It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Candidate Declaration: Maverickhunter, Democratic

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
That does clear things up somewhat. I think this is a very important issue for this campaign so I will be doing some additional reading on the subject vis a vis fusion. Having a good handle on what problems to expect (for example, which nations are in a position to cooperate in this project and what challenges might such an arrangement face, what is the track record for the companies that would be in a position to accept R and D funding such as you speak of, etc), and I'll make it a point to share any info I get on that with you for the sake of getting more representation for a sound energy policy.

One thing you might want to look into along those lines is the quantum nucleonic generator I mentioned. I have heard ample debate on both sides of the issue and am not ready to say with any certainty whether it sounds viable yet, but it's definately something to examine and determine whether or not we should fund. Even if it were viable I'd have some reservations about it until certain safety issues were addressed, but I think that such things do need to at least be probed before being dismissed.

Personally though, I don't believe that a fusion device in every car is the most practical way to go about this. It would probably be more practical to use fusion as a clean way to generate hydrogen fuel for vehicle use and use advanced engine control systems to get the best possible economy out of that.

That being the case, I favor the development of alternative fuels in the interim which may serve to advance us in technologies which will be important to the hydrogen economy and which may also give us cause to start developing the necessary infrastructure for that beforehand (as it may be possible to convert some alternative fuel infrastructure over to use for hydrogen when fusion is finally viable).

Where do you stand on the development of alternative fuels in the interim? Would it be a waste of money in your opinion, do you feel that all of the ideas being considered at the moment are boondoggles, or would you favor the development of one or all of the alternative fuels being proposed presently?




posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
That does clear things up somewhat. I think this is a very important issue for this campaign so I will be doing some additional reading on the subject vis a vis fusion. Having a good handle on what problems to expect (for example, which nations are in a position to cooperate in this project and what challenges might such an arrangement face, what is the track record for the companies that would be in a position to accept R and D funding such as you speak of, etc), and I'll make it a point to share any info I get on that with you for the sake of getting more representation for a sound energy policy.

One thing you might want to look into along those lines is the quantum nucleonic generator I mentioned. I have heard ample debate on both sides of the issue and am not ready to say with any certainty whether it sounds viable yet, but it's definately something to examine and determine whether or not we should fund. Even if it were viable I'd have some reservations about it until certain safety issues were addressed, but I think that such things do need to at least be probed before being dismissed.

Personally though, I don't believe that a fusion device in every car is the most practical way to go about this. It would probably be more practical to use fusion as a clean way to generate hydrogen fuel for vehicle use and use advanced engine control systems to get the best possible economy out of that.

That being the case, I favor the development of alternative fuels in the interim which may serve to advance us in technologies which will be important to the hydrogen economy and which may also give us cause to start developing the necessary infrastructure for that beforehand (as it may be possible to convert some alternative fuel infrastructure over to use for hydrogen when fusion is finally viable).

Where do you stand on the development of alternative fuels in the interim? Would it be a waste of money in your opinion, do you feel that all of the ideas being considered at the moment are boondoggles, or would you favor the development of one or all of the alternative fuels being proposed presently?

Sorry I haven't gotten to you yet. I was reading 1984. So, I am for the development of alternative fuels, and for the development of an alternative fuel source. I say that we should have alternative fuels because although gasoline will most likely not run out within our lifetime there is a chance that (1) one of our suppliers may stop giving us the gasoline we need and (2) it costs so much money and people have to pay for it and waste $70 to fill an entire gas tank of their car, or even worse, if they have an SUV. We should develop the fusion process which involves fission, and we should also make sure that people have natural gas for the people that still want to use gasoline. Natural gas has caught on in some parts of major cities specifically in buses, but not in rural or suburb areas, so we need to work on that a little bit.



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Thanks for the response Mav. If you liked 1984 you might want to check out Brave New World... oddly prophetic in some ways.

When you have some time, I'd like to talk more about alternative fuels, particularly which are the most promising and should be getting the lions share of our alternative fuels budget. Ethanol, for example, doesn't seem entirely promising in my view for several reasons, while biodiesel seems like a good way to go in several key respects if you ask me, but obviously isn't a cureall since a lot of people would be slow to move to diesel engines.

