Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Stay with me: 1) Governments have too much money, which is why we're energy-addicted. 2) We need to give the government a lot MORE money to develop new energy sources. Got all that? Really? Can I have some of whatever you're smoking?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line
51
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

1033 clicks; posted to Politics » and Fandom » on 15 Aug 2006 at 3:07 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



51 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
whidbey
2006-08-15 12:03:50 PM  
But I love that energy-addiction residue, man...too much.
 
TDonaghe
2006-08-15 12:04:27 PM  
Dude basically prescribes the rationing of gasoline. We'd all get ration coupons for how much gas the government decides we can use. We pay more money for more coupons if we need to use more gas. Someone needs to read "Economics in One Lesson."

How about we drop all of the government welfare for the gas companies. Let's quit giving them tax breaks, etc - they're making plenty of money, right?

At the same time perhaps the government can offer car manufacturers and other industries super awesome OMGWTF incentives for eliminating our dependency on foreign oil by using cleaner technologies. Oh, and to help clean up the air, let's build another few dozen nuke plants.
 
ChairmanKaga
2006-08-15 12:59:34 PM  
My head hurts.
 
HumbleGod
2006-08-15 1:07:40 PM  
1. Stop government subsidies to rich oil companies
2. Profit!

/that's right, no third step needed
 
Scooby's'pawn
2006-08-15 1:34:44 PM  
TDonaghe: We'd all get ration coupons for how much gas the government decides we can use.

Nice plan, huh? I love having the government tell me how I can live my life. Do you think I could apply for more ration cards if my mom is dying and I have to drive across the state? Which government official do you think I'd have to bribe, or does he foresee adding a whole new layer of government to manage it?

How about we drop all of the government welfare for the gas companies.

What welfare is that?

More incentives for cleaner cars and better fuel economy would be a good thing, but I suspect it won't be really needed when gas is at $6/gallon in a year or so.

HumbleGod: 1. Stop government subsidies to rich oil companies

Which subsidies? you make it sound like the government pays oil companies instead of the other way around. I guarantee that the taxes and tariffs they pay far outweigh any "subsidies" they get.
 
BobtheFascist
2006-08-15 2:15:31 PM  
Use poor people as fuel.
 
dedekind_cut
2006-08-15 2:30:45 PM  
BobtheFascist: Use poor people as fuel.

No no no, you've got it all wrong. Baby is the fuel of the future. I hear they are just about to put out a car that gets 20 rods to the hogshead of babies. Hot damn.

/Aisle seat
 
Finnley Wren
2006-08-15 3:16:38 PM  
Heard a commentator say the other day that American's would vote for tinpot Nazi's before they would give up their SUV's.

As much as I wish this weren't true . . .
 
uh_clem
2006-08-15 3:30:04 PM  
Governments have too much money, which is why we're energy-addicted.

[image from monoform.org too old to be available]
 
Sweaty Jerry
2006-08-15 3:43:08 PM  
Haha, exactly uh_clem.

Something I heard recently, but can't back it up: Nixon and Kissinger were contemplating dropping in paratroopers to seize Saudi oil fields in the 70s, solving the oil problem in a very violent, swift manner. Anyone know if that's for real or not?
 
666539
2006-08-15 3:45:23 PM  
Forget poor people as fuel, here's the real solution:

Wse stupid people for fuel instead of poor people. Just have a series of simple tests on the gas pump's display screen -- things like "Who is this celebrity? Jennifer Anniston, Britney Spears, or Angelina Jolie? Answer correctly to win a 53" plasma TV!" and if you even try to answer, a trapdoor opens and into the converter you go. Or anybody that puts 93 octane in their minivan, into the vat you go. I could come up with a whole list of these so they could rotate in case some of the stupid people start catching on. People that sign up for "Account Protection" on the credit cards, anybody that thinks Elvis is alive, the list is endless.

It would be an easy way to reduce the number of bad drivers out there too. Miss your exit and try to back up on the shoulder to go back to it? Die. Parallel park leaving 8 feet between you and the car in front of you and taking up two spaces? Die.

If we select for stupidity we'd get much higher percentage of rich people who we all know have a much better energy content than poor people and would yield more fuel per pound.

Best of all, do it for long enough and nobody will mind anymore, we'll naturally run out of fuel (although there will be a consistent lower-level supply after the initial supply is used up) but by then population numbers will be lowered to a more sustainable level. And with the idiots gone the remaining people will use less power since they'll be smart enough to remember to turn off the damn lights when they leave the room.

