Forum Post: Tesla pushes electric cars the way hypertext pushed the internet.
Posted 10 years ago on May 10, 2013, 7:20 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8310)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I remember well that day in 1993 looking over an engineer’s shoulder at the nuclear plant when he hovered his mouse over a blue word on the page and clicked then an entirely new page opened up. I said what the hell was that? He said, it’s called hypertext some kid in Michigan came up with it. I was toast for the day, I said holly shit man don’t you know what this means? The world had changed. Went home that day and bought myself a computer. The old Commodore having been replaced by gaming consoles years before.
Today Tesla has built the best car in the world and it runs on pure electricity.
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/05/video-the-tesla-model-s-is-our-top-scoring-car.html
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/05/video-talking-cars-cr-auto-experts-talk-tesla.html
http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/tesla-motors-electric-car-model-s/
I really like the idea of electric vehicles. When I was a kid, my dad and I built a working electric bicycle, long before commercial models existed.
Despite their many benefits, one drawback that I have heard about is that they are so quiet, they tend to have collisions with pedestrians more often than gas powered vehicles.
Can you imagine a restaurant chain across the nation’s roadways with a Eat & Charge sign on the freeway?
Take a Break with Us, and “Charge Your bus!”
The roads would be a safer place with -
Sites located equidistantly along the highways and byways - also providing employment.
It really wouldn't take more than posts between each parking space like the old drive in movies, small parks, amusement rides, I was on the road over the weekend driving by one of those outlet malls that they put out in the boonies and they had a billboard that said "charge your EV here".
I guess I was a little late to this one...
The hectic pace of living could use a break. Why all the rush anyway?
Sometimes, if you look, you can see things, things that will happen in time because it makes sense, when I drove across town to see a $20,000 42" plasma TV my coworkers said "waste of time", I said, "matter of time", so it is with this, it's not a dream, more of a vision.
There you going again, trying to force everybody to live your way. The dictatorship has to end.
There you go again - displaying your shit for brains attitude.
When in trouble, curse. It makes you feel better...Herr Himmler.
You quoting one of your heroes? That is so sad.
What no bad language... or telling us how to live our lives.
U reap what U sow - So - U should stop sowing shit - if it is not what U want to reap.
Just advice - take it how you like -
Do you attack all the posters here with your 12 year old girl doing text messages type writing? Is your plan to take over the site for you and shooz only?
Fail
ur
a
Failure
Good idea, but I think that charging batteries can take quite a while, that is, more than the half hour or so that most drivers spend while stopping to eat.
Actually the Tesla can get a 100 mile charge in 30 minutes today, take an hour and stretch your legs, and of course like computers, chargers will get even faster.
I didn't know that, do you have a link for that?
That information is contained in several of the links above the last one to their website would give the most specs I expect.
That would be easy enough to fix. And, the silence is also advantageous in many ways.
I guess so, what would you do? Attach a noise maker to the car?
I would install sensors on the car to catch any obstacles in proximity. A computerize system could stop the car on imminent impact. A noise could be made when in proximity of pedestrians.
There's also the possibility of changing crossing laws to adapt.
This is really a minor problem.
Electrical cars are the future and I welcome the added silence.
Eventually, humans should not drive at all. Cars should be fully robotic.
Sure, its minor, just an anecdote I remembered.
It's a problem to think about. For sure.
EVs already have speakers that produce engine noise at low speed for residential driving.
and only $ 90,000 ...I just might get two of them. lol
Telsa is committed to producing a model selling between $30,000 and $35,000 by 2022, but I believe they are way ahead on that as they are on paying back those government loans.
Their stock has doubled since April 1st.
I remember US Robotics, now I think of GM sort of like that, internal combustion engines and modems have a lot in common.
I hope they can lower the price and bring it out a tad sooner. Even if they don't, I'm sure their research will permit a cheaper model soon afterwards. In a few decades, we'll all have electrical cars.
Electric vehicles are indeed useful, however we need to build more light rail public transport between pop. centers, and use gas tax to do it. all public transport should strive to be free for all,. payed for by taxing the gas powered cars, trucks, trains, and boats.
Bicycles are an even better tech. or how about horses! Cheap as fck and run on grass, oats, and water!
Best solution is people living in walking distance to their day jobs.