Since hydrogen seems like a practical way to go for vehicles once we do move to fusion eventually, it seems that finding clean ways, even if not the cheapest, to generate hydrogen for fuel cells would be a wise move to develop relevant technology and infrastructure in advance. But of course there are things to consider there... like the fact that there would be parking structures full of "mini hindenbergs" as Dennis Miller put it.

Obviously there is a lot to think about and discuss there and I don't want to dump it all on you at once. These are just a few general directions we can go with the discussion. I'll be looking forward to comparing notes with you on that when you get a chance; just let me know.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Thanks for the response Mav. If you liked 1984 you might want to check out Brave New World... oddly prophetic in some ways.

When you have some time, I'd like to talk more about alternative fuels, particularly which are the most promising and should be getting the lions share of our alternative fuels budget. Ethanol, for example, doesn't seem entirely promising in my view for several reasons, while biodiesel seems like a good way to go in several key respects if you ask me, but obviously isn't a cureall since a lot of people would be slow to move to diesel engines.

Since hydrogen seems like a practical way to go for vehicles once we do move to fusion eventually, it seems that finding clean ways, even if not the cheapest, to generate hydrogen for fuel cells would be a wise move to develop relevant technology and infrastructure in advance. But of course there are things to consider there... like the fact that there would be parking structures full of "mini hindenbergs" as Dennis Miller put it.

Obviously there is a lot to think about and discuss there and I don't want to dump it all on you at once. These are just a few general directions we can go with the discussion. I'll be looking forward to comparing notes with you on that when you get a chance; just let me know.

I'll give you a chance. I think that we should develop technology which acts allows for the fusion of any substance so that we can create the blueprints whihc will be the keystone to ressurecting humanity when it is in the dark ages. When global warming has happened within the next hundreds of billions of years, we will need the technology so that people can still go on fuel and we'll have to find some sort of fuel.

We need the technology of flying cars to advance the hopes and dreams of those who have seen them in science fiction movies so that they will no longer be a "fiction" to us. I will grant money to the private sectors so that they will have unlimited time to work on cyrogenic freezing, time machines, and technologies which will make the future civilizations realize that we are at the pinnacle of human civilization and that we were able to accomplish these things.

What we need is not unintellgable people ruling the world and the smart people not reproducing but at this current pace with all of the statistic people will ruin the world by 2300. So, we'll need to reinvent the world.

I'll be ready to debate with you on alternative energy sources and futuristic technology.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

What we need is not unintellgable people ruling the world and the smart people not reproducing


So you'll pass laws to make sure that people who speak clearly are in charge and smart people have lots of sex? I think I just might vote for you.

I haven't heard a promise of sex for the educated since 2004... and that one was too narrowly worded to be any help for me.

Fair warning though: I've already tried the, "would you sleep with me if the fate of the world depended on it" line... and I didn't like the answer, so I think that policy might meet with some opposition. You definately can't count on the vote of the athletic young bartender at a place called the Red Barn, unless she's changed her mind recently. I just thought you should know.

OK, I'm done joking.

I'll talk to the mods from H2H and see if you and I can arrange a debate in the near future.

Just a few tips though... in "hundreds of billions of years" global warming will be ancient history. The sun will not allow humans to live on Earth by 10 billion years from now, in fact probably not 1 billion from now, and we'd actually be lucky to survive long enough for the solar system to kill us. We're planning a future, not a scifi novel and we need to be thinking about making the breakthroughs that will change things in the next 10-30 years, not about how we're going to cryofreeze ourselves and emerge from the ashes 300 years later.
Flying cars may or may not be the most practical answer- my suspicion is that we'll get a lot more success out of innovation in the field of civil engineering designed to reduce the need for and improve access to more efficient mass transit systems.

But given the thrust of your ideas so far, I propose that this debate will work best if we frame it in the following terms:
"describe the workings of our civilization 100 years from now and the merits thereof, and explain how your administration will begin the journey towards bringing that into being." We'll go through it subject by subject- transportation, energy, environment, food and water logistics, sanitation and healthcare, etc each getting two posts per topic to defend our vision and describe how we'll achieve it, and to challenge the other's idea. Maybe 250 words a post to keep it readable since we'll be covering so much?
Sound good?



