Random Thread

[rotting bones]

Considering that I have not heard of Mesquita, I will ask you if Mesquita's works count/consider that in this example, the corruption is widespread and not limited to the representatives, be those representatives elected or appointed?

I once gave you a link to his book and told you to read it.

So we're on the same page (sorry, bad wordplay), is "indirect bribery" a reference to "you get your dad to vote for my company, and I'll give your cousin (who works for my company) a promotion to Junior CEO and a huge raise that'd put twenty kids on a full ride scholarship", or is it something else?

I think my understanding of corruption is different from yours. The way I see it, a representative would be called corrupt when he does things that would be called basic freedom for an ordinary citizen. Putting the representative in this position is unfair to both the citizen and the representative.

I suspect you may not be familiar with this thing we in the USA call "lobbys". Their entire job is to bribe elected representatives (and the non-elected who work with those people) to vote their way.

This is what I meant by indirect bribery.

Not really - Hobby Lobby switched to buying from terrorists, while other businesses still buy from countries that I'd wager you'd call 3rd World...which still have sweatshops.

or is this one of those "the Third World is by definition not affluent" definitions, which neatly remains self-sustaining?

I'm using Third World to mean poor because my advocacy is based on specific poor Third World countries in South Asia. This is a bad habit and I should stop.

[rotting bones]

really? remember those "clap on! clap off!" commercials? how many calories does each person save by being able to turn lights and other devices on & off without leaving their seats and crossing a room? after all, you measure energy use in calories.

Now, multiply that by nations.

However, considerable amounts of energy could be saved by designing more efficient technological systems.

so in other words, you agree.

No, I do not. Read that sentence in conjunction with the previous one. In the context of "Poor people are dying from overwork", "we could accomplish tasks without any form of energy but kinetic and be healthier for it" means power could be saved by doing more work. Clapping lights have no bearing on this point.

Given that I don't know what sort of authorities you consider valid & which you don't think are worth they ink they'd be printed on, no i don't...but I wager you also have no citations which says that MCF is easy to control and has magnificent density.

I'll take anything that didn't come out of a crystal ball. E.g. If you Google fusion power density, there's a drop down question saying fusion power has high density.

[keenir]

No, I do not. Read that sentence in conjunction with the previous one. In the context of "Poor people are dying from overwork", "we could accomplish tasks without any form of energy but kinetic and be healthier for it" means power could be saved by doing more work.

In which case, you and I drew radically different conclusions from the statement that made you shout "poor people are dying from overwork!"

I read it as, we can accomplish tasks without any form of energy but kinetic and be healthier for it, does not mean "doing more work" causes "power could be saved"...I read it as meaning that we can use healthier forms of energy (some of which are powered by the human body - these devices exist right now and can be purchased), and thus our health can improve - an outcome difficult for those who are stuck breathing in car fumes.



as for the other matter, the IAEA isn't saying its particularly useful or easy, unless you're a 12-year-old German.
https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/magnetic- ... ellarators

[rotting bones]

I read it as, we can accomplish tasks without any form of energy but kinetic and be healthier for it, does not mean "doing more work" causes "power could be saved"...I read it as meaning that we can use healthier forms of energy (some of which are powered by the human body - these devices exist right now and can be purchased), and thus our health can improve - an outcome difficult for those who are stuck breathing in car fumes.

I think the original post was saying that you can be healthier by working a little harder. E.g. This point makes sense for people who ought to walk instead of driving to the next block. But it becomes "Let them eat cake!" when generalized to how the world economy works.

(Personally, I have never owned a car and can't afford one. Not even a beat up, used car. My father died when I was in school. I was raised by a single mother.)

as for the other matter, the IAEA isn't saying its particularly useful or easy, unless you're a 12-year-old German.
https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/magnetic- ... ellarators

Are you saying that because the fusion reaction produced by a 12-year old German was not a sustainable energy source, fusion power is therefore not useful?

[keenir]

I read it as, we can accomplish tasks without any form of energy but kinetic and be healthier for it, does not mean "doing more work" causes "power could be saved"...I read it as meaning that we can use healthier forms of energy (some of which are powered by the human body - these devices exist right now and can be purchased), and thus our health can improve - an outcome difficult for those who are stuck breathing in car fumes.

I think the original post was saying that you can be healthier by working a little harder. E.g. This point makes sense for people who ought to walk instead of driving to the next block. But it becomes "Let them eat cake!" when generalized to how the world economy works.

I suspect you'd say that everything is "let them eat cake" when generalized to the world economy.

as for the other matter, the IAEA isn't saying its particularly useful or easy, unless you're a 12-year-old German.
https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/magnetic- ... ellarators

Are you saying that because the fusion reaction produced by a 12-year old German was not a sustainable energy source, fusion power is therefore not useful?

Oh for frack's sake...you just demonstrated that you reject the International Atomic Energy Association's results because I made a throwaway joke based on a single line of text in that article. So either you're trolling, or you have no idea what any of it means, and think that sounding smartarsed is a safer bet than making an intelligent reply of even just "yes, thats the sort of article i was referring to".

