Anyone else has to prove that they can operate the business on their own, usually for a period of 3 years, before they even qualify for government grants. I know, because I researched government grants as well as small business loans when I was considering starting a business a while back.
#52
AshburnerX
Really, Microsoft isn't that great of an example of bootstrapiness. They only succeeded through theft.
AshburnerX
Microsoft didn't need to start in a garage. Bill Gates used to work for Apple (or knew someone who did, I forget which), stole the interface for the Macintosh and the idea of the mouse for Windows, then successfully fended off the lawsuits until he was number one. Then he bought the damn place.Apple supposedly also started in a garage. Microsoft didn't start in a garage, but it was damn close.
Really, Microsoft isn't that great of an example of bootstrapiness. They only succeeded through theft.
#53
Azurephoenix
I think you're kind of forgetting about DOS.
Plus, I believe it was Jobs working with Xerox that originally "stole" the GUI idea.
Azurephoenix
Microsoft didn't need to start in a garage. Bill Gates used to work for Apple (or knew someone who did, I forget which), stole the interface for the Macintosh and the idea of the mouse for Windows, then successfully fended off the lawsuits until he was number one. Then he bought the damn place.
Really, Microsoft isn't that great of an example of bootstrapiness. They only succeeded through theft.
I think you're kind of forgetting about DOS.
Plus, I believe it was Jobs working with Xerox that originally "stole" the GUI idea.
#54
Gared
Gared
Correct. Microsoft was around longer than Windows has been around, starting as a very small company that produced, not even an OS, but a BASIC interpreter for Altair. It was Jobs and others that started with the GUI OS that has evolved into OS X, which they may or may not have stolen from Xerox.I think you're kind of forgetting about DOS.
Plus, I believe it was Jobs working with Xerox that originally "stole" the GUI idea.
#55
tegid
tegid
The big technological breakthroughs are usually in universities, through grants and such, right? (In part because some of them go hand by hand with scientific breakthroughs) Then companies can take those breakthroughs to a market level.
EDIT:
A quick look at the history of the computer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer ) Shows equal parts of private and 'public' research (I'm counting universities as public research)
EDIT:
A quick look at the history of the computer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer ) Shows equal parts of private and 'public' research (I'm counting universities as public research)
#56
Bowielee
Bowielee
Many things were developed outside of universities. The cell phone comes to mind.
#57
Krisken
Krisken
Ok, majority was a poor choice. I concede that was overboard and distracted from what I wanted to discuss.
What I'm trying to address is private industry tends to rely on luck and those 'garage start ups'. The innovation gap prevents companies, whose sole purpose is profit, in investing in risky new technologies. It's great that in the 1939 those guys took a chance and started a business in their garage. That's not really what I believe is the norm. People in their basements aren't making new innovations at the pace with which they did back in the last century. TED talks has helped a lot in this regard, though.
But as I said, today, companies don't create new products because the odds of making a profit are slim. If they aren't going to do it, then Government has to step in.
I would much rather have my tax dollars going to new innovations and energy (yes, even if there are failures). At least the risk is being taken.
As for these industries being 'unicorn farts', remember there was a time when people thought we couldn't fly, go to the moon, or destroy an entire city with just one bomb. It's only impossible because you make it so.
What I'm trying to address is private industry tends to rely on luck and those 'garage start ups'. The innovation gap prevents companies, whose sole purpose is profit, in investing in risky new technologies. It's great that in the 1939 those guys took a chance and started a business in their garage. That's not really what I believe is the norm. People in their basements aren't making new innovations at the pace with which they did back in the last century. TED talks has helped a lot in this regard, though.
But as I said, today, companies don't create new products because the odds of making a profit are slim. If they aren't going to do it, then Government has to step in.
I would much rather have my tax dollars going to new innovations and energy (yes, even if there are failures). At least the risk is being taken.
As for these industries being 'unicorn farts', remember there was a time when people thought we couldn't fly, go to the moon, or destroy an entire city with just one bomb. It's only impossible because you make it so.
#58
Bowielee
Bowielee
One of my biggest issues is with the mindset that because something will happen in the far future, that we shouldn't do anything about it now.
Just because we have time doesn't mean that we should waste it.
Just because we have time doesn't mean that we should waste it.
#59
Necronic
Necronic
The one thing you (krisken), and many other people, need to undrestand about science is that the process does not end with invention. In terms of cash-capital (if not brain-capital) that may be the cheapest part. Grants are responsible for foundational technologies in many fields. But they do NOTHING for scale-up.
And that's the expensive part. The amount of novel/groundbreaking sciences that, on paper, would revolutionize the world, but in reality ended up being duds is amazing. Corporations make large investments risking a LOT on these bits of novel tech to see if they can make something out of them.
And that's the expensive part. The amount of novel/groundbreaking sciences that, on paper, would revolutionize the world, but in reality ended up being duds is amazing. Corporations make large investments risking a LOT on these bits of novel tech to see if they can make something out of them.
#60
Krisken
Sorry if I did a poor job conveying that part, Necronic.
Krisken
Right, but that's what the "Innovation Gap" is about. Research--Development--Application. What universities are good at is research. Businesses are good at application. However, no one has been able to fix the problem with development and who should address it (or even who would want to).The one thing you (krisken), and many other people, need to undrestand about science is that the process does not end with invention. In terms of cash-capital (if not brain-capital) that may be the cheapest part. Grants are responsible for foundational technologies in many fields. But they do NOTHING for scale-up.
And that's the expensive part. The amount of novel/groundbreaking sciences that, on paper, would revolutionize the world, but in reality ended up being duds is amazing. Corporations make large investments risking a LOT on these bits of novel tech to see if they can make something out of them.
Sorry if I did a poor job conveying that part, Necronic.
#61
GasBandit
GasBandit
What "unicorn farts" means is that hippies are wrong about saying we need to stop using oil (and coal) now in favor of alternative/clean/magical fairyland power sources that are extremely not ready for prime time in any way, shape, or form. We need more. More of everything, because the demand is far outpacing the supply on every front. Wind turbines and solar panels are nice and all, but hydrocarbons are civilization, and the Free Waterfall Juniors are going to have to learn to deal with that reality.
#62
Krisken
Krisken
I don't know how you got "Stop using oil" out of "We need to develop more clean energies, how far are they" as asked by Yoshimickster earlier.
#63
Covar
Your post is full of so much bad information I don't even know where to begin laughing at it.
Covar
Basic Interpreters? PC-DOS (which is what made them a huge company)?Microsoft didn't need to start in a garage. Bill Gates used to work for Apple (or knew someone who did, I forget which), stole the interface for the Macintosh and the idea of the mouse for Windows, then successfully fended off the lawsuits until he was number one. Then he bought the damn place.
Really, Microsoft isn't that great of an example of bootstrapiness. They only succeeded through theft.
Your post is full of so much bad information I don't even know where to begin laughing at it.
#64
Krisken
Krisken
You should at least try if you want to be taken seriously, though.Basic Interpreters? PC-DOS (which is what made them a huge company)?
Your post is full of so much bad information I don't even know where to begin laughing at it.
#65
GasBandit
GasBandit
They're as far along as unicorn farts.I don't know how you got "Stop using oil" out of "We need to develop more clean energies, how far are they" as asked by Yoshimickster earlier.
#66
Krisken
Krisken
Is that what you heard on your radio station? I guess I'd rather have the opinion of someone who actually understands science and doesn't refer to it as "unicorn farts".They're as far along as unicorn farts.
#67
Silent Bob
What I want to really know is why neo-cons are so venomously opposed to even the mention of alternative or clean energies? It's like being environmentally responsible is kyrptonite to them. And why isn't nuclear fusion research like at the top of the list for most funding?
Silent Bob
What "unicorn farts" means is that hippies are wrong about saying we need to stop using oil (and coal) now in favor of alternative/clean/magical fairyland power sources that are extremely not ready for prime time in any way, shape, or form. We need more. More of everything, because the demand is far outpacing the supply on every front. Wind turbines and solar panels are nice and all, but hydrocarbons are civilization, and the Free Waterfall Juniors are going to have to learn to deal with that reality.
What I want to really know is why neo-cons are so venomously opposed to even the mention of alternative or clean energies? It's like being environmentally responsible is kyrptonite to them. And why isn't nuclear fusion research like at the top of the list for most funding?
#68
Yoshimickster
Yoshimickster
GasBandit You are way too adamant towards alternative/clean fuel methods.
Seriously, I get that their not affordable but you don't have to be so curmudgeonly towards them. And while your right on companies BP investing in alternative fuels, but these are like minor side businesses to them and don't put that much interest into them. Hell, BP all but nixed their solar operations ! And only 13 freakin' wind farms ain't shit compared to a country of over 3 million( don't tell me its enough, its not). They don't give a shit about the environment, and they will prolong the gas crop for as long as possible. You can tell me they are doing their best, but if that were true gas wouldn't be so damn expensive and we'd have solar powered cars by now(okay maybe not that far, but still). We are no-where near as close as we should be in terms of clean energy, and the real reason isn't because the science doesn't exist but because corporations and lobbyists won't go the extra mile to improve it and make it affordable to the common folk and save the planet. And yes I care about such things as planetary care, call me a hippy if you will I really don't care.
