Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Yeah, I know, anything's as easy as saying that other people just think it and it happens.

Strategy is the art of the possible. If you can't distinguish the possible from the impossible - or the impractical - then you have no strategy, whether it's life or any other game.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

What's practical and possible changes everyday. A few hundred years ago, flying was "impossible." "Green" energy is currently impractical, but that doesn't stop you and others from foaming at the mouth about how great it is/is going to be...just proving that you don't even buy into your own bullshit.

Great men aren't known for accepting limitations, but for pushing boundaries.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

This made me lol

Druid: Meowth
« Steam »« Xfire »
Glorious Death Metal Music

Green energy is practical - you are basing your claim on a faulty analogy. And you're talking in slogans, which is just a way of talking without thinking.

Millions of people lived and died and did NOT invent the flying machine - i.e., great people are very, very, very few in number whether we "accept limitations" or not.

Have you ever cared for a disabled person or overcome a physical shortcoming?
Have you ever had to make something out of literally nothing?
Curious how all the people who say this crap never seem to have done any of the "great people" stuff they talk about.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

If it were practical, we'd be using it, and it wouldn't require tax breaks, subsidies, and mandates to push people into using it. The only people "sloganeering" are those, like yourself, who can only object to those who point out that we're 'not there yet" with "green" energy by suggesting that they're "shills" who are "just talking without thinking" without saying anything concrete about why they're wrong (because they aren't wrong). If anything, my attitude that 'what is possible/practical changes with time' should give you hope that one day you'll be right about "green" energy.



Which only proves my point: What is possible/practical changes with time. Oh, and of course great people are a rarity, if greatness were commonplace, it wouldn't be considered great, now would it?



I was injured rather badly during my time in the military. There was a very real possibility I would spend the bulk of the rest of my life walking with a cane, as I had hyper-extended both knees simultaneously. While my knees still aren't 100%, and it's one of the reasons I'm a little chubby, thanks to a lot of patience and some physical therapy it will be years before I have to look at another knee surgery or walking with mechanical assistance. My knees still bend in every direction if I'm not careful, and I can't run (thank God for the lifecycle at the gym), but I definitely 'overcame' that particular physical adversity.

Lots of people with deformities and crippling injuries do the same, and would probably be offended at your notion that they should just give up because they'll never amount to anything.



Not all of us were sons of doctors, thanks for asking.



You don't have to be great to recognize greatness, but not measuring up doesn't mean you quit trying.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

This is not the best of all worlds.

You could just as easily argue that if flying machines were practical we'd have had them back in the 16th century when da Vinci first came up with the idea.



You could make the same argument about any law.

Certain activities are required or disallowed - by law - because the essence of the human condition is that what we as individuals want to do, or what is in our own personal interest as individuals, is often at odds with what is good for society.

No one wants to pay taxes. Everyone wants stuff for free. The argument in favor of clean energy and against coal is the same argument in favor of taking out your trash and paying taxes for garbage pickup versus dumping your crap on your neighbor's lawn.

It's cheaper, certainly, and doesn't involve compulsion, but no one really wants to live in a world where we dump our crap on each others' lawns.



The proof is that green energy does generate power, in the here and now. Therefore, the technology been proven to be fully viable. Wind, thermal, tidal, hydro, nuclear, etc, all are currently generating power. There is no principle that disallows an increase in scale.

A counter-example would be fusion power. It's generally accepted that hot fusion is viable, but it's yet to be proven that a hot fusion reactor could generate a sustained net-positive energy exchange on a massive scale, especially when the costs of refining the fuel are factored in. Probably, but the research would take time even if the energy lobby wasn't dead-set against it. In any event, you could certainly make the argument that it's not "proven viable".

Another counter-example would be cold fusion. Cold fusion may be possible, but the science is simply not there, let alone the technology. No one has ever provably generated a sustainable, net-positive, room-temperature fusion reaction, let alone one practical for mass energy generation, and most scientists think it's malarkey. Maybe they're wrong, some disagree. But you would be right on arguing that cold fusion isn't viable or practical now or in the foreseeable future.

