US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[Ithekro]

It could be that the only way to get change in our fuel use is blood and death. Otherwise no one will actually change. They will keep doing what they are doing because it is easy.

If people become oppressed and comes to great harm over this, they will demand something change. The nature of that change is the key. Go forward or backward.

Whiching from coal to oil was relatively easy because using oil was easier than coal. Same with going from wood to coal. It lasted longer and was more effective for things like blacksmiths.

But switching from oil to something else will be hard, because so far the alternatives are either difficult or are not as effective as oil.

[synaesthetic]

There are several sources of energy that are theoretically much better than oil, we just haven't reached a point where the technology is cheaper. When we do (which will happen, given time) oil will fall to the wayside.

[Ithekro]

Theoretically much better, and not cheaper, would be classed as "difficult".

[kyp275]

WTB economical fusion reactor

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Theoretically much better, and not cheaper, would be classed as "difficult".

Yes, however I would much rather continue using oil for a while longer than see a bloody "energy revolution" that leaves millions dead...

The kind of people who ask for bloody revolutions kind of worry me.

[Ithekro]

Depends enirely if change will happen, or even happen in time (before it is too late). Some say it is already too late. Other think change will happen without conflict (somehow I doubt it if the corperations that runs things try to protect their old black gold cash cow to the last drop before starting to think of something new). It is likely that there will be a conflict at some point over all this (assuming the larger 'War on Terror" isn't it already).

Our species don't seem to like to change unless presented with adversity. Nearly all the models of a future society were our species more or less gets along with itself and the lines between coutries almost vanish are the result of us nearly killing ourselves off in a third (or even fourth) World War. Or sometimes just the result of a "minor" nuclear exchange, say between India and Pakistan and maybe China. The "near death" of the species seems to be the only thing that gets us to stop trying to kill each other off (somewhat like what happened to Europe after two world wars).

Hopefully, those in power (politicians, beauracrats, and CEOs) will shift things on their own without too much of a problem. Or the CEOs might shift their cash cow to the new power source around the time oil's prices become "too high" and keep the new source at around the price oil was at a few years before oil became unbareabley expensive. For profit.

[synaesthetic]

Yes, but that's not entirely true. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Look at how the computer industry has changed over the past 50 years. It was natural, organic change, not forced through conflict or legislation--and it was incredibly fast.

You can't say this isn't a big deal either, because computers are probably the biggest deal for humanity since we split the atom.

[Ithekro]

Power is still going to be required though and there is money in supplying, delivering, producing, and any other told numbers of things of power.

The Computer industry changed things a lot, but they did not change the base level of what society works from . Food is one. Shelter is another. Water is there as well. After that, everything else needs a method to power it. Being it human arms (via food), animal labor (also via food), electrical (multiple sources), or some form of fire (wood, coal, oil, atomic) to get an object moving.

The main things today seem to be heating oil (winter), and fuel for cars, trucks, ships, and airplanes.

Replacing those will be what changes things.

Originally Posted by kyp275

WTB economical fusion reactor

I don't think Jarden Corporation has a Mr. Fusion yet in their line of products.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

But switching from oil to something else will be hard, because so far the alternatives are either difficult or are not as effective as oil.

Mostly because we move from wood, to coal, to oil, by choice. We were not forced to switch, we moved on to get better power, not because the old way was no longer possible.

Now, we are no longer able to choose. We will have to get power in any way we can. We might even go back to wood if we had to.

[Kyuu]

Oh Obama. Such a troll. LOLOLOLOL

Spoiler:

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by monir

A fairly regular and a simple event such as ice age in the grand scheme of earth's cycle can (and will) wipe out most human population from the earth.

We only need a little ice age for modern civilization to functionally cease or the seas temperature to rise a few degrees to have another max extinction (where greedy humanity might destroy whatever is left). This reminds me of a poem by Robert Frost:

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

[Lost Cause]

^Speaking of which, Boeing announced that it will lay off 300 employees on the evening news. They starting with managers first though.
:US News

Boeing Announces Big Layoffs in Defense Division
Reuters | November 07, 2012 | 02:59 PM EST
Boeing announced a major restructuring of its defense division on Wednesday that will cut 30 percent of management jobs from 2010 levels, close facilities in California and consolidate several business units to cut costs.