Seriously, I get that their not affordable but you don't have to be so curmudgeonly towards them. And while your right on companies BP investing in alternative fuels, but these are like minor side businesses to them and don't put that much interest into them. Hell, BP all but nixed their solar operations ! And only 13 freakin' wind farms ain't shit compared to a country of over 3 million( don't tell me its enough, its not). They don't give a shit about the environment, and they will prolong the gas crop for as long as possible. You can tell me they are doing their best, but if that were true gas wouldn't be so damn expensive and we'd have solar powered cars by now(okay maybe not that far, but still). We are no-where near as close as we should be in terms of clean energy, and the real reason isn't because the science doesn't exist but because corporations and lobbyists won't go the extra mile to improve it and make it affordable to the common folk and save the planet. And yes I care about such things as planetary care, call me a hippy if you will I really don't care.
#69
@Li3n
Of course it's no where near as funny as complaining about subsidies for clean energy when some of the biggest subsidies are to the oil companies...
@Li3n
Because they're conservatives, and CHANGE IS BAD!!!!What I want to really know is why neo-cons are so venomously opposed to even the mention of alternative or clean energies? It's like being environmentally responsible is kyrptonite to them. And why isn't nuclear fusion research like at the top of the list for most funding?
They're unfeasable because rhinoceros are an endangered species?They're as far along as unicorn farts.
Heh, usaians complaining about gas prices is so funny to me...You can tell me they are doing their best, but if that were true gas wouldn't be so damn expensive
Of course it's no where near as funny as complaining about subsidies for clean energy when some of the biggest subsidies are to the oil companies...
#70
tegid
tegid
I was wondering, is there anywhere you can check where electrical energy comes from in the US? In Spain the Red Eléctrica Española (Spanish Electrical Network) has these graphs where you can see how much energy was consumed at each point in time (in intervals of ten minutes) and how much came from which sources:
https://demanda.ree.es/generacion_acumulada.html
Interestingly, wind (eólica) is an important source, ranging from 16 to 27 % (I would have expected it to vary more wildly), and hydraulic seems very useful to compensate for variations in demand. Solar energy doesn't appear, so it must be dumped into "Resto reg. esp." (Which must be sth like 'rest of special regimes' or something). (Other translations: Carbon=Coal, Intercambios int.=International exchanges)
Oh wait, here is the whole separation by source, and the mean by day, month and year (moving year, not natural year). It's funny how little solar energy we are using. Makes me wonder if we could be using many more alternative/clean energies.
http://www.ree.es/operacion/comprobar_ines.asp?Fichero=15112012
https://demanda.ree.es/generacion_acumulada.html
Interestingly, wind (eólica) is an important source, ranging from 16 to 27 % (I would have expected it to vary more wildly), and hydraulic seems very useful to compensate for variations in demand. Solar energy doesn't appear, so it must be dumped into "Resto reg. esp." (Which must be sth like 'rest of special regimes' or something). (Other translations: Carbon=Coal, Intercambios int.=International exchanges)
Oh wait, here is the whole separation by source, and the mean by day, month and year (moving year, not natural year). It's funny how little solar energy we are using. Makes me wonder if we could be using many more alternative/clean energies.
http://www.ree.es/operacion/comprobar_ines.asp?Fichero=15112012
#71
@Li3n
@Li3n
Teh biggest problem with anything new is building a new infrastructure for it... so the answer is always yes, but it would cost more then using the old stuff that already had it's costs amortized (heh, didn't know the word was the same in english too).Oh wait, here is the whole separation by source, and the mean by day, month and year (moving year, not natural year). It's funny how little solar energy we are using. Makes me wonder if we could be using many more alternative/clean energies.
http://www.ree.es/operacion/comprobar_ines.asp?Fichero=15112012
#72
strawman
tl;dr
There is no need to pour taxpayer dollars into an industry (clean/alternative energy) that is thriving right now.
strawman
so venomously opposed to even the mention of alternative or clean energies? It's like being environmentally responsible is kyrptonite to them. And why isn't nuclear fusion research like at the top of the list for most funding?
I don't know about others, but I believe that our taxpayer dollars are very important, and should only be spent where we know the investment will pay of significantly. Most of the alternative energy sources have progressed to the point where they are almost competitive to existing energy sources, and spending tens of millions of dollars to close that last 5% gap isn't worthwhile when that gap will be closed naturally by mass manufacturing, competition, etc.
Further, a lot of this money and research results in patents that companies use to prevent use of their research. I don't believe taxpayer money should be going to private industry to fund patentable research, unless the patents are opened up to public use. Yet this is what results not just in private research, but particularly in university research. Then the universities and researchers benefit from the money the gov't spent for a decade while we all sit on our thumbs.
Consider, for example, fusion research. The US government spent billions of dollars on that research because of one faulty research paper suggesting that it was possible. It came to absolutely nothing - if you want to blame any particular reason why the government isn't investing in new energy, blame the fusion debacle.
Eventually existing alternative energy technologies will be competitive with existing energy technologies.
Further, a lot of this money and research results in patents that companies use to prevent use of their research. I don't believe taxpayer money should be going to private industry to fund patentable research, unless the patents are opened up to public use. Yet this is what results not just in private research, but particularly in university research. Then the universities and researchers benefit from the money the gov't spent for a decade while we all sit on our thumbs.
Consider, for example, fusion research. The US government spent billions of dollars on that research because of one faulty research paper suggesting that it was possible. It came to absolutely nothing - if you want to blame any particular reason why the government isn't investing in new energy, blame the fusion debacle.
Eventually existing alternative energy technologies will be competitive with existing energy technologies.
tl;dr
There is no need to pour taxpayer dollars into an industry (clean/alternative energy) that is thriving right now.
#73
@Li3n
So they should only put money in stuff that's going bankrupt?
Also, isn't most of the fossil fuel industry in the US subsidized anyway?
@Li3n
tl;dr
There is no need to pour taxpayer dollars into an industry (clean/alternative energy) that is thriving right now.
So they should only put money in stuff that's going bankrupt?
Also, isn't most of the fossil fuel industry in the US subsidized anyway?
#74
Azurephoenix
Azurephoenix
For whoever mentioned it... there is a LOT of research going on right now with regards to nuclear fusion. There are a few facilities I know of under construction right now to test various types of containment on a large scale. One of the bigger problems is trying to find materials that can actually withstand the insane heat and radiation at the centre of the reaction. Apparently using lasers to help contain the reaction is making a comeback over the various magnetic plans that have been popular.
#75
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
As much as I love clean energy, I honestly think we should divert those billions into...
- Fixing our water and sewage systems
- Fixing our roads and bridges (ESPECIALLY the bridges, which are unsafe and reaching/past their life limits)
- Investment into better wireless technology (because fiber optic cable costs too much to put out in the boonies and those areas NEED internet access)
- Expansion of rail (so it actually goes places people want to go)
We can last a bit longer on coal and oil, but we really can't last too much longer with our current infrastructure problems.
- Fixing our water and sewage systems
- Fixing our roads and bridges (ESPECIALLY the bridges, which are unsafe and reaching/past their life limits)
- Investment into better wireless technology (because fiber optic cable costs too much to put out in the boonies and those areas NEED internet access)
- Expansion of rail (so it actually goes places people want to go)
We can last a bit longer on coal and oil, but we really can't last too much longer with our current infrastructure problems.
#76
Azurephoenix
That's all well and good but they're predicting that fusion technology will barely be feasible by 2050 at the current rate of development. If the population continues to grow at it's current pace we will most certainly have passed peak oil production by that time and will be in dire need of other options. I suppose we do have more than enough coal to keep everything going for a while after that but that will only be able to supply our needs for a finite time as well.
Besides, it seems most large fusion research projects are going on in Europe anyways.
Azurephoenix
As much as I love clean energy, I honestly think we should divert those billions into...
- Fixing our water and sewage systems
- Fixing our roads and bridges (ESPECIALLY the bridges, which are unsafe and reaching/past their life limits)
- Investment into better wireless technology (because fiber optic cable costs too much to put out in the boonies and those areas NEED internet access)
- Expansion of rail (so it actually goes places people want to go)
We can last a bit longer on coal and oil, but we really can't last too much longer with our current infrastructure problems.
That's all well and good but they're predicting that fusion technology will barely be feasible by 2050 at the current rate of development. If the population continues to grow at it's current pace we will most certainly have passed peak oil production by that time and will be in dire need of other options. I suppose we do have more than enough coal to keep everything going for a while after that but that will only be able to supply our needs for a finite time as well.
Besides, it seems most large fusion research projects are going on in Europe anyways.
