|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:35 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:54 pm
I broke the page a bit. So stuff is being moved here. The impending fuel crisisQuote: I have come across an issue that I feel directly impacts our goals; Peak Oil. For those of you not familiar with the concept, I will summarize. Peak Oil is the theory that we will, eventually, "run out" of oil. Not so much a theory as an inevitability really. Our oil use is constantly increasing, while our oil supplies are constantly diminishing. I think anyone with basic math skills should be able to look ahead and see, "Golly gee, this isn't gonna work for very much longer." Now, when this idea was originally put forth in the fifties, rough estimates put the time of Peak Oil in the 70's. Obviously that didn't happen. However, current, more accurate estimates, place the advent of Peak Oil sometime between 2005-2020. Bad News Bears. Perhaps we should all start considering the idea that the rising oil prices in the US have less to do with Hurricane Katrina than they do with the fact that there is simply not enough oil to meet the demand. It certainly puts Bush's "War for Oil" into a new light. So, besides the obvious, how does this affect us? I'll tell you how. Increased gas prices means less travel. Less travel means the world is going to become a larger place. The world becoming a larger place means that our job just got alot harder. Quote: The problem (in my mind at least) is mainly that the big businesses that have a share in the oil world are doing their darndest to keep alternate fuel methods down. We have the technology to build cars that can run completely without gasoline (heck, we've had this technology for years, remember those stories youd hear of some hippy whose car can run on old french fry grease?) and yet the best car out on the mass market is , what 66 mpg? (rough figure, no fact checking) I know that part of this is so we don't shock the market by jumping from one fuel source to another, but we're only now, in the last 4 years starting to see hybrid cars put into production, and not even mass production (seen the waiting lists to own a Toyota Prias?). If it was a simple case of trying to wean the public off of gasoline, it needed to have been started years ago, back when the problem first became apparent. However, gas money is big, big business (heck, it's arguably the biggest business) and if people start driving cars that run on, say, ethanol, that's this much less money going into the oil baron's and the affiliates pockets. As such, they try their best to ensure that people don't start driving cars that run off of alternate fuel sources in the best way possible: copyright laws. The have the money needed to purchase all research into these methods of oil replacement/supplement, and they do so in order to ensure that it won't trouble them; and if it does, they can sue. Just MHO on that. I'm not overly certain what could reasonably be done in order to fix it, but I strongly believe it to be the underlying problem. Quote: So basically, we need to wean people off gasoline slow enough so that they don't have to deal with a big jump from one source to another, but fast enough so we don't run out of oil completely. It looks to me like hybrid cars are a way of using both gas and electricity, buying researchers more time so that they can make an efficient electric car while not being as rushed. So, we need to make hybrid cars more common, and perhaps start rushing the scientists a bit. We need a different fuel source. We need it fast. One major problem I see with electric cars is the batteries. It takes about 1,000 pounds of batteries to store as much energy as 1 gallon (7 pounds) of gasoline. That's a pretty big difference, and you will need more energy for all that extra weight. So, unless researchers are able to make batteries much more powerful and/or lighter, we may be stuck with the hybrid cars. But, you don't necessarily have to make a gasoline/electric car, we may just have to find another fuel source to use with the electric car. Until we find something better, diesel could work. It's cleaner and more powerful than gasoline (though I'm not sure if it's made from oil as well, does anyone know what is used to make diesel?). Wasn't there also talk of using hydrogen? Also, here's a link to a pretty informative article about hybrid cars: Howstuffworks: "How Hybrid Cars Work"Quote: We can always substitute methane, it grows on farms and anywhere else there's droppings for that matter. It's not incredibly cost effective, but compared to where gasoline is headed it's not a terrible idea. Plus it wouldn't really require any modifications to cars, they'd just run about 10-20 mph slower than their original top speed. There's also coal alternatives and fuel cells. We may run out of gas but I'm not particularly worried about it. Also on oil companies, it may be bad for a little while longer than it should be, but eventually oil companies will realize it would be cheaper just to invest in alternative fuel sources rather than let their companies phase out of existence. Quote: Actually the peak oil theory was that U.S. oil production would reach a 'peak' and then slow down at some point between 1965 and 1970. U.S. oil prduction has been decreasing since 1971. It also predicted that world oil production would peak in 2000, and it seems to have reached that point this year. As for possible solutions, the best way forward would seem to be to encourage greater use of public transport. The potential for energy efficiency for a bus or train will always be higher than that of a car that uses an equivilant technology. I know that isn't a solution to the problem of an expanding world, but I don't see that it is a problem. International