New York is or has started a city-bike share program and i think there is one in Denver, you pay a flat monthly fee then pick up and drop off bikes at stations.
Oh, for the day when "charge" means power up instead of attack!
or I'll pay you twice over later...
Of course, the Tesla car cannot be a success
Obama backed it
Oct. 21, 2011 (Bloomberg) -- Investors are betting against electric-car maker Tesla Motors Inc. even as President Barack Obama promotes his goal of putting 1 million advanced-technology vehicles on U.S. roads by 2015.
The BGOV Barometer shows that Palo Alto, California-based Tesla’s short-interest ratio, a measure of how difficult it would be for a trader to cover a negative bet on a stock, increased to 21.02 on Sept. 30 from 3.04 on Dec. 31, according to Bloomberg data.
“They’re basically pontificating that they’ve reinvented the wheel, and I don’t believe that’s the case,” said Carter Driscoll, a Capstone Investments analyst who recommends shorting Tesla shares and rates them “sell.”
Did you catch this link from above? Looks like this Tesla thing is taking off.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/tesla-motors-electric-car-model-s/
☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺
Tweet of the day "Internal combustion engines and modems have a lot in common"
http://occupywallst.org/forum/internal-combustion-engines-and-modems-have-a-lot-/
I think it was like for two decades that modems ruled the tech world that's like a hundred years in real world time....
[Removed]
Nice post. The amount of bailouts we have willingly given Wall St would be enough to put a 35k solar system on the top of every single residential unit in the entire country.
I'm all for electric cars as long as the electricity is coming from an alternative source. Ramping up the nuke plants and coal plants to power the cars doesnt really address the main problem imo - the overall pollution. Maybe it does though, I honestly dont know.
Ramping up nuke plants to run electric cars would be better than using oil for the environment. No doubt about that. Coal should be avoided. Ideally, solar highways would be used. If all roads were made from solar cells it would be great. The roads would not only harvest the suns energy, they would also act as the wire since they lead everywhere. This is the future. And, the fact that we wouldn't have to take up more space to put up solar panels or more power plants would be nice. Solar paint is also a big thing that should be viable soon. Imagine everything that is painted could harvest energy. Amazing.
Check this out....................:)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/19/18-year-olds-breakthrough-invention-can-recharge-phones-in-seconds/
Saying batteries can't work because they take too long to charge, is like saying computers will never catch on because people don't want to sit and read green words on a screen.
This is still a pretty amazing breakthrough in charging...................:)
This science fair was held right here in Phoenix and I didn't even hear about it, if the Little League World Series were here it would be all over the place in the media. That is really a problem, I blame the media.
Like that school that got hit by a tornado in OK.
It had a state of the art football stadium, but NO storm shelter.
NO shelter in tornado alley.
Isn't that special?
Batteries suck. If we could build batteries as good as we build bombs, we wouldn't need bombs.
EHHHH - Wrong
youtube.com/watch?v=Sddb0Khx0yA … … Energy Storage & Distribution - Key to clean abundance? World Wide. Pls Consider/Share/Circulate 4 our Future.
Sure the concept is great, the things are toxic and expensive, then they wear out. Except one, which is also the best and was invented by Thomas Edison. Very expensive iron nickel.
If you think they are great, explain which technology you refer too.
Personally, I like burning hydrogen in existing internal combustion engines. Of course diversity will logically rule, but we are juveniles in the technology of batteries.
I think the intention to build bombs gets in the way of knowledge science needs to make the best batteries. The collective unconscious won't give us the info as long as we are war mongers.
Me too for all forms of transportation as well as for energy production - and here we also need to build the needed infrastructure to implement Hydrogen use. As well as improve fuel cells.
Still will need a battery - and these can be improved.
The liquid metal battery ( http://t.co/r8oTiD6akk ) shows great promise for "power grid level" storage and distribution of electricity.
Yes, it appears to. If Americans were to work for and ART5, state universities could be directed to develop and share technology at a much higher rate than is currently happening. It is very important to make this tech work, and be common place or well understood and operated by the people.
Currently, we can separate and store hydrogen and oxygen fairly safely. Recombining them in stoichiometric mix for use with stationary engines of generators will work quite well.
We need affordable components and training in safe construction then use of high pressure gas storage.