#77
Eriol
This is exactly the case with Timber between Canada and the USA right now, and the source of an ongoing trade dispute. Canada's resource royalties for logging on Crown land (government-owned things are called "Crown-whatever" because we're technically a monarchy btw) is significantly lower than what the USA charges for the same type of thing, and so the USA is accusing Canada of subsidizing the logging industry in Canada. No money is going from the Government to the companies, but it's being called a subsidy because we aren't charging as much as the USA is for the same thing, and thus the costs for the companies is less, and our lumber is cheaper for the same product.
This is what I understand is often accused of Oil companies as well. Are there actual cases of being given money straight-out? Maybe, but (in Canada at least) I've never heard of such. Tax incentives do exist, such as if the price of oil is below a certain amount, the amount of Royalties for oil from the Oilsands in Alberta go down drastically (It's not worth it to work it in the first place if it's not above a certain threshold, so the idea is to keep the industry working and employing people rather than shutting down since it will swing back up), and IIRC there's some type of deal with some of the offshore stuff off of Newfoundland, but I'm much less sure on that one.
Eriol
I can't say for sure in the USA, but be careful whenever you see the accusation of an industry being "subsidized." Often all it means is "they're not paying as much as some other country somewhere, and thus the government theoretically could be getting more from them, therefore they are being subsidized." I've seen non-producing and/or tiny countries being trotted out as examples of this actually being used in an argument, but it happens in bigger ways too.Also, isn't most of the fossil fuel industry in the US subsidized anyway?
This is exactly the case with Timber between Canada and the USA right now, and the source of an ongoing trade dispute. Canada's resource royalties for logging on Crown land (government-owned things are called "Crown-whatever" because we're technically a monarchy btw) is significantly lower than what the USA charges for the same type of thing, and so the USA is accusing Canada of subsidizing the logging industry in Canada. No money is going from the Government to the companies, but it's being called a subsidy because we aren't charging as much as the USA is for the same thing, and thus the costs for the companies is less, and our lumber is cheaper for the same product.
This is what I understand is often accused of Oil companies as well. Are there actual cases of being given money straight-out? Maybe, but (in Canada at least) I've never heard of such. Tax incentives do exist, such as if the price of oil is below a certain amount, the amount of Royalties for oil from the Oilsands in Alberta go down drastically (It's not worth it to work it in the first place if it's not above a certain threshold, so the idea is to keep the industry working and employing people rather than shutting down since it will swing back up), and IIRC there's some type of deal with some of the offshore stuff off of Newfoundland, but I'm much less sure on that one.
#78
GasBandit
GasBandit
FTFY.Is that what you heard on your radio station? I guess I'd rather have the opinion of someone who will tell me a comforting lie.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and half your vocabulary doesn't even mean what you think it means.GasBandit You are way too adamant towards alternative/clean fuel methods.
Seriously, I get that their not affordable but you don't have to be so curmudgeonly towards them. And while your right on companies BP investing in alternative fuels, but these are like minor side businesses to them and don't put that much interest into them. Hell, BP all but nixed their solar operations ! And only 13 freakin' wind farms ain't shit compared to a country of over 3 million( don't tell me its enough, its not). They don't give a shit about the environment, and they will prolong the gas crop for as long as possible. You can tell me they are doing their best, but if that were true gas wouldn't be so damn expensive and we'd have solar powered cars by now(okay maybe not that far, but still). We are no-where near as close as we should be in terms of clean energy, and the real reason isn't because the science doesn't exist but because corporations and lobbyists won't go the extra mile to improve it and make it affordable to the common folk and save the planet. And yes I care about such things as planetary care, call me a hippy if you will I really don't care.
#79
Yoshimickster
Seriously though, that was kind-of mean.
Yoshimickster
Sorry , you are NOT adamant toward alternative/clean fuels. Of course...that was one word in an entire paragraph. Not even close to half.You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and half your vocabulary doesn't even mean what you think it means.
Seriously though, that was kind-of mean.
#80
GasBandit
I am not "curmudgeonly" toward clean energy, either. As I've said repeatedly, we need all the energy we can get from all the sources we can find. The usual narrative however on these is that they are supposed to replace or supplant our dependence on fossil fuels somehow. That's not going to happen. The most promising avenue is nuclear, but that makes people a-scared. And it's hard to fill up your car with nuclear energy (as it is, naturally, with solar or wind), at least if you don't want to stop to charge it every 12 hours.
GasBandit
Did you forget who you were dealing with?Sorry , you are NOT adamant toward alternative/clean fuels. Of course...that was one word in an entire paragraph. Not even close to half.
Seriously though, that was kind-of mean.
I am not "curmudgeonly" toward clean energy, either. As I've said repeatedly, we need all the energy we can get from all the sources we can find. The usual narrative however on these is that they are supposed to replace or supplant our dependence on fossil fuels somehow. That's not going to happen. The most promising avenue is nuclear, but that makes people a-scared. And it's hard to fill up your car with nuclear energy (as it is, naturally, with solar or wind), at least if you don't want to stop to charge it every 12 hours.
#81
TommiR
Here is a breakdown of energy generation.
TommiR
Well, the U.S. Energy Information Administration seems like a decent source to start looking for statistical information on all things having to do with electricity in the US.I was wondering, is there anywhere you can check where electrical energy comes from in the US?
Here is a breakdown of energy generation.
#82
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
At least it's more legible than <>
--Patrick
#83
Yoshimickster
Now I do agree on Nuclear power some what, however for me its not so much that I'm scared but that the nuclear waste created is generally impossible to get rid of. Almost all storage is temporary and there are not many long term solutions. Unless we find a way to handle waste more efficiently I'll stay on the fence with nuclear energy. Also said fence on-age includes burying it, I've only heard the side of the nuclear people on that one.
Yoshimickster
Oh curmudgeonly, well I was going just by I've read from the account of posts where you kept putting the phrase "unicorn farts" so I made a logical assumption. You seemed grumpy in that reguard.Did you forget who you were dealing with?
I am not "curmudgeonly" toward clean energy, either. As I've said repeatedly, we need all the energy we can get from all the sources we can find. The usual narrative however on these is that they are supposed to replace or supplant our dependence on fossil fuels somehow. That's not going to happen. The most promising avenue is nuclear, but that makes people a-scared. And it's hard to fill up your car with nuclear energy (as it is, naturally, with solar or wind), at least if you don't want to stop to charge it every 12 hours.
Now I do agree on Nuclear power some what, however for me its not so much that I'm scared but that the nuclear waste created is generally impossible to get rid of. Almost all storage is temporary and there are not many long term solutions. Unless we find a way to handle waste more efficiently I'll stay on the fence with nuclear energy. Also said fence on-age includes burying it, I've only heard the side of the nuclear people on that one.
#84
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
I believe I have seen battery comparisons which put the energy available in gasoline as being one of the most efficient ways to store energy by size/weight. The trouble comes in translating that stored energy into useful energy for other purposes (e.g. powering laptop computers). This does explain why petroleum/gasoline has been hanging on for so long, though.it's hard to fill up your car with nuclear energy (as it is, naturally, with solar or wind), at least if you don't want to stop to charge it every 12 hours.
--Patrick
#85
Krisken
Krisken
Grow up, man. No need to play the "Hehe, I alter your post to be a douche" game.FTFY.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and half your vocabulary doesn't even mean what you think it means.
#86
Gared
Gared
That, and there's the downright rampant stupidity that happens with nuclear energy. I saw an article about a California utility that runs a nuke plant along the coast that wanted to run a study to see what effects, if any, an earthquake near their plant would have... you know, so that if something similar to the Sendai quake in Japan happened in California, they'd know if the plant would survive, and if the reactor vessels would remain contained, minor stuff like that. The state government refused to allow them to perform the test because they wanted to use high-pressure air cannons to simulate the quake, and they would pose too much of a threat to nearby marine life. So we'd rather protect all the pretty starfish and cute widdew seaws than know for sure, one way or another, if a major reactor plant would fail in an earthquake. But at least California isn't known for having too many... oh, wait.Did you forget who you were dealing with?
I am not "curmudgeonly" toward clean energy, either. As I've said repeatedly, we need all the energy we can get from all the sources we can find. The usual narrative however on these is that they are supposed to replace or supplant our dependence on fossil fuels somehow. That's not going to happen. The most promising avenue is nuclear, but that makes people a-scared. And it's hard to fill up your car with nuclear energy (as it is, naturally, with solar or wind), at least if you don't want to stop to charge it every 12 hours.
#87
GasBandit
GasBandit
Are you kidding? That game is practically the halforums official national pastime.Grow up, man. No need to play the "Hehe, I alter your post to be a douche" game.
#88
Krisken
Krisken
So? I'm not interested in playing it. If you want to argue with me, I'm happy to do it. I don't want my quotes misrepresented, though. It basically says you are saying to me "I'm done and have nothing to add".Are you kidding? That game is practically the halforums official national pastime.
