SeymourGore
Flatulent Cherub
I dunno, I think Coca-Cola would still do alright.
Cold Fusion 0ct 28, 2011
- Thread starter discord
- Start date
- Status
skypredator
Member
I was talking about the drink =P The company was the monopoly. Crap. Sorry about bad context xP
...And it was a joke. =P
...And it was a joke. =P
skypredator
Member
I'm just thinking about the implications of an easy-to-use, cheap, no-emissions energy source open to the public. Terrorists might get their hands on it, or monopolies might, well, monopolize it. Nothing, if perhaps rarely, incredibly helpful, cheap, and easy-to-use belongs to the public alone. We've gotten thus far with energy and technology, but I figure we've got to try just a little bit harder to take another step. Times change, but again, what if political rebels, rioters, or terrorists got their hands on this stuff? It all sounds interesting and rather nice, though. I'd love to see cold fusion be "proven" (Nothing in science can be proven, but you know what I mean). In fact, I'd like ALL my beliefs about energy to be proven wrong, for the sake of progress, and I've got some pretty wild ideas about energy.
I propose we make AFireInAsa tawp resurcher 'cos he's deh numba wun yuro. Vote foar Fiah!
I propose we make AFireInAsa tawp resurcher 'cos he's deh numba wun yuro. Vote foar Fiah!
Libra
Member
Not really to afraid about companies monopolizing it'll be cheaper and more efficient for our general electric companies to incorporate cold fusion and bloom boxes into their already existing power grid systems thus cheaper energy for...i read somewhere that an up north state has a bloom box grid which is running on natural gas
i wouldn't be surprised if they really did that wars have been fought over oil it's a big business i wonder what they would do if all the oil wells ran dry lol
Mots0311
Member
Oil wells wont go dry. There is so much of that *chocolate cookies* at the bottom of the ocean.
Libra
Member
they will oil is a non renewable resource once we use it all it won't magicaly reappear some scientist's think we have a good 100 years before all the easily accessible oil runs out meaning all the oil that the drillers can tap on land is gone companies would have to go through great lengths to get oil it wouldn't be profitable for oil companies unless they want those deep water horizon fiasco's oil isn't only used for fuel it's used in plastics, pills/medication, synthetics, and etc
Volt Cruelerz
Legions Developer
The most ironic part is that we switched to oil to start with because originally they had battery powered cars. Oil was just cheaper. 
Still is lol. Just imagine where we'd be if we wouldn't have though lol. Our smartphones might actually have battery lives of more than a day.
Still is lol. Just imagine where we'd be if we wouldn't have though lol. Our smartphones might actually have battery lives of more than a day.
skypredator
Member
Even still, once we've gotten past oil as a viable energy source, I wouldn't dare hold much confidence in just how far technology's progressed in the past century or so. One, considering man's had blueprints to build a flying machine, failure or not, for over 2,000+ years. Considering we've only just drawn up sound building plans for these thingers after 2,000-summat years just astounds me. Secondly, man has had the idea of an easily-renewable, cheap, efficient, open-to-the-public-for-free-trade energy source ever since the Industrial Revolution. Sure, we might even discover it tomorrow - who knows? "And what with all the technological advances we've amassed", you just might say, "We've got this!" One little snag, though. Technological advances are proportional to the technology already existing. When man first discovered earth was spherical, even without circumnavigating it, they didn't even have proper toilets. No sense of self-hygiene, rather. Simply put, they had simple technology, but to them, it was their Hi-Tech stuff. Sticks and sand for ciphering were their iPhone 4. Except, the question you have to ask yourselves is... What if this energy source just screws us over? In many cases of life, it's better to be anxious and unsure than to be arrogantly confident. Not EVERYthing's meant to be perfect, at least within the world of physics and other such stuff and curious balloons filled with liquid.
Application-1
test bester
Skypredator, shut up.
skypredator
Member
Der goeth my happy. Derp. =[
The Titanic. WWI. WWII. Bosnia. Chernobyl. Things in common? Technology. And abysmal amounts cockiness.
Not saying technology's bad, just stating that cold fusion, if real, is gonna bite our arse, and hard.
Plus, if you've got someting irrelevant to say to me, PM it. I'm sorry I'm just stating what I believe. If you can't handle the heat, go into the other kitchen, woman.
The Titanic. WWI. WWII. Bosnia. Chernobyl. Things in common? Technology. And abysmal amounts cockiness.
Not saying technology's bad, just stating that cold fusion, if real, is gonna bite our arse, and hard.
Plus, if you've got someting irrelevant to say to me, PM it. I'm sorry I'm just stating what I believe. If you can't handle the heat, go into the other kitchen, woman.
Piggeh
Puzzlemaster
Wait a minute. You're simply stating events that happened to use technology. You're ignoring the rest of the argument.
The Titanic: Was it technology's fault that they crashed? No, there were numerous factors that led to it. I don't feel like going into it. Perhaps some reading of facts will help you better understand.
