Declaration of Occupy Wall Street

Status
Not open for further replies.
deafskeptic said:
We wouldn't make much progress with that attitude. Inventors work in a wide spectrum of fields. The lone inventor is a myth. Edison had a lot of people working for him.

I don't recall him working for the government as he didn't need to work for it.

As much as I dislike saying so, much of tge things that we take for graned is borrowed from inventions in the military. There's no way military inventors could do it on their dime considering the cost of the equipment in the military

The Net is one of those inventions that couldn't be done on the inventors' own dime. it was the result of computer scientists and various government agencies including the NSF and college campuses. I have no doubt there were many failures on the way to developing the Net. The same applies to the military.
Click to expand...

ARPANet --> INTERnet
INTERet = International Network

Mind Blown!
2dt3vjd.jpg


deafskeptic said:
No one remembers the failures - only the success.
Click to expand...
Hindenburg Disaster :giggle:

but just want to make a slight correction there. No one remembers the inventors, only the innovators.
 
deafskeptic said:
We wouldn't make much progress with that attitude. Inventors work in a wide spectrum of fields. The lone inventor is a myth. Edison had a lot of people working for him.

I don't recall him working for the government as he didn't need to work for it.

As much as I dislike saying so, much of tge things that we take for graned is borrowed from inventions in the military. There's no way military inventors could do it on their dime considering the cost of the equipment in the military

The Net is one of those inventions that couldn't be done on the inventors' own dime. it was the result of computer scientists and various government agencies including the NSF and college campuses. I have no doubt there were many failures on the way to developing the Net. The same applies to the military. No one remembers the failures - only the success.
Click to expand...

:hmm: I though Al Gore invented the internet by himself.

Sounds like our government needs to be a little more careful about who the "bet" on then. :lol:
 
TXgolfer said:
:hmm: I though Al Gore invented the internet by himself.

Sounds like our government needs to be a little more careful about who the "bet" on then. :lol:
Click to expand...

and President Eisenhower invented the Interstate Highway System :hmm:
 
Jiro said:
ARPANet --> INTERnet
INTERet = International Network

Mind Blown!
2dt3vjd.jpg



Hindenburg Disaster :giggle:

but just want to make a slight correction there. No one remembers the inventors, only the innovators.
Click to expand...
According to the theasaraus, inventor is one of the synonyms for innovators. I didn't know anharchist is also a synonyms though. However, I will grant that the majority of inventors are not remembered as their inventions didn't have a profound effect on our lives.
I wasn't talking about those kind of failures. Just the failures that many inventors encounter before they finally invent a workable product.
I sad the Net cuz I was tired and didn't feel like looking up google to spell check the my spelling of internet.However, you're quite right about the origins of the internet. No single person was responsible for the invention of it.
 
TXgolfer said:
:hmm: I though Al Gore invented the internet by himself.

Sounds like our government needs to be a little more careful about who the "bet" on then. :lol:
Click to expand...

You might want to check out snopes re Gore and the internet:
Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.

Status: False.

Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
Clearly, although Gore's phrasing might have been a bit clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings — the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea. (To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean exactly the same thing, we have to ask why, then, the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet, even though he never used that word, and transcripts of what he actually said were readily available.)

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while president, "created" the Interstate Highway System, we would not have seen dozens and dozens of
editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.

Whether Gore's statement that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" is justified is a subject of debate. Any statement about the "creation" or "beginning" of the Internet is difficult to evaluate, because the Internet is not a homogenous entity (it's a collection of computers, networks, protocols, standards, and application programs), nor did it all spring into being at once (the components that comprise the Internet were developed in various places at different times and are continuously being modified, improved, and expanded). A spirited defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") notes "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," although many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977.

It is true, though, that Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (although he did not, as is often claimed by others, coin the phrase himself) when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic).

In May 2005, the organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements honored Al Gore with a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet. "He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions," said Vint Cerf.
Click to expand...
Now are you going to stick your fingers in your ears and say la la la la I don't believe Snopes because it's too liberal? My 2 cents says you will do just that. While Gore did indeed help in developing it, he did so with hundreds if not thousand of other people. No single person invented the Internet. :roll:
 
kokonut said:
Nope. Never said that. See post #3069.