[rotting bones]

I suspect you'd say that everything is "let them eat cake" when generalized to the world economy.

Objectively false, since I have made positive suggestions about how to run the world economy, accepted Moose-tache's arguments about the world economy, and even said I would support proposals about running the world economy that I don't personally agree with. E.g. restricting for-profit corporations to worker co-operatives.

Are you saying that because the fusion reaction produced by a 12-year old German was not a sustainable energy source, fusion power is therefore not useful?

No, dude. At no point does the article you link say that:

1. MCF is too difficult to be useful.

2. The plasma is too difficult to handle for MCF to be useful.

3. The density is too low for MCF to be useful.

Seriously, the closest thing in that article which supports your point about MCF as an emerging technology is the reaction started by the 12-year old German. And this doesn't even enter into the benefits of high temperature superconductivity.

If you want to both make terrible points and get angry at the same time, I will stop responding. Like half the "smart people" I've met, not only do you not understand what you're talking about, you don't even understand that you don't understand it.

[Raphael]

Perhaps this discussion could have its own thread now?

I think we're pretty much done the discussion by now; yes?

Well, I think I'm mostly done here, but apparently, not everyone is.

It’s frustrating that I predicted every rebuttal, addressed and nullified it, and then scrolled down to see those rebuttals play out as if I hadn’t said a word.

I don't see how simply asserting that the various possible rebuttals don't matter, because you don't care about them, constitutes "adressing and nullifying" anything.

This is what I mean about anti-nuclear activism being a belief system. As Raphael pointed out, they’re not going to change their minds, because opposition to nuclear energy is not a scientific position. It is a religious identity.

Well, the joke's on you, because if you think it's really really extremely important to built a lot of new facilities, you have to find some way to overcome resistance to them. As long as the political climate in those countries that currently aren't interested in building new nuclear facilities doesn't change, those countries won't build new nuclear facilities. It doesn't matter what misgivings you have about the imperfections of renewables. It doesn't matter if nuclear power plants are the only way to keep adorable children from drowning in rising seas. Their goodness or badness is of no consequence, and whether you find nuclear power to be good or bad is of no consequence. You are free to like it all you want, for any number of reasons. But your evaluation of the necessity of nuclear energy has no more bearing on the calculation than your evaluation of its aesthetic appeal. As long as you can't convince those countries that currently aren't interested in building new nuclear facilities to build new nuclear facilities, they won't build new nuclear facilities. Full stop.

[keenir]

I suspect you'd say that everything is "let them eat cake" when generalized to the world economy.

Objectively false, since I have made positive suggestions about how to run the world economy, accepted Moose-tache's arguments about the world economy, and even said I would support proposals about running the world economy that I don't personally agree with. E.g. restricting for-profit corporations to worker co-operatives.

in other words, you'd support things you don't agree with...demonstrating you are indeed capable - like the rest of us - of holding a view and supporting something not totally in line with your view of it...so you can accept arguments and support proposals - that doesn't stop you from feeling like "let them eat cake" is going to happen.

Are you saying that because the fusion reaction produced by a 12-year old German was not a sustainable energy source, fusion power is therefore not useful?

No, dude. At no point does the article you link say that:

1. MCF is too difficult to be useful.
2. The plasma is too difficult to handle for MCF to be useful.
3. The density is too low for MCF to be useful.

Yes, it doesn't say that, because like Dr. McWhorter's anecdote about a talking walrus, none of those things are in the article. You could just as easily use that article to support a view that MCF will only work in undersea habitats.

Seriously, the closest thing in that article which supports your point about MCF as an emerging technology is the reaction started by the 12-year old German.

I have only had two points about MCF:
1. a joke about a 12-year-old being the only successful user.
2. a hunch that you have no links or citations to support your claim & that you reject all opposing thoughts.

And this doesn't even enter into the benefits of high temperature superconductivity.

as others have pointed out in this thread, fusion is not the only use for superconductors.

If you want to both make terrible points and get angry at the same time, I will stop responding. Like half the "smart people" I've met, not only do you not understand what you're talking about, you don't even understand that you don't understand it.

Well, at least you've met yourself, that you count yourself as one of us.

[Ryusenshi]

Those who think that nuclear power was the solution to the climate problem miss two things:

And those who think solar and wind are the solution miss one thing: both are unreliable. We saw this last winter, when production fell to near-zero because of the weather, precisely when houses needed heating the most.

I don't think nuclear power is the solution... because there is no single solution. Why does this have to be either/or?? The one enemy is climate change, which means the number one emergency is to stop using fossil fuels. Nothing else matters. When the last coal power plant is closed and the last combustion engine car has been put in a museum, maybe we can be picky. In the meantime, we need to use all available resources, so we need to reduce consumption and build dams and wind turbines and solar panels and nuclear power plants . We are facing Mike Tyson in a no-holds-barred fight: we can't afford to keep one hand tied behind our back!