travel effects politics in a few ways. It allows people to have greater contact with people of foreign cultures and, hopefully, reducing xenophobia. However, we should still have access to international comminication devices like the Internet which should serve a similar purpose. It encourages diplomatic meetings between heads of states that are a great distance from one another, but they will almost always be able to afford the cost any equivilant high speed travel. Such travel also facilitates a mixing of cultures. Fortunately one of the problems we are faced with is that global unification could homogenise cultures. So, peak oil will probably be a big social problem, but not one that makes global unification any more difficult. Quote: True that most likely it will not drastically affect global unification, but it is a problem, one that, once we are running the world, we will have to deal with. So we should be prepared for this. Public travel is a great resourse. However, no matter how much we promote it, many people will always want their own car. So we will need to think of an alternate fuel source. Preferably one that is not likely to run out as easily as oil and cleaner for the air. Quote: Ethanol is probably the best replacement for gasoline. The information below is from: Popular Science Magazine With all the buzz about hybrids, it’s easy to ignore our homegrown alternative fuel: ethanol. Clean-burning and infinitely renewable—we’re talking grain alcohol—ethanol is dear to environmentalists and economists alike. The standard 85/15-percent ethanol/gasoline blend (E85) is widely used in Sweden, but there are only 313 E85 fueling stations in the U.S. And motorheads aren’t clamoring for more, because E85 typically delivers inferior fuel economy; it has about 75 percent of the potential energy of gasoline, so it takes up to 20 percent more hooch to keep horsepower on par. But E85 also has a high octane rating (around 110), and Saab realized that a turbocharger could harness it. Turbos push extra air into the cylinder, and higher octane allows a fuel to better endure the increased pressure. So Saab cranked up its fans and created the BioPower engine, the first commercially available ethanol turbo. A computer samples the fuel mixture and adjusts boost pressure—from 5.8 psi for pure gasoline to 13.8 psi for E85. Running straight gasoline, the engine produces 148 horsepower, but E85 jacks it up to 184, with no penalty in fuel economy. SAAB 9-5 2.OT Biopower Sedan SPECS GASOLINE E85 POWER 148 hp 184 hp TORQUE 177 lb.-ft 207 lb.-ft MAX. BOOST 5.8 psi 13.8 psi 0-62 MPH 9.8 sec 8.5 sec TOP SPEED 134 mph 140 mph PRICE $35,000 $35,000 *based on exchange rates at press time STATS THE NUMBERS THAT COUNT Number of E85 REFUELING STATIONs, By state* Minn 119 Ill. 51 Iowa 21 S.D. 20 Mo. 17 Neb. 16 Wis. 11 Colo. 10 S.C. 9 N.D. 9 Other 30 *as of 5/12/05 How much more you'll have to pay for a flexible-fuel Vehicle: Zero Average price per gallon in the U.S.* Biodiesel $2.27 Diesel $2.24 Gasoline $2.11 Ethanol $1.86 Natural Gas $1.47 *as of 3/21/05 Corn used for fuel produces about: 53% Ethanol 42.5% Animal Feed 4.5% Corn Oil Effect of federal taxes on Ethanol in cents per gallon: -51.0 Effect of federal taxes on gas, in cents per gallon: +18.4 Quote: As far as I see, only one thing is preventing ethanol from quickly replacing gasoline: availability. As of May 12, only 313 Ethanol fueling stations were operating in the US. Also, this car is only being sold in Sweden, although it may come to the US soon. Quote: The main source of ethanol in the US is corn. However, in Brazil nearly all of the cars run on ethanol and nearly all of the ethanol there comes from sugarcane. How much control should we have in the lives of the people, and how much should we interfer with their lives? Quote: As anyone who has read a fairly decent collection of Science Fiction should be familer with the idea of tracking credit cards, palm scanners, eye identifacation devices, and the like. Usually used by goverments to track and keep people happy, or by companies to improve security and/or advertising. We've arrived at a point with the current day technology to make some of these things a reality. Ways to track all citizens, ways to simplify finances, and other things that would help control citizens and, in general, make their lives better. When Novos begins to take over things, we will have the option of instituting change. This makes the technology of Science Fiction which would help people rule, an option. Public opinion of implimenting some of these things might not be very high. Esepecially if it's not sold properly. Some of them would invite hacking, identity theft, and bring up invasion of privacy issues. Is the public dissention worth the things we can do with implamenting of new systems involving higher technology? Or should we stick with the tried and true levels of technology we have today? I wouldn't mind having a tracking chip in my neck if it meant that people could find me when I'm kidnapped, but that's just my opinion. Quote: It basically breaks down to privacy vs. convienience. It'd be more convienient to have a single card or implanted chip to buy stuff with but it makes it easier to track your buying, movements and so on. PErsonally, I'm all for convienience, I also think that anyone whining about privacy is probably trying to hide something (but that's just my personal opinion) Basically it breaks down to how much you trust the government and how liberal your society is as to wether you're willing to have that kind of trackability Quote: It would give the government immense control over the individual. If the government became corrupt, then it would be near unstoppable. Quote: Ah, but our goal is to create a goverment which will be very resillient to