Please realize I'm partially joking

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:11 pm

a little bit about the relief efforts and the role of the national gov't. the US Maritime Administration has just ordered my school to send it's training ship to New Orleans to act as emergency housing for the displaced refugee's. I assume that they have done this to most of the other maritime academies as thier ships are all owned by MarAd. so the federal gov't IS taking certain steps but the actions of lesser known agencies like MarAd go largely unnoticed.

SunTzu · Post by **SunTzu** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:51 pm

Yeah, but did anyone doubt that the cleanup would go fast and efficitly? The problem was that it took far too long for anything to happen....

The Cid · Post by **The Cid** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:46 pm

[quote="Euthanatos";p="540186"]I don't understand the problem here. Deacon and Martin Blank both showcase something interesting: the ability to not be a Democrat while not being a raving suck-up Republican. No President is perfect, and this one maybe isn't the best recently.
However, consider some other sides of this: Just as you feel entitled to your opinion, realize that others are the same way. The Dixie Chicks screwed up their comment, essentially insulting Texas when they wished to insult Bush. Problem is, conservatives saw the letters but not the intent, and liberals saw the intent but failed to see the failure of the wording. What is so insanely divisive about politics that it sucks away your ability to examine anything?
The libertarian/LaRouche-y nutballs are just exploiting the Democratic sentiments to gain support. As with evolution/creationism, just because you disprove the other guy doesn't make you right, it just makes him wrong. You have to prove your ideas, and focus on power through your beliefs and platform, rather than pulling everyone else's down. The thread was started by a stupid idea (Bush doesn't make anyone act crazy, Scientology does that) and continued by fucking libertarian backstabbing bullshit.[/quote]

Wow. I always feel so well-received on this board.

Euth, it appears to me that you're happy with the two-party system. That's fine. Majority opinions tend to win out in the end. However, I like dissent. I like the idea that you're BOTH wrong. And to be honest, I'm not sure you seem to know what "Libertarian" means. Do you realize that it's also known as "practical conservativism?" Do you even know what we stand for? Or did you see the word in one of my posts and decide "that's MUCH more inflammatory than calling The Cid out on his own merit or anything?"

It seems to me you think the Libertarian Party is off left with LaRouche. Couldn't be farther from the truth. We're more for small government. Lower taxes, a strict enforcement of the Constitution, seperation of church and state. People that are fed up with rhetoric. (Which is really funny, seeing as how rhetoric is all I tend to face in political discussions.)

It also seems, Euth, that you're in the group of readers who see all of two paragraphs, ignore the title of the thread, and decide I'm in favor of duct-taping the mouths of celebrities shut. Personally, I think this ignores both the humor and the sensability of my original post, but I wrote it so what the fuck do I know?

What I'm saying is that these people only appear to have one qualification to talk politics. That qualification? Having access to a microphone. Now, I'm not saying that the Dixie Chicks are STUPID, nor am I saying Kanye West is WRONG, or Curt Schilling is misguided. That's another argument for another day. What I'm trying to say is that these people are entertainers. As entertainers, these people aren't entirely well-versed in the actions of government. I would suggest that they know about as much as you or I when it comes to Capitol Hill. THAT'S my problem. Not the message, the messenger. Too many people out there don't think when they vote. On both sides of the aisle there are people--a lot of people, mind you--who vote solely based on the party of the candidate. It doesn't matter who the candidate is, or what they stand for. They've got that R, or that D, so they get the vote. These are the same kind of people who will vote the same way that their favorite musician or actor tells them to.

Alec Baldwin is not a professor of political science, so he might want to stop acting like one. I'm tired of people going on crusades that have nothing to do with their jobs. Entertainers talking politics, actors trying to play music, athletes trying to act. Nobody forgave Shaquille O'Neal for Kazam, so why are we letting politically-heated entertainers get away with forcing their opinions down our throats?

(Before you go further, read and THINK ABOUT the title of the thread.)

If I were at work, and I started telling everybody my personal politics, I'd be reprimanded before I could finish my speech! I believe my boss would inform me that "I'm not being paid to talk politics."

Also, if it's their freedom of speech to tell the world their every whim, then I feel it's okay I use MY freedom of speech to tell the entertainers to shut their noise holes and get back to work like the rest of us.

Posted Mon Sep 05, 2005 2:10 pm:

Someone has to go first. It was a half-century or more between the Wright Flyer and successful mass use of aircraft by civilians. I'm sure that at one point, there were only a select few people who went to sea (well, onto the lake or river in all likelihood). It takes a while.

A valid point. I should say that I have no problem with us going into space. I'm as enthralled with the possibilities as anybody else. The problem I'm seeing is that there might be more important, more pressing matters right now. NASA is great except that it's funded with precious tax dollars. And of course, they'll raise taxes before they cut NASA's budget. But at the same time, I agree that it would be a good thing if we could get something done in space. Right now, all we're doing is visiting, and I think it's a bit too expensive of a trip.