Yeah, I think that works, where do I sign up to run for president?
 
Texas Di
2006-08-15 3:46:13 PM  
TDonaghe:At the same time perhaps the government can offer car manufacturers and other industries super awesome OMGWTF incentives for eliminating our dependency on foreign oil by using cleaner technologies. Oh, and to help clean up the air, let's build another few dozen nuke plants.

You make it sound so simple. Like it's common sense or something. But ending our dependency on foreign oil starts here. In our hearts.

Sounds cheesy/lame, but it has some truth to it. Let it marinate for a minute before any flaming ensues. You're the best. Love the confounded dog.

/DRTFA because it feels like I've RTFA a brazilian times before
 
bin_smokin
2006-08-15 3:47:56 PM  
2006-08-15 02:15:31 PM BobtheFascist

Use poor people as fuel.


I'll admit i laughed at this...
 
BrockSamson
2006-08-15 3:50:24 PM  
I read the first paragraph before I realized the man was an idiot without a basic understanding of economics.

I hereby award him no points, and may god have mercy on his soul.
 
Major Thomb
2006-08-15 3:52:55 PM  
Needs a non sequitur tag?
 
Vandal7000
2006-08-15 4:03:46 PM  
No no no, you've got it all wrong. Baby is the fuel of the future..

Baby oil?
 
anticleversheep
2006-08-15 4:06:44 PM  
oil prices will only keep rising. the safety of nuclear power plants decreases as more are built (assuming we don't have a nuclear renaissance). wind farms are unsightly. photovoltaics are inefficient. ethanol yields less energy than the cost to produce. geothermal energy would only work in a few places. scientists have been trying to harness fusion for decades, to no avail. energy amplifiers are under-researched.

something has got to give, sooner or later; however, times will only get tougher before that, in one way or another.
 
bin_smokin
2006-08-15 4:08:23 PM  
Governments have too much money, which is why we're energy-addicted.

This has got to be the stupidest thing i've read in a long time. We will always be energy addicted so long as we aren't living in caves eating uncooked fish while drawing pictures on the wall in our own feces like savages.

Our addiction to foreign oil (which is what this jackass is referring too) is based on 3 things. Greed (EZ Money), Apathy (too difficult to change a good thing) and a need to support foreign nations whose economies would be devestated to the point of collapse if no one needed thier oil. We will always need oil, even if it isn't used in fossil fuels. Oil was used to make the plastics in the keyboard your chubby little fingers are pounding away on right now and probably in the polyesters in the clothing you're wearing. Fossil Fuels for burning are but a single use of a product that is probably the most prolific in the manufacturing industry a this time in history.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ELIMINATE OUR DEPENDANCE ON FOREIGN OIL WITHOUT FUNDAMENTALY CHANGING EVERY SINGLE INDUSTRY IN THE WORLD TO ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR CARBON BASED POLYMERS

I wrote it big just in case. Most people seem to think that electric cars and nuclear fussion plants will eliminate a need for foreign oil which is completely untrue. As more and more industries switch from glass or metal parts to plastics, our dependancies will only increase.
 
pearls before swine
2006-08-15 4:12:33 PM  
You can't simply assume that "corporate welfare" hurts us. Sometimes rewarding industry for doing things the way we want (when the market can't bring about the result on its own) can be a good investment for the community to make. Maintaining and enforcing a prohibition-based regulatory scheme can be just as expensive, and lead to industrial inefficiency. Carrot and stick financial incentives work better.

That's going to be the core of the economy plank of the platform for my new capitalism-loving liberal political party convention.

That, and free weed.

(Did I forget to talk about the oil? Nevermind. . . )
 
BrockSamson
2006-08-15 4:13:02 PM  
anticleversheep

the safety of nuclear power plants decreases as more are built


Source?
 
MindStalker
2006-08-15 4:15:49 PM  
TDonaghe
At the same time perhaps the government can offer car manufacturers and other industries super awesome OMGWTF incentives for eliminating our dependency on foreign oil by using cleaner technologies.