#89
GasBandit
Very well. Pretend I instead replied, "No, what you'd like is somebody to tell you a comforting lie."
"NOW WAS THAT SO HARD?"
GasBandit
You know perfectly well it will be a cold, cold day in hell when I am done and have nothing to add.So? I'm not interested in playing it. If you want to argue with me, I'm happy to do it. I don't want my quotes misrepresented, though. It basically says you are saying to me "I'm done and have nothing to add".
Very well. Pretend I instead replied, "No, what you'd like is somebody to tell you a comforting lie."
"NOW WAS THAT SO HARD?"
#90
Krisken
Krisken
There we go, that's better.
No, I want facts, not hyperbole. I'm happy to argue the merits of investing in our energy future. I just don't think "Herp derp unicorn farts" is a valid argument against spending money on it.
No, I want facts, not hyperbole. I'm happy to argue the merits of investing in our energy future. I just don't think "Herp derp unicorn farts" is a valid argument against spending money on it.
#92
GasBandit
GasBandit
It's not an argument against spending money on it, it illustrates the absurdity of trying to replace fossil fuels with it.There we go, that's better.
No, I want facts, not hyperbole. I'm happy to argue the merits of investing in our energy future. I just don't think "Herp derp unicorn farts" is a valid argument against spending money on it.
#93
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
I just want to say that when steinman used the spoiler tags in response to a comment about nuclear research developments, I thought it was going to be a reveal of something awesome.
Then I clicked on the spoiler tags, and discovered nothing but quiet, reasoned logic.
It was like going to see a Paul WS Anderson film, but then finding out it was a Wes Anderson film.
I came out feeling more intellectually stimulated and informed, having arguably spent my time in a much better fashion, but yet also sad and disappointed.
Then I clicked on the spoiler tags, and discovered nothing but quiet, reasoned logic.
It was like going to see a Paul WS Anderson film, but then finding out it was a Wes Anderson film.
I came out feeling more intellectually stimulated and informed, having arguably spent my time in a much better fashion, but yet also sad and disappointed.
#94
strawman
The e-cat fusion reactor is very, very interesting, but is shrouded in so much mystery that I can't be excited about it yet.
It's worth getting very excited about if it'sn't a hoax.
strawman
also sad and disappointed.
The e-cat fusion reactor is very, very interesting, but is shrouded in so much mystery that I can't be excited about it yet.
It's worth getting very excited about if it'sn't a hoax.
#95
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
That totally would be awesome, if real.
That said, while I have no real science background, the reluctance to submit to independent verification is always a bit of a red flag for announcements of that nature.
That said, while I have no real science background, the reluctance to submit to independent verification is always a bit of a red flag for announcements of that nature.
#96
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Unfortunately, the alternative is to have someone else verify your findings and then have that same someone else acquire the rights to technology critical to your project and charge you out the wazoo or beat you over the head with a (preemptive) patent. This makes it hard to tell the cautious from the fakers.the reluctance to submit to independent verification is always a bit of a red flag for announcements of that nature.
--Patrick
#97
Necronic
Necronic
No, it was clear, but I don't think I was. Businesses do the development as well. I work in an R&D facility for a major company, and you are right that for the most part what we do isn't the innovation/invention. We do *some*, and in the legal sense we do a lot, but most of what we do is look through interesting tech from universities and figure out if we could develop it into something commercial. Once we play around with it on a small scale from a commercial perspective (development), that's when we send it up to our engineers for the major scale-up (application).Right, but that's what the "Innovation Gap" is about. Research--Development--Application. What universities are good at is research. Businesses are good at application. However, no one has been able to fix the problem with development and who should address it (or even who would want to).
Sorry if I did a poor job conveying that part, Necronic.
This is true. Oil is a freaking miracle liquid no joke. It stores so much energy in such an accessible way and it has tons of amazing byproducts (from plastics to vaseline to butyl rubber)I believe I have seen battery comparisons which put the energy available in gasoline as being one of the most efficient ways to store energy by size/weight. The trouble comes in translating that stored energy into useful energy for other purposes (e.g. powering laptop computers). This does explain why petroleum/gasoline has been hanging on for so long, though.
--Patrick
#98
@Li3n
But in the end giving them money or letting them keep more of it it still giving them an advantage over the competition, and that's what the whole point of any subsidy is.
@Li3n
Subsidy is a more acceptable word then protectionism...I can't say for sure in the USA, but be careful whenever you see the accusation of an industry being "subsidized." Often all it means is "they're not paying as much as some other country somewhere, and thus the government theoretically could be getting more from them, therefore they are being subsidized." I've seen non-producing and/or tiny countries being trotted out as examples of this actually being used in an argument, but it happens in bigger ways too.
This is exactly the case with Timber between Canada and the USA right now, and the source of an ongoing trade dispute. Canada's resource royalties for logging on Crown land (government-owned things are called "Crown-whatever" because we're technically a monarchy btw) is significantly lower than what the USA charges for the same type of thing, and so the USA is accusing Canada of subsidizing the logging industry in Canada. No money is going from the Government to the companies, but it's being called a subsidy because we aren't charging as much as the USA is for the same thing, and thus the costs for the companies is less, and our lumber is cheaper for the same product.
This is what I understand is often accused of Oil companies as well. Are there actual cases of being given money straight-out? Maybe, but (in Canada at least) I've never heard of such.
But in the end giving them money or letting them keep more of it it still giving them an advantage over the competition, and that's what the whole point of any subsidy is.
People keep forgetting, the reason why oil stores so much energy is because it's been "cooking" for a very long time, and if we actually take into account that it's probably way less energy efficient then all of the other energy generation methods...This is true. Oil is a freaking miracle liquid no joke. It stores so much energy in such an accessible way and it has tons of amazing byproducts (from plastics to vaseline to butyl rubber)
And get off his lawn too you young whipper-snappers.It's not an argument against spending money on it, it illustrates the absurdity of trying to replace fossil fuels with it.
#99
strawman
But the current medium scale demonstrations using biological methods to produce oil from waste products (plant based, mostly) show that it's not much more expensive per barrel than the most expensive barrels of oil we've had in the recent past.
I suspect that long before peak oil hits we will be synthesizing enough hydrocarbons ourselves that we won't really have to worry about our oil based industries.
strawman
It's because it's a hydrocarbon, and it's not that hard to make. We can synthesize oil using a variety of methods, it's just not as cheap as taking existing oil out of the ground and processing it.the reason why oil stores so much energy is because it's been "cooking" for a very long time
But the current medium scale demonstrations using biological methods to produce oil from waste products (plant based, mostly) show that it's not much more expensive per barrel than the most expensive barrels of oil we've had in the recent past.
I suspect that long before peak oil hits we will be synthesizing enough hydrocarbons ourselves that we won't really have to worry about our oil based industries.
#100
PatrThom
More layman-friendly version here.
--Patrick
PatrThom
Lengthy Wikipedia article here.I suspect that long before peak oil hits we will be synthesizing enough hydrocarbons ourselves that we won't really have to worry about our oil based industries.
More layman-friendly version here.
--Patrick
#101
Norris
Norris
as a broadcasting nerd, this post reminds me of the sad story of Phil Farnsworth. And now I'm sad.Unfortunately, the alternative is to have someone else verify your findings and then have that same someone else acquire the rights to technology critical to your project and charge you out the wazoo or beat you over the head with a (preemptive) patent. This makes it hard to tell the cautious from the fakers.
--Patrick
#102
Silent Bob
I think it has to do more with environmentalism being considered weak and unmanly by conservatives, more so than any fiscal benefits gained from not researching technology that'll help humanity survive past 1000 years from now. I don't buy that "oh it's going to happen eventually so lets not waste our tax dollars on it" mentality.
Silent Bob
I don't know about others, but I believe that our taxpayer dollars are very important, and should only be spent where we know the investment will pay of significantly. Most of the alternative energy sources have progressed to the point where they are almost competitive to existing energy sources, and spending tens of millions of dollars to close that last 5% gap isn't worthwhile when that gap will be closed naturally by mass manufacturing, competition, etc.
Further, a lot of this money and research results in patents that companies use to prevent use of their research. I don't believe taxpayer money should be going to private industry to fund patentable research, unless the patents are opened up to public use. Yet this is what results not just in private research, but particularly in university research. Then the universities and researchers benefit from the money the gov't spent for a decade while we all sit on our thumbs.
Consider, for example, fusion research. The US government spent billions of dollars on that research because of one faulty research paper suggesting that it was possible. It came to absolutely nothing - if you want to blame any particular reason why the government isn't investing in new energy, blame the fusion debacle.
Eventually existing alternative energy technologies will be competitive with existing energy technologies.
tl;dr
There is no need to pour taxpayer dollars into an industry (clean/alternative energy) that is thriving right now.
