They were one in the same. Stupid question.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which was more productive:
The Cold War
The Space Race
(You can use a crayon)
No they don't.Jay wrote:
All they do is push worst case scenario And expect people to fork over billions of dollars in order to Ward off Armageddon.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
They were connected, they weren't one and the same by any stretch.Spearhead wrote:
They were one in the same. Stupid question.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which was more productive:
The Cold War
The Space Race
(You can use a crayon)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I didn't say it was. I was using one as an aside.Kmar wrote:
Country of origin isn't very relevant to a global population problem.
I didn't didn't say you did, specifically. It's more or less Beth that's making the implication whilst describing his population control scheme.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I didn't say it was. I was using one as an aside.Kmar wrote:
Country of origin isn't very relevant to a global population problem.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Space race was a part of the cold war.Dilbert_X wrote:
They were connected, they weren't one and the same by any stretch.Spearhead wrote:
They were one in the same. Stupid question.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which was more productive:
The Cold War
The Space Race
(You can use a crayon)
In 1953, Korolyov was given the go-ahead to develop the R-7 Semyorka rocket, which represented a major advance from the German design. Although some of its components (notably boosters) still resembled the German G-4, the new rocket incorporated staged design, a completely new control system, and a new fuel. It was successfully tested on 21 August 1957 and became the world's first fully operational ICBM the following month.[26] It would later be used to launch the first satellite into space, and derivatives would launch all piloted Soviet spacecraft.
Last edited by Spearhead (2011-06-08 11:41:10)
Anyone who doesn't understand that can't be bothered with little things like "facts" or "accuracy."
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Instead of arguing about bullshit graphs we should really be talking about the essence of this debate. On the one hand, you see the "liberal" tree huggers opposed to all development of any kind while being completely in denial of the political and economic realities of industrialization. On the other, you see "conservatives" opposed to gov't regulation of any kind who view natural world as something to be conquered and exploited.
There is a middle ground between industrialization vs. conservation. We simply cannot sustain unchecked population growth and not suffer the consequences. That's the truth.
Screw global warming.
There is a middle ground between industrialization vs. conservation. We simply cannot sustain unchecked population growth and not suffer the consequences. That's the truth.
Screw global warming.
The graph was used to illustrate the trend of population growth, which is very relevant to the discussion. There's no bullshit or arguing about it.Spearhead wrote:
Instead of arguing about bullshit graphs we should really be talking about the essence of this debate. On the one hand, you see the "liberal" tree huggers opposed to all development of any kind while being completely in denial of the political and economic realities of industrialization. On the other, you see "conservatives" opposed to gov't regulation of any kind who view natural world as something to be conquered and exploited.
There is a middle ground between industrialization vs. conservation. We simply cannot sustain unchecked population growth and not suffer the consequences. That's the truth.
Screw global warming.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Maybe stop growing corn only and produce some actual food would be good?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
corn is in pretty much everything. corn is also a staple food.Varegg wrote:
Maybe stop growing corn only and produce some actual food would be good?
From (an admittedly conservative blog site) Powerlineblog.com:
The author basically said any GOP candidates need to address climate change head on. So he created example Q&A scenarios for townhall/debate forums for candidates on the topic. I found the last point to be germane to Spearhead's last post, however...it's the policy, stupid:
The author basically said any GOP candidates need to address climate change head on. So he created example Q&A scenarios for townhall/debate forums for candidates on the topic. I found the last point to be germane to Spearhead's last post, however...it's the policy, stupid:
Question: If you agree that human activity have played a role in the recent warming of the planet, why don't you support cap and trade/emissions reductions/the UN agenda/putting a price on carbon/(pick your own form of this question)?
Answer: "The climate campaign's monomania for near-term suppression of greenhouse gas emissions through cap and trade or carbon taxes or similar means is the single largest environmental policy mistake of the last generation. The way to reduce carbon emissions is not to make carbon-based energy more expensive, but rather make low- and non-carbon energy cheaper at a large scale, so the whole world can adopt it, not just rich nations. This is a massive innovation problem, but you can't promote energy innovation by economically ruinous taxes and regulation. We didn't get the railroad by making horse-drawn wagons more expensive; we didn't get the automobile by taxing the railroads; we didn't get the desktop computer revolution by taxing typewriters, slide-rules, and file cabinets. It is time to stop ending the charade that we can enact shell game policies like cap and trade that will do nothing to actually solve the problem, but only increase the price of energy and slow down our already strangled economy. I support sensible efforts for government to promote energy technology breakthroughs, but am against subsidizing uncompetitive technologies."
Comment: If you really want to go on offense, you could use my opening statement from testimony two weeks ago to the House Foreign Affairs Committee's oversight subcommmittee:
"The international diplomacy of climate change is the most implausible and unpromising initiative since the disarmament talks of the 1930s, and for many of the same reasons; the Kyoto Protocol and its progeny are the climate diplomacy equivalent of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 that promised to end war (a treaty that is still on the books, by the way), and finally, future historians are going to look back on this whole period as the climate policy equivalent of wage and price controls to fight inflation in the 1970s."