I don't know... But wouldn't the BBQ clog up the injectors,

/hides.
 
anticleversheep
2006-08-15 4:19:51 PM  
bin_smokin:
I wrote it big just in case. Most people seem to think that electric cars and nuclear fussion plants will eliminate a need for foreign oil which is completely untrue. As more and more industries switch from glass or metal parts to plastics, our dependancies will only increase.

if what you say is true, how is that not even more of an incentive to limit our dependence on foreign oil in other fields such as transportation? (no pun intended) if we find alternative ways of generating energy our dependence will, at the bare minimum, not increase as quickly as it otherwise would have.
 
StrikitRich
2006-08-15 4:24:35 PM  
Since the Government has too much money, why don't they cut fuel taxes? Government makes more money off energy through taxes than the energy companies makes.

Makes sense to everyone but a politician or a bureaucrat.
 
MindStalker
2006-08-15 4:24:43 PM  
anticleversheep: I think he was refering to the fact that plastics use a lot of oil to produce.
 
anticleversheep
2006-08-15 4:28:33 PM  
BrockSamson:
Source?

i apologize for not giving a source, i thought it was common knowledge. it is a fact that there is a certain probability of a disaster occurring at a nuclear power plant. this probability is measured per plant per year of operation. this means that every year that a plant is in operation, the probability of a disaster is compounded (due to the effects of radiation on the infrastructure, human error, and just plain dumb "luck") and increases.

also, the more plants are built, the higher the probability that a disaster will occur at one of them. for instance, if there is a 1% chance that a disaster will occur at a nuclear plant in a given year, and there are 10 plants in commission, the probability that a disaster will occur at a plant that year is 10%, not 1%.

IIRC, similar statistical analysis was called into play in explaining why the challenger space shuttle exploded. some screws or something failed, even though each one had a small chance of failing, there were so many that the probability of NONE failing was actually pretty low.

i might have the concept slightly wrong, wrote this quickly and not sure if i explained it well
 
Dinjiin [BareFark]
2006-08-15 4:30:21 PM  
TDonaghe Dude basically prescribes the rationing of gasoline.

Agreed. If the national quota is about the same as what we use now, one could say that it's almost like a smart gas tax - cheap up to one point, expensive when you go beyond it and start buying credits off the free market.

How about we drop all of the government welfare for the gas companies. Let's quit giving them tax breaks, etc - they're making plenty of money, right?

Agreed. Subsidies should be reserved for potential technologies that otherwise would never be profitable during its lifetime. The exploration and drilling of oil does not meet that definition. Oil is a commodity that will always be needed. As such, they will always be able to recoup their costs. They will always make a profit.

At the same time perhaps the government can offer car manufacturers and other industries super awesome OMGWTF incentives for eliminating our dependency on foreign oil by using cleaner technologies.

We already have incentives and requirements. Consumers receive credits for purchasing hybrids. Manufacturers must meet fuel efficiency requirements. Neither are very powerful motives.

Oh, and to help clean up the air, let's build another few dozen nuke plants.

Agreed. I've received more radiation in my life flying around the country in commercial aircraft than any of the locals near Three-Mile Island received during the accident in 1979. Besides, the French invented an encapsulated fuel module that prevents run-away melt-downs like 3MI and Chernobyl. Combined with a switch to a less polluting fuel source like Thorium, nuclear would be great.
 
BrockSamson
2006-08-15 4:30:41 PM  
pearls before swine

You can't simply assume that "corporate welfare" hurts us. Sometimes rewarding industry for doing things the way we want (when the market can't bring about the result on its own) can be a good investment for the community to make. Maintaining and enforcing a prohibition-based regulatory scheme can be just as expensive, and lead to industrial inefficiency. Carrot and stick financial incentives work better.

That's going to be the core of the economy plank of the platform for my new capitalism-loving liberal political party convention.

While this is true, you've also just created a system ripe for exploitation. Why do you think corporations have hijacked our current system? The answer is simple: they see a way to profit from the exploitation. Increasing the amount of money "in the pot" simply increases the incentives for different corporations to use their political connections to exploit the system. Given the amounts of money involved, if they don't have political connections, the corporations will simply create them with campaign contributions, etc.

Unfortunately I can't stay to discuss this - I have an appointment.
 