Some, yes. But would you force them to do this work?

Force them? Why would we need to force them to do this work, when we could offer a gigantic monetary reward for finishing this work? I mean, put aside reward money and offer it to the group that figures it out. Or, as I'll touch on later, if we don't figure something out we'd better colonize space.

Yes, because even an all-out push would not remove our reliance on fossil fuels. It would be a decade or more before anything significant would even begin to happen, and then another 10-20 years for a conversion to get well underway.

Good point. Thing is, that won't change at all with time. Those timespans will likely always be the same. Conversely, what's the latest estimate on when we get to Mars? 2025? We're not even getting back to the Moon for ten years. (Amazing to me, considering it took fewer than ten years to get there the FIRST time.) So wouldn't it be reasonable to say that both the Mission to Mars and the Quest for A Fuel Solution will probably take about the same amount of time?

There are always matters more pressing. But sometimes we have to do the less-pressing things because focusing on the more pressing things gets depressing after a while.

Want to hear something really funny? That line of thinking was my reason for posting the ORIGINAL TOPIC! We DO need something to keep our minds off of the depressing stuff from time to time. That's why I started this thread! Because the people who normally distract us are too damn busy TALKING about the depressing stuff.

But Martin, if nothing else, let me say that I admire your tact. It's rare on a forum to have a debate while respecting the opposing views. Thank you. What that I could follow that more often. But seriously, my view is that we're left with limited options concerning fuels, and we're never going to open those Alaskan reserves, so we might as well find a better solution.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:30 pm

I don't disagree with moving to alternatives. I'm in favor of a big nuclear push. I'd be willing to go so far as to nix all taxes on the construction of plants for about ten years. It wouldn't remove our reliance on imported oil, but it would dramatically reduce it. It would also reduce the use of coal, which is an enormous environmental problem just in the mining.

My major problem is not that an all-out push is not possible, or that it would take too long. It would involve more than just a big PR campaign and funding for R&D. It would end up hitting consumers hard when they're forced to migrate to those fuels faster than they can afford or, for that matter, want to. If I could buy an inexpensive electric car for day-to-day driving, I would. But I also like my Camaro, and the throaty sound it makes when I'm attempting to beat my accelleration times. Not very fuel-efficient, no, but it's fun, and it's what I want.

I have no trouble with a gradual move, but realistically it's going to be a good 25-50 years before any major dent is made. I'm not big on hydrogen right now because the overall costs are too high. Electric is a good possibility, and hybrids will suffice for a while. There is a transition happening, and I'm willing to let it happen at its own pace. I'd rather that than it be force-fed.

As to the lunar and Mars missions, a recent report indicated that if the Crew Excursion Vehicle (shuttle replacement) is handled correctly, planning for Spirals 1 (earth orbit), 2 (lunar landing), and 3 (Mars mission) could be done simultaneously. If NASA makes the smart decision, it will pick a CEV in a couple of months, and push for a manned launch by 2010, five years ahead of the previous schedule. By the time the first manned CEV is in orbit, serious planning will already be done for Spiral 2, and lessons learned there will benefit Spiral 3. If all goes well, the first Mars mission could happen as early as 2020. That gives people something to look forward to, something in which to take pride, and something which will give hope to younger generations. And it might help kick private enterprise into gear -- which should be the ultimate goal of any major federal endeavor.

The Cid · Post by **The Cid** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:21 pm

Martin, the thing is, stagnation isn't helping.

You're right--it'll take people forever to phase out fossil fuels altogether. But what we can do is make people less and less reliant. Once they find a reasonable alternative, and start putting out REAL cars (not just toys) and stop putting out fuel-driven cars, people will rely less and less on gas.

By the way, there has been a prototype SUV made that can run on hydrogen cells. The report I saw showed that the car runs about as well as a middle-of-the-line SUV. So the engine is well on its way. It's the fuel itself that people are having trouble finding.

pc486 · Post by **pc486** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 10:46 pm

In my view supporting NASA does help alternative fuels. While NASA's mission is putting people into space there are many side benifits. There is a lot in common in terrestrial vehicles and space vehicles like engine and battery technology, lightweight materials, plus tons of size reduction of various things.

I believe it would be better to find some budget, not necessarily from NASA, to give to the NSF, earmarked for automobile research only of course. It would have been nice if the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided such funding.

FYI, it is much easier to push diesel fuel than hydrogen or fuel cell technology for a Right Now solution. Diesel engines are extreemly well understood (it's over a 100 years old) and they are very versitile in fuel acceptance. You can mix regular diesel with biodiesel or use just biodiesel. Other fuels can be burned too like plain vegetable oil if the engine is preheated (run on biodiesel then switch while running). Some drawbacks of moving to diesel is the pollution problem remains and there isn't enough biomass to convert completly away from fossil fuel based diesel. However, they are a good stop-gap sollution and could last a long while if diesel-electric hybrids are built. Also take note that with recent price hikes biodiesel has become cheaper than fossil fuel diesel so fuel prices can be stabilized or reversed.