I think the old "I don't want my tax dollars funding that" excuse is lame and over used.I don't know about others, but I believe that our taxpayer dollars are very important, and should only be spent where we know the investment will pay of significantly. Most of the alternative energy sources have progressed to the point where they are almost competitive to existing energy sources, and spending tens of millions of dollars to close that last 5% gap isn't worthwhile when that gap will be closed naturally by mass manufacturing, competition, etc.
Further, a lot of this money and research results in patents that companies use to prevent use of their research. I don't believe taxpayer money should be going to private industry to fund patentable research, unless the patents are opened up to public use. Yet this is what results not just in private research, but particularly in university research. Then the universities and researchers benefit from the money the gov't spent for a decade while we all sit on our thumbs.
Consider, for example, fusion research. The US government spent billions of dollars on that research because of one faulty research paper suggesting that it was possible. It came to absolutely nothing - if you want to blame any particular reason why the government isn't investing in new energy, blame the fusion debacle.
Eventually existing alternative energy technologies will be competitive with existing energy technologies.
tl;dr
There is no need to pour taxpayer dollars into an industry (clean/alternative energy) that is thriving right now.
I think it has to do more with environmentalism being considered weak and unmanly by conservatives, more so than any fiscal benefits gained from not researching technology that'll help humanity survive past 1000 years from now. I don't buy that "oh it's going to happen eventually so lets not waste our tax dollars on it" mentality.
#103
strawman
To be clear, "lets fund everyone that asks us for an energy grant" is a really, really bad idea.
Not sure how to approach the rest of your post. Telling me that I think alternative energy is weak and unmanly and that's why I oppose it rather than due to fiscal responsibility as I explained suggests that no matter what I say, you already have me binned and thus there's no point in trying to convince you otherwise.
strawman
Wow. Even the current congress and Obama administration with their trillion dollar per year deficit has nothing on your fiscal policy.I think the old "I don't want my tax dollars funding that" excuse is lame and over used.
To be clear, "lets fund everyone that asks us for an energy grant" is a really, really bad idea.
Not sure how to approach the rest of your post. Telling me that I think alternative energy is weak and unmanly and that's why I oppose it rather than due to fiscal responsibility as I explained suggests that no matter what I say, you already have me binned and thus there's no point in trying to convince you otherwise.
#104
Eriol
Eriol
Virtually all money going into "green/alternative" energy by government is for subsidies and not research. The subsidies are useless. 99% of the companies taking them are doing zero to almost-zero basic research (they're doing "how do I make my fancy solar panel cost 5% less to manufacture this year" which is completely useless), thus it's doing jack shit to advance the industry in anything but market share. Better to spend X billion dollars on ACTUAL research at universities and such. And for those business-minded, find a way to make places like Xerox PARC and the old Bell Labs (you know, where the TRANSISTOR was invented?) and stuff like that better on the tax returns so that companies WANT to set up research centres and do more of that type of thing.I think it has to do more with environmentalism being considered weak and unmanly by conservatives, more so than any fiscal benefits gained from not researching technology that'll help humanity survive past 1000 years from now. I don't buy that "oh it's going to happen eventually so lets not waste our tax dollars on it" mentality.
#105
@Li3n
Also: "than the most expensive barrels of oil" might not be the best argument to use. Especially since the market price is influenced by demand and supply way more then the price/effort of digging it out.
@Li3n
You do realise that just supports my argument that oil is more efficient because it's already been processed and there's an infrastructure in place for it.It's because it's a hydrocarbon, and it's not that hard to make. We can synthesize oil using a variety of methods, it's just not as cheap as taking existing oil out of the ground and processing it.
But the current medium scale demonstrations using biological methods to produce oil from waste products (plant based, mostly) show that it's not much more expensive per barrel than the most expensive barrels of oil we've had in the recent past.
Also: "than the most expensive barrels of oil" might not be the best argument to use. Especially since the market price is influenced by demand and supply way more then the price/effort of digging it out.
#106
Frank
Frank
How's Germany doing with it's solar program? I'm pretty ignorant on the matter but aren't they trying to go almost completely solar by the middle of the century?
#107
Gared
Gared
I don't know how their government is doing, but one of their largest corporations, Siemens, announced last Wednesday that they're selling off their Solar division; though I'm pretty sure most of their solar operations were taking place in Spain and not Germany.
#108
Krisken
Krisken
I believe Germany decided to go zero nuclear by 2022 after the quake in Japan.How's Germany doing with it's solar program? I'm pretty ignorant on the matter but aren't they trying to go almost completely solar by the middle of the century?
#109
JCM
Although I wish not to complain about him, in his old age Bill Gates is repaying his debt by eradicating polio in India and hopefully if all goes to plan, reducing by half the number of new HIV infections by the end of next year.
JCM
Didn't DOS get bought from some idiot who sold it to Gates for less than 2% of what he resold it to IBM?Correct. Microsoft was around longer than Windows has been around, starting as a very small company that produced, not even an OS, but a BASIC interpreter for Altair. It was Jobs and others that started with the GUI OS that has evolved into OS X, which they may or may not have stolen from Xerox.
Although I wish not to complain about him, in his old age Bill Gates is repaying his debt by eradicating polio in India and hopefully if all goes to plan, reducing by half the number of new HIV infections by the end of next year.
#110
Ravenpoe
The real genius was that Gates didn't sell DOS for a flat rate. He negotiated that he would earn a small profit for each computer sold, which again IBM didn't think would ever turn out to be much.
Ravenpoe
When Gates sold DOS to IBM, he didn't actually own it yet. He sold it to IBM to use on their new home computer line (which they didn't think would be a big market) and then went to finalize the deal with the creator of DOS, buying it for only a few thousand dollars.Didn't DOS get bought from some idiot who sold it to Gates for less than 2% of what he resold it to IBM?
Although I wish not to complain about him, in his old age Bill Gates is repaying his debt by eradicating polio in India and hopefully if all goes to plan, reducing by half the number of new HIV infections by the end of next year.
The real genius was that Gates didn't sell DOS for a flat rate. He negotiated that he would earn a small profit for each computer sold, which again IBM didn't think would ever turn out to be much.
#111
Krisken
Krisken
Basically they got Lucas'd.
#112
Silent Bob
[DOUBLEPOST=1353197090][/DOUBLEPOST]
Silent Bob
Really? From my short time here, you seem to be the only one that does it.Are you kidding? That game is practically the halforums official national pastime.
[DOUBLEPOST=1353197090][/DOUBLEPOST]
No no, I made a general statement. It wasn't specific towards you. It just seems to me a lot of far righties are all for killing the environment as cost efficiently as possible.Wow. Even the current congress and Obama administration with their trillion dollar per year deficit has nothing on your fiscal policy.
To be clear, "lets fund everyone that asks us for an energy grant" is a really, really bad idea.
Not sure how to approach the rest of your post. Telling me that I think alternative energy is weak and unmanly and that's why I oppose it rather than due to fiscal responsibility as I explained suggests that no matter what I say, you already have me binned and thus there's no point in trying to convince you otherwise.
#113
Bowielee
Bowielee
In his defense, it was an extremely common thing at one point. I've done tons of FTFY post edits, just not as a snarky response.Really? From my short time here, you seem to be the only one that does it.
#114
T
The_Khan
Gates sold IBM a pirated copy of CP/M that he purchased from a company in seattle
T
The_Khan
Not even just that.When Gates sold DOS to IBM, he didn't actually own it yet. He sold it to IBM to use on their new home computer line (which they didn't think would be a big market) and then went to finalize the deal with the creator of DOS, buying it for only a few thousand dollars.
The real genius was that Gates didn't sell DOS for a flat rate. He negotiated that he would earn a small profit for each computer sold, which again IBM didn't think would ever turn out to be much.
Gates sold IBM a pirated copy of CP/M that he purchased from a company in seattle
#115
@Li3n
@Li3n
TIL Bill Gates is Catholic.Although I wish not to complain about him, in his old age Bill Gates is repaying his debt by eradicating polio in India and hopefully if all goes to plan, reducing by half the number of new HIV infections by the end of next year.
#116
JCM
According to Warren Buffet he is an atheist philanthropist like himself. Heck, Google up atheist philanthropists, you'll have his name as number 1.
Even he himself says so-
And
There is not a single quote on doing things for god, for church or even believing that god exists. Which actually makes him an atheist, or at least an agnostic. better than any religious person could be.
He is saving millions of lives for doing good itself, not being a selfish motherfucker trying to buy a piece of heaven.
JCM
Wrong. He was born one, but does not practice the religion, nor cares for it. Unless being born in a religion automatically makes you join up for it, but then if we take that logic, half of us are or will be probably Mormons, as they can convert any people into Mormonism post-death.TIL Bill Gates is Catholic.
According to Warren Buffet he is an atheist philanthropist like himself. Heck, Google up atheist philanthropists, you'll have his name as number 1.
Even he himself says so-
Gates was interviewed November 1995 on PBS by David Frost. Below is the transcript with minor edits.
Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount?
Gates: I don't. I'm not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I'm a huge believer in. There's a lot of merit in the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very very positive impact.
Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a god, or do you know there is a god? And, you'd say you don't know?
Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid.
Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount?
Gates: I don't. I'm not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I'm a huge believer in. There's a lot of merit in the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very very positive impact.
Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a god, or do you know there is a god? And, you'd say you don't know?
Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid.
Gates was profiled in a January 13, 1996 TIME magazine cover story. Here are some excerpts compiled by the Drudge Report:
"Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?" interviewer Walter Isaacson asks Gates "His face suddenly becomes expressionless," writes Isaacson, "his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at MICROSOFT that a meeting there can resemble a round table of ecstatic rabbis."
"I don't have any evidence on that," answers Gates. "I don't have any evidence of that."
He later states, "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."
"Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?" interviewer Walter Isaacson asks Gates "His face suddenly becomes expressionless," writes Isaacson, "his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at MICROSOFT that a meeting there can resemble a round table of ecstatic rabbis."
"I don't have any evidence on that," answers Gates. "I don't have any evidence of that."
He later states, "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."
He is saving millions of lives for doing good itself, not being a selfish motherfucker trying to buy a piece of heaven.
#117
@Li3n
@Li3n
TIl, JCM's jokedar is broken...
#118
Terrik
Terrik
I don't know what's more baffling: Your casual disregard for the multitude of faith-based organizations and people who do a ton of good, or your gross misunderstanding of theology.He is saving millions of lives for doing good itself, not being a selfish motherfucker trying to buy a piece of heaven.
#119
Krisken
Krisken
Faith organizations are like any organizations. Some do a lot of good for the community. Unfortunately, they often have to carry the stigma of the horrid things which are done in their name. Sadly, a lot of the stigma comes from the top.
Mr. Fry makes some good points on one specific religion.
Until the very top leadership of religions stop their bigotry, all the good religion does will be undermined by those actions.
Mr. Fry makes some good points on one specific religion.
Until the very top leadership of religions stop their bigotry, all the good religion does will be undermined by those actions.
#120
JCM
JCM
Amen. There was a time the church ruled Europe, we call it the Dark Ages, or also "the only time a people evolved so little over such a long time"
If Baptism = forever Catholic even when the person publicly denies follwoing that religion, then the Jews are Mormons, for they were post-posthumously Baptized in the Mormon way through a proxy. ;-)
Now, on the good?
If I were to threaten my children to throw them in a pit of fire, unless they'd give some money to the poor, could their giving to the poor be considered as noble as the act of another person who gave it just for the act of goodness?
Here is a story that I was told back when I was young, that explains the comparison better-
On theology, shoving the Catholic tag on someone who not once in his life practiced it, nor has anything to do with it, is simply illogical, or a desperate grasp to say that a man who has done as much good the past 5 years as the entire Catholic church, without any of the evil that the church inflicts, is somehow Catholic just because he was baptized. (I myself was baptized, then converted into three other religions that I also no longer practice, and now simply believe in karma).I don't know what's more baffling: Your casual disregard for the multitude of faith-based organizations and people who do a ton of good, or your gross misunderstanding of theology.
If Baptism = forever Catholic even when the person publicly denies follwoing that religion, then the Jews are Mormons, for they were post-posthumously Baptized in the Mormon way through a proxy. ;-)
Now, on the good?
If I were to threaten my children to throw them in a pit of fire, unless they'd give some money to the poor, could their giving to the poor be considered as noble as the act of another person who gave it just for the act of goodness?
Here is a story that I was told back when I was young, that explains the comparison better-
Pity the church is too busy threatening priests with excommunication if they reveal child abuse to authorities and promising crusades against gay marriage to remember that.There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”
The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs and act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that god commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”
“This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’”
#121
bhamv3
bhamv3
Stealing JCM's story and posting it on Facebook.
#122
Terrik
Terrik
EDIT until I read these damn ninja posts
#123
Terrik
First of all, your definition of Dark Ages is absolutely incorrect. Dark Ages was referenced as thus only because of the scarcity of historical records from the time and the term Dark Ages itself is rarely used in academia because of the common perception that it carries a negative connotation and has nothing to do with the church or religion. Because of many recent discoveries, that particular time period has become more known to us, which why is now widely know as the "early middle-ages".
I will say one more thing: I'm not here to defend the Catholic church. In fact, that's probably one of the last thing you'd see me do. I'm more reacting to the generalities I'm seeing in the Religious vs Atheist intentions debate. What individual priests, the pope or whoever does is one thing, but I take issue with the rather broad paintbrush being used on certain ideas.
Terrik
Amen. There was a time the church ruled Europe, we call it the Dark Ages, or also "the only time a people evolved so little over such a long time"
On theology, shoving the Catholic tag on someone who not once in his life practiced it, nor has anything to do with it, is simply illogical, or a desperate grasp to say that a man who has done as much good the past 5 years as the entire Catholic church, without any of the evil that the church inflicts, is somehow Catholic just because he was baptized. (I myself was baptized, then converted into three other religions that I also no longer practice, and now simply believe in karma).
If Baptism = forever Catholic even when the person publicly denies follwoing that religion, then the Jews are Mormons, for they were post-posthumously Baptized in the Mormon way through a proxy. ;-)
Now, on the good?
Here is a story that I was told back when I was young, that explains the comparison better-
First of all, your definition of Dark Ages is absolutely incorrect. Dark Ages was referenced as thus only because of the scarcity of historical records from the time and the term Dark Ages itself is rarely used in academia because of the common perception that it carries a negative connotation and has nothing to do with the church or religion. Because of many recent discoveries, that particular time period has become more known to us, which why is now widely know as the "early middle-ages".
Oh absolutely. Giving out of fear would seem rather ignoble. Fortunately, the Bible happens to agree with you in this aspect of giving:If I were to threaten my children to throw them in a pit of fire, unless they'd give some money to the poor, could their giving to the poor be considered as noble as the act of another person who gave it just for the act of goodness?
Private acts of charity, considered virtuous only if not done for others to admire, are seen as a Christian duty.
Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' in front of others, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.—Matthew 6:1The outward and an inward giving of alms:
Here Jesus places the primary focus on the motives behind such acts, which should be love.
Rather, give as alms what is inside, and then everything will be clean for you!—Luke 11:41Giving of the rich versus the poor:
Here Jesus contrasts the giving of the rich and the poor
He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said, 'Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on.'—Luke 21:1-4Giving out of Love and not out of duty:
He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'—Matthew 25:45
I don't see any "give or burn in hell" in any of this. It's because it's false. Your idea that religious people giving because they're some sort of wind-up machines that apparently can't think for themselves because they're afraid to burn in hell is a wonderful strawman to build, but it doesn't jive with reality.
I will however agree with you that if Bill Gates was being branded Catholic without actually being Catholic then sure, that's not cool.
I will say one more thing: I'm not here to defend the Catholic church. In fact, that's probably one of the last thing you'd see me do. I'm more reacting to the generalities I'm seeing in the Religious vs Atheist intentions debate. What individual priests, the pope or whoever does is one thing, but I take issue with the rather broad paintbrush being used on certain ideas.
#124
strawman
strawman
Regarding the religion vs atheism argument:
#125
Krisken
Krisken
Hey, when religion stops telling science to fuck off and die, maybe it will be able to stay out of science threads.
#126
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
That's people's fault.Hey, when religion stops telling science to fuck off and die, maybe it will be able to stay out of science threads.
#128
@Li3n
@Li3n
It's funny because the term itself comes from a bunch of religious folks... and the period in question was caused by the fall of Rome to the barbarians.Amen. There was a time the church ruled Europe, we call it the Dark Ages, or also "the only time a people evolved so little over such a long time"
#129
JCM
Ironically, once the Catholic church started embracing science and governments stopped letting the church control them (heck, it was a priest that was one the fathers of evolution) the West became first in science, and the Arab countries, after the Mongol invasion, entered their own dark ages and regressed to the pre-Islamic barbarism.
But Bill Gates is not a Catholic, thus his mission is nobler, than one that has religion behind it.
JCM
Its not named because of religion, but ironically, it was the crusades that actually showed poor backwards Europe that there was such a thing called science, real medicine and philosophy, Europe started to rise again (helped also by what they saw in China.First of all, your definition of Dark Ages is absolutely incorrect. Dark Ages was referenced as thus only because of the scarcity of historical records from the time and the term Dark Ages itself is rarely used in academia because of the common perception that it carries a negative connotation and has nothing to do with the church or religion. Because of many recent discoveries, that particular time period has become more known to us, which why is now widely know as the "early middle-ages".
Ironically, once the Catholic church started embracing science and governments stopped letting the church control them (heck, it was a priest that was one the fathers of evolution) the West became first in science, and the Arab countries, after the Mongol invasion, entered their own dark ages and regressed to the pre-Islamic barbarism.
No problem with that. My wife's Catholic and my mother's a Muslim.What individual priests, the pope or whoever does is one thing, but I take issue with the rather broad paintbrush being used on certain ideas.