WWI: Wait what. The causes of WWI could be condensed into the following: Serbian Nationalism (and the Black Hand), the system of alliances at the time, social tension, German Nationalism/Imperialism, and the Zimmermann Telegram. Apart from the telegram (which was actually intercepted by the US), none of those reasons were technologically based. Sure, there was trench warfare that involved machine guns ripping people apart. But that was the battle strategy at the time, and come WWII, that all changed.
Speaking of WWII....
WWII was generally caused by Hitler's attempts to "nationalize" (invasion of Austria) and fulfill his ideal listed in Mein Kampf (invasion of Czechoslovakia et. al.). The rest is history. Was there technology used in wars? Of course. Does that mean we should return to the Stone Age so that the death and destruction (that was caused by humans in power) of wars ends? Of course not, that'd be silly. You wouldn't have a computer to spout your drivel if that was the case. You'd be working in the fields, collecting herbs until you were strong enough to hunt game.
By Bosnia, I'm assuming you are referring to the ethnic cleansing that took place there? The key word there is "ethnic." It has to do with people (and no, there weren't any robots being persecuted). That was a fight between religions and races and whatnot. Did they use technology to facilitate their fight? Of course, but by that logic we shouldn't build fighter jets because their sole purpose is to kill people.
Chernobyl. Chernobyl was caused by operator error at a nuclear power plant during a scheduled test of the power system. Notice the key words there in this case. Operator error. Of course there are inherent safety risks to all objects (boulders falling on people comes to mind). But this had nothing to do with arrogance; they were simply testing something that happened to fail epically.
Not saying that you're stupid, just stating that if you actually want to make an argument, try to be a tad more informed about what you're saying. I'm sorry I'm just stating what the facts are. If you can't handle the truth, go into the other kitchen, woman.
Sn0w
New Member
Can you elaborate on your examples? I believe I have a general understanding of where you're coming from, but I would rather know from your own words.
I believe new finds in technology have a push and pull factor. They're pushed to their limits which can cause pain, but then they are pulled back for further examination.
I believe that greatness comes from pressure/pain, that it makes the technology better in the long run. Although horrible things can and will happen, a greater good often succeeds that of the disaster.
It sets a boundary.
skypredator
Member
I realize I was lazy enough to provide vague (and therefore useless) examples. Piggeh basically spelled out what I was saying. I left out a lot of information and such, but I knew you all would understand the causes of these disasters, and what they entailed. Just as an example: We got arrogant and stated the Titanic was unsinkable, when in reality, the builders did a rather shoddy job on the hull welding with B-Grade steels, instead of A-Grade. I could go into detail about WWI and WWII, Chernobyl, and other such tragedies - which would be nice - but Piggeh's already done it. Moving on, I agree with snow. Technology has a "push and pull" effect. Go back to the stone age? Aw, heck no. I like my Ramen Noodles, thankyouverymuch. Question is, to what extent are we able to control technology? Again, my examples suck, but they're just to give a basic overview. Not to mention that radiation is utilized to cure kill cancerous tissue. It sets a boundary indeed. Where exactly that boundary falls is up to us, to an extent.
WWI and WWII: Machine guns, heavily armed airplanes, poisonous gas, tanks, and trench warfare. These things were invented in just the beginning stages of the 20th century. With warfare technology comes death. My point is simply this: What would happen if armies were to utilize cold fusion to produce more weapons? This would mean more death. But cold fusion might be used to help produce medical supplies, thus saving lives. I know my ideas are way off track, and probably make no sense at all. I know this goes without saying, but I'm really not one with a way for words. What I'm really trying to say is that major technological advances brings death, but life as well. I'm not at all trying to criticize anyone who would like to see considerable advances. I would too. Just saying it won't be a "perfect" power source.
Also, keep in mind I rarely, if ever, devote more than 8 minutes to write my posts. I should probably spend more time developing my ideas and thoughts before putting them out there. Maybe I wouldn't make such a mess of myself.
WWI and WWII: Machine guns, heavily armed airplanes, poisonous gas, tanks, and trench warfare. These things were invented in just the beginning stages of the 20th century. With warfare technology comes death. My point is simply this: What would happen if armies were to utilize cold fusion to produce more weapons? This would mean more death. But cold fusion might be used to help produce medical supplies, thus saving lives. I know my ideas are way off track, and probably make no sense at all. I know this goes without saying, but I'm really not one with a way for words. What I'm really trying to say is that major technological advances brings death, but life as well. I'm not at all trying to criticize anyone who would like to see considerable advances. I would too. Just saying it won't be a "perfect" power source.
Also, keep in mind I rarely, if ever, devote more than 8 minutes to write my posts. I should probably spend more time developing my ideas and thoughts before putting them out there. Maybe I wouldn't make such a mess of myself.
Mots0311
Member
My contention is that technology ended WWII. Hitler couldve started a war using sticks and stones and if the other side had say.....straw and damp earth they would of been over run by hitlers panzerstick tanks and luftstones. Its a good thing America and its allies developed superior technology that ended the war quickly and decidedly. You just have to hope that whoever has the most dangerous weapons has the restraint not to use them to threaten and hold the world hostage. America and Great Britain are good examples of restrained power, at least in the last 60 odd years.
- Status