corruption. Quote: Well, I'm of two minds about this, which really doesn't help at all. I'll explain nonetheless. I don't like it: It seems that governments today are creeping closer and closer to the "super-state" politicalness of 1984. Facts are being changed, propaganda is being utilized, and 'Big Brother' has got an eye glued up your backside so far he can see out yer face. We have only to look to the recent wire-tapping bit from the U.S. to realize how far this has gone. Look at what people no longer ind surprising (even down-right acceptable for some...). This is kind of thing that got people accused of telling conspiracy theories as little as 5-10 years ago. The government is even refusing to follow its own rules on this one, and it's downright scary if you ask me. What this is asking is "Would it be ok to do if people trusted us to do it?" and "Do we trust ourselves to do it?" I personally say "No." to both. It's not that I don't feel we couldn't do a responsible job of it, but once instituted, there are no garuntees. Privacy is a fairly basic human desire. By tracking and keeping tabs upon a large population risks will be incurred. As you noted, this would open up a whole new realm of information crime, and I feel it would go far beyond what anyone could reasonably predict. That, and what exactly would we be watching for? If it's for commercial usage, that means that the nformation reaches a much larger group of people outside of our control and the possibility for potential crime skyrockets by thousands and thousands of percents. If it's for usage with the law, that opens up a legal can of worms. How much observation is too much? At what point woul we be turning the cameras (or whatever) off? Will people have a choice in whether or not they can be monitered? If so, again how much of an eye do we keep on them? If not, much harder to sell that idea publicaly, and will it be submittable as legal evidence? And for what percentage of the population will be moniterred in such a manner, as we obviously can't institute such a policy even nationwide without investing billions (not a good idea) and requiring obscene amounts of man-power. And my weakest yet I think most important argument here (and odds are most predictable if you've been watching for a length of time) are the morals of such a system. As the government we would have a responsability for the safety of our citizens, yes. But we would also have a duty to uphold their civil liberties and basic rights as human beings. *Busts out a little TJ* "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." So that's one mind. The other mind while being much more concise makes an excellent point: That could come in handy. I don't like that mind. But it's there regardless. Quote: Look at it this way: Governments and companies already track a large portion of what we do, from what we buy to where we live, even who we hang out with and what car we drive. In South Africa the government even knows if you have a TV or not. It's not a matter of decreasing privacy, we already have none, it's a matter of consolidating that data so that it can be used to the benefit of mankind. I agree that privacy is a very important right, but when that right infringes on others, we need to know how, why and perhaps even when. The thing I see working the best is retro-active or reactive monitoring, I.E. Your records are locked until there's a need for it (some kind of trial prehaps), and any and all access to said records is strictly monitored and limited. Besides, how cool would it be if the key to your front door also unlocked your car and allowed you to buy groceries? Quote: I do understand where you are going with how we have to balance a person's right to rpivacy weighed against the rights of the public's safety in certain situations ("The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." right Spock?). However, this once again draws parallels to what is currently happening in th U.S. with the wire-tapping scandal. How much is too much? At what point do we as a government over-step our boundaries? Obviously access to such records would be very, very strict. But honestly, how would you expect an average person to react if you told them that the governent was going to be keeping tabs on their activities? Not cool enough to help justify this. Quote: I mean, it would be like we had satalites all over the area which we owned. Which.. I'm pretty sure we already do have a hell of a lot of spy satalittes up in the air right now. But we're not freaking out about that. The general public would be fine with it, so long as we controlled their initial panic and let them get used to the idea. Quote: Here's the thing: We've been "brainwashed" into believing that privacy is important, that it's some inate right that we have to defend, when, infact , privacy is not only an illusion, but a harmful one at that. What purpose does privacy serve, who does it benefit besides those who are doing something they don't want to be caught doing? Surely in a society that can accept even the most bizarre actions as "normal" the only thing worth hiding is illicit? And to weigh someone's privacy as more important then another's welfare seems a tad unethical. Sure, I don't want the government to be peeking over my shoulder every five minutes, but I'd rather have that then having an axe-murderer, a thief or a conman doing it. Obviously, safe-guards need to be put in place to stop any negatively-minded elements from accessing this data. Things like only opening these records up to scrutiny after due consideration and all other avenues have been explored, and only then on a "need to know" basis. We surround our information with red-tape so that the rest of our lives can be lived without it. Quote: I dislike this sort of technology. From