Apparently you're not familiar with Spain's attempt at "green energy" and the catastrophic economic failure (btw, a leaked document a few weeks old not meant for public consumption) of their so called “green economy” initiatives and how Obama has referred to Spain's “green economy” policies as being the model several different times for what he envisioned for America. We, or at least I, knew Spain with their problematic "green economy" efforts spelled trouble going back a few years. This isn't all new. There were plenty of warnings to not follow Spain's.



and....


Like I said in #3075, my point is that we should heed Spain's colossal failure in the "green energy" market.
Click to expand...

But.... that didn't answer DeafCaroline's question. I completely 100% understand the current inefficiency of green energy from an engineer's perspective, however DeafCaroline raises a good question. What do we do? Keep relying on fossil fuel or keep trying to increase the efficiency of green energy to make a good match with fossil fuel. You said "Nope. Never said that. " but..... you didn't quite answer her question. You just repeated what you said in the previous posts with sources and links that simply say "Green energy is a failure." This post only makes sense if you were answering the question "Is green energy a failure? If so, why?" but that's not what DeafCaroline asked.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and I really would like to know what do YOU (kokonut) think we should focus on in terms of energy. Should we abandon green energy all together and leave it up to the private companies to develop, hoping they have motivation to sell it in the future? Should we just focus on using fossil fuels because they are the cheapest way until someone comes along and says "HEY! I got something cheaper!"? Are you okay with fossil fuels themselves?
 
Green energy will never compete with fossil fuel unless it becomes cheaper to produce. Unless the government wants so subsidize the making of green energy products, the economies of scale for fossil fuel with always allow it to be created more cheaply.

Should it become a, "National Security" then it will become viable.
 
Daredevel7 said:
But.... that didn't answer DeafCaroline's question. I completely 100% understand the current inefficiency of green energy from an engineer's perspective, however DeafCaroline raises a good question. What do we do? Keep relying on fossil fuel or keep trying to increase the efficiency of green energy to make a good match with fossil fuel. You said "Nope. Never said that. " but..... you didn't quite answer her question. You just repeated what you said in the previous posts with sources and links that simply say "Green energy is a failure." This post only makes sense if you were answering the question "Is green energy a failure? If so, why?" but that's not what DeafCaroline asked.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and I really would like to know what do YOU (kokonut) think we should focus on in terms of energy. Should we abandon green energy all together and leave it up to the private companies to develop, hoping they have motivation to sell it in the future? Should we just focus on using fossil fuels because they are the cheapest way until someone comes along and says "HEY! I got something cheaper!"? Are you okay with fossil fuels themselves?
Click to expand...

If you had read the report in the link (highlighted in red) I gave about Spain's failure in the green energy/economy effort you would understand why we should take heed in going in that direction and why. Again, I already said in post# 3069 that "all areas in the energy sector should be the focus." I've said nothing about abandoning it. The problem is that people are trying to move so fast in the "green economy" it's a recipe for failure. Hence, the warnings I said about Brazil. Take the time and read that report before moving on.

I have said for years in AD that we should move away from dependency on foreign sources of oil from unfriendly and unstable countries that can easily impact us domestically and our national security would be seriously at stake. Instead we should refocus and rely on our own rich sources of natural gas and oil. We have more oil than the Middle East. Our infrastructure is already laid out to handle such a change to ensure that we can be 100% reliant on ourselves to the point we we'd exporting oil for a change. We're already exporting gasoline now. And when that happens that a new source of income to flood the U.S. About $500 billion dollars leaves the U.S. each year to bring in foreign sources of oil from across the ocean. That money can easily stay in the U.S. economy and boost jobs by drilling for our own oil. 80% of our oil is imported oil while 20% is our own domestic oil. About 35 years ago it was 70% domestic and 30% imported oil. It's a pretty simple formula. Drill and use our oil. Keep the money in U.S. circulation. Use the money to fund and support alternative "green energy" with cheaper solar panels, better wind turbines, better "green" alternative technologies where we'd have the money and the mean for more research and development that will hopefully replace oil and gas with something that we can produce ourselves (e.g. algae to produce oil that can easily fit into our existing infrastructure). And not have one single dime from the U.S. govt to support a "green" company because private oil and gas companies can easily subsidize research and development on "green energy." In fact, they are doing exactly that but it takes money to make money and make it work. All this can be done in house by developing and making cheaper and more efficient energy products to easily compete on the world market. Again, ALL areas in the energy sector should be the focus. Green energy/economy is a failure because the U.S. govt attempts to prop it up using our own tax dollars and attempts to bail out really bad companies. We know this has not worked well for years. And looking at Spain's own collapse in the green economy effort, we should be well advised to heed Spain's warning in their report about the U.S. because we are doing exactly the same thing as they have done.
 