Neither scenario is comparable to wind, solar, fission, etc, which all have successful contemporary implementations.



Indeed. Hence, it doesn't make much sense to mass-market a product that, by your own claim, a few amongst many millions could make use of.



So the answer is "no". You weren't crippled.

And even insofar as you suffered inconvenience...you had other people's time...other people's money...to help you out...you did not rely on the kindness of others...you had the luxury of getting by on other people's tax money...which was submitted not out of any good will but because OTHER PEOPLE were FORCED to make a sacrifice for YOU.

So by your own account, "good will" and "can-do" wasn't enough. The law and government had to help you get back on your feet - literally.
Libertarian hypocrisy at its finest.



Oh? Well let me ask you this.

If you think yourself a clever guy and want to broaden your horizons, why do you make a point of reading books that only agree with what you based on your very limited knowledge have already decided is true? Why do you not read general history or books about the difficulties that have faced American society in the past, and instead lazily substantiate your views through TV and Google?

Why do you not have the will to challenge your views and expand your mind?

You talk of greatness and boundless horizons yet you do not rise even to the very marginal challenges that immediately present themselves in pursuit of your own greatness. Isn't that hypocritical?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Oh this thread is such a surprising departure from the norm.

*giggle*

The email exchange was amusing. The ensuing argument is also amusing.

Callysta of Reverence

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

You could, but only if you were the sort of belligerent narcissistic half-wit who was incapable of admitting they were error, and overlooked variables such as the lack of progress in the divergent fields of engineering necessary for heavier-than-air flight.



It always amuses me that when you point out that subsidies and tax breaks essentially encourage inefficient behavior that would not normally be seen, the only answer anyone can come up with it "oh, but the tragedy of the commons!" In general, what is best for the individual is best for society. We don't dump our trash on each other's lawns because it does create a detriment for us as individuals, as you'd constantly need to be cleaning your neighbor's shit out of your yard, just they'd need to be cleaning your shit out of their own.
I'd point out that there are plenty of municipalities where there is no municipal trash services, and everyone finds a way to get by just fine without dumping their garbage in their neighbors gazebos, but I'd be afraid you'd just say those are isolated incidents, and that aside from those civic anomalies, every place is essentially Detroit.



There is a lot more to viability than "it makes power," like how much power does it make. How efficient is it? How reliable is it? One of the big reasons we don't have massive solar/wind projects tied into our existing power infrastructure is that they don't produce a reliable, sustained output, and actually become a drain on the grid.

Or perhaps you've already forgotten that I've explained to why those "green" options you keep referring to are not, at the present time, viable: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10480&start=56



We already have a cheap, reliable method of generating nuclear power: the Lithium Flouride Thorium Reactor, or LFTR, which is safer and generates less waste than traditional uranium reactors. However, no nuclear power options are going to see the light of day, not because of the "energy lobby," but because of the more extreme elements of the environmental lobby.



I think this is the point in your TL;DR where you've just started stringing words and sentences together to see if anyone is still paying attention, because that's a lot of nonsense. You're trying to convince me that alternative energy options are viable, and you bring up cold fusion, which you then admit doesn't even exist, much less have any useful application? The problem with this becomes even more obvious when you compare it with wind and solar power because there really aren't any "successful implementations" of those technologies, and even in the rare cases where you can point to it and say "look, it works," not only are they not reliable, but they also come with environmental detriments of their own.



I'd say not being able to walk for months is "crippled," but hey, what do I know? You can make the "you didn't do it yourself" argument, if you'd like, but it rings hollow. The government is like any other employer who has to have some system of 'workman's compensation' to address vocational injuries. The "sacrifice" others may or may not have made for me was a quid-pro-quo: In exchange for me putting myself in a position to sustain the injuries I had, they guaranteed that I would be cared for in the event I was injured. Never mind that, once again, you've been proven wrong about your assertions, I'm sure no one will notice that you're attempting to change the subject from "you don't understand the hardships of the disabled" to "libertarians are dumb," meanwhile proving that, once again, you don't understand any of the underlying tenets of libertarian philosophy.