The company [ BA70.98 +0.87 (+1.24%) ] told employees about the changes on Wednesday, in a memo obtained by Reuters and confirmed by Boeing.

Boeing, the Pentagon's second-largest supplier, said the changes were the latest step in an affordability drive that has already reduced the company's costs by $2.2 billion since 2010, according to the memo.

The measures come as U.S. weapons makers are under pressure to cut costs and preserve profit margins amid dwindling defense spending in the U.S.

In a message to employees, Dennis Muilenburg, chief executive of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, said the company aimed to cut costs by an additional $1.6 billion from 2013 through 2015.

"We are raising the bar higher because our market challenges and opportunities require it, and our customers' needs demand it," Muilenburg said.

He said the total savings would reach $4 billion, making the company healthier and better able to deal with a tougher marketplace.

He said Boeing would cut the number of executive jobs an additional 10 percent by the end of 2012, bringing overall cuts in its executive team to 30 percent for the past two years, a move that would result in a 10 percent cut in management costs.

Boeing said the changes were not a response to the threat of additional, across-the-board U.S. budget cuts due to take effect on Jan. 2, or the outcome of U.S. elections, but represented another step in its continuing drive to "be more competitive while investing in technologies and people."

Boeing said it could not project exactly how workers would lose their jobs because it would try to place people in its growing commercial business.

A company spokesman declined to say how many jobs had already been cut from the 2010 level.

Rival Lockheed Martin has reduced its management ranks by about 25 percent in recent years after announcing a voluntary buyout.

Boeing said it would also expand its efforts to cut supply-chain costs by working closely with its suppliers, but did not provide details.

Defense consultant Loren Thompson said the changes were needed to ensure Boeing's continued profitability.

"Many investors focus on Boeing's commercial operations," Thompson said, referring to the jet-making business.

"But defense provides 40 percent of the company's revenues and returns, so controlling costs there is crucial to maintaining the company's overall profitability."

Boeing and other top weapons makers like Lockheed Martin [ LMT89.92 -1.23 (-1.35%) ], Northrop Grumman [ NOC65.42 -1.28 (-1.92%) ] and Raytheon [ RTN55.12 -0.35 (-0.63%) ] have focused heavily on cutting costs and drumming up foreign sales to maintain profits as they prepare for a sustained period of weaker defense budgets.
Yup, it's sunny all over!-.-

[Dr. Casey]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Oh Obama. Such a troll. LOLOLOLOL

Spoiler:

Well, that's cute, I admit.

And I'm pretty pumped about solar energy. I read that some people are hoping that by 2040, all vehicles will be self-driving and powered by solar panels in the roadways so that resupplying is pretty much never required. Sounds great to me.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by RRW

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/11...-22-employees/

LAS VEGAS (CBS Las Vegas) — A Las Vegas business owner with 114 employees fired 22 workers today, apparently as a direct result of President Obama’s re-election.

“David” (he asked to remain anonymous for obvious reasons) told Host Kevin Wall on 100.5 KXNT that “elections have consequences” and that “at the end of the day, I need to survive.”

“I’ve done my share of educating my employees. I never tell them which way to vote. I believe in the free system we have, I believe in the right to choose who they want to be president, but I did explain as a business owner that I have always put my employees first. I always made sure that when I went without a paycheck that [I] made sure they were paid. And I explained that I always put them first and unfortunately I’m at a point where I’m being forced to have to worry about me and my family now and a business that I built from just me to 114 employees.

“I explained to them a month ago that if Obama gets in office that the regulations for Obamacare are gonna hurt our business, and I’m gonna have to make provisions to make sure I have enough money to cover the payroll taxes, the additional health care I’m gonna have to do, and I explained that to them and I said you do what you feel like in your heart you need to do, but I’m just letting you know as a warning this is things I have to think of as a business owner.

