Jump to content

Big money controlling news in USA

Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Of course I believe you, but does my tactical warhead believe you?

 

Yeah that's humans alright.

Share this post


Link to post

Wiki pages on nuclear physics and power are usually quite good - here is the one for Thorium-based power generation.

 

For the last few years the price of Thorium was negative (as it is a by-product of other rare earths production and needs to be rid of safely). Several months ago, however, it went positive again, which suggests that people are buying Thorium and the only reason for anyone to do that, really, is if they were experimenting with Thorium power, which is a good sign, I think.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post

Thorium is a great stepping stone before moving to quantum and other currently theoretical power sources.

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post

Uh, BTG? 99.99% of the scientific community (and everyone else) agrees that the next step beyond fission is fusion. With a strong network of thorium reactors we should have a strong enough power supply to actually make solid progress on that. (And dammit, we need to. It's been "thirty years" off for sixty years.) The fact that we've been able to briefly make net gains for both magnetic confinement and inertial confinement fusion is a good sign, but that's only net gains during the time the reactions lasted, not overall. (Still a step up. We're getting there. The constant "thirty years" estimate just became "twenty".)

 

As for nuclear weapons being made from the products of nuclear plants... Yeah, we 100% know they'll do that. Because they already DID. A LOT. Any power plant that CAN produce a nuclear weapons material WILL, and it WILL be used to continue producing the single most horrific weapon in mankind's history thus far. And while only two nuclear bombs have ever been used for anything, the way they were used is a perfect example of why NOBODY should EVER have them. EVER. So any reactor made needs to be completely incapable of producing any weapons-grade fissible materials. At all. If only to stop them to contributing to the problem. And yes, I know it's a bit late, but it's still worth it if we ever again achieve some measure of nuclear disarmament.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert.

Share this post


Link to post

Why would we use fusion if quantum is easier, cheaper, produces more power, and is available for use at the same time? (all of which are probable according to a few theoretical physicists I know)

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post

The issue is that it's nonsense. We're as likely to extract "quantum power" as we are to find compelling evidence steady-state theory.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert.

Share this post


Link to post
Key word: A few.

 

I think the key is actually of the ones he knows.

 

Once again I call credibility into question.

Share this post


Link to post

Believe what you want... They have already made batteries that draw about 3mW from nowhere... (they were calling them quantum batteries a couple years ago)

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post
Believe what you want... They have already made batteries that draw about 3mW from nowhere... (they were calling them quantum batteries a couple years ago)

 

You sure they weren't called "proof of god" for creating something out of nothing? o:

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry for the late reply, had a busy month or so.

 

I'm just waiting for the next civil war...
I'm not sure we would have a civil war so much as some sort of revolution. If it was a civil war, who would the sides be?

 

The problem is that all the legal channels are either mostly or totally corrupted right now... When they're all too corrupt for a fix to go through legal channels, then there isn't any choice.
Yeah sadly, this is pretty much my conclusion. I think you could theoretically have some sort of peaceful separation on a small scale, but I think trying to remedy our biggest problems through legal channels is mostly impossible nowadays.

 

We only have one shot left, really. State governments are too weak for the most part to be worth buying, since the federal government technically has control over them. State governments have repeatedly managed to spit in the federal government's face, doing things like legalizing marijuana (a schedule-1 narcotic, which is ridiculous because it's harmless) for medicinal purposes in most and recreational use in two, including mine. These things were done despite corporate interest being against the legalization of marijuana. Our best chance for a peaceful resolution is a constitutional amendment, which can be passed if a 2/3rds majority of the state governments can agree on it. One state pushes for the amendment, they vote, and if they succeed they can remove corporate personhood, and put a limit on individual campaign donations (say, $100) so that the wealthy can't keep buying our politicians. We should also prevent congressmen from working outside of government after they've been in office so they can't be bribed with a lucrative job, and ban private political advertising. That way, congressmen don't have to sell out to be elected like they do now.
Big money infiltrates interests on local and state levels also when they see issues with the potential to threaten them, it just requires more work and money than concentrating on the federal level.