Wizzin
2006-08-15 4:35:20 PM  
If the end result will allow us to tell the entire Middle East to go fark itself forever, then I am for whatever amount of money is required for the research. Just do it soon.
 
anticleversheep
2006-08-15 4:36:21 PM  
Dinjiin:
Agreed. I've received more radiation in my life flying around the country in commercial aircraft than any of the locals near Three-Mile Island received during the accident in 1979. Besides, the French invented an encapsulated fuel module that prevents run-away melt-downs like 3MI and Chernobyl. Combined with a switch to a less polluting fuel source like Thorium, nuclear would be great.

booo foreign oil. hoooraay nuclear renaissance!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_amplifier
 
isamudyson [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-08-15 4:38:06 PM  
anticleversheep,

"i might have the concept slightly wrong, wrote this quickly and not sure if i explained it well"

In other words, the more times you drive down the road to work the higher your chances of getting in an accident.
 
HJE-Cobra
2006-08-15 4:38:29 PM  
What we need is some pebble bed nuclear reactors (no pops). I'm all for 'em! Go, safer nuclear power!

I know wikipedia isn't always 100% factual, but I'm so lazy...
 
grinningdeamon
2006-08-15 4:44:02 PM  
Yeah, I think that works, where do I sign up to run for president?

You have my vote.
 
Jon Snow
2006-08-15 4:47:18 PM  
bin smokin, are you unaware of non oil-based plastics?
 
anticleversheep
2006-08-15 4:48:30 PM  
isamudyson:
In other words, the more times you drive down the road to work the higher your chances of getting in an accident.

basically, yes. which is why i didn't see the need to cite it in the first place. that having been said, we could greatly reduce the risk and increase the efficiency of generating nuclear power if we spent more time(/money) researching it.
 
bin_smokin
2006-08-15 4:59:03 PM  
2006-08-15 04:47:18 PM Jon Snow

bin smokin, are you unaware of non oil-based plastics?

For almost anything plastic DuPont is the king and has been since forever. Here is a good site on them.

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Plastic/index.html

The ideas are there but the technology isn't yet. But thier working on it. My primary beef (there is a pun in there if you read the link) is with people who believe that reducing fossil fuels alone will solve all our oil dependency issues when in fact it really only scratches the surface of the problem. It will be just as hard to switch to non oil based plastics as it will be to switch to renewable fuel sources simply because we use 20 times more plastic now than we did 50 years ago. As usage increases the ability to change what is being used becomes increasingly more difficult.
 
KiwDaWabbit
2006-08-15 5:04:31 PM  
I admit, this guy's background is impressive.

Given a clear understanding of the gravity of the issues at hand Americans would rally around this initiative as they did in World War II.

Well, well, well. I'd love to know how things have been in Dream World lately.
 
Jon Snow
2006-08-15 5:17:24 PM  
bin_smokin far less oil goes into making plastic than into fuel. If we greatly reduce our consumption of oil-as-fuel, it will buy us the time necessary to make recycling plastic more efficient, and really bring home organic and non-oil based synthetic polymers.

I agree with your larger point- that driving hydrogen cars isn't a final solution to oil dependence. But as we handle the fuel issue, it will "expand" the amount of fuel remaining and give us the time we need to go nearly oil-free.
 
Speaker2Animals [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-08-15 5:19:34 PM  
666539
I'd vote for you, for sure.

Saying that, the writer of TFA needs to be kidnapped and taken to a library, duct-taped to a chair and forced to read a history of the Soviet Union and the concept of central planning. What an ignoramus!
 
bkennedy
2006-08-15 5:28:37 PM  
[image from villagevoice.com too old to be available]

Yes... yes... all goes according to plan. And if you don't like gasoline... you're teh gay!!!! LOL!!1111 BUTTSECKS!!!!11
 
borist
2006-08-15 5:35:49 PM  
No man, the GOVERNMENT doesn't want you to know that you can make an OIL SUBSTITUTE from pot seeds, man! THAT'S why they hate dope, man. They're afraid mass dope growing will end their OIL MONOPOLY, man!

/Dave's not here, man.
 
astro716
2006-08-15 5:45:28 PM  
Ah, arguing with a false premise. It's in the gift basket the RNC gives new members, along with some nice Ad Hominems and fresh-picked False Dichotomies.
 
Bacontastesgood
2006-08-15 5:49:21 PM  
So the article was wack but the headline which has nothing to do with the article is wacker. Or written by a wacker.
 
Saiga410
2006-08-15 6:53:58 PM  
I love the plug for his book. BUY MY BOOK.

and anticleversheep wind farms are strikingly beautiful. Everytime I pass the wind farm in north central IL I come close to runing off the road. I could watch them all day.

/one man's opinion, think what you want
 
sitesmithscott
2006-08-15 6:58:51 PM  
Man I love Fark. I get all ready to post a comment and within the first 10 to 20 posts someone beats me to any point to make.