“Well unfortunately, and most of my employees are Hispanic — I’m not gonna go into what kind of company I have, but I have mostly Hispanic employees — well unfortunately we know what happened and I can’t wait around anymore, I have to be proactive. I had to lay off 22 people today to make sure that my business is gonna thrive and I’m gonna be around for years to come. I have to build up that nest egg now for the taxes and regulations that are coming my way. Elections do have consequences, but so do choices. A choice you make every day has consequences and you know what, I’ve always put my employees first, but unfortunately today I have to put me and my family first, and you watch what’s gonna happen. I’m just one guy with 114 employees — well was 114 employees — watch what happens in the next six months. The Dow alone lost 314 points today. There’s a tsunami coming and if you didn’t think this election had consequences, just wait.”

It's a sign of more things to come in this Post-Traditional/Post-America with Obama & DEMs at helm...

Operative Faith reveals that Kroger will soon join the ranks of Darden Restaurants and slash the hours of its non-exempt (hourly) workers to avoid millions in Obamacare penalties.

To give you a sense of Kroger's size and importance, its sales last year were $90 billion and it employs nearly 350,000 people. Most of its jobs are hourly and the vast majority of workers are neither millionaires or billionaires.

Faith is a mid-level manager at Kroger and reports the dire news:

(continue...)



... what better way to set the stage for a single-payer system!

REAL gov. takeover of healthcare as envisioned by socialists is all but inevitable.

It's no longer IF... but WHEN

Consider a low-income American supporting a family of four deciding whether to take a part-time job that pays $36,000 a year or a full-time job that pays $42,000 a year. According to my research, accepting the higher-paying job could result in the family losing over $10,000 a year in health-care subsidies.

Moreover, by switching low-income employees to part-time positions, rather than offering them health insurance, an employer will be able to save over $3,000 a year by avoiding ObamaCare's employer-mandate penalties. Without further reforms, many employers and employees will jointly benefit if employers make low-income employees part-timers rather than offering them health insurance. The losers will be taxpayers, who will need to fund the subsidies that these employees will be eligible for.

These perverse incentives won't be as extreme for employees with higher incomes, for dual-income families, or for single employees. For instance, a worker supporting a family of four deciding between a job paying $54,000 a year without health insurance and a job paying $72,000 a year with insurance would lose only about $7,000 in annual subsidies by accepting the higher-paying job. And a single employee deciding between those two jobs wouldn't lose any subsidies by accepting the higher-paying job. Nevertheless, many employers will face incentives not to offer health insurance to lower-income employees so those employees can qualify for federal health-care subsidies under ObamaCare.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

Well, that's cute, I admit.

And I'm pretty pumped about solar energy. I read that some people are hoping that by 2040, all vehicles will be self-driving and powered by solar panels in the roadways so that resupplying is pretty much never required. Sounds great to me.

Sounds a bit overly optimistic to me, especially since the "all vehicles" bit implies that self-driving and solar powered cars will become the norm in.... about 10 years at the latest? If I have to put money on it, I'd have to say not gonna happen that quickly

I do have high hope for solar power though, I'd love it if they can make space-based solar power feasible, that would be just as awesome as practical fusion reactor

[Xacual]

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

And I'm pretty pumped about solar energy. I read that some people are hoping that by 2040, all vehicles will be self-driving and powered by solar panels in the roadways so that resupplying is pretty much never required. Sounds great to me.

My town already has a charging station that can charge up a battery in 25 minutes. Voltageville indeed. Actually I was surprised to learn about this since I only found out in the last week that my town had that nickname because it came up when I was doing a research paper.