Analysis: Forget about the argument over the science of global warming for a moment, because the Achilles' heel of the whole issue is the idiotic policy prescription of the climate campaign. As a thought experiment, consider this basic fact: if we could wave the proverbial magic wand and prove with absolute certainty that the earth was in store for 4 degrees of warming from greenhouse gases, it would not make the climate campaign's idiotic agenda any less idiotic. In other words, put bluntly, the scientific argument, interesting as it is, no longer matters very much for the politics and policy of the matter.
Keep two basic facts of climate arithmetic in mind. First, the emissions targets for the year 2050 that climate policy orthodoxy requires--an 80 percent reduction by the year 2050--would require reducing fossil fuel use to a level last seen in the U.S. in the year 1910, and on a per capita basis (since the U.S. only had 92 million people in 1910, but will have over 400 million in 2050), would require taking us back to a level of fossil fuel use last seen in 1875. This. Is. Loony. Toons. It will not happen. Climate campaigners, who usually contest every tiny deviation from orthodoxy, simply change the subject or spout mindless clichés when presented with the arithmetic on this. (Or, more often, display their total innumeracy about the matter.) I have been presenting the arithmetic on this inconvenient truth for nearly four years now, and have not once had my math challenged on the subject. By anyone. Usually the climate campaigners will challenge every small point to the bitter end. But not this one.
Second, even if the U.S. did somehow achieve this target (by shutting down the whole country perhaps?), it would make no difference to future global warming projections, unless every other nation (especially China and India) achieved the same low level of emissions. This is also not going to happen. Let me put this more starkly: The United States could cease to exist, and it will make no difference in the projected warming 100 years from now for the simple reason that China's emissions growth alone in the next 25 years is going to be greater than U.S. emissions are today. In other words, if the U.S. disappeared, our emissions will be "replaced" by China's.
So the simple question is, why should we hobble our economy to the benefit of our competitors? When the Senate faced this question in 1997, it voted 97 - 0 against such a stupid climate policy. They would vote much the same way today if the question is put to them in the same way. GOP candidates should put the question exactly that way now, because the basic factors have not changed one bit.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Like I said, they were connected, they weren't the same. ICBMs could have been developed without any 'space race' whatsoever.Spearhead wrote:
Space race was a part of the cold war.Dilbert_X wrote:
They were connected, they weren't one and the same by any stretch.Spearhead wrote:
They were one in the same. Stupid question.In 1953, Korolyov was given the go-ahead to develop the R-7 Semyorka rocket, which represented a major advance from the German design. Although some of its components (notably boosters) still resembled the German G-4, the new rocket incorporated staged design, a completely new control system, and a new fuel. It was successfully tested on 21 August 1957 and became the world's first fully operational ICBM the following month.[26] It would later be used to launch the first satellite into space, and derivatives would launch all piloted Soviet spacecraft.
Did Russia or the US close down their space programs after ICBMs were developed, or after the Cold War ended?
No?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-06-09 05:22:06)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Thats unlikely to happen, but there are ways around it.FEOS wrote:
The way to reduce carbon emissions is not to make carbon-based energy more expensive, but rather make low- and non-carbon energy cheaper at a large scale, so the whole world can adopt it, not just rich nations. This is a massive innovation problem, but you can't promote energy innovation by economically ruinous taxes and regulation.
Replace 'hobble' with 'advance' and 'benefit' with 'detriment' and maybe you'll see.So the simple question is, why should we hobble our economy to the benefit of our competitors?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Yeah ... but do you need corn in everything? ... no you don't, just like you don't need sugar in pretty much everything either ...Cybargs wrote:
corn is in pretty much everything. corn is also a staple food.Varegg wrote:
Maybe stop growing corn only and produce some actual food would be good?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
the reason why its in everything well... its because corn is easily manipulated into a lot of things wheres wheat and rice cannot. besides whats wrong with producing too much corn? Sure as shit enough wheat and grain produced in Europe and enough rice in asia.Varegg wrote:
Yeah ... but do you need corn in everything? ... no you don't, just like you don't need sugar in pretty much everything either ...Cybargs wrote:
corn is in pretty much everything. corn is also a staple food.Varegg wrote:
Maybe stop growing corn only and produce some actual food would be good?
We're unlikely to create an alternative to carbon based energy? I would go so far as to say we are certain to develop one, the question is how can we encourage the development. I thought the point that we didn't invent cars by taxing carriages was a good analogy.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats unlikely to happen, but there are ways around it.FEOS wrote:
The way to reduce carbon emissions is not to make carbon-based energy more expensive, but rather make low- and non-carbon energy cheaper at a large scale, so the whole world can adopt it, not just rich nations. This is a massive innovation problem, but you can't promote energy innovation by economically ruinous taxes and regulation.
How is going to 1875 levels of energy use going to advance your economy? There is no way it is going to be to the detriment to your competitors as you are not having a negative impact on them.Replace 'hobble' with 'advance' and 'benefit' with 'detriment' and maybe you'll see.So the simple question is, why should we hobble our economy to the benefit of our competitors?