 

instead the fighting gets nowhere to solving the problem, even if a new government is installed. It all ends up being a facade.
Yeah honestly I see this as the most likely outcome in the event of a revolution. There's a REASON I find the French Revolution so interesting, they overthrew the ruling class without a clear plan or focus and it was just violence and anarchy until a dictator with a plan to solve problems stepped up (with military force).

 

But yeah, it's obsession with power and more wealth. What the hell? Can we convince them that the surplus money that they are hoarding has no real value because they're not going to use it anyway?
You know, I can't help but think of my struggle with Machinima.com and my video rights. I am convinced there was literally NOTHING I could say to them that would make them see the reason of what I was trying to do (and what they agreed to via contract). The ONLY thing that worked was threat of legal action against them. Some people simply don't respond to reason.

 

And in another 250 or less, the same problem crops right up. Animal Farm illustrates this perfectly. Is there really a point?
I've actually contemplated this dilemma a long time and came to the conclusion that in order to increase the odds of a society prospering in the long term, you would have to test for and identify sociopaths and prevent them from obtaining positions of power, or at least have extra, rigorous, morality training for them. The thing is, anyone can make horrible mistakes and cause a lot of damage. But any sane person with a conscience won't do it OVER and OVER and OVER again with zero remorse. Sociopaths without proper moral training are essentially saboteurs to any society.

 

Is the situation really that bad in the US?
Yes and no. The USA is nowhere near the state some of the revolutions other countries have had, but at the same time, our system is so thoroughly corrupt now, it can no longer be fixed. So it's like we're clearly driving over a cliff and we can no longer break or swerve away in time before we go over it.

 

Has everyone forgotten that education makes a lot of difference?
It does, but it's all interconnected. The same forces that have corrupted our government have also gutted our education as well. I'm convinced another cornerstone of a long lasting society would be to have education and culture that instills productive, moral, and sustainable values.

 

A lot of you guys seem to be ganging up on BTGBullseye, but I totally understand his perspective on the revolution part. I don't think his message is "violence will solve this" which is what people seem to be attacking him. To be clear, widespread violence is nothing to welcome at all, but the question to be asking is "What's the alternative?" We both feel the legal system can not remedy this, it's too far gone. I think massive cooperation among people to fix this is impossible, we're too divided and brainwashed as a nation. I personally think a radical solution might be possible with no bloodshed, but they're all shots in the dark and likely pipe dreams. This quote of his says it all guys:

Doing nothing will definitely make it worse, doing something might make it better or worse, but at least it has a CHANCE of making things better.
I think you guys view him as a warmonger and he probably views many of your opinions as pie-in-the-sky thinking. I think it's just a matter of a logical conclusion based on the assumed truths. Again, what would be the alternative to fix our society in its current state?

Share this post


Link to post
I'm just waiting for the next civil war...
I'm not sure we would have a civil war so much as some sort of revolution. If it was a civil war, who would the sides be?

The right wing vs. the left wing.

 

A lot of you guys seem to be ganging up on BTGBullseye, but I totally understand his perspective on the revolution part. I don't think his message is "violence will solve this" which is what people seem to be attacking him. To be clear, widespread violence is nothing to welcome at all, but the question to be asking is "What's the alternative?" We both feel the legal system can not remedy this, it's too far gone. I think massive cooperation among people to fix this is impossible, we're too divided and brainwashed as a nation. I personally think a radical solution might be possible with no bloodshed, but they're all shots in the dark and likely pipe dreams. This quote of his says it all guys:
Doing nothing will definitely make it worse, doing something might make it better or worse, but at least it has a CHANCE of making things better.
I think you guys view him as a warmonger and he probably views many of your opinions as pie-in-the-sky thinking. I think it's just a matter of a logical conclusion based on the assumed truths. Again, what would be the alternative to fix our society in its current state?

 

The problem is that BTG didn't even try to acknowledge the possibility of a peaceful solution, so yeah, he gave off the impression of a warmongering revolutionary. And while I might be considered optimist, I still think with enough cooperation and peaceful demonstrations, we'll solve this.

Share this post


Link to post

I've just started a book called "That Used To Be Us," authored by Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum. Apparently both are experts in foreign affairs, but they came together to write this book on our domestic issues. It seems slow to the point, but I'm only two chapters into it so far.