There is an art5 action in progress - Move to Amend - which would bring us forward in regaining government - then getting real positive change going.
WTF??
You know what I think the problem here is you suck and this is your way of telling everyone.
No, batteries suck. I'm here to tell you they are not the answer with present technology. Yes, we should use them where appropriate.
Stop being so gullible, stop reading Hearst publications.
Consider that until universities are not the tools of corporations, and teach actual battery technology, that techno promises of energy storage are near fantasy.
Ambri power storage has the answer already.
Just needs an investment injection, and it's time to move on to the next solution.
http://www.ambri.com/
There ya go. Now that is what I am talkin about. {;-])
I really do wonder why they have not gotten funding for product development.
I haven't heard much about this development since the startup.
Considering how few corporations are currently controlling literally everything these days, it wouldn't be much of a problem for them to stall this one as long as they like. Don't they have their minions running the EPA among other "govt" regulatory bodies?
Here is an update perhaps. Interesting investments, big money already in. Two years to market they say.
http://www.innovationfiles.org/ambri-and-utility-scale-storage-another-emerging-story-of-government-investment-in-energy-innovation/
I don't think scale is figured out yet. I mean business wise. Looks like they are trying to build smaller batteries, but the technology described is definitely on a mass scale for public utility application.
Thanks. The link is basically saying this innovation is still languishing back at the 2011 start-up dayze. No new information was presented, except for a bit of self-adulation for government investment.
It's not a better battery, but the better charger will change a lot of things.
Will they stall, or quash the technology?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/19/18-year-olds-breakthrough-invention-can-recharge-phones-in-seconds/
It's actually both battery and charger.
It certainly has a lot of potential. Google has "shown an interest". Which might be good, might not.
We hope. I'm skeptical because scale is not defined yet. It's not defined because the technology is not developed to the point where small scale does poorly and must be increased.
I doubt it will ever be mobile battery power.
Plenty of people doubted that the world was spherical.
The current battery technology is liquid, contained in a plastic box.
Why are you doubting this technology? Because it's molten metal? So is nuclear fission, but that is powering submarines, battleships, and cities.
A link to the plastic box with the molten metal in it would have made the difference. I have a few friends that are pretty advanced scientists, engineers and over the years I've learned from them that my intuition is pretty good relating to technological performance claims in the energy realm.
A fundamental question: Why is funding not there already but a slick website is?
The "current technology" is what you have under the bonnet of your car; a plastic box, with six cells, lead sheets, suspended in hydrochloric acid. This storage device hasn't been improved upon since it was invented in 1859 by French physicist Gaston Planté.
As for your "intuition" what does it tell you about being stuck in the 1900's, in both internal combustion, and mobile electricity storage? You've been here long enough to realise that we are in the middle of a class war, no?
The people we are at war with are currently in control of resource distribution, yes? What could they possibly gain by investing in a technology that would make less profit for themselves?
Good answer on the funding issue, . . . however.
When it comes to energy, it is also environment. Environment is not just appreciated by the 99% and many elite would jump at an opportunity to invest in a ground level breakthrough in energy storage. "They" becomes "all or nothing thinking" and does not really work in reality. I'm not denying the class war, but it has limits, albeit they are dissolving. Which is why people have started using the "class war" label.
Yea, 1859, that's why batteries suck.
Using up our existing internal combustion devices on hydrogen while perfecting the ultimate battery is more what I see as doable.
I have no problem with molten metal as an electrolyte medium. I do see serious techno challenges however. A decade of development?
Possibly a decade. Depends on several key issues.
But first, there's the old argument that better is not what manufacturers are always aiming for. Simple case study; the toyota 2H diesel motor is more than capable of two million kilometres of driving, with no maintenance other than regular oil changes. The motor that replaced the 2H, the 1HZ, requires a new timing belt every hundred thousand kilometres. Neglect to change this belt, at quite a substantial cost, I might add, and the motor will be rendered inoperable.
Redundancy is being incorporated into design for just about everything these days. It's part of the consumer/corporatist plan. Do you honestly believe that anyone investing in this ambri technology wouldn't be actively seeking a redundancy design for this invention?
A ladderless stocking was supposedly made in the sixties. I don't see them in the stores today.
Yes, the consumer/corporatist plan Planned obsolescence is a disease of capitalism.