Because corn isn't native to Europe so he sees it as some weird exotic crop. It feeds our pigs and cows and chickens. We don't sit here munching corn on the cob all day.Cybargs wrote:
the reason why its in everything well... its because corn is easily manipulated into a lot of things wheres wheat and rice cannot. besides whats wrong with producing too much corn? Sure as shit enough wheat and grain produced in Europe and enough rice in asia.Varegg wrote:
Yeah ... but do you need corn in everything? ... no you don't, just like you don't need sugar in pretty much everything either ...Cybargs wrote:
corn is in pretty much everything. corn is also a staple food.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
speak for yourself.
lol, j /k. i sit around all day drinking corn squeezings.
lol, j /k. i sit around all day drinking corn squeezings.
And if your competitors (China and India) don't have those same restrictions in place?Dilbert_X wrote:
Replace 'hobble' with 'advance' and 'benefit' with 'detriment' and maybe you'll see.So the simple question is, why should we hobble our economy to the benefit of our competitors?
Their economies keep growing at the same rate, while yours begins to contract, increasing the rate of difference between the economies--benefiting the competitors while hobbling you. Thus, the analogy used by the writer cited.
It's pretty simple, Dilbert.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Space race was a part of the Cold war... its pointless to try and seperate the two to prove something.Dilbert_X wrote:
Like I said, they were connected, they weren't the same. ICBMs could have been developed without any 'space race' whatsoever.Spearhead wrote:
Space race was a part of the cold war.Dilbert_X wrote:
They were connected, they weren't one and the same by any stretch.In 1953, Korolyov was given the go-ahead to develop the R-7 Semyorka rocket, which represented a major advance from the German design. Although some of its components (notably boosters) still resembled the German G-4, the new rocket incorporated staged design, a completely new control system, and a new fuel. It was successfully tested on 21 August 1957 and became the world's first fully operational ICBM the following month.[26] It would later be used to launch the first satellite into space, and derivatives would launch all piloted Soviet spacecraft.
Did Russia or the US close down their space programs after ICBMs were developed, or after the Cold War ended?
No?
So while your competitors are advancing their economies you prefer to stay in the dark ages?FEOS wrote:
And if your competitors (China and India) don't have those same restrictions in place?Dilbert_X wrote:
Replace 'hobble' with 'advance' and 'benefit' with 'detriment' and maybe you'll see.So the simple question is, why should we hobble our economy to the benefit of our competitors?
Their economies keep growing at the same rate, while yours begins to contract, increasing the rate of difference between the economies--benefiting the competitors while hobbling you. Thus, the analogy used by the writer cited.
It's pretty simple, Dilbert.
Restrictions don't always equal competitive disadvantage.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
The way you're trying to twist the argument is why people turn a deaf ear to environmentalists. By doubling or trebling our energy production costs it won't send us into some new brilliant future, it will set us back to before the industrial revolution when... you know... we relied on the sun, the wind, and the water to provide power for ourselves. Old technology masquerading as new doesn't make it any less old. There's a reason we abandoned those ideas and replaced them. Dressing them up in a bow-tie doesn't hide or negate their flaws. But hey, if you want to live off the grid and frolic in the forests with your vegan buddies while wearing clothes made from bark, be my guest. I rather like modern life where I'm not forced to work in a field for fourteen hours a day in order to feed myself. I like the opportunity to spend my evenings reading or sitting in front of the computer or catching the occasional television program. I like that I can walk three blocks to the supermarket and find fresh greens, even in the dead of winter.
Long story short, stop trying to sell people a dirty diaper just because you are miserable in your own life. This is generally what green arguments center around; their own self-loathing. I'll pass.
Long story short, stop trying to sell people a dirty diaper just because you are miserable in your own life. This is generally what green arguments center around; their own self-loathing. I'll pass.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No. I don't. Which is exactly why those international "accords" are horseshit.Dilbert_X wrote:
So while your competitors are advancing their economies you prefer to stay in the dark ages?FEOS wrote:
And if your competitors (China and India) don't have those same restrictions in place?Dilbert_X wrote:
Replace 'hobble' with 'advance' and 'benefit' with 'detriment' and maybe you'll see.
Their economies keep growing at the same rate, while yours begins to contract, increasing the rate of difference between the economies--benefiting the competitors while hobbling you. Thus, the analogy used by the writer cited.
It's pretty simple, Dilbert.
Restrictions don't always equal competitive disadvantage.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Its more new technology which will supercede steam-age technology - which is what we're basically still using.Jay wrote:
The way you're trying to twist the argument is why people turn a deaf ear to environmentalists. By doubling or trebling our energy production costs it won't send us into some new brilliant future, it will set us back to before the industrial revolution when... you know... we relied on the sun, the wind, and the water to provide power for ourselves. Old technology masquerading as new doesn't make it any less old. There's a reason we abandoned those ideas and replaced them. Dressing them up in a bow-tie doesn't hide or negate their flaws.
Unless you think nuclear, photovoltaic and fusion predate the steam age?
But hey, if you want to live in the 18-1900s while people like the Germans and Chinese are leaving you in their wake thats your choice.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-06-12 01:20:14)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!