[xxx]

most of our exorbitant energy use (airplanes, internet, over-consumption) is for pleasure,
but it's a shame that it jeopardizes our vital uses...
but contemporary individualism cannot tolerate frustration of any kind...

and the only non-intermittent, non-greenhouse-gas-producing energy that can satisfy
the whims of our contemporaries is nuclear power,
the very thing that seemed to be the prototype for the ravings of sorcerer's apprentices,
as we dug our graves by burning our ships...

but energy and global warming are only the first wave,
the biotope is endangered in many other ways by our unnatural behavior...

[KathTheDragon]

It is amazing how much can be written to say so little.

[Torco]

I don’t disagree. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that we should jump to nuclear power as a cure-all. Instead, if we can solve the crisis using renewable sources only, then that’s what we should prefer. We should only use nuclear power if there is literally no other way to eliminate coal and gas — and we should use it with great care and as little as possible.
(That being said, +12 °C in 100 years is implausible. In the most recent IPCC report, even the very worst case has only +4.4 °C, and that’s with greenhouse gas emissions doubling from current levels. Not that that’s much better, mind you.)

I think that's an unwarrantedly high bar, a case of the perfect hurting the good: we should use nuclear if by doing so better outcomes are achieved than by not using nuclear. if we can solve the crisis without nuclear but it takes 10 years more, or 5 years more, or if the chances of success are lower, then we still oughtta, no?

I really don’t see how renewables are any different to nuclear power in this regard. Indeed, I’d say that it’s easier and cheaper to buy renewable power sources than it is to make a nuclear power station.

problem is baseline generation.

most of our exorbitant energy use (airplanes, internet, over-consumption) is for pleasure

no, that is incorrect. i'm afraid you might have swallowed the billionaire-developped global-warming-is-caused-by-lifestyle pill. they developped it so that people like you make this exact case: that there's nothing to fundamentally change about the system that's destroying the planet, it's just a matter of us using fewer plastic straws and buying a tesla. for example, the neoliberal world free trade blabla system entails that the can of peaches I've recently bought was produced thusly: peaches were grown by some dude in San Felipe, a peach-producing region near my city. then those peaches were shipped to the philipines to be canned, and then returned to my city so I eat them. this, economically, makes sense cause the per-peach-canned price in the philiphines is somewhat lower than here in a sufficient magnitude to justify the shipping, so bazillions of tons of fuel are burned shipping shit around for no good reason (other than it makes megacorpos 0.02% more in revenue). same with shirts, same with socks, same with tables, same with varnish, same with practically every product you buy. this is not a conscious choice for pleasure on the part of the consumer, but a consequence of the political-economic system the world uses to produce and distribute the results of human labour.

[keenir]

but energy and global warming are only the first wave,
the biotope is endangered in many other ways by our unnatural behavior...

Unnatural? The niche of H.sapiens is, like beavers, that of enviromental modifier.

[WeepingElf]

Perhaps this discussion could have its own thread now?

I think we're pretty much done the discussion by now; yes?

Well, I think I'm mostly done here, but apparently, not everyone is.

I am done here, too! I have said what I had to say, and my opponents just did not get what I was trying to say - and it seems as if they did so on purpose.

[xxx]

but energy and global warming are only the first wave,
the biotope is endangered in many other ways by our unnatural behavior...

Unnatural? The niche of H.sapiens is, like beavers, that of enviromental modifier.

It seems to me that we have left our niche
to occupy them all and leave none to other species,
unless we consider the nature suicidal
(and then why worry...)
this behavior must be unnatural...

[keenir]

but energy and global warming are only the first wave,
the biotope is endangered in many other ways by our unnatural behavior...

Unnatural? The niche of H.sapiens is, like beavers, that of enviromental modifier.

It seems to me that we have left our niche

and how did humans do that? did humans stop building homes and terraforming and in other ways altering the enviroment and other species?

to occupy them all and leave none to other species,

ah, you're being hyperbolic...or intentionally alarmist.

unless we consider the nature suicidal

???

[Man in Space]

Anybody here ever played Triplanetary before?

[Raphael]

unless we consider the nature suicidal

???

I'm afraid that's pretty much an evergreen response to xxx's posts. Despite their strong anti-AI stance, they talk mostly like an AI trained on the output of several generations of the most unoriginally stereotypical coffee house pseudo-intellectuals in the world.

[xxx]

I'm afraid

amen...

[Raphael]

Random, classic-horror-movie related thought:

Do I understand this correctly that in the various "The Fly"-movies, a scientist turns into a giant fly because, during his teleportation experiments, he doesn't notice there's a fly in the teleportation chamber with him?

OK, I can accept a person slowly turning into an insectoid monster, but a conscious, able-bodied human being with no serious medical conditions sharing a small enclosed space with a fly without noticing it - that goes too far for my willing suspension of disbelief.