 

So far one of the things that sticks out to me is this idea of "Frustrated Optimism." These guys grew up during the Cold War era, they've seen the things this country has accomplished (granting the occasional mistake such as the Bay Of Pigs, Vietnam, or Korea) when it is able to come together to make great strides towards progress (going to the moon in response to Sputnik, the eventual conclusion of the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc).

 

They are optimists because they know what this country is capable of, but they're also frustrated. "[Our ability to do great things] has to be a function of our will actually to do those things again. So many Americans are doing great things today, but on a small scale. Philanthropy, volunteerism, individual initiative: they're all impressive, but what the country needs is collective action on a large scale."

 

That quote should also show what I do dislike about this book. They're trying to get a message out but they're dragging their own feet at getting to the point. This book is 350 pages and is certainly not light reading. The average person won't be willing to put the time into reading this and discovering the message. Already the book is over 2 years old, being completed at the end of 2011. We need collective action on a large scale? So you (the authors of the book) say, but what have you done yourselves to generate this collective? It's going to take something that will reach a much larger audience than a book to get us going on the right path.

 

There's a saying about how everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame. What we really need is the right person to get their 15 soon. Someone who will set the course for this country, who will generate the so-desperately needed action on a large scale.

Share this post


Link to post
The problem is that BTG didn't even try to acknowledge the possibility of a peaceful solution, so yeah, he gave off the impression of a warmongering revolutionary.

I said I didn't see any way for this to be done peacefully... Not that it definitely couldn't, and I even asked for ways that it could be done. (I refuted the only ones presented, since they had all been attempted before)

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post
The problem is that BTG didn't even try to acknowledge the possibility of a peaceful solution, so yeah, he gave off the impression of a warmongering revolutionary.

I said I didn't see any way for this to be done peacefully... Not that it definitely couldn't, and I even asked for ways that it could be done. (I refuted the only ones presented, since they had all been attempted before)

 

I still stand by my allegory of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, although you're denying it for whatever reason.

Share this post


Link to post

If you can show me a way that it can be done in THIS country, in THIS CENTURY, then I'll consider the possibilities... Otherwise, I see no correlation between the USSR breakup and the current situation.

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post
If you can show me a way that it can be done in THIS country, in THIS CENTURY, then I'll consider the possibilities... Otherwise, I see no correlation between the USSR breakup and the current situation.

 

Ah, now you're employing a double standard, where I must prove that my method will work "in this century and country" when yours is still unproven on the same criteria. Now you must attempt to prove your method, while I try to prove mine.

 

The strategy for a peaceful resolution to happen is simple, although admittedly difficult: we (as in, this website and others) raise awareness on the present corruption over time, it doesn't have to be all at once, it can be gradually. Over this period of time, we become a large force that can challenge these corporations. Eventually, we stand up to these corporations once we have enough strength, being as peaceful as we can about it.

 

Also, the breakup of the USSR was only one example. Remember earlier in the thread, where @Doom Shepard mentioned both India and Canada as peaceful examples?

Share this post


Link to post

Different cultures... Methods that work for them likely won't work for us. (and vice versa)

 

If we can get over 60% of the country willing to stand up and not be fooled by the political doubletalk, then we'd be the first in history... That's what it's going to take to do anything against this level of corruption. (it's everywhere, white house, senate, house, IRS, etc)

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post
Different cultures... Methods that work for them likely won't work for us. (and vice versa)

 

If we can get over 60% of the country willing to stand up and not be fooled by the political doubletalk, then we'd be the first in history... That's what it's going to take to do anything against this level of corruption. (it's everywhere, white house, senate, house, IRS, etc)

 

And now you simply dismiss my argument on the basis "it's a different culture" without any evidence to that claim! (to specify: I'm not saying that they're all the same culture, I'm saying that you're invalidating my opinion because of the differences)

 

Also, when you're talking about "political doubletalk", instead of mentioning anything about the corporations (which we've established is the reason for the corruption) it gives off the impression that you're trying to fulfill a political agenda instead of helping solve the problems the country faces.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in the community.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.