But Bill Gates is not a Catholic, thus his mission is nobler, than one that has religion behind it.
#130
strawman
What would you determine of bill gates character once you found out that he does this because he had to do something to offset his tax liability in the eyes of the US government, and he benefits more personally by forming his own "charity" and appointing himself and his family and friends to paid positions with various benefits and conference trips in exotic locations so they can benefit from his giving?
strawman
Even in the absence of religion you've discovered a way to judge people's character by assuming their motivation for any given action. Cool story bro.But Bill Gates is not a Catholic, thus his mission is nobler, than one that has religion behind it.
What would you determine of bill gates character once you found out that he does this because he had to do something to offset his tax liability in the eyes of the US government, and he benefits more personally by forming his own "charity" and appointing himself and his family and friends to paid positions with various benefits and conference trips in exotic locations so they can benefit from his giving?
#131
Krisken
Krisken
I don't think Gates was necessarily noble. Other rich people pretty much told him he needed to start giving to charity to keep the populous from turning on him.
From Wikipedia-
From Wikipedia-
Gates began to appreciate the expectations others had of him when public opinion mounted suggesting that he could give more of his wealth to charity. Gates studied the work ofAndrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, and in 1994 sold some of his Microsoft stock to create the William H. Gates Foundation. In 2000, Gates and his wife combined three family foundations into one to create the charitable Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is the largest transparently operated charitable foundation in the world.[74] The foundation allows benefactors access to information regarding how its money is being spent, unlike other major charitable organizations such as the Wellcome Trust.[75][76] The generosity and extensive philanthropy of David Rockefeller has been credited as a major influence. Gates and his father met with Rockefeller several times, and modeled their giving in part on the Rockefeller family's philanthropic focus, namely those global problems that are ignored by governments and other organizations.[77] As of 2007, Bill and Melinda Gates were the second-most generous philanthropists in America, having given over $28 billion to charity.[78] They plan to eventually give 95% of their wealth to charity.[79]
The foundation was at the same time criticized because it invests assets that it has not yet distributed with the exclusive goal of maximizing return on investment. As a result, its investments include companies that have been charged with worsening poverty in the same developing countries where the Foundation is attempting to relieve poverty. These include companies that pollute heavily, and pharmaceutical companies that do not sell into the developing world.[80] In response to press criticism, the foundation announced in 2007 a review of its investments, to assess social responsibility.[81] It subsequently canceled the review and stood by its policy of investing for maximum return, while using voting rights to influence company practices.[82] The Gates Millennium Scholars program has been criticized for its exclusion of Caucasian students.[83][84]
Gates's wife urged people to learn a lesson from the philanthropic efforts of the Salwen family, which had sold its home and given away half of its value, as detailed in The Power of Half.[85] Gates and his wife invited Joan Salwen to Seattle to speak about what the family had done, and on December 9, 2010, Gates, investor Warren Buffett, and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook's CEO) signed a promise they called the "Gates-Buffet Giving Pledge", in which they promised to donate to charity at least half of their wealth over the course of time.[86][87][88]
#132
JCM
Gates began to appreciate the expectations others had of him when public opinion mounted suggesting that he could give more of his wealth to charity. [sources needed]
Probably BS from the Linux/Unix fanboys, who after years of spouting how "evil" he was, now see him curing polio, saving 5.8 million lives and doing more good for millions in Africa than all of them would ever do, tried to justify it.
The William H. Gates foundation was filed and planned from the late 80s, and created in 1994, according to the press release-
Why would "public opinion" mount on the kid who had just launched Windows 3.1 and still made the most popular Mac programs?
So here's the real Gates, a nerd who married a woman who was charitable who told him about some problems she had seen, and so he went and created a foundation to solve them.
It's like judging the same actions, but of a politician one year after being voted vs a politician who is in election year. ;-)
And do you really want to bring tax liability into a religious conversation, when we are dealing with an organization that for centuries would physically receive money, gold and riches for a spot in heaven and threaten excommunication to those that did not pay, and yet now pay no tax?
JCM
Sources needed. Funny how everything has sources, but for the only part that agrees with your arguement, I'm actually registering in wikipedia to add this much needed -I don't think Gates was necessarily noble. Other rich people pretty much told him he needed to start giving to charity to keep the populous from turning on him.
From Wikipedia-
Gates began to appreciate the expectations others had of him when public opinion mounted suggesting that he could give more of his wealth to charity. [sources needed]
Probably BS from the Linux/Unix fanboys, who after years of spouting how "evil" he was, now see him curing polio, saving 5.8 million lives and doing more good for millions in Africa than all of them would ever do, tried to justify it.
The William H. Gates foundation was filed and planned from the late 80s, and created in 1994, according to the press release-
- Bill and Melinda consolidate their giving to address two main issues—global health and community needs in the Pacific Northwest
- Gates established a foundation for the charitable disbursement of much of his wealth in 1994, shortly after his marriage to Melinda French. This was known as the William H. Gates Foundation, and it was run by Gates's father, a Seattle lawyer, initially from the basement of his home. Apparently, Gates's marriage to Melinda French spurred the billionaire to find a way to give back some of his money. French grew up in Texas and studied computer science, engineering, and business at Duke University before joining Microsoft in 1987. While working as project manager at Microsoft, she also volunteered her time at a Seattle high school. On the eve of French and Gates's marriage, Gates's mother read the couple a letter that seemed to prod them to consider what to do with their plenty. As paraphrased in an article in the New York Times Magazine (April 16, 2000), it read, "From those who are given great resources, great things are expected." The magazine also went on to claim that French was the instigator in the move toward building the Gates Foundation.
Why would "public opinion" mount on the kid who had just launched Windows 3.1 and still made the most popular Mac programs?
So here's the real Gates, a nerd who married a woman who was charitable who told him about some problems she had seen, and so he went and created a foundation to solve them.
On "presuming" intentions, if you've gone to church once, you've been told you have to be good to go to heaven. I still would take the actions of someone who has not been told that some higher divinity would judge him every day.Even in the absence of religion you've discovered a way to judge people's character by assuming their motivation for any given action.
It's like judging the same actions, but of a politician one year after being voted vs a politician who is in election year. ;-)
And do you really want to bring tax liability into a religious conversation, when we are dealing with an organization that for centuries would physically receive money, gold and riches for a spot in heaven and threaten excommunication to those that did not pay, and yet now pay no tax?
#133
Krisken
Krisken
JCM, could you highlight the copied text and hit the little eraser in the corner next time to remove formatting? Egads, I tried to read most of it, but everything which was copied is dark grey on light grey for me.
#134
JCM
JCM
Sorry, I am still dealing with the new forums... anyway, I've put this subject off-topic enough, cheers and good night.
#135
Krisken
Krisken
It's cool, thanks for making it easier for me to read 
#136
JCM
JCM
Damn wikipedia.... need to be an editor or something to correct a protected article. Oh well.
#137
@Li3n
So he didn't do it to make up for being bad, he did it because he likes having sex with his wife... ok, definitely not catholic...
@Li3n
So here's the real Gates, a nerd who married a woman who was charitable who told him about some problems she had seen, and so he went and created a foundation to solve them.
So he didn't do it to make up for being bad, he did it because he likes having sex with his wife... ok, definitely not catholic...
#138
bhamv3
bhamv3
The motivation of married men everywhere.So he didn't do it to make up for being bad, he did it because he likes having sex with his wife... ok, definitely not catholic...
#139
Necronic
Necronic
Whelp. Looks like JCM is back in true form.
Look, the entire argument that you need religion to create an oppressive dictatorial regime is ridiculous and has been debunked by history itself:
Stalin - Arguably one of the worst tyrants in human history. Avowwed atheist.
Napoleon - In case you weren't sure if Stalin was the worst, here's a close second. Started and maintained arguably the worst war in human history.
Mussolini - Well, sadly we couldn't fit Hitler in here, but here's the second best
Pol Pot - You know, the more I think about it the harder I am finding it to find religious dictators in the 20th century that come close to these guys (ignoring the middle east #yolo)
These were all atheists. They did nothing in the name of a higher power or god. They did this because they were sick monsters. And if there's one thing we can learn from this its that you don't need the church for evil. People do it all on their own.
Look, the entire argument that you need religion to create an oppressive dictatorial regime is ridiculous and has been debunked by history itself:
Stalin - Arguably one of the worst tyrants in human history. Avowwed atheist.
Napoleon - In case you weren't sure if Stalin was the worst, here's a close second. Started and maintained arguably the worst war in human history.
Mussolini - Well, sadly we couldn't fit Hitler in here, but here's the second best
Pol Pot - You know, the more I think about it the harder I am finding it to find religious dictators in the 20th century that come close to these guys (ignoring the middle east #yolo)
These were all atheists. They did nothing in the name of a higher power or god. They did this because they were sick monsters. And if there's one thing we can learn from this its that you don't need the church for evil. People do it all on their own.