[Dr. Casey]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Sounds a bit overly optimistic to me, especially since the "all vehicles" bit implies that self-driving and solar powered cars will become the norm in.... about 10 years at the latest? If I have to put money on it, I'd have to say not gonna happen that quickly

Nah, the same predictor says that self-driving cars should only start becoming the norm during the 2030s; hybrid cars (that use both gasoline and electricity) are slated to become the new craze during the 2020s, which is the main innovation for that decade. The 2040 solar thing I could see going either way; it's a tremendous leap, but at the same time 28 years is a pretty damn long time. Dreaming about the future makes me feel good in the here and now though, so right or wrong I'd rather be idealistic than realistic

Originally Posted by Xacual

My town already has a charging station that can charge up a battery in 25 minutes. Voltageville indeed. Actually I was surprised to learn about this since I only found out in the last week that my town had that nickname because it came up when I was doing a research paper.

Oh, wow. I thought hybrid cars were just conceptual at this point; I'm pretty amazed to learn they already exist. I'm guessing you live in a pretty big city, because I've certainly never seen one down here in the country.

[Xacual]

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

Nah, the same predictor says that self-driving cars should only start becoming the norm during the 2030s; hybrid cars (that use both gasoline and electricity) are slated to become the new craze during the 2020s, which is the main innovation for that decade. The 2040 solar thing I could see going either way; it's a tremendous leap, but at the same time 28 years is a pretty damn long time. Dreaming about the future makes me feel good in the here and now though, so right or wrong I'd rather be idealistic than realistic



Oh, wow. I thought hybrid cars were just conceptual at this point; I'm pretty amazed to learn they already exist. I'm guessing you live in a pretty big city, because I've certainly never seen one down here in the country.

Nope actually my town only has 92k people. Our City Transportation manager was pretty huge on EV and has been promoting it for a while, trying to find a more recent article but the one I did find said we have more EV and charging stations per capita then anywhere in the nation I think?
http://cleantechnica.com/2010/05/31/...-in-vacaville/
http://511contracosta.org/edward-hue...ville-retires/

[Solace]

Originally Posted by flying ^

REAL gov. takeover of healthcare as envisioned by socialists is all but inevitable.

You say that like it's a bad thing. In other news, the metric system and Celsius thermometers are a secret communist plot to make you drive on the wrong side of the road! Tin foil hats at eleven.

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

Nah, the same predictor says that self-driving cars should only start becoming the norm during the 2030s; hybrid cars (that use both gasoline and electricity) are slated to become the new craze during the 2020s, which is the main innovation for that decade. The 2040 solar thing I could see going either way; it's a tremendous leap, but at the same time 28 years is a pretty damn long time. Dreaming about the future makes me feel good in the here and now though, so right or wrong I'd rather be idealistic than realistic

It'll take a while to convince people that self driving cars are safe, but the technology is proven. Like most of our sciences, it's replacing/updating old infrastructure that is proving to be a problem. Many states are already reviewing measures to allow them on the roads.

I'm not sure hybrid has much of a future, except perhaps as a bridge to something else.

Oh, wow. I thought hybrid cars were just conceptual at this point; I'm pretty amazed to learn they already exist. I'm guessing you live in a pretty big city, because I've certainly never seen one down here in the country.

You think that's fancy? Check out glow in the dark roads. Not for the US, of course.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

Nah, the same predictor says that self-driving cars should only start becoming the norm during the 2030s; hybrid cars (that use both gasoline and electricity) are slated to become the new craze during the 2020s, which is the main innovation for that decade. The 2040 solar thing I could see going either way; it's a tremendous leap, but at the same time 28 years is a pretty damn long time. Dreaming about the future makes me feel good in the here and now though, so right or wrong I'd rather be idealistic than realistic

my primary concern with that person's timeline is that it doesn't sound like he's really taking into account that many people keep their cars for quite a while (mine is still running strong after 13 years ).

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

Oh, wow. I thought hybrid cars were just conceptual at this point; I'm pretty amazed to learn they already exist. I'm guessing you live in a pretty big city, because I've certainly never seen one down here in the country.

the first mass-produced commercial hybrid is the Prius, and that went on sale in Japan in 1997, worldwide in 2000.

maybe you're thinking about EVs like the Volt or Leaf?