kokonut said:
If you had read the report in the link (highlighted in red) I gave about Spain's failure in the green energy/economy effort you would understand why we should take heed in going in that direction and why. Again, I already said in post# 3069 that "all areas in the energy sector should be the focus." I've said nothing about abandoning it. The problem is that people is trying to move so fast in the "green economy" that it will not work well. Hence, the warnings I said about Brazil. Take the time and read that report before moving on.

I have said for years in AD that we should move away from dependency on foreign sources of oil from unfriendly and unstable countries that can easily impact us domestically and our national security would be seriously at stake. Instead we should refocus and rely on our own rich sources of natural gas and oil. We have more oil than the Middle East. Our infrastructure is already laid out to handle such a change to ensure that we can be 100% reliant on ourselves to the point we we'd exporting oil for a change. We're already exporting gasoline now. And when that happens that a new source of income to flood the U.S. About $500 billion dollars leaves the U.S. each year to bring in foreign sources of oil from across the ocean. That money can easily stay in the U.S. economy and boost jobs by drilling for our own oil. 80% of our oil is imported oil while 20% is our own domestic oil. About 35 years ago it was 70% domestic and 30% imported oil. It's a pretty simple formula. Drill and use our oil. Keep the money in U.S. circulation. Use the money to fund and support alternative "green energy" with cheaper solar panels, better wind turbines, better "green" alternative technologies where we'd have the money and the mean for more research and development that will hopefully replace oil and gas with something that we can produce ourselves (e.g. algae to produce oil that can easily fit into our existing infrastructure). And not have one single dime from the U.S. govt to support a "green" company because private oil and gas companies can easily subsidize research and development on "green energy." In fact, they are doing exactly that but it takes money to make money and make it work. All this can be done in house by developing and making cheaper and more efficient energy products to easily compete on the world market. Again, ALL areas in the energy sector should be the focus. Green energy/economy is a failure because the U.S. govt attempts to prop it up using our own tax dollars and attempts to bail out really bad companies. We know this has not worked well for years. And looking at Spain's own collapse in the green economy effort, we should be well advised to heed Spain's warning in their report about the U.S. because we are doing exactly the same thing as they have done.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I don't know if you realized this, but your second paragraph by FAR explains your stance and ACTUALLY answers the question of what you'd like to see happen than the first paragraph. The first paragraph (and other posts) only talks about why we shouldn't focus on green energy. Telling someone "don't do this." does not explain what they SHOULD do.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Thank you. I don't know if you realized this, but your second paragraph by FAR explains your stance and ACTUALLY answers the question of what you'd like to see happen than the first paragraph. The first paragraph (and other posts) only talks about why we shouldn't focus on green energy. Telling someone "don't do this." does not explain what they SHOULD do.
Click to expand...

:wave:

And we should heed Spain's mess on their "green economy." I never once said we should abandon "green energy."
 
deafskeptic said:
You might want to check out snopes re Gore and the internet:

Now are you going to stick your fingers in your ears and say la la la la I don't believe Snopes because it's too liberal? My 2 cents says you will do just that. While Gore did indeed help in developing it, he did so with hundreds if not thousand of other people. No single person invented the Internet. :roll:
Click to expand...

My 2 cents says you need a sense of humor pill. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top