I didn't realize you were privy to the contents of my personal library. You'd probably be surprised to know that I've read more than one of Michael Moore's books (delicious, fact-impaired comedies that they were), as well as Al Franken (I remember when he was funny...it was the best five minutes of his career), among others. The reason I don't reference any of these isn't because they don't "lazily substantiate my views," but because they enforce them by way of exposing the foolishness of the opposing point-of-view and mis/dis-information involved in the work. Unlike you, I don't treat everything I read from a particular source <cough-BBC!!! cough-cough> as gospel truth.



Pot, meet Kettle...

I'm not sure how you can ask this question when it is painfully obvious that you either, just by way of example in this particular thread, ignore or lack knowledge of shortcomings of the new technologies you espouse.



I'm not sure what marginal challenges you're referring to in this sentence, but if you noticed something while you were checking out my book collection that you think I'm ignoring, feel free to share with the class.

I think it's funny that you're arguing against people pushing envelopes and striving for success given your attitude toward your own progress in WoW, an attitude that I doubt disappears once you've left the confines of an MMO. If anything, you doing what you do with your obvious...interpersonal difficulties...is a testament to someone overcoming a personal detriment in the pursuit of greatness, the very refusal to bow to shortcomings not (entirely) of your own making in pursuit of a dream to which I'm referring. Hell, given that this discussion revolves around a controller for the disabled, your success in a venue that requires socializing despite you inability to properly socialize couldn't be any more of a perfect and relevant example. You can argue with me all you want, but your very existence and habits make the case you refuse to acknowledge.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

remind me to have both of you get smacked upside the head with an albatross.

Barely any threads here are worth looking at after page 1, if they even make it that far.

Not at all - you're exactly correct. The same had previously applied to biofuels and solar power, which were first proposed in the early 20th century. Those obstacles have since been overcome.



The proof that this belief is faulty is that only Americans believe this and only in the here and now because they are sheltered from the realities of societies (such as they are) where this is actually tested. Go look at China. Or even America itself, a century ago, before the labor and environmental reforms.

In the case of dirty energy, the "downside" is the detriment in air quality, damage to the biosphere, and public health.

You say "tragedy of the commons" sarcastically, but in the context it was first coined, ancient Athens, it did indeed prove to be the case that what is good for the individual is not good for the whole, and it ultimately brought the country down. Time and technology doesn't change human nature or the challenges that face human societies. Nothing can ever satisfy human greed.


"Drain on the grid". Do you have evidence of that?

"How much" isn't relevant because the tech is infinitely scalable.



I don't disagree. I think breeder reactors are another area worth exploring.



I provided it as a counter-example which would fit the paradigm you're consigning practical sustainable technologies to.



The government, least of all the military, does not have a bottom line. That is the big difference.

You would be the first to admit that the government takes overly good care of its workers, whether "the position they're in" is wanted or not, especially those on military welfare. Again, libertarian hypocrisy - big govt is good when it does something for you, you personally.

Perhaps not coincidentally, this also contradicts your first point in this post.



You're projecting. I don't read Michael Moore, and there's no logical reason to believe I have since I have never quoted or cited him. However, I have made it clear I read from many sources other than the BBC.

I don't need to see your "personal library" because the books on your shelf don't matter - what matters is your personal knowledge. What you say reflects only the attitudes and ideas of right-wing American contemporary media, and you are clearly unaware of any ideas or information outside that narrow field, and do not cite them insofar as they concern or even contradict your views, therefore I can only conclude that you are ignorant of anything but right-wing American contemporary media.

This impression is directly corroborated by the fact you said you're going to read a book because you already agree with its thesis.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I liked the part where someone didn't know who Gabe was.

Also, you're all retarded.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Can't figure out if Aes doesn't think cripple people should be allowed to use wheel chairs or if he wants them all herded into their own game servers where he won't have to suffer their arrogant insistence on playing with 'normals'.

Drominar, Petrous, Chronowrench