An Inconvenient Electric Bill - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-27-2007, 08:22 PM   #166
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Take it easy on your forehead...it was a joke.


650,000 dead Iraqis, due to a war sold on a tissue of LIES by the Rethuglican party.

But it's the DEMOCRAT party that are guilty of 'moral depravity'.

Hilarious!
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:23 PM   #167
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Quite agreed. It matters not what the source is, only that we have and use it. Conservation, however, is not an energy source. Nothing wrong with being more efficient of coarse, but the goal should be to use MORE energy wiser, not less.

From foot, to horse, to windmill, to steam, to coal to nuclear. The more energy we have used, the more prosperous mankind has been.
"More," however, doesn't equate greater power or efficiency. Computers are a good example of this. Today's computers are increasingly smaller and use less electricity, while being exponentially more powerful.

I believe that there is enough bloat in today's technology that there is much that we can do to become more powerful with much less. That's not to say that it will happen overnight, but the 21st century wasn't built overnight either. Our emergence from the 19th century was painful, and much of it was dictated by a heavy dose of government regulation that mandated better efficiency, safety, and protections. But, in the long run, we're much better off than we would have been had our ancestors just been complacent.
__________________

__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:23 PM   #168
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus


Most of it, I believe, was actually because Roman citizens had become quite wealthy and complacent that they refused to do their own dirty work. As such, Rome had started to recruit the outside Germanic tribes to be an increasing part of the military. The problem with that is that the Germanic tribes were always the Empire's greatest threat anyway, so it would be the equivalent of contracting Al Qaeda to defend the U.S. from itself.

Rome was never the most diplomatic or tactful empire, so most of the Germanic tribes never recognized the borders anyway, which often included a large grab of tribal land.

Sociopolitical situations are quite different today than they were back then, so I think there's not much threat of this happening again, as, obviously, there is no way in hell that we'd contract Al Qaeda to be our military, for instance.
no, but there was another reason - the roman empire had grown so big that the need for soldiers to control it had become larger than ever, especially at the border regions of the empire. the lack of soldiers in those regions made it hard to collect taxes there. and with no taxes, they werent able to pay the for the military. it was a vicious circle that all empires that grow too big enter sooner or later.
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:24 PM   #169
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus



4) Moral depravity? This one I can reject outright, because this was a romanticist, revisionist interpretation of the Roman Empire's collapse. By the fall of the Roman Empire, all of its "moral depravities" had already been long outlawed and Christianity was the state religion.
There you have it
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:24 PM   #170
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
LyricalDrug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA
Posts: 3,212
Local Time: 09:51 AM
sampled from thinkprogress.org:

Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics

The right-wing is angry that Al Gore has won so much public attention and goodwill for his work on global warming. Determined to smear his efforts, Drudge writes in a screaming headline:

"POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION *INCREASE* AFTER 'TRUTH'"

Responding to Drudge’s attack, Vice President Gore’s office told ThinkProgress:

1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

It’s the latest in a series of desperate attacks by Drudge to paint Gore as a hypocrite. These are the lengths that climate skeptics must go to suppress action on global warming. There is no meaningful debate within the scientific community, so the right-wing busies itself with talk about how much electricity Al Gore’s house uses — and even then they distort the truth.
__________________
LyricalDrug is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:26 PM   #171
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Yet, it didn't take much for some folk to fall for it...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:26 PM   #172
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Man
no, but there was another reason - the roman empire had grown so big that the need for soldiers to control it had become larger than ever, especially at the border regions of the empire. the lack of soldiers in those regions made it hard to collect taxes there. and with no taxes, they werent able to pay the for the military. it was a vicious circle that all empires that grow too big enter sooner or later.
Well, here's the basis for my argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foederati

Quote:
Foederatus, early in the history of the Roman Republic, identified one of the tribes bound by treaty (foedus), who were neither Roman colonies nor had they been granted Roman citizenship (civitas) but were expected to provide a contingent of fighting men when trouble arose. The Latini were considered blood allies, but the rest were federates or socii. The term is the root of the modern term federalism.

During the Roman republic, the friction between these treaty obligations without the corresponding benefits of Romanity led to the Social War between Romans, with a few close allies, and the disaffected Socii. A law of 90 BCE (Lex Julia) offered Roman citizenship to the federate states that accepted the terms. Not all cities (e.g. Heraclea and Naples) were prepared to be absorbed into the Roman res publica. Other foederati lay beyond Italy: Gades in Spain, and Massilia (Marseilles).