#140
JCM
JCM
Loos like Necronic's reading skills are back to kindergarten level, I see (Hey, its fun to start a rant with an insult, aint it?).
Stalin, bla bla, one could also mention Hitler, the Serbian massacre of Bosnian Muslims by a fanatical Catholic, IRA, Christian terrorism in , or any massacre from the Bible. Or like I mentioned in the Gaza thread, Israeli Hawks and all Arab governments. Argue something that has been said in this thread, or stop drinking before preaching to the choir.
Assholes are assholes, no matter what they believe in.
Dark Ages suffered technologically because of catholic ruleLook, the entire argument that you need religion to create an oppressive dictatorial regime bla bla bla drunk rant based on some other thread....
is not equal to
you need religion to create an oppressive dictatorial regimeStalin, bla bla, one could also mention Hitler, the Serbian massacre of Bosnian Muslims by a fanatical Catholic, IRA, Christian terrorism in , or any massacre from the Bible. Or like I mentioned in the Gaza thread, Israeli Hawks and all Arab governments. Argue something that has been said in this thread, or stop drinking before preaching to the choir.
Assholes are assholes, no matter what they believe in.
P*ssy, the world's greatest motivation, even before money and religion existed.So he didn't do it to make up for being bad, he did it because he likes having sex with his wife... ok, definitely not catholic...
#141
@Li3n
@Li3n
Yeah bhamv3's wife, that's totally true...The motivation of married men everywhere.
No, that's way worse because it's even more wrong (see: reasons why we still know latin).Dark Ages suffered technologically because of catholic rule
#142
Necronic
But the dark ages and technology is an interesting point that should be explored, because there's a lot of reasons for it and also some interesting reasons why it ended. So, some non-religious reasons for it:
1) Vikings. They were a serious problem. Ironically they stopped being as much of a problem when they started getting converted to christianity. I don't know if this was more due to the religion itself or the building of a central authority/government in Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia that came alongside these conversions.
2) The Plague. The plague isn't really a pro or a con for religion in this age. It just sucked and killed millions repeatedly.
But anyways, on to the end of the dark ages. Which falls around roughly 10-11th century. The causes for this are multifold. The decline of the viking raids is part of it. But, in a weird turn of events, it's arguable that the Crusades were as well.
Due to the feudal system of that time knights would basically just go rob and murder the peasantry whenever they needed money or wanted to get their jollys. The Church did not like this, and came up with a number of pretty weak ideas on how to fight it. One was to create weekly holy days where you couldn't fight. Didn't really work. Another was to instill a sense of nobless oblige. Didn't really work. What did work? Sending the knights off to the middle east to go kill brown people.
Now, this isn't a *good* thing ultimately. It was wrong and immoral. But the church was doing what they could, as a religious institution, to fight against the knighthood, ultimately a secular institution.
But I digress. The main point of the Crusades in ending the Dark Ages (aside from getting the knights to stop killing the peasants) was the "liberation" of old greek texts in Persia that had sat there since the fall of the Library of Alexandria. Reintroducing geometry and other forms of math allowed a very significant technological jump forward for the western world.
Now, to be clear again, I'm not saying the crusades were a *good* thing. But it's a very interesting thing when looking at religion in the past. A religious institution used the crusades as a thin political maneuver to remove secular homeland threats and in the end recovered valuable scientific material from the middle east.
Going even one step further, look at the middle east itself. During this time they were definitely undergoing a golden age. Part of this was due to the rapid expansion of the middle east during the time of Muhammed and soon after. It was a massive religious kingdom. It was also one of the most scientifically advanced kingdoms of its time.
This to me is interesting because it shows that the paradigm of religion vs science vs secularism is an oversimplification of a very complex issue. Only in certain times and in certain minds has the fight ever been so black and white, you are either pro-god or pro-science. Right now I think we are in such a paradigm, but historically that has not always been the case, and by recognizing our potential for other ways of thought we can remove the intolerance on both sides that makes such times so dangerous.
Necronic
To be fair I didn't mean my comment as an insult, just meaning that you were back doing the point by point wall of texts you used to. Not a criticism, I actually (sort of) appreciate it. And its hard to judge my reading level in this case because I didn't actually read your post (whoops).Loos like Necronic's reading skills are back to kindergarten level, I see (Hey, its fun to start a rant with an insult, aint it?).
Dark Ages suffered technologically because of catholic rule
is not equal to you need religion to create an oppressive dictatorial regime
But the dark ages and technology is an interesting point that should be explored, because there's a lot of reasons for it and also some interesting reasons why it ended. So, some non-religious reasons for it:
1) Vikings. They were a serious problem. Ironically they stopped being as much of a problem when they started getting converted to christianity. I don't know if this was more due to the religion itself or the building of a central authority/government in Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia that came alongside these conversions.
2) The Plague. The plague isn't really a pro or a con for religion in this age. It just sucked and killed millions repeatedly.
But anyways, on to the end of the dark ages. Which falls around roughly 10-11th century. The causes for this are multifold. The decline of the viking raids is part of it. But, in a weird turn of events, it's arguable that the Crusades were as well.
Due to the feudal system of that time knights would basically just go rob and murder the peasantry whenever they needed money or wanted to get their jollys. The Church did not like this, and came up with a number of pretty weak ideas on how to fight it. One was to create weekly holy days where you couldn't fight. Didn't really work. Another was to instill a sense of nobless oblige. Didn't really work. What did work? Sending the knights off to the middle east to go kill brown people.
Now, this isn't a *good* thing ultimately. It was wrong and immoral. But the church was doing what they could, as a religious institution, to fight against the knighthood, ultimately a secular institution.
But I digress. The main point of the Crusades in ending the Dark Ages (aside from getting the knights to stop killing the peasants) was the "liberation" of old greek texts in Persia that had sat there since the fall of the Library of Alexandria. Reintroducing geometry and other forms of math allowed a very significant technological jump forward for the western world.
Now, to be clear again, I'm not saying the crusades were a *good* thing. But it's a very interesting thing when looking at religion in the past. A religious institution used the crusades as a thin political maneuver to remove secular homeland threats and in the end recovered valuable scientific material from the middle east.
Going even one step further, look at the middle east itself. During this time they were definitely undergoing a golden age. Part of this was due to the rapid expansion of the middle east during the time of Muhammed and soon after. It was a massive religious kingdom. It was also one of the most scientifically advanced kingdoms of its time.
This to me is interesting because it shows that the paradigm of religion vs science vs secularism is an oversimplification of a very complex issue. Only in certain times and in certain minds has the fight ever been so black and white, you are either pro-god or pro-science. Right now I think we are in such a paradigm, but historically that has not always been the case, and by recognizing our potential for other ways of thought we can remove the intolerance on both sides that makes such times so dangerous.
#143
JCM
JCM
Compare the fast rise of philosophy and medicine in the Islamic empire (up to the Mongol invasion), and China's scientific knowledge at the time of the dark ages... Europe was a dirty, superstitious and overly religious backward place (think today's Middle East) up to the end of the crusades.
[DOUBLEPOST=1353951490][/DOUBLEPOST]
And when Marco Polo opened up China, the West started advancing at such an alarming rate that soon it overtook the East.
Do not worry, my opinion of the crusades is pretty much the same, to the medieval peasants running of to the East to fight and entering the giant Islamic cities is pretty much akin to a North Korean today visiting New York for the first time.To be fair I didn't mean my comment as an insult, just meaning that you were back doing the point by point wall of texts you used to. Not a criticism, I actually (sort of) appreciate it. And its hard to judge my reading level in this case because I didn't actually read your post (whoops).
Awesome post
And when Marco Polo opened up China, the West started advancing at such an alarming rate that soon it overtook the East.
#144
@Li3n
@Li3n
Wow, it's almost as if an invasion by less civilized tribes has some sort of effect on the whole knowledge thing...the Islamic empire (up to the Mongol invasion),
#146
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
I would like to think that it perhaps may have started this way, but that eventually he came to realize that being charitable was a path to being popular and well-liked, and so, being the stereotypical Nerd/Geek that he is, he wanted the accolades to continue, and thus he began to pursue it seriously.[Gates] does this because he had to do something to offset his tax liability in the eyes of the US government, and he benefits more personally by forming his own "charity" and appointing himself and his family and friends to paid positions with various benefits and conference trips in exotic locations so they can benefit from his giving?
--Patrick
#147
strawman
strawman
Well, the important thing is that he is doing it. Interviews suggest he's quite humble and doing it because he sees a need and knows he can meet it.
#148
@Li3n
@Li3n
I seem to recall that once upon a time JCM argued that Gates was only doing it coz his wife made him, not because he wanted to...
#149
JCM
JCM
Must have been Chaz (where is he, BTW?). I just ribbed Gates for making a Mac OS knock-off.
#150
Azurephoenix
Azurephoenix
He got permabanned.Must have been Chaz (where is he, BTW?). I just ribbed Gates for making a Mac OS knock-off.
#151
Krisken
Krisken
Shit just got REAL.