a governmental standpoint, I’ve always kind of seen spying on your own citizens as cheating. For example, reducing the crime rate by controlling people’s actions would be considered improper when there are much more humane methods such as removing the need to steal available. Even if the criminals are wrong in doing certain actions, the fact that social dissidence exists, the fact that we’re not providing everyone with a society in which they can both belong and be happy is a reflection on ourselves. Quote: I agree that it reflects poorly on a government to need counter measures against crime. But there are always going to be cases where crime can rear it's ugly head, like crimes of passion, which besides removing emotion all together, are impossible to counter. Another thing to note is that the government wouldn't be controlling peoples actions, the people would. People will still have all the freedoms they're acustomed to, they'll also have the knowledge that if they get cought breaking the law, there's going to be ample proof to punish them. The problem here is that we've all have this nasty image of big brother watching over us, some evil eye of the government who's only duty is to his masters agenda and to find out what you're doing wrong. I blame books like 1984 for that. Sure it's a possibility, in the same way as Novos could turn into an evil illuminati style ******** up, but it's not the only (or even probable) one. I see it more in the context of a mother* watching her children, she's not going to dump on you for doing the right thing, but if you get cought beating up your little brother, you'll get sent to your room. And she will see it, because she has eyes in the back of her head. Besides which, the benefits far out way the potential danger. Imagine being able to pinpoint areas of our society that need help, before it becomes a problem, eg. area X's citizens buy a lot of water filtration hardware, perhaps the water there doesn't taste right or is discoloured. we can fix that without the citizens even having to ask us. Or Area Y's citizens don't seem to indulge in entertainment facilities very often, is it because they are to far from those facilities? is there some mysterious force that turns them in to boring people? we can find that out!. All I ask is that we forget about 2+2=5, and start actually looking at the possibilities this kind of technology could provide us. Quote: Information is a type of power. People in govermental positions could, where they corrupt and out for personal gain, use these records to point fingers at their opponents "Tracking software reports that he was in a janitors closet for 1/2 an hour with his secretary! What where they doing!? I don't think it was restocking the toilet paper!" This would be an example of misusing the power of information, and is the kind of thing we would want to avoid (as well as using it to find parties to perform alcohol raids, or seeing people meeting so we rush in and arrest them for conspireing against the goverment etc.) On the opposite side, we could see see a large amount of people stopped in the middle of the interstate, and immediatly dispatch medical teams (it would probably be best to use automated software for that. People stopped in the middle of a highway, send medical teams. Someone moving at 60 mph and suddenly stopped 60 ft from the road where a tree is supposed to be... etc) We could use it in court cases to prove that the murderer really was there at the time of the crime. Someone puts in a missing persons request, we find them easily. Kidnappings and runaways are found instantly. Assuming the chip is still in place, murder victims bodies can be found. It opens up a whole new area of information with which lives can be saved. And herein lies the moral choice. Do we develop nuclear power to save millions of lives, but leave open the option that someone will be stupid enough to make a bomb? I think we should, but that's just me. All those lives are definatly worth the 5-6 corrupted politicians. And since we know there will be corrupt people, we put everything we can into place to make it so it's nearly impossible to use it for corrupt purposes. Quote: The evil alcoholic is what I'm concerned about. The idea of governmental omnipotence is only justified when the government is perfect. I'll always be concerned with the, "what if?" view point in a situation like this. If we really want a fair government where people have a say in it, we have to observe the social contract theory. Basically the idea that people give their governments the right to rule by simply not rebelling. Say the worst happens and a relatively small group of people hijack the government for their own purposes, if you've taken out people's ability to rebel, if the system has become bigger than society, you've got the makings of a classic distopian novel. As heartless as it sounds, some crime is allowable. We have to remember this is human society, all we can do is push them to do the right thing, we can't force them. The problem is when you start treating adults like children. Besides, people won't really control the government in a regulated society anyways, they won't understand it well enough to do so. Something so complex will inevitably grow beyond the scope of normal individuals, requiring full-time government offices regulating it. Solution Abstract: We stand for religious tolerance. Explanation: All laws will be made with a rational and levelheaded approach. Darkstar will make no attempt to influence or support any particular religious practice or organization. Beliefs and rituals will not be interfered with so long as they do not interfere with the basic human rights of life, peace, and opinion. No donations or contributions will be made to churches or religious