I'm actually thinking about buying a diesel Volkswagen and converting it to run on veggie oil. If no one else in my area is doing it then I'll be able to get away with near-free fuel

.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:16 am

[quote="The Cid";p="540769"]By the way, there has been a prototype SUV made that can run on hydrogen cells. The report I saw showed that the car runs about as well as a middle-of-the-line SUV. So the engine is well on its way. It's the fuel itself that people are having trouble finding.[/quote]
Hydrogen is a problem, though. At the moment, cracking water to get hydrogen is a very energy-intensive process, using far more energy than the reverse reaction puts out. Hydrogen is also difficult to store and transport, because that single proton will leak out through anything, including storage tanks using dense metals. Losses are predicted to be between 10% and 20%, depending on how long its stored before being put in vehicles.

I think a better solution is to find a way to make hybrids use their electricity better. This will help cut fuel usage, at least in the city, and the widespread use of them will help slow the growth of fossil fuel usage.

Prospero · Post by **Prospero** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 2:34 am

It would be nice to come up with an energy efficient replacement to the internal combustion engine. And don't tell me to buy an electric car.

Rileyrat · Post by **Rileyrat** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:22 am

While electric cars are the current best bet for alternatie fuel, I really think the long run best bet is hydrogen. We have alot of problems with it as of now, if the research keeps going, we will figure out a way to better split and store it.

Now, if we made a huge move to nuclear power and develop better electric cars, mainly ones that recharge faster and charges lasted longer, electric is the way to go. Even if they could develop a car that could go about 250miles or so and take about 3-4 hours to charge would be good enough to start the change with. Then, someday, electric 747 awwyeah.

pc486 · Post by **pc486** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:59 am

Glue, Stirling engines are energy efficient and can be very powerful. Unfortuanlly they don't scale down well

.

Hydrogen isn't a bad idea and I would love to drive a hydrogen car but there's the chicken and the egg problem with that. Just where are you going to find hydrogen fuel stations? There's not many I'll tell you that. Even if there are some in your area, what about traveling?

Electric cars are very neat and electric motors are awesome with thier broad torque curve. The problem is that large-store battery technology is not sufficient and has not been progressing much in the past years. In order to make pure electric vehicles reality there needs to be better batteries and/or the dumping of all the crap people want in their cars like GPS navigation, nice sound systems, DVD players, air conditioning, and road noise supression. If the car isn't heavy or power hungry then electric vehicles are viable for a short range commuter.

workmad3 · Post by **workmad3** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 8:45 am

I've seen one fairly good design for a hydrogen car. It basically runs on hydrogen fuel cells, so if you were travelling somewhere where they weren't available, you just buy some more and take them with you. The only real problem with it was that it cost about a million pounds (or more) and was only available in japan at the time I saw it. Also it was still an experimental model.

AzraeL · Post by **AzraeL** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 9:09 am

On this topic, We have hydrogen buses here. I think they run with a hydrogen/combustion engine. They very quiet, with low emissions.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:44 pm

Wait, we're having problems finding hydrogen, The Cid?

The Cid · Post by **The Cid** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:49 pm

Useful hydrogen? Like the kind that could fuel one of these prototype cars? Yes. Having a lot of trouble.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:51 pm

[quote="pc486";p="540127"][quote="Deacon";p="540019"]You think Bush is going to sic the military on his own citizens so readily, especially when such an action has not been requested of him? You act like having military performing civil law enforcement roles is a good and natural thing, the default.[/quote]
The problem I have is the failure to duely respond in a timly manner with armed forces. Our armed forces are more than war machines, they are peace keepers. If anything they should be helping at home and a large portion of them are trained and used to assist in disasters. Civil law enforcement is not a job they usually maintain but it is something that can be expected of them (they do have guns, don't they?). [/quote]
Wow. First, what response were you expecting, and what would be a "timely manner" in your view, considering that it's not like you can just flip a switch or point-n-click like an RTS? Secondly, no, our armed forces are fighting units. They are not "peace officers". The fulfill the role of "peace keepers" in war-torn nations by deadly military force, not through rainbows and sunshine and personal counselling. There's a reason the restrictions exist on when and how the military can be turned internally. These are not police officers. They are not there to "protect and serve". They exist to kill people and destroy stuff. Putting military units in the middle of a chaotic mess with orders to "keep the peace" places an undue burden on the individuals, and the rules of engagement would be a nightmare. All it takes is one "innocent" person being shot and killed to turn the entire thing into a national disaster.

Bush does not need some mayor or governor to tell him what he should do.

Yes, he does, Constitutionally and legally.

BTW, there should be a Toxx Clause for government. It would certainly remove a ton of crappy politicians .

Agreed.

Real Life Forums

Please realize I'm partially joking

Re: Please realize I'm partially joking

Who is online