It will take ART5 and preparatory amendment, ending the abridging of free speech to cure these issues.
You misuse the word "redundancy" when talking about design. A redundant design is a design that doubles up on certain elements for safety reasons in case the first one fails. Like a server farm that uses the city's electricity to power its servers, but also has generators in case the electricity fails. They also have redundant hard drives in case one fails. Redundancy in design is often a very good thing.
What you are talking about is known as planned obsolescence, not redundancy.
I stand corrected. Don't agree on the planned obsolescence.
More like engineering a weaker product to ensure a future income in spare parts. It's late here. I'll think about that one, while staring at the back of my eyelids for several hours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
This is conspiracy theory type thinking that leads nowhere. You do not have proof that all the companies are working together to stop new technologies from emerging and replacing old ones. If anything, we see the opposite happening throughout history. The truth is, new technologies are hard to create, take a lot of time and testing. A company that makes a worthwhile electric car will make a lot of money. Everyone knows this. That's why Honda, Mitsubishi, and all the other car companies are racing to create one. The reality is companies compete, they seldom work together like the NWO would have you believe.
The sad part about conspiracy theory type thinking, the idea that we don't need any evidence "because it happened before and the government is all evil" is the same type of thinking that lets creationist push for creationism to be taught in science class as an alternative to evolution, that lets evangelists bash gays with false notions like the idea that being gay is worse for your health etc... When we stop caring about evidence, we let the charlatans loose.
You draw a long bow.
Where is this technology today?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXFrF_3l2W4&feature=BFa&list=PL210363D8A2772090&lf=results_main
The problem is that you are simple minded. You think the 1% is essentially one entity (all of them working together in a grand conspiracy). This is far from the truth. The 1% are people who compete for money. Apple competes against Microsoft, etc... There is no such thing as a master cabal as depicted by the NWO. The world and its people are complex, they are not simple entities like in a cartoon (evil vs good). There's all kinds of grey areas.
Solar power is taking of in germany. There are electric cars being built by almost all the car manufacturers. There are new inventions everyday that kill older inventions. Kodak film is almost bankrupt because we moved to digital.
Quote: Research shows that over the past 75 years a number of significant breakthroughs in energy generation and propulsion have occurred that have been systematically suppressed. Since the time of Tesla, T. Townsend Brown and others in the early and mid-twentieth century we have had the technological ability to replace fossil fuel, internal combustion and nuclear power generating systems with advanced non-polluting electromagnetic and electro-gravity systems.The open literature is replete with well-documented technologies that have surfaced, only to later be illegally seized or suppressed through systematic abuses of the national security state, large corporate and financial interests or other shadowy concerns.
Technologically, the hurdles to achieve what is called over-unity energy generation by accessing the teeming energy in the space around us are not insurmountable. Numerous inventors have done so for decades. What has been insurmountable are the barriers created through the collusion of vast financial, industrial, oil and rogue governmental interests.
In short, the strategic barriers to the widespread adoption of these new electromagnetic energy-generating systems far exceed the technological ones. The proof of this is that, after many decades of innovation and promising inventions, none have made it through the maze of regulatory, patenting, rogue national security, financial, scientific and media barriers that confront the inventor or small company. Categories of Suppression Our review of now-obscure technological breakthroughs show that these inventions have been suppressed or seized by the following broad categories of actions:
Acquisition of the technology by 'front' companies whose intent has been to 'shelve' the invention and prevent the device from coming to market. Denial of patents and intellectual property protection by systematic action by the US and other patent offices. Seizure or suppression of the technology by the illegal application of section 181 of the US Patent law or other illegal applications of national security provisions that result in the technology being classified or deemed "of significance to the national security". Note that these applications are illegal actions taken by rogue, unsupervised individuals and entities who are working in collusion with interests to suppress these technologies.
Abuses by other regulatory or licensing entities, including but not limited to rogue elements within the Department of Defense, CIA, NSA, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Energy and others. Targeting the inventor or company with financial scams, illegal financial arrangements that lead to the demise of the company, and similar traps. Systematic interception of funds and essential financial support needed to develop and put into mass application such a fundamental new energy source.