groups by Darkstar, nor will we accept donations from said groups for anything other than the furthering of Darkstar's cause (including our commitment to religious freedom). Opposition: Those who believe that government should include the views of their religion when deciding laws. Sources (optional): n/a Quote: Obviously we'll want a tolerance policy, but how can we be open minded while still appealing to all religions (and lack here of), regardless of conflicting beliefs? Quote: I think the DarkStar party should have an Agnostic stand on religion. Of course, individual beliefs may very, but I do believe that as a whole people seem to respond to someone that says they are Agnostic better than they are to someone that says they are Atheistic. In deeply religious countries like America it becomes problematic for people to get by without saying they have a belief system, almost entirely because people in America seem to have a set belief that without a god you cannot possibly have morals, even if you are a good, naturally upstanding person, the common idiot... I mean... person, prefers that if someone believes in a deity they are somehow, better guided morally. I believe that with the tolerance policy it should only go so far. You are free to believe in your religion, you are free to practice that religion. But you should NOT be free to FORCE that religion onto any other person. If they request information, then by all means you should be allowed to provide said information. You can begin talking about it, and if they politely decline said information then you should stop immediately and not press. I also think that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:26 pm
Thanks Ladyfriend.(WOW! You did a lot!)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone else think that we could devote an entire thread to each of these topics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:12 pm
Government Subsystems Forum, anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:36 pm
ChaosZorya Government Subsystems Forum, anyone? Do we need one? I don't want to build up too many forums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:02 am
I'd like to go ahead and get an education thread up and running again.
needless to say it's a rather important topic to me...
With y'alls ok I can go ahead and transfer the stuff from here over and get one organized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:09 pm
Fenris Claiborne I'd like to go ahead and get an education thread up and running again. needless to say it's a rather important topic to me...With y'alls ok I can go ahead and transfer the stuff from here over and get one organized. Would you mind holding off untill I've either got the whole archive forum thing sorted out, or someone decides it (the archive forum) is a really bad idea? ChaosZorya Government Subsystems Forum, anyone? Surely all this stuff should be in the main forum so that new members see all the heated political debates about the 'issues that matter'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:13 pm
Ladyfriend Fenris Claiborne I'd like to go ahead and get an education thread up and running again. needless to say it's a rather important topic to me...With y'alls ok I can go ahead and transfer the stuff from here over and get one organized. Would you mind holding off untill I've either got the whole archive forum thing sorted out, or someone decides it (the archive forum) is a really bad idea? ChaosZorya Government Subsystems Forum, anyone? Surely all this stuff should be in the main forum so that new members see all the heated political debates about the 'issues that matter'. Surely we don't have any new members to see anything in any forum. But I like the idea, in case we do get new members...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 3:40 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 2:51 am
Organising this guild is ******** exhausting.
On a side note....would anybody mind the 'crew' forum becoming the 'Novos party member activity' forum?....or something similar? It seems slightly strange to say that crew have no special status, and then to give them their own special forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 3:49 am
Personal and contact information has been shared in there, I'd like to make sure that no one is opposed to this info. being released.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 5:33 am
Myslec Personal and contact information has been shared in there, I'd like to make sure that no one is opposed to this info. being released. Do you fancy sending out a batch of PMs then? I didn't keep up to date enough with the crew forum to know what, or where, that information is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 4:46 am
Ok. The main forum is pretty much finished. Just a few touch ups required on the stickies. I think it would be good to have an informal format to the policy discussion threads. Something along the lines of... first post [details of discussion; When is started, when we intend to vote on it, vote results so far, and final decission:] [Your proposed entry into the manifesto] second post [all of the guilds discussion on the subject so far. Copy pasta'd from here] third, and subsequent, posts I starting to feel a little obsesive about creating order here!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 2:06 pm
Ladyfriend Myslec Personal and contact information has been shared in there, I'd like to make sure that no one is opposed to this info. being released. Do you fancy sending out a batch of PMs then? I didn't keep up to date enough with the crew forum to know what, or where, that information is. No, I don't, sorry. I'm still trying to find time to PM 70+ members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