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

What we need is not unintellgable people ruling the world and the smart people not reproducing


So you'll pass laws to make sure that people who speak clearly are in charge and smart people have lots of sex? I think I just might vote for you.

I haven't heard a promise of sex for the educated since 2004... and that one was too narrowly worded to be any help for me.

Fair warning though: I've already tried the, "would you sleep with me if the fate of the world depended on it" line... and I didn't like the answer, so I think that policy might meet with some opposition. You definately can't count on the vote of the athletic young bartender at a place called the Red Barn, unless she's changed her mind recently. I just thought you should know.

OK, I'm done joking.

I'll talk to the mods from H2H and see if you and I can arrange a debate in the near future.

Just a few tips though... in "hundreds of billions of years" global warming will be ancient history. The sun will not allow humans to live on Earth by 10 billion years from now, in fact probably not 1 billion from now, and we'd actually be lucky to survive long enough for the solar system to kill us. We're planning a future, not a scifi novel and we need to be thinking about making the breakthroughs that will change things in the next 10-30 years, not about how we're going to cryofreeze ourselves and emerge from the ashes 300 years later.
Flying cars may or may not be the most practical answer- my suspicion is that we'll get a lot more success out of innovation in the field of civil engineering designed to reduce the need for and improve access to more efficient mass transit systems.

But given the thrust of your ideas so far, I propose that this debate will work best if we frame it in the following terms:
"describe the workings of our civilization 100 years from now and the merits thereof, and explain how your administration will begin the journey towards bringing that into being." We'll go through it subject by subject- transportation, energy, environment, food and water logistics, sanitation and healthcare, etc each getting two posts per topic to defend our vision and describe how we'll achieve it, and to challenge the other's idea. Maybe 250 words a post to keep it readable since we'll be covering so much?
Sound good?

Right. If you want to know what I am talking about or what I am saying The Vagabound, you should see the film "idiocracy". It's a perfect example of how stupidtiy in the world will end up taking over and eventually the government will be able to circumvent humankind so and inflation will raise to really high amounts, and that people will be stupider and become more fat and the world will become a place where seeing how someone farts will become acceptable. It's a really great film that shows the idiocracy of the world and its inhabitants at the current state of our second-rate education. What we need to do, is that we need to raise our education, so that this doesn't happen, and so that we can prove that we can make all of these fantasies become realities by midway through teenagers in this worlds lifetime.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Also, I'd be glad to have a debate over you with that. Also I'd love to make sure that none of us abuses the quoting power (which is a reference to some previous debate I had).



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Forgive me if my inner secret agent steps to the fore momentarily, but the name is Bond, Vaga Bond. I don't know who Vagabound is, but if I ever find him, I'm going to sue. (and no, it's not a big deal, I'm just saying).

Moving right along, I note that you point to a work of comedic fiction as a basis for policies designed to combat the growing ignorance of our society. I won't respond to that just yet. I just want to look at it for a while and breathe in the irony.

Anyhow, I'll send you a U2U regarding the arrangements of our debate so as not to clutter your declaration thread.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Forgive me if my inner secret agent steps to the fore momentarily, but the name is Bond, Vaga Bond. I don't know who Vagabound is, but if I ever find him, I'm going to sue. (and no, it's not a big deal, I'm just saying).

Moving right along, I note that you point to a work of comedic fiction as a basis for policies designed to combat the growing ignorance of our society. I won't respond to that just yet. I just want to look at it for a while and breathe in the irony.

Anyhow, I'll send you a U2U regarding the arrangements of our debate so as not to clutter your declaration thread.

I got your u2u! I am all set to have our debate tomorrow, however I would like to set the rule as to not quote external sources, so like you should be able to use external sources, but not so much as to get all of your sources from it. As Chissler said, 95% of your posts should be in your own words.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   
See your U2U box. Everything should be ready.
Looking forward to mixing it up with you. If nothing else, good on you for being willing brother.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
See your U2U box. Everything should be ready.
Looking forward to mixing it up with you. If nothing else, good on you for being willing brother.

Alright, I have very good feelings about this debate. I look forward to making a statement in the ATS community. That's OKAY.



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Campaign Disqualification

Maverickhunter has been disqualified for violating his campaign pledge, specifically: misconduct toward another candidate.

Thread closed.




top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join