A pattern of harassment, bomb-threats, theft and other shadowy actions that frighten intimidate and demoralize those inventing, holding or developing such technologies; significant bodily harm and murder have also apparently occurred. Inducements through significant financial buy-outs, offers of positions of power and prestige and other benefits to the owner of such technologies to secure their cooperation in suppressing such technologies.
Scientific establishment prejudice and rejection of the technology in light of unconventional electromagnetic effects thought to be not possible by current scientific conventional wisdom. Corruption of scientific entities and leaders through clandestine liaisons with rogue classified or shadowy private projects that intend to suppress such devices. Corruption of major media entities and key figures through clandestine liaisons with rogue classified or private shadowy projects that intend to suppress such devices. A small inventor or company can in no way overcome such obstacles. Therefore, a strategic plan and capability commensurate with these barriers must be devised and executed in order for these new technologies to succeed.
Implications of success as the widespread adoption of these new, non-polluting energy and propulsion systems so that the use of oil, gas, coal, nuclear power and other earth damaging sources of energy are effectively replaced. It should be noted that such an undertaking will impact 4.5 trillion dollars a year in world economic activity, replace the current geo-political order with one based on decentralized abundance, and enable humanity to attain a long-term, environmentally sustainable civilization.
It is safe to say that the advent of such new energy systems will be the greatest technological, industrial, geopolitical and Cultural Revolution in known human history. No aspect of life on Earth will be unaffected by it - and this is precisely why such technologies have been suppressed.
The cartels and interests that prefer to see the status quo continue - even at the cost of environmental erosion, destabilizing world poverty and the like - are very substantial. The idea that an inventor or company can simply roll out such technological breakthroughs as a traditional development and succeed is preposterous. They will be stopped at one step or another unless adequate funding, power and inter-locking strategic capabilities exist to ensure success. In short, the normal business and technological challenges to the successful release of a new technology are dwarfed by the special circumstances and barriers facing these new energy systems. -end quote
You forgot to tell us where your quote is from? Does this mean that when you read things you don't care who wrote them? That you don't demand references? Perhaps this is your problem? You just read junk on the Internet and believe it simply because it's written?
As a test, let me ask you a question pertaining to this quote. At the beginning it states = "Research shows...."
Please submit a bibliography for this research. I'm sure the original author was serious enough to provide one, and that if he didn't you would have had red flags go off in your head.
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/energysuppression.htm
You didn't realize that site was full of bogus information? There is no such thing as "free energy". It is physically impossible because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That's why you never saw and never will see a perpetual motion device.
Stop reading garbage, and please stop quoting from it.
"where appropriate" like say in a situation where you need to expend a large amount of energy quickly, to say get up to highway speed, but upon arriving at a certain location time intervals are employed to accomplish certain tasks, say for instance visiting grandma, under conditions such as this batteries would be ideal.
"large" & "quickly", relating to energy work far better with gasoline or hydrogen with current available technology than electricity. I'm all for electric that can do it, but know current tech can use hydrogen more readily.
The real problem is political, and we won't have good clean energy spices until 20 years AFTER We fix the political problem.
You should actually read the posts before you start spouting your bullshit, if you had you would know that in the experts opinion the Tesla S is the best car at $90,000 and considering you can get a Skyline GT-R for around ninety K that's saying quite a bit (I'd love to test them both and judge for myself), basically the point of the post is (had you bothered to read it) that at the $90,000 price point electric has overcome gas and that's big news.
Current technology-current economy. Conservation of resource.SCALE. These are things you've overlooked.
In this economy $90k is a joke for the 99%.
Current tech is available to the 99%.
How much resource does it take to replace our existing automobiles?
Are these factors bullshit? No, and if the tech in the tesla is that good, it will be stolen and mass produced within ten years, THEN it will be available within economic limits.
Diversity of energy source is critical, so many existing vehicles can convert to hydrogen for low cost and minimal use of resource. These technologies are in place everywhere and specific development of hydrogen accessories is really all is needed.
You are a very confused person, I would suggest mediation. It might surprise you to know that people do pay a good deal for new cars these days. It is curious why someone with so little knowledge could be so certain they know the ultimate answer.
Does not cognit. Why are you suggesting that people spend money they do not have on corporate products that use energy? What the hell is the matter with you?
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. It is used to send spacecraft to other planets.
Conservation dictates that we use up the vehicles we have with a clean fuel. Do you realize it takes 30k pounds of material to make a 3k pound car?