Later the term foederati was extended by the Roman practice of subsidizing entire barbarian tribes — which included the Attacotti, Franks, Vandals, Alans and, best known, the Visigoths — in exchange for providing soldiers to fight in the Roman armies. Alaric began his career leading a band of Gothic foederati.

The word federations came from the Latin word foedus, which indicated a solemn binding treaty of mutual assistance between Rome and another nation for perpetuity. At first, the Roman subsidy took the form of money or food, but as tax revenues dwindled in the fourth and fifth centuries, the foederati were billeted on local landowners, which came to be identical to being allowed to settle on Roman territory. Large local landowners living in distant border provinces (see "marches") on extensive, largely self-sufficient villas, found their loyalties to the central authority further compromised in such situations. Then, as loyalties began to fractionate and become more local, the Empire began to crumble into smaller and smaller territories.

The Franks became foederati in 358, when Julian the Apostate let them keep the areas in northern Gaul, which had been depopulated during the preceding century. Roman soldiers defended the Rhine and had major armies a 100 miles south and west of the Rhine. Frankish settlers were in the area north and east of the Romans and helped with the Roman defense. The breach of the Rhine borders in the winter of 406 and 407 made an end to the Roman presence at the Rhine. Both the Romans and the Franks were defeated by Vandals and Alans.

In 376 certain Goths asked Emperor Valens to allow them to settle on the southern bank of the Danube river, and were accepted into the empire as foederati. Later that year the Goths rose in rebellion and defeated the Romans in the Battle of Adrianople. The serious loss of military manpower forced the Roman Empire to rely more on foederati.

The loyalty of the tribes and their leaders was not reliable and in 395 the Visigoths, this time under the lead of Alaric, once again rose in rebellion. One of the most powerful Late Roman generals, a Vandal called Stilicho, was born of parents who were from the foederati.

By the fifth century, Roman military strength was almost completely based upon foederati units. In 451, Attila the Hun was defeated only with help of the foederati (who included the Visigoths and Alans). The foederati delivered the fatal blow to the dying Roman Empire in 476 when their commander Odoacer deposed the last Western Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:31 PM   #173
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 05:51 PM
well, there's nothing contradictory in our arguments.
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:38 PM   #174
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


How are you defining "prosperous". If you mean that now we consume more energy than ever and a large portion of it consumed by entertainment and other non- productive manners. Then yes we are very prosperous.

Your more energy wiser theory doesn't exactly = progression.
How much dirt can 1 man with a shovel move in a day?
How much energy does he use? 3000 calories or so right.
How much more can that same man move with a bulldozer?
How much more energy does a bulldozer use?

Increased energy use/man hour = increased productivity of labor = higher standard of living.

Unless you can show me otherwise.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:42 PM   #175
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

Increased energy use/man hour = increased productivity of labor = higher standard of living.
what nonsense.

its not how much energy you use that matters, its HOW you use it.
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:43 PM   #176
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


How much dirt can 1 man with a shovel move in a day?
How much energy does he use? 3000 calories or so right.
How much more can that same man move with a bulldozer?
How much more energy does a bulldozer use?

Increased energy use/man hour = increased productivity of labor = higher standard of living.

Unless you can show me otherwise.
That's perfectly right, yet greater efficiency is more valuable than greater energy use.

So a bulldozer consuming 10 liters/hour for that work is worse off than a bulldozer that consumes 5 liters/hour for the exact same work.

That's progress.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:44 PM   #177
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Increased energy use/man hour = increased productivity of labor = higher standard of living.

Unless you can show me otherwise.
Sounds like you ascribe to the Chinese school of progress.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:45 PM   #178
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega

So a bulldozer consuming 10 liters/hour for that work is worse off than a bulldozer that consumes 5 liters/hour for the exact same work.

That's progress.
not according to the equation stated above.
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:49 PM   #179
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy




650,000 dead Iraqis, due to a war sold on a tissue of LIES by the Rethuglican party.

But it's the DEMOCRAT party that are guilty of 'moral depravity'.

Hilarious!
I guess the democrats must not be so bright to be outwitted by George W. Bush. Man, what a clever guy!
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:49 PM   #180
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Well, ok, the flaw is that not the increased energy use is the development, but the development of the bulldozer.
Energy is just to keep it running.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com