DOE US Oil Imports
 
jonny_q
2006-08-15 6:59:38 PM  
The sooner you realize this, the closer to nirvana you'll be:
Oil companies don't pay taxes. Period. In fact, COMPANIES don't pay taxes. Period. If you raise taxes on oil companies, they raise their prices to cover the loss. Oil companies pass the taxes on to you at the pump. So for those of you who think more taxes in any combination would help, well, you're wrong.

In fact, I think you'd be a bit astounded to learn exactly how much the government gets off of each $3 gallon of gas you're pumping (state and fed taxes put together). It's much more than Exxon's cut of the $3.
 
anticleversheep
2006-08-15 7:14:14 PM  
Saiga410:
and anticleversheep wind farms are strikingly beautiful. Everytime I pass the wind farm in north central IL I come close to runing off the road. I could watch them all day.

i was being facetious, i am actually extremely pro alternative energy. i was just listing common reasons why people reject some alternative energy ideas, i think wind farms are a great idea in locations where they could be utilized efficiently.
 
Major Thomb
2006-08-15 7:28:21 PM  
anticleversheep: the safety of nuclear power plants decreases as more are built (assuming we don't have a nuclear renaissance)

We've had a nuclear renaissance. The US just hasn't participated in it due to political pressure. The designs now are 747s compared to the Sopwith Camels that are in service.
 
peachykeen
2006-08-15 7:33:03 PM  
666539

Forget poor people as fuel, here's the real solution:

Wse stupid people for fuel instead of poor people. Just have a series of simple tests on the gas pump's display screen -- things like "Who is this celebrity? Jennifer Anniston, Britney Spears, or Angelina Jolie? Answer correctly to win a 53" plasma TV!" and if you even try to answer, a trapdoor opens and into the converter you go. Or anybody that puts 93 octane in their minivan, into the vat you go. I could come up with a whole list of these so they could rotate in case some of the stupid people start catching on. People that sign up for "Account Protection" on the credit cards, anybody that thinks Elvis is alive, the list is endless.

It would be an easy way to reduce the number of bad drivers out there too. Miss your exit and try to back up on the shoulder to go back to it? Die. Parallel park leaving 8 feet between you and the car in front of you and taking up two spaces? Die.

If we select for stupidity we'd get much higher percentage of rich people who we all know have a much better energy content than poor people and would yield more fuel per pound.

Best of all, do it for long enough and nobody will mind anymore, we'll naturally run out of fuel (although there will be a consistent lower-level supply after the initial supply is used up) but by then population numbers will be lowered to a more sustainable level. And with the idiots gone the remaining people will use less power since they'll be smart enough to remember to turn off the damn lights when they leave the room.

Yeah, I think that works, where do I sign up to run for president?

That is the best rant I have ever had the pleasure of reading. I would also like to subscribe to your newsletter...
 
whidbey
2006-08-15 7:38:23 PM  
Major Thomb: We've had a nuclear renaissance. The US just hasn't participated in it due to political pressure. The designs now are 747s compared to the Sopwith Camels that are in service.

If they really believe nuclear fission is the answer, especially in the quantities its proponents imagine, then they'd better get their act together and convince America just how safe it is.

Beyond any reasonable doubt. Or they'd better just forget about it.
 
otomo
2006-08-15 10:01:21 PM  
The reasons for the challenger explosion were largely NOT technical, rather managerial. Most technical "disasters" are a result of managers not listening to the engineers, or flat out ignoring them for "cost", "time", or "difficulty" reasons.

eg: we short change the future too often for the convenience of the present.

An excellent read to the events that led up to the explosion is from Richard Feynman. I personally think every human alive needs to read it (not just engineers), since it highlights the exact kind of thinking that should never be employed by managers.

link here

In a nutshell: the rings were never supposed to erode, they eroded 33%, the managers saw that as a 66% safety margin and not a "holy crap, we have a problem we need to fix" issue like the engineers. The engineers also had a much higher rate of failure pegged for the shuttle 1/100 iirc, not 1/1000. The managers just chose to "massage" the statistics.

Meh I am going to bed, and yes, pebble bed reactors for the win! If only people understood that meltdowns are impossible due to the design of the reactor. Sigh, oh well, once we get 6$ gas I am sure people will start to change their beliefs to proper power generation.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More Fark for your buck

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.