I didn't suggest anyone buy anything, you seem to have difficulty reading, perhaps that is why you understand so little in life. I suspect your facts are as solid as your logic, but if you would like to provide supporting links?
You tried to justify $90k for a car and said lots of people spend that much.
Uh, you must be of the elite, and it appears you are working to foul the viewers cognition while you are deceptive and unaccountable.
There are around 250,000 cars a year sold in that price range, that is a fact, how does that define me?
Your selectivity defines service to the elite, and the 1% w/servants buy the cars.
Seeing what is always enhances ones vision.
You on the other hand are a babbling FOOL your existence is as useless as your attempts to distract.
Clarity of thought would be helpful.
What is impure electricity? Or did you mean the car runs 100% on electricity (not using fuel at all like a hybrid)?
Really are you confused?
Let's get philosophical.
If I buy Pure Honey was label maker passing a moral judgement?
There is honey that is artificial. I guess that maker of pure honey wants to point that it is not artificial.
Is there such a thing as impure or artificial electricity? Apart from pure electricity, what other types of electricity is there?
If it's "artificial" is it really honey?
Sounds more like sugar water, semantics can be so much fun don't you think?
I did a bit of research for you. Is this what you meant?
http://typeselectric.blogspot.com/p/pure-impure-electricity.html
It certainly could be. Most fruits and vegetables we eat are artificial in a sense. Original bananas have too many seeds to be eaten. Original tomatoes are part of the NightShade family of poisonous fruit. We farmed them to our specifications. Broccoli didn't even exist in nature before we bred it. Like dogs, we made them. It's basically genetically modified stuff through careful selection, instead of genetically modified in the lab. Essentially, it's the same, labs just go faster.
If you reproduce honey in the lab, then sure, it could be honey. Artificial just means man made. We can emulate and copy things from nature.
In any case, if the honey example is not to your liking just forget it. Still, what do you consider impure electricity? I'm asking in an earnest way because there is perhaps a technology I am unaware of.
Pure honey could also mean honey that has nothing added to it. Probably that's what it means.
Is there such a thing as pure electricity, in the sense that you can add something to electricity to make is less pure?
Have you had a change of name?
Yes I meant it was not a hybrid.
If you actually have an interest in determining the quality of electricity I would suggest an electrical engineering course, here's a hint, sine wave.
Ya, had a name change. I'm interested in electricity, but not enough to follow a complete course. I have so many other things to do.
I would suggest you work on communication as a method to develop other knowledge, your approach does not foster the desire to share within those who might hold the information you desire.
I used to use this forum in a polite and normal way. Then I was attacked mob style by DKAtoday and shooz, and some others. They got me banned because I didn't espouse their same ideology that Occupy is a political protest. They called me a troll. As far as I am concerned, they are trolls.
Thus, I decided, very well, then I will be a troll. The best this site has ever seen. That's why I get banned repeatedly. If the admins stopped banning me, then I would stop trolling here.
I don't troll in real life. I have a PHD and many contacts at university, so it's not hard to find good people with knowledge when I need to brush up on certain topics.
But, in the case of our particular thread, I wasn't trolling. I was earnest in my question of pure electricity. I really thought there might be a type of electricity I wasn't aware of. And, I was sort of right. The link I provided you on top clarified a few things for me.
http://typeselectric.blogspot.com/p/pure-impure-electricity.html
I'm not really sure why you wanted to give me a hard time instead of simply answering my question. It wasn't rhetorical in any way shape or form.
Anyhow, what you meant was "This care functions purely on electricity", not "This care functions on pure electricity."
I think being precise is important, so we both learned a lesson here.
Really, a PhD? In what? Conspiracy theories? Is there a uni that offers that major? I remember from the fall of 2011 that you have a degree in music.
morning BW has this bug been bothering you?
can you imagine that there has ever been a time when "alwaysberight" ever was?
Something we can agree on frf. :)
oh we agree on quite a bit, and at least when we disagree it's about something real, and neither of us afraid to express our view....
That is very true. Have a good day.
PhD in music.
However, if you are interested in conspiracy theories, you can do a PhD on this phenomenon, usually in the faculty of social studies or political studies.
For example, Michael Barkun is an important scholar who specializes in the study of conspiracy theories. Two great books he wrote on this topic: A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America (2003), and Chasing Phantoms: Reality, Imagination, and Homeland Security Since 9/11 (2011).
Tyson Lewis and Richard Kahn, and Noam chomsky are other important scholars who have studied conspiracy theories in depth.
Maybe you can find a uni to give you an honorary PhD in conspiracy theories, as well, for all the good work you do here. Think, you'd be so well rounded!
Also, if I remember correctly, you were originally banned for posting and spamming pornographic pictures here which I saw myself.
I never posted pornography. That was someone impersonating me. The username was not even the same, only similar. I was banned months after that incident. If you care for evidence, you can ask jart about this. There are all kinds of myths about me that are simply false. But, this is not important. Only ideas matter. Attacking the proposer with lies or with truths is just a logical fallacy that doesn't have much weight at all.
I don't need a PhD to study and understand the problems of conspiracy theories.
Someone posting as you. Funny. I actually have a memory of my own and it's not full of myths. I've even seen you discuss the photos and their content, so, no, not believing you right now. Not sure what your goal is here, but mainly it's to squash internet protest which many say is far more important than street protest today.
Posing as me, not posting as me. The username was not the same. Your memory is flawed, and a simple PM to jart would clear that up. There's no reason for you to believe me, you can ask jart for evidence. I always prone the search for evidence, especially when the goal is to accuse others. But, we live in a world of conspiracy theories where people don't care about evidence anymore. It's a real shame.
I don't want to squash Internet protest. However, Occupy needs to go back to the streets. We don't need 1,000 people tweeting to each other, essentially preaching to the choir. We could have a small media group which sends tweets, emails, and news articles on the Internet to carefully chosen targets. What's happening s that everybody is staying inside their comfortable homes thinking the revolution will happen this way. tt won't. When you tweet someone to note something bad the government did, you are not really taking action. You are essentially asking others to take action.
And, it does not matter if you know what my goal is or not. I'm just here to participate in the OWS discussion. We can agree on some things and disagree on others. There's no need for everyone to think perfectly alike. This site lost a lot of members because a few people here attack new comers who have a different view points by calling them right wing shills. I see this everyday. There's not one single day that goes by that DKAtoday and shooz don't team up and attack a new user. Eventually, they'll be the only two left on this site. This is not healthy for OWS.
I also have to say I don't know what your goal is here. You seem to enjoy attacking other users. I don't see much else. Similar to GF with the exception that your comments are littered with bad irony and sarcasm instead of kindergarten type vulgarities.
Why aren't you out in the street if it's so important to you? Why bother posting here if it's so useless?
Because you could be out in the street. I spend most my days helping Occupy affinity groups. I come here at night to recruit new people. We are in desperate need of more people participating actively in the street. Our numbers are unfortunately dwindling. Even if you can only help once a week that would be great.
If you are coming here to recruit more people then you are not a very effective organizer.
Possibly. But once the seed of an idea is planted, the idea usually grows on its own. People here will eventually realize they are wasting their time, and that they would help Occupy a great deal more if they were on the street.
But, I would argue the opposite. My postings and comments are some of the most read on this site. I regularly get over 150 comments on postings. There's a reason for that.
For example, here is one of my posts:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/conspiracy-theories-push-right-wing-political-agen/
And here is one in response to my post:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/lets-get-to-the-bottom-of-this-crap-about-conspiri/
Both are currently the postings with the most comments on the top page.
I am glad you feel you have learned a bit from this exchange, wish I could say the same.
In any case, you might be interested in knowing they call writing an art form for a reason, but good of you to point out how English teachers devoted their lives to destroying that art.
As an aside if excellence is your goal, you've some work ahead.
Well, if you read my comments you'll realize that you learned that precision is important when writing, else the message gets misinterpreted. Remember, "A car which functions purely on electricity." as opposed to "A car which functions on pure electricity.". Both have different meanings.
Your sole means of communication here is writing, might as well do it properly.
To say one has learned something implies a prior lack of knowledge, which does not apply in my case.
I wonder if the people at CNN got the memo about your compete lack of artistic appreciation?
"Tesla's high-scoring 85 kwh Model S, arguably at the top of its pure-electric segment, is limited to a range of about 265 miles."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/opinion/harley-tesla-best/index.html